This blog replaces the sort of posts about Covid that I used to put up on "Dissecting Leftism. Google started deleting a lot of my posts on that blog due to my political incorrectness and threatened to delete my whole "Dissecting Leftism blog permanently if I kept putting up "incorrect" posts.
So to escape their censorship it seemed best to revert my "Dissecting Leftism" blog to its original purpose and put up my posts about Covid, vaccines, lockdowns etc onto an entirely new and separate blog beyond their control, which is what you are reading now.
Email me at jonjayray@gmail.com. Links to all my blogs: here
============
COVID WATCH
============
5 September, 2024
Republican Party. Democrat Party. Anti-Vaxer Party?
There are millions of people who are opposed to vaccination. Why do they have to wait until AFTER elections to speak out?
“Shh. Don’t say anything now, or our stealth candidate won’t win. But after he does win, then we’ll go public.”
Crazy.
Actual politics as opposed to fake politics means taking a principled position and standing up for it. Right now.
You don’t form the Always Later Party.
You don’t form the We Can’t Win If We Speak the Truth Party.
You show your numbers and your strength leading up to an election, not afterwards.
Here’s part of the problem. When you set your goal as “freedom of choice,” “the freedom to take vaccines or not take them,” and that’s your bottom line and your highest aspiration, there is no need to expose mass poisoning of the population.
People can just say, “We’re for free choice.” No power, no energy, and once again, you’re pulling your punches, you’re keeping quiet. You’re being timid.
“Shh. Don’t say the injections are devastating lives. Just campaign on freedom.”
Ridiculous.
Another problem. People are being told by supposed “anti-vaccine leaders,” “We’re not really against vaccines, we just want to make them safer.”
That’s hogwash. Millions of people who’ve experienced the damage want the real message: THEY’LL NEVER BE SAFER.
History is replete with political Parties that appeared out of nowhere with strong uncompromising stands. It works. It’s real. That’s the lesson.
Go all in. Put your opponents up against the wall.
Get the conflicts out in the open. A candidate running for office is hit with media who say, HE’S AN ANTI-VAXER. He replies, YOU’RE DAMN RIGHT I AM. ANYONE WITH A HALF A BRAIN IS. And the new political Party is off and running. It’s not peeking out of a closet. ATTACK, DON’T DEFEND.
Go after the media. Expose them as a bunch of liars and paid shills and operatives for Pharma.
That’s one thing Trump did well the first time he ran for President. He slammed the fake news media every day. And people responded, because they, too, knew the media were fakes.
https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/what-is-the-political-future-of-anti-vaxers-2
4 September, 2024
Vaccination Fails to Reduce Long-COVID
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claims that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of long-COVID syndrome despite the absence of large-scale randomized, placebo-controlled trials or valid observational studies. Mechanistically, it is impossible for the vaccines to lessen long-COVID because they load the body with progressively greater amounts of the pathogenic Spike protein—the cause of the syndrome.
CDC on X: "Don't bet against Long COVID. Vaccination offers protection against the prolonged effects of #COVID19 and helps you stay safe. Vaccinate and reduce the risk of long-term health issues. Stay
First covered by TrialSite News, Swift et al, published a large (n=41,652) cohort study from a large midwest health system (presumably Mayo) where post-acute sequelae was defined as ICD codes for medically attended symptoms between 30 days and 6 months after infection. Those with only one mRNA shot were excluded. If the vaccine failed and there was a second infection within 30 days patients were excluded. Vaccination after infection was excluded. This left a very biased sample with 17,402/41,652 (41.8%) fully vaccinated compared to USA Facts that reports the State of Minnesota is 72% fully vaccinated. In effect this reduced the number of vaccinated who developed long-COVID. Despite this bias, vaccination not only failed to reduce long-COVID, but the crude data showed higher cases counts and proportions among the vaccinated.
Melanie D Swift, Laura E Breeher, Ross Dierkhising, Joel Hickman, Matthew G Johnson, Daniel L Roellinger, Abinash Virk, Association of COVID-19 Vaccination with Risk of Medically-Attended Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 During the Ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron Variant Eras, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2024;, ofae495, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae495
Because there was little or no opportunity to be fully vaccinated before 2/1/2021, the ancestral strain long-COVID cases should be properly removed because the exposures were not the same. When this is done, the rates of long COVID-19 are 1319/19,877 (6.6%) and 1213/17,372 (6.9%), p-value=0.1847, for unvaccinated and vaccinated, respectively.
Hopefully this will end the ridiculous false narrative that COVID-19 vaccination loading more Spike protein in the body reduces Spikopathy or long-COVID syndrome. Future analysis combine long-COVID and long-vaccine syndromes together among the vaccinated to account for mRNA exposure and tell us the real story of how the vaccine is causing chronic symptoms in large populations.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/vaccination-fails-to-reduce-long ?
***********************************************************
Okayama University Hospital Clinical Pharmacists Find COVID-19 Vaccination Risk of Myocarditis Highest in Age 12-17 Cohort
In Japan recently, biomedical researchers affiliated with the Japanese Society of Toxicology attended the 51st Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Toxicology July 3 to July 5, 2024. The presenters were from Okayama University Hospital, Department of Pharmacy in Tsushima-Naka, Okayama in Okayama Prefecture. They included Sakura Higashi, Hiroaki Hamano and Yoshito Zamami, all in Clinical Pharmacy. Presenting their poster, the authors acknowledge the insufficient amount of safety data associated with COVID19 vaccines. Given the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis, the Japanese clinical pharmacists aimed to use real world data to conduct a large-scale investigation into the risk of myocarditis post COVID-19 vaccination in children. The team extracted data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2022 in America.
The presenters in July report, “The most reported cases were in the 18-64 age group, followed by 10 cases in the 5-11 age group and 0 cases in the 0-4 age group.”
Analyzing the number of reported cases of myocarditis per million people, the Japanese trio’s outcomes validate other findings that the young cohort of age 12 to 17 years has the highest risk at 8.1 cases per million. There were 0.84 cases in the 5-11 age group and 0 cases in the 0-4 age group.
The authors utilized VAERS to conduct a large-scale survey of the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination in children, studying the safety record. As a result, it was revealed that the incidence of myocarditis was highest in adolescents aged 12-17 years, and the incidence rate in those aged 11 years and younger was very low. It is expected that this safety assessment will influence public opinion and play a role in promoting vaccination based on information literacy.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/okayama-university-hospital-clinical-pharmacists-find-covid-19-vaccination-risk-of-myocarditis-highest-in-age-12-17-cohort.-1f3b796d
**************************************************
3 September, 2024
Long COVID Patients, Once Hospitalized, Grapple with Greater Cognitive Problems
Few studies look into the longer term follow up on patients experiencing cognitive and psychiatric symptoms of patients who were hospitalized with acute COVID-19 infections. But one recent investigation in the United Kingdom did just this. Finding that the burden of such symptoms becomes greater 2 to 3 years post hospitalization, when comparing with symptoms 6 and 12 months after, the authors suggest this could be the result of worsening of existing symptoms and the emergence of new symptoms. Published in the Lancet Psychiatry the outcomes point to yet another concern of long COVID.
Led by Paul J. Harrison, FRCPsych, of the University of Oxford, a 2004 BBRF Independent Investigator the team surveyed a subset of the large Posthospitalization COVID-19 Study (PHOSP-COVID) that involved nearly 8,000 individuals who were released after being treated for COVID at 83 UK National Health Service-participating hospitals between 2020 and 2021.
The recent study results were summarized by the non-profit research organization Brain & Behavior Research Foundation. Based in New York City and founded in 1987, this foundation, a nonprofit 501 organization, funds mental health research.
The C-Fog Study
With the new study titled “C-Fog”, Harrison and colleagues enrolled 475 PHOSP-COVID participants who consented to be recontacted for follow-up research. This cohort, 40% female, average age 58, completed a multipart computerized cognitive assessment and various questionnaires about their mental health and employment status. These were submitted between 2 and 3 years following participants’ original admission to hospital for COVID.
What follows is a breakdown of the general unfolding science in this topical area, as well as specific findings of this study
Do the numerous short-term studies reveal some link of COVID-19 infection to higher risk for neuropsychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety?
Yes. These findings suggest incidence of such neuropsychiatric disorders could result from the isolation of as part of long COVID.
So, was it the case that longer-term data was missing, hence the importance of this study?
Yes. Because of the dearth of longer-term data doctors and patients know little about what to expect a year after hospitalization.
What other questions was the C-Fog study designed to answer?
Among key questions are whether symptoms experienced early in COVID illness predict later outcomes, as well as whether specific symptoms affect subsequent functioning at work for example.
How was the study conducted?
The investigators employed use of remote cognitive testing by use of computer delivered tasks. This involved assessments across one of eight cognitive domains:
Object memory (immediate)
Reaction speed
2-dimensional mental manipulation
Cognitive control
Spatial working memory
Spatial planning
Verbal analogies
Object memory (delayed)
Following cognitive testing, participants were asked to complete several questionnaires online: for depression, anxiety, fatigue, subjective (self-)assessment of cognitive changes, and regarding occupational changes, if any.
Findings
A majority of the C-Fog participants (75%) reported mild or greater depression at the 2- to 3-year follow up, following hospitalization. The comparable figure for anxiety was 53%; for fatigue, 62%; and subjective cognitive decline, 52%. Severe symptoms of depression were reported by 22%, severe fatigue 24%, and severe subjective cognitive decline 25%.
Overall, the researchers said, participants “had worse overall cognitive scores than would be expected for people with the same sociodemographic characteristics” who did not have COVID. “Significant deficits” in cognition “were observed across all cognitive domains."
For those who reported depression at 6 months post-hospitalization, depression scores increased an average of 2 points on a 27-point scale by the 2- to 3-year follow-up. Importantly, “there was evidence of both worsening of persistent depressive symptoms” and the emergence of new symptoms among participants who had been without symptoms at 6 months. The same patterns were observed for anxiety, with the average anxiety score rising from the 6-month assessment to the 2-3-year follow-up by about 1 point on a 21-point scale, as well as the emergence of new symptoms in those who had not reported symptoms at 6 months.
Fatigue showed improvement between the 6- and 12-month post-hospitalization assessments, but then “significantly deteriorated” from 12 months to the 2- to 3-year follow-up.
Broadly speaking, the team said, “Individuals admitted to hospital with COVID-19 who were included in the C-Fog cohort continued to experience substantial cognitive and psychiatric burden up to 3 years after hospital admission. Almost 1 in 2 experienced moderate to severe depression, 1 in 4 reported severe cognitive decline, and 1 in 9 had objective signs of severe cognitive deficits that would equate to a difference of 30 points on a typical IQ scale.” Fatigue, where present, added to the burden, they said.
What are some implications of C-Fog?
The evidence suggested to the team that much of the symptom burden could be chalked up to the persistence of symptoms already present at 6 and 12 months following hospitalization. But they did not think this persistence of older symptoms could account for the worsening seen in many, or for the appearance of new symptoms. There was “robust evidence for both” in depression, while the evidence in anxiety and fatigue was less compelling due to the size of the cohort. But the team downplayed mere delayed diagnosis of symptoms at the 6- and 12-month assessments as explanation for the worsening that was seen at 2-3 years.
The team said that results of the study suggest that a neuropsychiatric “syndrome” may emerge over time from “a few core symptoms” including those seen at 6 and 12 months post-hospitalization. If further research supports this, “then early interventions targeting the core symptoms might be a viable strategy to limit long-term symptom burden,” they said. For instance, since anxiety at 6 months predicted in this cohort multiple other symptoms at 2-3 years, interventions targeting anxiety in the early period following hospitalization might prevent or reduce other symptoms years later. “Adults with severe ongoing health impairments at 6 months are at particularly high risk of severe symptoms at 2-3 years,” they noted.
Cognitive problem a profound impact
More than 1 in 4 participants in the study reported changes in occupation since having COVID-19. In the bulk of cases, this was attributed by participants to cognitive problems. Those who changed occupation “had difficulties executing complex tasks with changing demands,” such as task-switching. This suggests the possible benefit of interventions such as brain training for task switching to reduce the impact of long COVID on cognitively affected patients, the researchers said.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/long-covid-patients-once-hospitalized-grapple-with-greater-cognitive-problems-6d69b640
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
2 September, 2024
When Will the Apology Come to Locked-down Children?
Metal cages were used in the tarmacked playground to kettle the children in their bubbles during break and lunchtime. The field was off limits.
Some of the students went berserk in their containment and invented a new playground trend: attacking children with crocodile clips. My then 13-old nephew was stabbed in the neck. Fun times from the ‘Stay Safe’ brigade.
When the Guardian revealed this week that NHS referrals for anxiety in children are more than double pre-Covid levels to 500 a day, I remembered the thundering injustice of lockdown policies on children and felt that white-hot rage all over again.
Lockdown, now three to four years ago, can’t take all the flack for what’s happening to the mental health of our children but it bears the lion’s share of responsibility, for the simple reason that it presented other people and the outside as dangerous. For the anxious, this mindset is a catastrophe.
I know this to be true because I work with school refusers and those who have been expelled, with a view to encouraging them back into educational settings.
We focus on simply getting outside, ordering food in cafes, learning how to cross the road, understanding that the world is not to be feared, before attempting academic work.
The stories these wonderful children tell are familiar: primary school went well but lockdown happened and when they returned to secondary school, they couldn’t cope: “I hated the crowds”, “I threw chairs around”, “I thought I was going to get sick”.
When two of my children returned to their state secondary after lockdown it was like a zoo.
The teachers had lost control of the children and the children were not keen on reverting to compulsory rather than optional education.
And when stabbings with crocodile clips, unruly behaviour and dystopian queues for nasal swabbing and face mask wearing were thrown into the mix, it’s no wonder that some children marched straight back home to the safety of their bedrooms.
We keep forgetting about the fact that there is a ‘persistent absence’ rate of 20% from schools; before lockdown it was 13%. It’s easy to remain unmoved by statistics, but not when the individual cases are known.
I asked my sons for a quick rundown of their most badly affected friends:
The girl who wore her black face mask right up to the bridge of her nose, grew her black fringe below her nose so her face was entirely covered. She changed her name to Keith and when eventually she took off the mask, a tic had developed.
The girl who developed agoraphobia and has just ‘disappeared.’
The girl who made herself tutor-hand-sanitiser-monitor and whenever someone, usually a boy, splashed it around, she’d run screaming and hide under her desk shouting “Germs!” Her tears of fear were genuine.
The boy who spent lockdown gaming, attempted to return to school where everyone noticed he’d got enormously fat, retreated to his house and has rarely been seen since.
When I hear Dominic Cummings on the Chris Williamson podcast talking so insouciantly and confidently about lockdown policy and how his actions saved thousands of lives, I am stunned.
Surely he must now know this is not true. Computer models are not real life. I wish he could meet some of the children I work with.
I wish he could sit in on these NHS referrals for anxiety and understand the downstream effects of his rotten decisions.
Now that Mark Zuckerburg has apologised for enforcing White House demanded Covid censorship, maybe people like Cummings will apologise for contributing to the deep and ongoing damage to children.
Incidentally, my crocodile-clip-stabbed nephew received nine grade 9s in his GCSEs this summer.
https://principia-scientific.com/when-will-the-apology-come-to-children/
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
29 August, 2024
Swedish Pfizer Batch Analysis Confirms Heterogeneity
Supports Denmark Findings, Some Vials Much Riskier, Most Dangerous Vials Unleashed Early 2021
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
In epidemiology, external validity or generalizability is very important. This means that when a finding is discovered in one population, that it is confirmed in another with the same exposure. I was fortunate to interview Dr. Vibeke Manniche, PhD, a Danish epidemiologist who is the lead author an a recent publication comparing suspected adverse events after injection with Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID-19 COMIRNATY® vaccine in Sweden and Denmark.
The major findings are:
Denmark highest risk batches of vaccines released December 2020 to March 2021, in Sweden the high risk batches continued to June, 2021
The proportion of low risk batches where essentially nothing happens after injection was 32% in Denmark and 22% in Sweden. This is good news for the 75% of Americans who took the shot—up to a third may be in the clear.
The blue high risk batches (12 overlapped with Denmark) was a larger group in Sweden and comprised 48% of the doses, much larger than the 4% in Denmark.
Please listen to the entire interview and read the manuscript from Manniche et al. She is suspicious that Pfizer knew serious events including death were occuring with the early formulations and they must have made a change, possibility reducing the quantity of mRNA to lower the risks of later batches. These findings are important for patients and clinicians to record the vaccine history and when the shots were taken, and then look up their Pfizer batch to understand the risks of what was injected into their bodies. Many batches have had zero serious side effects and one can only hope they have by good fortune received their doses from those benign batches. These data apply to Pfizer only. TrialSite News reviewed this paper and stated that batch heterogeneity should have called for immediate safety reviews by public health authorities, yet nothing happened. The world deserves full analysis of all the vaccines by batch and information back to recipients about the adverse events that have occured with doses given out of their vials.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/swedish-pfizer-batch-analysis-confirms?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1119676&post_id=148221815&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=3vtk7t&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
26 August, 2024
Pfizer/BioNTech Combined Flu-Covid Vaccine Falls Short
Since the end of the Covid crisis, it seems apparent Pfizer endures a challenging period. The company’s stock continues to drop perhaps in part because Pfizer bet a lot on the Covid train for too long. But the track seems to have come to an end. The New York City-based pharmaceutical company remains diversified, however. They have placed big bets such as the acquisition of Seagen targeting oncology which remains absolutely mission critical for its vitality in the future. Their focus on weight loss market, with an obesity pill, thus far doesn’t look like the most promising of prospects. Although the company has made some advancement with the medication, Pfizer will conduct more studies in the latter part of this year. Now, it appears the company has suffered another blow in continued partnership with the German company BioNTech targeting an mRNA-based flu shot.
Combined Covid Flu Shot Falls Short
This week it was reported that a Pfizer/BioNTech study to develop a combined mRNA based Covid Flu shot has fallen short. The combination shot failed to meet one of the study’s “two main goals” and Pfizer/BioNTech are evaluating what steps should be taken next.
The company said the Phase 3 trial of the drug showed a robust response to the influenza strain A compared with the standard flu vaccine but had weaker results against the influenza B strain. The vaccines showed a similar response against the SARS-CoV-2 as the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine. "We remain optimistic about our combination COVID-19 and influenza program, for which we are evaluating the next steps," Annaliesa Anderson, Pfizer's head of vaccine research and development, said in a statement.
More Than 8000 Adults Enrolled in Study
Involving over 8000 adults ages 18-64 and with no serious safety signals related to the combination vaccine identified in a safety review, Pfizer and BioNTech are now evaluating the next steps to their combination vaccine which involves their Comirnaty Covid shot, and an mRNA flu vaccine Pfizer has been working on.
“We are dedicated to developing combination vaccines which provide broader protection against multiple respiratory diseases,” BioNTech CEO (Chief Executive Officer) Ugur Sahin, M.D., said in a press release. “The insights gained from this combination vaccine trial are highly valuable and will play a crucial role in guiding the further development of Pfizer’s and our combination vaccine program against influenza and COVID-19,” Sahin added. “We are committed to drawing on our experience in developing mRNA-based vaccine candidates against multiple antigens and believe we can successfully accomplish this task in collaboration with our partner Pfizer.” A phase 3 trial of another quadrivalent mRNA flu vaccine did well against the influenza B strain in younger people but performed poorly in older patients.
Pfizer Combined Vaccine Future Could Be in Doubt
Some reports say the fact the Pfizer/BioNTech study fell short puts the future of combination Flu and Covid vaccine in doubt. Earlier this year, Moderna reported success in a late stage trial with their combined influenza and Covid vaccine.
The Moderna vaccine called mRNA-1083 elicited a higher immune response from two A strains of influenza and one B strain of the virus in older adults. The results for the Moderna jab were better than the widely used GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi flu shots. Yet even with that investigational product TrialSite has questioned the consuming public’s appetite for mRNA-based vaccines post the COVID-19 pandemic era.
Unfortunately, it seems, for Pfizer the results of the Moderna combination shots now put may put Pfizer out of the race for a dual vaccine. Stock analysts are now mixed as to buy or a sell, and the company needs to shore up its pipeline. However, it is apparent the failure of the trial for its combined flu-Covid shot is not good news for the Big Pharma company.
Specifically, by yesterday Pfizer has a consensus rating of "Moderate Buy" from 15 Wall Street analysts, based on 7 buy ratings, 8 hold ratings, and 0 sell ratings. The average price target for Pfizer is $33.83, which is a 9.94% increase from the current price of $30.77. The highest analyst price target is $53.00, and the lowest is $27.00. Their current price as of Saturday August 17th is $28.30.
TrialSite has suggested Pfizer’s position overall is far better than Moderna, given the former’s size, cash flow and diversification and the latter’s sole dependence on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (sales have plummeted) and a subpar mRNA RSV vaccine which must compete with products from Pfizer and GSK.
More than likely Pfizer will transition out of the COVID-19 period while Moderna, if it’s cancer vaccine doesn’t produce absolutely compelling data we here at TrialSite suggest the Cambridge, MA-based mRNA maker faces a very challenging future, with possible M&A in the forecast.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/pfizerbiontech-combined-flu-covid-vaccine-falls-short-10f54660
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
25 August, 2024
Scientists Silencing Science: The True Harm in Dismissing the Lab-Leak Hypothesis
James Lyons-Weiler
On August 1, 2024, a group of 41 authors published an article(1) asserting that promoting the lab-leak hypothesis for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is harmful, branding such exploration as "anti-science" and devoid of evidence. These authors, many of whom hold significant influence in the field of virology and who would likely see career changes if gain-of-function research is canceled, sought to reinforce the prevailing narrative of a natural zoonotic origin, dismissing the lab-leak theory as a dangerous distraction. However, this stance is not merely a rejection of an alternative hypothesis—it is a calculated attempt to silence debate and undermine the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry.
The implications of their stance are not just analytically superficial—they are dangerous. By discouraging the exploration of all possible origins of SARS-CoV-2, society would risk ignoring critical evidence, undermining the public's trust in scientific integrity, and, most gravely, leaving the world vulnerable to future pandemics born of the same potential laboratory failures that this hypothesis seeks to investigate.
This editorial will lay bare the selective reasoning, circumstantial dismissals, and political biases permeating the "Harms" article. It will expose the dangerous fallacy of equating healthy scientific skepticism with denialism and illustrate why the lab-leak hypothesis is not only viable but essential to explore if we are to fully understand the origins of COVID-19 and prevent future global health crises.
In dismissing the lab-leak hypothesis, the authors overlook critical historical precedents that demand attention. Lab accidents and leaks are not speculative fears; they are documented and oft-repeated realities. From the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax leak to the multiple SARS escapes in China during the early 2000s, history is replete with examples of pathogens escaping even the most secure facilities. These incidents underscore the vulnerability of high-level biosafety labs and the potential for catastrophic consequences when pathogens breach containment. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located just miles from the initial outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, has a documented history of safety lapses. The proximity of WIV to the epicenter of the pandemic, combined with its involvement in gain-of-function (GoF) research, makes it imperative to thoroughly investigate this possibility.
Furthermore, the authors’ assertion that no evidence supports the lab-leak hypothesis is misleading and incomplete. A growing body of circumstantial evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may have been artificially enhanced to increase its transmissibility in humans. The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 specific and unique furin cleavage site—a genetic feature uncommon in coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2—raises significant questions about the virus’s origin. Additionally, the virus's superfitness to human hosts, described by former CDC Director Robert Redford as evidence that the virus had evolved "too far, too fast," further supports the need to explore all potential origins, including a lab-based scenario. This is also evidence. Ignoring these anomalies in favor of a single narrative is not only scientifically irresponsible but also potentially dangerous, as it prevents us from learning the necessary lessons to prevent future pandemics.
In addition to ignoring the historical precedent of lab leaks, the 41 authors fail to address the suppression and manipulation of crucial data that has marred the investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2. For instance, early genetic sequences of the virus were deleted from public databases, only to be later recovered by independent researchers. This act of data suppression raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability within the scientific community. If we are to trust the conclusions drawn about the virus’s origins, the process must be open and transparent, allowing for all hypotheses to be rigorously tested and debated.
Moreover, the conflicts of interest among key figures “investigating” SARS-CoV-2’s origins cannot be overlooked. Prominent scientists, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, have been implicated in funding and supporting gain-of-function research, which could have led, and most think likely did lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. The potential bias introduced by these financial and professional ties, and their specific secretive behaviors on the now-infamous phone call casts doubt on the objectivity of their conclusions. To dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis without fully exploring these conflicts is to undermine the integrity of the scientific process. We must ensure that all potential sources of bias are addressed if we accept that the goal of science is to attempt to arrive at the truth.
The "Harms" article’s dismissal of the lab-leak hypothesis also overlooks the growing global calls for transparency and accountability. The Biden Administration’s decision in 2023 to cut funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology due to its refusal to provide critical safety documentation clearly indicates that concerns about the lab’s practices are not unfounded. This action, alongside similar calls from international organizations for an independent and thorough investigation, demonstrates that the lab leak theory is taken seriously by credible entities around the world.
Furthermore, the 41 authors of the "Harms" article fail to acknowledge the contributions of independent researchers and institutions like IPAK, which have played a crucial role in keeping the lab-leak hypothesis in the public discourse. We were among one of the first to propose the lab-leak theory as early as January 2020, based on sound scientific reasoning and the available data at the time. Our specific hypothesis even earned a rapid rebuttal in March 2020(2) from Chinese scientists who claimed (incorrectly) that pShuttle-SN was not a vector technology. These employees of the CCP tried to assert that the sequence of interest we found was found in other coronaviruses (using sequence alignment). They did not, however, say how and why pShuttle-SN, a generic vector technology, would, off-the-shelf, contain the SARS-CoV spike sequence.
Contrary to the Chinese scientists’s (Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology) critique of the IPAK evidence, the pShuttle-SN is, in fact, a generic vector, not specifically designed for SARS-CoV, and it was used in various genetic engineering applications, including those involving adenovirus-based expression systems. It would not inherently contain a SARS-CoV spike gene unless it was specifically engineered to do so in a separate experiment. The authors' assertion that pShuttle-SN is not a vector is incorrect, and reflects a misunderstanding of its use and function in molecular biology (see product page for pShuttle-SN). The critique appears to have been an attempt to muddle and confuse the consideration of the evidence.
Since then, many efforts of independent voices have been vital in ensuring that the investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 continues and remains comprehensive and unbiased, countering the attempts to dismiss this critical line of inquiry prematurely.
The "Harms" article’s attempt to dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis as mere conspiracy theory fails to recognize the fundamental role of skepticism and debate in scientific progress. They wrote:
“(This discourse) also stokes the flames of an anti-science, conspiracy-driven agenda, which targets science and scientists even beyond those investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2.”
The use of the term conspiracy is now known to be an attempt to discredit even credible ideas and facts; the concept that individual scientists are “targeted” betrays self-victimization, a well-known tactic of guilty suspects in criminal investigations to attempt to throw investigators off-track or to convince investigators of their innocence. No one need target any individual to look back at the long history of deadly pathogen escapes from laboratories and understand that WIV and about a dozen other labs around the world were performing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, including those found in the wild and brought into the lab. That history is completely known to us, and for scientists to play the victim instead of addressing the concerns before us serves only to obfuscate.
Science thrives on challenging established ideas, especially when evidence points to plausible alternatives. The lab-leak theory is scientifically plausible and addresses the unexplained anomalies of SARS-CoV-2's origins, such as its rapid adaptation to human hosts. To dismiss these questions as “anti-science” is to misunderstand or misrepresent the core principles that drive scientific inquiry.
Moreover, the article’s failure to adequately engage with the molecular and genetic evidence supporting the lab-leak hypothesis reveals a significant oversight. The unusual genetic features of SARS-CoV-2, including the furin cleavage site and its exceptional binding affinity to human ACE2 receptors, suggest a more complex origin than simple zoonotic transfer. Multiple independent researchers have highlighted these features who argue that such traits are more consistent with laboratory manipulation or accelerated evolution in a lab setting than with a natural spillover event. Ignoring this evidence does a disservice to the scientific community’s responsibility to explore all potential origins of the virus fully.
The authors of the "Harms" article seem to base their position on an absence of evidence, knowing full well that data from China on this question will eternally be incomplete. Inconceivably, the World Health Organization placed Ecohealth Alliance, the broker of the funding between NIAID and WIV, in an investigative position, a move so brazenly corrupted that the WHO had to do a “re-do” of the investigation to try to save face. It did not work; their charade led to no new data and they failed to convince anyone.
The authors also exhibit a concerning double standard in evaluating evidence of the two hypotheses. While they demand an impossibly high level of proof to consider the lab-leak hypothesis, they appear content to accept the zoonotic spillover hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence, speculative connections, and this absence of evidence where none can be expected. That is not sound reasoning. This asymmetry not only skews the investigation but also raises questions about the motivations behind their insistence on dismissing the lab leak theory.
By prematurely declaring the zoonotic origin as the most likely scenario, without the thorough examination that a lab-leak hypothesis requires, the authors undermine the scientific process that relies on the balanced and unbiased consideration of all available evidence. Their willingness to uncritically accept China's refusal to provide critical information and their uneven application of evidentiary standards highlight a broader issue of bias that threatens to derail the objective pursuit of truth. To prevent future pandemics, all hypotheses must be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny without prematurely closing the door on any plausible explanation or factor.
For the long-term health of science, it is also essential to address the broader consequences of dismissing the lab leak hypothesis without thorough investigation. Refusing to explore it hypothesis fully sends a dangerous message to the global scientific community: certain lines of inquiry are off-limits if they challenge powerful interests or existing narratives. This not only stifles scientific progress but also undermines the efficient functioning of the institutions that are supposed to safeguard public health. As a result, they are now suffering from a well-earned all-time low in public trust.
Evidence that Evidence Matters: The Case of H5N1 Lab Accidents and Genetic Investigations
The discussion surrounding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 must be grounded in a thorough examination of evidence, drawing lessons from historical and recent events. Two significant cases—the H5N1 lab accident in 2019 at the University of Wisconsin and the ongoing analysis of the H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b—highlight the critical importance of transparency and rigorous investigation in the field of virology. These cases underscore why dismissing or downplaying potential evidence of laboratory origins can have far-reaching consequences for public health and scientific integrity.
The 2019 H5N1 Lab Accident: Evidence Trumps Narrative
In December 2019, a serious incident occurred at the University of Wisconsin’s Influenza Research Institute, where an H5N1 virus had been modified through gain-of-function (GoF) research to become transmissible among ferrets, an animal model used to predict flu virus behavior in humans. Led by the renowned virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka, this research aimed to understand how H5N1 might evolve in nature. However, the experiment raised significant concerns due to the potential for accidental release of a highly transmissible and dangerous pathogen.
During the experiment, a researcher’s respirator hose detached, allowing them to breathe potentially contaminated air. Although the incident did not result in human infection, it exposed serious lapses in safety protocols, including a failure to report the accident to the NIH promptly and follow established quarantine procedures. This incident was not isolated; it followed a 2013 needlestick accident in Kawaoka’s lab, which similarly breached safety protocols. These accidents are part of a broader pattern of safety breaches in high-level biosecurity labs, such as the 1977 lab escape of H1N1 in the Soviet Union, which led to a global flu pandemic after a 20-year hiatus.
These examples illustrate the real and ongoing risks associated with GoF research and highlight the necessity of transparency and accountability in the scientific community. When accidents are not reported or minimized, they undermine public trust and pose significant dangers to global health. The 2019 accident prompted further scrutiny of GoF research, leading to calls for more stringent oversight and, in some cases, moratoriums on certain types of experiments.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/scientists-silencing-science-the
******************************************************
22 August, 2024
Rob Schneider Reveals TV Doctor’s Shocking ‘Anti-Vax’ Admission
In an eye-opening conversation that cut straight to the issue, comedian Rob Schneider and Tucker Carlson discussed a topic many are too afraid to even whisper: vaccines.
Schneider raised a pivotal moment from over a decade ago, around the time he and his wife were preparing for the arrival of their first child, when he had a jaw-dropping conversation with a TV doctor that he’ll never forget.
ROB SCHNEIDER: “What shots did you give the baby?”
TV DOCTOR: “None.”
ROB SCHNEIDER: “What?”
TV DOCTOR: “Yeah, they’re too small to absorb those toxins right now. They don’t have an immune system. They have an external immune system: Their mother’s breast milk.”
ROB SCHNEIDER: “Well, why do you tell other people to get it?”
TV DOCTOR: “That's up to them.”
Looking back at the conversation, Schneider scoffed at the “That’s up to them” remark, noting that these shots are often required for kids to attend public school.
The conversation quickly pivoted to the alarming increase in the number of vaccinations children are now required to take. "When we went to school, it was three shots. Now it's staggering—72 different doses," Schneider lamented.
He pointed out the disturbing correlation between this uptick in vaccinations and the rising number of health issues among children, a topic that is often brushed aside as mere coincidence.
Carlson chimed in with a sobering observation: "You can say anything on YouTube—you can call for the overthrow of the government, you can advocate for transgender nuns—but you can't use the 'V' word."
Schneider took the conversation further, pointing out the 1986 law where Congress labeled vaccines as "unavoidably” unsafe. This designation protected pharmaceutical companies from liability, shifting the burden of vaccine risks onto the public while companies reaped the profits.
"If you can't choose to avoid risks, then you don't have freedom at all," Schneider stressed. "Then you're a slave,” Carlson added. “Someone owns your body and can make you hurt yourself.”
https://vigilantfox.news/p/rob-schneider-reveals-tv-doctors?utm_source=multiple-personal-recommendations-email&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
20 August, 2024
Canadian doctors pursue answers on pandemic-era unexplained deaths among Alberta CHILDREN
Alberta children have been dying for undetermined reasons since the start of the COVID-19 crisis — and the numbers are shocking, according to Canadian doctors speaking out on the matter.
From 2020 to 2022 the 'number of unexplained deaths' among children and adolescents in the province rose by more than 3,000%,” according to data from Alberta Health Services (AHS), the doctors said.
Dr. Mark Trozzi, emergency medicine expert and practicing physician of 25 years, noted “the actual numbers are still small, but the percentage increase is extremely high.”
The issue arose when doctors presented their findings at the United Conservative Party-endorsed An Injection of Truth event in June, and asserted the significant uptick in unexplained child deaths could be traced back to the mandatory mRNA injections and the impacts of lockdowns on children’s health.
Speaking at a press conference at a later date, Calgary-Lougheed UCP Constituency Association President Darrell Komick, who led a panel of five Canadian doctors who had presented at the An Injection of Truth event, said it’s “highly unusual for children in our society to die at all; and it is extremely unusual for them to die and for us to not know why.”
Worse, as Dr. William Makis told the conference, the office of Chief Medical Officer Deena Hinshaw started removing data on immune system damage in the double-vaccinated until the entire category of vaccine outcomes was deleted by summer 2022.
Makis later shared screenshots of the deleted data with the Western Standard, organized by the date each section was deleted.
AHS spokesman James Wood told the Western Standard the questions regarding unexplained deaths “would be for Alberta Health (Ministry of Health)” and not AHS. He did not elaborate on the figures sent in the request for comment.
Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange’s office told the Western Standard the phenomenon could be explained by coding processes in partnership with StatsCan. In Alberta, “when deaths are initially registered, the cause of death is not coded at that time,” wrote spokesperson Andrea Smith (this is the same spokesperson who came out in defense of pedophiles and child sex traffickers who had been arrested by RCMP and given their medical licenses back along with access to children, by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta).
The minister’s office said Statistics Canada later inputs the cause of death. “Once the cause of death is identified, it is reclassified in vital statistics data. This means that more recent deaths are frequently coded as ‘unexplained’ until they are reclassified,” wrote Smith.
LaGrange’s office mentioned Premier Danielle Smith’s UCP government’s recently established COVID-19 pandemic Response Task Force, created “through the Health Quality Council of Alberta to review pandemic-related data and to inform future decision making.”
“We will be reviewing their recommendations when presented,” wrote Smith. No acknowledgement of the sudden spike in child deaths was made.
However, despite AHS's side-stepping and Alberta Health's explanation, Canadian doctors say there's more to the story.
Dr. Chris Shoemaker, a comprehensive physician from Toronto, and member of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, at the An Injection of Truth event told the 550-strong crowd and a further 18,000 viewers watching the live stream he and his colleagues had received "enormous pushback," including some of them losing their medical licence, but hoped what he called a “conciliation tour” would let Canadians know they wanted to inform the public on what they say is the truth about the experimental injections.
The tour's stated goal is to open up discussion and offer the public a different perspective on the impacts of the mRNA jabs on children. Doctors who still maintain the vaccine is “safe and effective” were repeatedly welcomed to speak, with a standing invitation open until the event kicked off. None responded to the call.
Trozzi speaking at the press conference theorized that the increase in unexplained deaths in children in 2020 could be related to pandemic-era “lockdowns, closing schools, closing the parks, shutting down exercise and sports and keeping kids from getting sunshine."
These things, he said, amounted to “a violation of their immune systems." His colleagues elaborated the window from zero to six years in a child's life is critical for developing a healthy immune system.
“If children are not properly exposed to microbial environments during that time frame, it can impact their immune system and render them much more susceptible to things like autoimmune diseases, allergies, and other diseases that have a dysregulated immune system," said Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunology professor at the University of Guelph. On top of that, vaccines were rolled out, "which were not needed in these children. There was no rationale,” he said.
Makis, an immunologist, oncologist and radiologist said that in 2022, he started seeing in the data “children were dying suddenly.” That was after the rollout of the first two doses of COVID-19 mRNA injections for children five to 11 years old, which he called for an immediate halt of in March 2022, and boosters for adolescents 12 to 19 years old.
“They didn't need booster shots. But we have this massive rollout, hundreds of thousands of children (injected) in early 2022. And by the end of 2022, we had the deadliest flu season with the most pediatric deaths we have ever had in Canada,” said Makis.
This phenomenon is called “negative vaccine efficacy,” which means the person is more likely to get COVID-19 a few months after the injection than an unvaccinated person.
Makis seconded Trozzi’s assertion “children's immune systems have gone through multiple assaults” after years of lockdowns and masking, but took it one step further — “we compounded that assault with the COVID-19 vaccines. Not just the first two doses, but the continued issuance of booster shots for children that didn't need them. We know that there's a complete change in the immune system” and it “completely screws up their immune systems by the third shot," he said.
“And yet we have this continued push by AHS and other health institutions on these injections that are damaging children's immune systems. We had healthy children dying of influenza, strep, of sepsis, of meningitis, at numbers we had never seen before."
Dr. David Speicher, a microbiologist and virologist who personally examined 30 different vaccine vials, discussed in detail the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticles and the spike protein found in the shots. He pointed out early in the rollout, scientists insisted the injections stay localized in the arm, but that quickly became clear that wasn’t the case. That was the first warning sign for Speicher.
He said he learned not only did "the lipid nanoparticles spread throughout the body," injecting "high amounts of modified mRNA" into each cell, but the spike proteins "contain high amounts of DNA, up to 187 billion copies per dose.” The DNA contains the cancer-causing SV40 enhancer — a critical detail Pfizer did not disclose to Health Canada. SV-40 makes DNA hybrids and moves the fragment into the nucleus, altering genomes.
The American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in March acknowledged COVID-19 was less dangerous than the flu, as did the BC Centre for Disease Control through a Freedom of Information request. The BC institute found in their own analysis the COVID-19 mRNA shots to be 16 times more dangerous than flu shots, said Bridle.
The next failure was inability to "contain this virus," followed by "the way we responded, and treated our children." He said the products developed were "so far from meeting Canada's definition of an ideal vaccine, that it's very difficult to still keep them under that umbrella term a vaccine.”
Bridle further noted Canada had a national pandemic response plan “that was thrown out when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared,” in favour of policies put forward by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Shoemaker lamented the losses the nation took by listening to the WHO and rejecting pre-established pandemic national guidelines set out by Canadian experts.
“We had a ‘Made in Canada’ program…15 years (prior to) COVID, outlining what is the correct thing to do if there's a viral kind of pandemic. And the things that should have been done, weren't. We rejected our scientifically made in Canada program as to how to legitimately handle a viral pandemic," he said.
Canada "accepted an unacceptable way of doing it," as dictated by the WHO: "wait for a vaccine and use a vaccine while the pandemic is going on," said Shoemaker adding that practice is unheard of.
"You don't give a vaccine for something when it's still raging in society, you have to let it go over a year and a half. Vaccination programs only occur when things are quiet," he said.
"That's when vaccines are legitimate. That's when safe vaccines are legitimate."
"There was another dark side to this, which is the influence from the WHO, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and others," said Trozzi.
“We know that the World Economic Forum is heavily embedded in Canadian governments and institutions. There's a huge global power grab, because on the basis of a cold, or manmade cold, they suspended human rights."
Doctors, scientists and nurses who questioned the mRNA shots, for example the ingredients, were punished, while those who were in favour of it were published and rewarded, he said. Trozzi himself had his medical license revoked in January after allegations he was spreading “misinformation” about the jabs.
Trozzi, when asked about the long-term consequences on young people affected by the vaccine and if immune systems can be restored, told the Western Standard there are ways for people to detox, but a weakened immune system can lead to a variety of serious health challenges, like microvascular hardening resulting in stroke, pulmonary embolism, myocarditis, kidney failure, diabetes, tissue toxicity and autoimmune health issues.
“We can expect that to be a wave that moves forward, we're already seeing that rise in all autoimmune conditions. Remember, in Canada, if a doctor recognizes (it’s the injections) that’s causing this, and says that, they lose their licence.”
“So you can get diagnosed with myocarditis, but you can't get diagnosed with myocarditis due to spike protein. You can get diagnosed with lupus, but you can't get diagnosed with lupus actually triggered by these injections.”
“Now you can anticipate people being aged prematurely,” he added, explaining whereas diseases like dementia didn’t set in until someone was in their 80s or 90s, “now we can anticipate that at 50 or 60.”
Trozzi did have some good news on how a person can recover from a damaged immune system, which can be reversed through nutrition, exercise, intermittent fasting, detox, supplements, fresh air, rest and vitamin D.
Makis during the An Injection of Truth event announced he had just received word that the definitive medical journal Lancet had accepted a peer-reviewed vaccine-injury paper for publication, detailing the “largest autopsy series in the world,” the work of himself, with several Canadian colleagues. Initially submitted in 2023, the work appeared briefly on the Lancet website before being removed.
“Within 24 hours there was so much pressure from the pharmaceutical industry that the Lancet took it down," Makis said at the event. But, not before hundreds of thousands of copies had been downloaded.
“We did a rigorous review of these autopsies and found about 74% of the cases of sudden death were caused by or attributed to the vaccine. People who took COVID-19 vaccines and then died suddenly, a few hours, a few days, a few weeks after,” said Makis.
“There is more evidence coming every single day. And it’s not a little bit of evidence. It’s not a case report that they’re going to dismiss. Or a paper that the Lancet is going to take down and bury so it never sees the light of day,” said Dr. Makis.
“There’s going to be a tsunami of evidence of the harm of these COVID-19 vaccines,” whether it’s harming children, pregnant women, or adults.”
Dr. William Makis
My Take…
Excellent work by Jen Hodgson at the Western Standard, giving proper coverage to what was a historic and first-of-its-kind event, examining sudden & unexplained deaths of Alberta Children and COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule.
I was so deflated when I saw the Ministry of Health representatives come out publicly in support of child sex abusers and child sex traffickers who had been arrested by RCMP, claiming that what RCMP reported was “not true”.
That these pedophiles and child molesters should be treated nicely, and that the Ministry of Health stood in solidarity with child sex abusers and against child victims of sexual abuse. NDP could have fatally wounded UCP as a party - if they had done one simple thing - announced they stood with the children.
NDP, protectors of Alberta’s children. At least they could have pretended.
That the Alberta Ministry of Health would publicly defend highly politically connected child sex abusers, is something I thought I would never see in my lifetime. And for the first time, I could no longer see myself raising my children in Alberta, I could no longer see a future for my family in Alberta, and I certainly could not see growing old in Alberta.
Even Communists didn’t defend child rapists. We are in deep, deep trouble here in Alberta.
https://makismd.substack.com/p/breaking-news-canadian-doctors-pursue
************************************************************
IVERMECTIN Solution much more bioavailable than IVERMECTIN pills
Ivermectin systemic availability in adult volunteers treated with different oral pharmaceutical formulations
Abstract
Ivermectin (IVM) is currently approved as an antiparasitic agent for human use in the treatment of onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis, strongyloidiasis, scabies, and pediculosis. Recent findings indicate that IVM may reach other pharmacological targets, which accounts for its proven anti-inflammatory/immunomodulatory, cytostatic, and antiviral effects. However, little is known about the assessment of alternative drug formulations for human use.
Objective
To compare the systemic availability and disposition kinetics of IVM orally administered as different pharmaceutical formulations (tablet, solution, or capsule) to healthy adults.
Experimental design/main findings
Volunteers were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental groups and orally treated with IVM as either, a tablet, solution, or capsules at 0.4 mg/kg in a three-phase crossover design. Blood samples were taken as dried blood spots (DBS) between 2 and 48 h post-treatment and IVM was analyzed by HPLC with fluorescence detection. IVM Cmax value was higher (P < 0.05) after the administration of the oral solution compared to treatments with both solid preparations. The oral solution resulted in a significantly higher IVM systemic exposure (AUC: 1653 ng h/mL) compared to the tablet (1056 ng h/mL) and capsule (996 ng h/mL) formulations. The simulation of a 5-day repeated administration for each formulation did not show a significant systemic accumulation.
Conclusion
Beneficial effects against systemically located parasitic infections as well as in any other potential therapeutic field of IVM application would be expected from its use in the form of oral solution. This pharmacokinetic-based therapeutic advantage without the risk of excessive accumulation needs to be corroborated in clinical trials specifically designed for each purpose.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332223001798
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
18 August, 2024
"It shouldn't have been injected into a single human being, ever." No more lies please. NO to Mpox vaccines
By Prof. Ian Brighthope (who is a retired medical practitioner with over 40 years of experience.)
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in Australia, has been marred by a series of controversial bad decisions, wrongful actions and dangerous mistakes that have raised significant concerns regarding public health, government transparency, and the handling of scientific evidence. These actions and mismanagement have had far-reaching implications, affecting public trust and raising questions about the role of various governmental and health bodies in managing the crisis.
One of the most significant criticisms is the failure to acknowledge that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from a laboratory. This has been a topic of considerable debate, with some arguing that the possibility was dismissed too quickly, thereby limiting a full exploration of the virus's origins. Additionally, the implementation of widespread lockdowns, which many found to be harsh and lacking in scientific justification, further exacerbated public discontent. Melbourne , Australia was the most locked-down city in the world. The effectiveness of these lockdowns has been questioned, as there was little evidence at the time to support their necessity, leading to widespread suffering and economic disruption.
The introduction of experimental gene-based mRNA vaccines was another contentious issue. These vaccines were declared "safe and effective" by various health authorities, including the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). However, this assertion was made despite limited long-term data, and the claim of 95% efficacy has been found to be false. Reports have emerged stating that these vaccines have caused more harm than any other drug in history, leading to deaths and injuries. This situation was compounded by the TGA's failure to rigorously evaluate the quality, safety, and efficacy of these vaccines, which they initially claimed to have done thoroughly.
Vaccine mandates were enforced despite the absence of evidence that these injections could prevent the transmission of the virus. This was particularly problematic as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had clearly stated that these vaccines were not designed to stop transmission. Despite this, the public was led to believe that receiving the vaccine would protect them from contracting COVID-19, becoming seriously ill, or needing hospitalization. However, hospital statistics did not support this claim, further eroding public trust.
The issue of mask mandates also became a point of contention. It was widely claimed that masks could prevent the transmission of COVID-19, but the evidence supporting this was weak at best. Similarly, the narrative that the pandemic was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" was heavily promoted, stigmatizing those who chose not to get vaccinated and further dividing society.
Public fear was ramped up through government and media efforts to encourage vaccination, sometimes at the expense of early treatment options that could have saved lives. These treatments were often dismissed or outright denied, despite their benefits. The Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, made predictions of mass deaths, further fuelling public anxiety. However, these predictions did not materialize as expected.
The Australian government's response also involved significant manipulation and censorship. Thousands of vaccine-related deaths reported in adverse drug event systems like DAEN were not adequately investigated, and the courts often failed to consider the scientific facts surrounding COVID-19 and the vaccines. Meanwhile, media outlets were accused of censoring scientists and doctors who criticized the government's narrative on vaccine safety and efficacy. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (Ahpra) even went so far as to suspend the registration of health practitioners who disagreed with government policies, prescribed early treatment or tried to give patient s informed consent.
Informed consent was another area where the government fell short. All patients were not informed of the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines before receiving them. Particularly vulnerable groups such as babies, children, and pregnant women, for whom there was no credible data to support the vaccines' safety, were injected without full informed consent. Furthermore, COVID-19 case numbers and deaths were inflated using inappropriate tests like PCR to justify widespread vaccination.
Natural immunity was largely ignored in vaccine policy, and treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were dismissed without thorough investigation. Millions of doses of hydroxychloroquine were destroyed, and the prescription of ivermectin for COVID-19 was blocked, despite evidence suggesting their potential efficacy. Additionally, the Australian Bureau of Statistics' mortality and excess death data were manipulated to minimize the impact of all-cause mortality following the vaccine rollout.
There were also plans for the World Health Organization (WHO) to take over future Australian government pandemic health policy, raising concerns about the influence of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats connected to the vaccine industry and organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF). The secrecy surrounding contracts with vaccine manufacturers and the spending of billions on questionable pandemic policies further deepened public mistrust.
The response to peaceful demonstrations against these policies was brutal, with the use of rubber bullets and physical force unprecedented in Australia. Despite the lack of long-term safety data, pharmaceutical plants were built to produce mRNA vaccines, which have been linked to the highest reported incidence of death and serious adverse events in vaccine history. Meanwhile, the cause of non-COVID-related excess deaths following the vaccine rollout remains unexplained, with estimates suggesting up to 30,000 unexpected deaths.
The risk/benefit assessment of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and COVID-19 vaccinations was not properly conducted, nor was there an inquiry into why other countries with smaller healthcare budgets had fewer cases and deaths. The TGA also failed to report ongoing cases of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the vaccines, which became a declared policy.
Modified COVID-19 vaccines continued to be used despite worldwide reports of serious adverse events and deaths, overwhelming vaccine manufacturers and drug regulators with adverse event reports. The vaccination status of COVID patients in ICU or those dying with COVID was not adequately reported, and child deaths post-vaccination were not sufficiently explained.
Concerns about vaccine quality control, including high death rates following certain batches and contamination issues, were not properly investigated. The public was also kept in the dark about the vested interests and funding sources of "health experts" and institutions providing public advice. The TGA falsely claimed that there was no evidence the vaccines might interfere with DNA or have intergenerational adverse effects, despite growing concerns.
The government was aware that the COVID-19 vaccines did not remain at the injection site but traveled throughout the body, with the mRNA producing Spike Protein, which has been linked to heart attacks, strokes, and neurological diseases. Despite this, millions of younger Australians were exposed to these gene-based mRNA injections, which may have long-term adverse effects.
The Australian government further divided society by promoting the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" concept, demonizing those who chose not to receive the injections. Despite the unprecedented numbers of vaccine injuries, compensation has been rare and minimal, with the government protecting vaccine manufacturers with full indemnity. Concerns about the impact of the vaccines on fertility and miscarriages have been widely reported worldwide, yet the TGA has not raised any alarm.
The government has also failed to admit its mistakes or investigate ways to improve future policies, refusing to conduct a Royal Commission into its handling of the pandemic. It was later revealed that judges, Parliamentarians, and their staff were exempt from vaccine mandates, further eroding public trust.
The TGA has not responded to reports that COVID-19 vaccine batches were not made in the same way as clinical trial batches, with commercial batches contaminated with toxic DNA material. There were also allegations of cheating in clinical trial data management, such as counting people who died shortly after vaccination as "unvaccinated."
Despite the lack of safety and efficacy data, remdesivir was approved for use, and the vaccination status of seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals is no longer reported. The unexplained rise in deaths from all causes following the vaccine rollout remains uninvestigated, and compensation for the vaccine injured has been insufficient.
In some instances, governments inflated the number of "unvaccinated COVID-19 deaths" by including vaccinated individuals whose status was either unknown or later confirmed. Furthermore, it has been suggested that COVID-19 vaccines released commercially were made differently from the clinical trial versions, leading to contamination and potentially severe side effects.
Pfizer has been accused of delaying the reporting of deaths in the pivotal COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial before obtaining regulatory approval. Meanwhile, reports of strange long white rubbery "clots" found in the veins and arteries of the deceased and living following vaccination have not been investigated.
Despite claims that vaccines are among the most well-researched therapeutic agents, there are concerns about the reliability and bias of iconic medical journals regarding COVID-19 vaccines. The idea that vaccines designed to produce toxic Spike Protein for the immune response was a good idea is also being questioned.
Finally, the government's refusal to investigate more than 30,000 non-COVID unexplained deaths following the vaccine rollout, as well as the minimal compensation for those who have died due to vaccination, has led to significant public outrage. The Victorian State government and others have been accused of inflating the number of unvaccinated COVID-19 deaths, while the recent calculation of excess deaths by the Actuaries Institute downplayed the impact of vaccines on these deaths.
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in Australia, has highlighted numerous failures in public health policy, government transparency, and scientific integrity. These failures have had lasting consequences, eroding public trust and raising serious concerns about the future handling of pandemics and public health crises.
Based on the historical data available and the supportive evidence prior to covid, the prevention of severe acute influenzal and coronavirus infections can be achieved with vitamin D. This was confirmed very early in the pandemic and hundreds of studies subsequently have validated that position. Government health officials who allow the population to enter an epidemic, pandemic or even an influenza season without ensuring their people have optimal levels of vitamin D in their system have to be regarded as criminally neglectful.
The public health officials in Australia who failed in this respect should be sacked and held accountable. The discredited research organisations should wound up. They are dangerous. We need a far better health system than one that makes people too powerful and many extremely rich. While the suffering continues.
https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/it-shouldnt-have-been-injected-into
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
15 August, 2024
Federal Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Hospital Worker Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccine
A Massachusetts hospital worker who was fired after unsuccessfully seeking a religious exemption from the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate has scored a win in a federal appeals court, which vacated a lower court’s dismissal of her religious discrimination lawsuit.
In a unanimous decision on Aug. 13, a three-judge panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Massachusetts rejected the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ summary dismissal of the health worker’s case and ordered the lower court to reconsider her case.
Amanda Bazinet, who worked as an executive office manager at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Milton, asserted a religious objection to getting the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 after the hospital adopted its vaccine mandate.
In her religious accommodation request, Bazinet said it was her understanding that the currently available COVID-19 vaccines were developed using fetal cell lines that originated from aborted fetuses, arguing that taking the vaccine would make her complicit in the performance of abortions, which was against her Christian faith.
The hospital rejected her request, which led to her termination of employment. Hospital policy was that vaccine refusers would be placed on 14-day administrative leave to encourage their compliance and, failing that, the hospital would deem such employees as having “voluntarily terminated” their employment.
Bazinet sued, claiming that the hospital committed an act of religious discrimination in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed her religious discrimination lawsuit for failing to state a claim. It ruled that her complaint failed to allege that she maintained a sincerely held religious belief that prevented her from taking the COVID-19 vaccine. The court also held that the hospital would suffer an undue hardship by granting her request for an exemption from the vaccine mandate.
Bazinet appealed the decision to the First Circuit, which ruled in her favor.
“We vacate the district court’s order dismissing Bazinet’s religious discrimination claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the judges wrote, asserting that Bazinet’s complaint sufficiently alleged that taking the vaccine would violate her religious beliefs.
The appeals court also found that the lower court erred in determining that the hospital would suffer undue hardship by excusing Bazinet from the vaccine requirement because such a finding was impossible to determine during a preliminary stage of litigation and was therefore premature.
The appeals court judges wrote in their decision that, despite the hospital’s pledge to engage in an “interactive process” to try to identify a reasonable accommodation for employees seeking COVID-19 vaccine exemptions, the hospital in fact denied Bazinet’s request “without engaging in any further process.”
When the appeals court reviewed the facts, including her request, it found that Bazinet sufficiently explained her religious objection to getting vaccinated in her accommodation request, including providing numerous quotations from religious sources that she said supported her view.
“Accepting those allegations as true for present purposes, she has sufficiently pleaded a religious belief that conflicts with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine as required by the Policy,” the appeals court judges wrote, while ordering the lower court to reconsider the case in line with their opinion.
“Whether Bazinet’s religious discrimination claims will succeed or even survive summary judgment is uncertain,” the appeals court judges wrote. “But these claims should have advanced past Rule 12(b)(6).”
Rule 12(b)(6) is a provision under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that allows a defendant to request the dismissal of a lawsuit if the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-hospital-worker-fired-for-refusing-covid-vaccine-5705743?ea_src=au-frontpage&&ea_med=us-news-left-2
********************************************************
COVID-19 Vaccine Compensation Reaches $23 Million, 8 Percent of Claims Successful
The Australian government has received more than 4,300 vaccine injury claims and delivered about $23 million (US$15 million) worth of compensation.
Figures provided to The Epoch Times reveal that 8.34 percent of claims to the government’s compensation scheme have resulted in a payout.
“As at 31 July 2024, the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme has received 4,389 claims and paid 366 claims to the value of around $23 million,” the agency told the Epoch Times.
The COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme allows individuals to claim losses above $1,000 in relation to “moderate to severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.”
The scheme covers vaccines approved by the TGA including the AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax jabs.
Government agency Services Australia administers the claims on behalf of the Department of Health and Aged Care.
To make a compensation claim, individuals must meet the definition of harm, be admitted to hospital as an inpatient, or have a waiver if seen in outpatient care.
Under the scheme, the claimable conditions range from anaphylactic reaction to erythema multiforme (major), myocarditis, pericarditis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
Also included, are shoulder injuries from the vaccine, or other moderate to significant physical injuries that caused permanent impairment or need an extended period of medical treatment.
“In both cases, the injuries must have been sustained during the physical act of being given the vaccine,” Services Australia states.
“You must also have been admitted to hospital as an in-patient. Presenting to an emergency department is not recognised as being admitted to hospital.”
Those individuals who were not admitted to a hospital as an impatient or treated in an outpatient setting need to “seek a waiver.”
Vaccine Compensation Scheme Due to End Soon
The health department website confirms that claims for compensation under the scheme can continue to be lodged until Sept. 30.
“It was agreed by government in the 2023-24 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook that the scheme would close to new claims on 30 September 2024,” a health department spokesperson told The Epoch Times.
“Claims submitted by that date will continue to be assessed in line with the scheme policy.”
The scheme does not cover harm from contracting COVID-19, psychological and psychiatric conditions, and secondary injuries.
Other side effects not covered include headache, fatigue, and injection site reaction.
Politicians from across the political spectrum recently wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressing concern the scheme will end at the end of September.
They urged the government to extend the COVID-19 vaccine compensation scheme and broaden its eligibility criteria.
“While the Australian government indemnifies vaccine manufacturers and continues to promote the take up of boosters, it makes no sense for the ’safety net' of the scheme to be removed,” the letter states.
The letter was signed by Teal MP Monique Ryan, United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet, Nationals Senator Matt Canavan, Liberal Senators Gerard Rennick and Alex Antic, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, and former Liberal turned independent MP Russell Broadbent.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/covid-19-vaccine-compensation-reaches-23-million-8-percent-of-claims-successful-5703667?ea_src=au-frontpage&&ea_med=top-news-australia-top-news-1-title-1
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
14 August, 2024
Polish Investigators Review Hemorrhagic Intracranial Complications Linked with VITT or CVT after COVID-19 Vaccination
Anna Drelich-Zbroja from Medical University of Lublin, Department of Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology from Poland and colleagues summarize a review of COVD-19 vaccination based on thorough literature review. The findings confirm previously documented suspicion that cerebral venous and sinus thrombosis (CVT) and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS) typically are associated with vector-type vaccine, such as the AstraZeneca or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, rather than mRNA, vaccine administration. The postulated mechanism of TTS is similar to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) both clinically and serologically. Although intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) are reportedly “very rare side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine” the finding here is that providers need to be mindful for the risk when vaccinating patients with risk factors for thrombosis (e.g., pregnancy). Of paramount concern: “physicians should carefully consider the benefit/risk ratio of vaccination.
Concerns emerged involving COVID-19 vaccine injuries, particularly rare cases of severe neurological symptoms including ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), cerebral venous and sinus thrombosis (CVT), and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS) have been observed. Literature data suggests that thrombosis with thrombocytopenia was the major underlying cause of the ICH.
Is the Spike the culprit?
The Polish authors in summarizing their findings report:
“Since the above mentioned vaccines stimulate cells to produce SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in vivo through different mechanisms, it can be assumed that in a particular group of patients with an unknown, independent risk factor, COVID-19 vaccination may be the direct cause of ICH; however, this statement requires further, in-depth, investigation.”
Like with many studies the authors emphasize that a severe side effects are “very rare” however providers should be vigilant. For example, ICH and VITT while “very rare adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination” the authors report based on the literature review that “the presence of persistent or recurrent headache within 30 days after vaccination, especially with the vector-type vaccines (AstraZeneca and Janssen), should provoke suspicion.”
Importantly, a message for physicians: should your patients with heightened risk factors such as thrombosis risk associated linked pregnancy be seen for vaccination, “carefully consider the vaccination risk/benefit.”
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/polish-investigators-review-hemorrhagic-intracranial-complications-linked-with-vitt-or-cvt-after-covid-19-vaccination-1164ded5
********************************************************
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital & Collaborators Identify Likely Cause of Pediatric MIS-C Associated with COVID-19
A large team of scientists involved with the Overcoming COVID-19 Network Study Group Investigators report a breakthrough that can lead to improved diagnosis and care for pediatric patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), and even similar conditions. Among the study leadership were investigators at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, reporting a potential cause of MIS-C linked to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) infections.
Remember MIS-C? This was the rare condition occurring in children, especially during the Delta variant surge during the spring through the end of the year in 2021. During this time, while still rare, more children were ending up in the hospital with more severe COVID-19-related symptoms.
Now, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital scientists report identifying a link between a SARS-CoV-2 protein and the onset of MIS-C. The findings were published today in Nature.
The pediatric disorder is characterized by widespread inflammation throughout the body. These new St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital-led findings describe a case of molecular mimicry, where a section of a protein from SARS-CoV-2 closely resembles the human protein SNX8, confusing the immune system and sparking inflammation.
Key Finding
The researchers found that a region of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein shares high sequence and immunogenic similarities to SNX8, a protein predominantly expressed in immune cells. Consequently, the human immune system that reacts to N mistakes SNX8 as an invader and triggers an inflammatory response. Understanding this mimicry mechanism, the elements of the immune system that are involved, and why it occurs in a subset of children could help physicians better address MIS-C.
Before the study, clinicians had observed that MIS-C typically manifests after SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) infection, but whether the onset was connected to SARS-CoV-2 infection was unknown. “MIS-C has been recognized as a problem downstream of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children since the beginning of the pandemic, and it's very similar to other post-viral inflammatory conditions that have evaded understanding in terms of etiology for a number of years,” said co-senior author Paul Thomas, Ph.D., St. Jude Department of Host-Microbe Interactions.
As reported by a St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital media entry co-senior author Adrienne Randolph, MD, MSc, Boston Children’s Hospital reflected on the clinical implication, pointing out, “Every time COVID peaked in an area, about 30 days later, there would be a peak of children presenting with what looked like septic shock in our network of ICUs, except they were negative for all kinds of infection. If we hadn’t intervened and supported them, they could have died.”
The first investigation to identify molecular mimicry as one of the immunological mechanisms behind the development of MIS-C. Thomas went on the record, “Understanding this mechanism going forward may help improve diagnosis and treatment.”
The Study: investigating molecular mimic links to SARS-CoV-2 infections and MIS-C.
Believing that there may be a link between SARS-CoV-2 proteins and the syndrome, the researchers used samples from patients with MIS-C to identify autoantigens (self-proteins recognized by the immune system that trigger an autoimmune response) associated with the condition.
They found candidate autoantigens derived from SNX8, ERFL and KDELR1 proteins. SNX8 plays a role in regulating the antiviral pathway associated with MIS-C pathogenesis, making it the prime suspect.??
The collaborators looked to SNX8 finding structural similarity to SARS-CoV-2, one that stimulates an autoimmune response in cases of MIS-C. A key piece of evidence of molecular mimicry as a mechanism contributing to MIS-C and connects SARS-CoV-2 infection with the onset of MIS-C.
Molecular mimicry is a structural similarity between antigens coded by different genes. It can occur when pathogenic antigens are similar to host proteins, such as myelin basic protein (MBP). This similarity can cause the immune system to have difficulty distinguishing between the host and the pathogen, which can lead to an immune response that harms the host. This is known as immune cross-reactivity and can cause autoimmune disease.
According to co-first author and postdoctoral fellow Robert Mettelman, PhD, St. Jude Department of Host-Microbe Interactions, “The biggest takeaway is that our study now directly links the disease with components of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
Echoing this sentiment, co-senior author Joseph DeRisi, PhD, University of California San Francisco, stated, "We've identified the smoking gun – what made these kids so sick. This discovery opens the door to understanding why so many of these post-infectious, horribly inflammatory autoimmune events occur.”
Implications for the Research
While this research marks a significant breakthrough in understanding MIS-C, its implications extend beyond the specific disorder. “There are other diseases that are similar to MIS-C,” Mettelman added. “The immune mechanism we describe can be explored in additional autoimmune and inflammatory contexts where a viral infection is thought to trigger disease onset.”
These findings can lead to improved diagnosis and treatment of MIS-C. “We are trying to understand the relationship between these responses and the full development of the disease,” Thomas said. “We are aiming to see if there is a diagnostic setting where we could use this to predict who's going to develop this disease and if early interventions can be applied.”
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/st.-jude-childrens-research-hospital-collaborators-identify-likely-cause-of-pediatric-mis-c-associated-with-covid-19-c467c3eb
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
13 August, 2024
SARS-Cov-2 Laboratory Origins? NOT! "The Lancet Microbe" Has the Answers--Stop Any Discussions Moving Forward!
Although a good number in the intelligence community and even law enforcement lean toward the laboratory leak hypothesis for the origins of SARS-CoV-2, forget thinking about that anymore. Why? Because according to an editorial in The Lancet Microbe, you are wasting your time, and worse you are driven by hubris, perhaps a need for attention at the dinner table. The editorial declares what the truth is, even though no such truth has emerged via the scientific process.
“SARS-Cov-2 is a natural virus that found its way into humans through mundane contact with infected wildlife that went on to cause the most consequential pandemic for over a century.”
So we have our answer as to the origins of SARS-CoV-2 thanks to the brilliance of Onsillos Sekkides, Editor-in-Chief at The Lancet Microbe.
Declaring the “scholarly entertainment” involved pondering the various alternative hypotheses, Sekkides and colleagues at Microbe proclaim the entertainment especially pathetic with the scarcity of evidence involving a lab leak hypothesis.
The Microbe is so confident as to a natural, zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 that they in fact assert that even pondering alternatives at this juncture “has been implausible for a long time and have only become more so with increasing scrutiny.”
The so-called “peddlers” of the lab-leak hypothesis Sekkides and colleagues argue, have “consistently failed to present credible arguments to support their positions.”
Then going on to defend Dr. Anthony Fauci and other cohorts who gave everything to lessen the impact of the pandemic, the folks at Microbe further point out:
“The sheer hubris needed to underpin alternative hypotheses was an early signal of their tenuousness when we are intensely aware that the natural processes needed to bring about this sort of pandemic are constantly churning and testing the boundaries between animal and human populations.”
The Microbe editorial emphasizes that the real focus now should be on pondering just how much good came from the outcomes made possible by COVID-19 countermeasures. Think about the need for what are in some cases several jabs, a focus on antibodies less humoral T cell benefit, and for that matter, zeroing in on blood-based vaccines rather than considering nasal mucosal responses.
A lot of money was spent, and there were benefits, but also in the build-up to the vaccines, a lot of hostility toward any alternative early intervention with repurposed combinations. It is a strange state of affairs in a pandemic, one where a national emergency statute triggered top-down, federal medicine. Something they probably could not even conceive of during the most oppressive times in the communist Soviet Union.
At TrialSite, we cannot deny that Sekkides and the Microbe are correct in some respects. For example, when they point to the general politicization of the entire pandemic, but we are troubled by the Microbe commentary.
Regardless of any declarations of truth from the Microbe’s editorial to this day, there is no conclusive evidence as to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Yes, the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, has been the subject of extensive study and debate. While it might be accurate that the predominant scientific consensus is that the virus likely originated in bats and then spilled over to humans, possibly through an intermediary species, there are many unanswered questions and some general hypotheses that are not proven
Many researchers believe that SARS-CoV-2 is of zoonotic origin, meaning it jumped from animals to humans. Bats are considered the primary natural reservoir due to their ability to host a wide variety of coronaviruses.
Intermediate Host
The exact pathway of transmission to humans is still under investigation. It is hypothesized that the virus may have passed through an intermediate host, such as pangolins, which are known to harbor coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2.
Wet Market Link
The initial outbreak was linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, where live wild animals were sold. However, subsequent studies have suggested that the virus might have been circulating in humans before the outbreak at the market.
Lab Leak Hypothesis
There has also been speculation and investigation into the possibility that the virus accidentally leaked from a laboratory, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While this theory has not been ruled out entirely, there is currently no conclusive evidence to support it, and it remains a topic of debate among scientists and policymakers.
Genomic Studies
Genetic analyses of SARS-CoV-2 show it is closely related to other coronaviruses found in bats. These studies support the natural zoonotic origin theory, although pinpointing the exact origins and pathway remains challenging.
Importantly, it’s well known that some form of gain-of-function research was ongoing with Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership with Zenghli-Li Shi, also known as “the bat lady” affiliated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, and others. And we know that such controversial research was outsourced to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and that research ultimately could be tied to Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance in one way or another.
Of course, there is an evidence trail for Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance for bringing questionable coronavirus research with U.S. tax dollars to Wuhan, because such research was not allowed during the time then President Obama imposed a moratorium.
Recently, the Congress Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Select Subcommittee and its investigation led to the Health and Human Services cutting all funding to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., initiating the debarment proceeding against the organization for shoddy, and shady practices involving coronavirus as well as research in China. See the HHS letter to Daszak.
A couple of years ago TrialSite accessed a memorandum from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DAPRA) that included a bombshell declaration that SARS-CoV-2 was an American-developed technology, likely part of a vaccine development process. We were not certain as to the authenticity of the memo so we reached out to DARPA and their head of communications informed us they could not either confirm or deny the veracity of the memo. She did declare that DARPA was not funding EcoHealth Alliance!
Why would military officers working with DARPA propose such a radical hypothesis?
Some contributors to TrialSite also report surges of strange respiratory conditions even before the formal declaration as to the existence of SARS-CoV-2, but we have no idea as to the likelihood that the virus did not arise out of Wuhan, China, either due to zoonotic or lab leak origin. We need compelling evidence to come to a conclusive origin.
But there is one thing we do know here at TrialSite—at least as of now, there is no conclusive proof as to the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Well, at least not until now!
Even President Biden could not get an answer. Remember, he ordered a team to go to China and look into the origins again. Who did we select to join the World Health Organization in the investigation? Peter Daszak! Enough said. And nothing was found.
However, we bring you good news now. Last month The Lancet Microbe editorial finally gave us the answer we have been looking for in “COVID-19 origins: plain speaking is overdue.”
Along the way, they used their crafty language to make us feel horrible for daring to question our government, for doubting Fauci and his operation; for pondering the pecuniary urges of industry in times of crisis, and for questioning a particularly biased, vested group of scientists’ and their insistence since near the start (with little to no evidence) that SARS-CoV-2’s genesis was from bat to human, a zoonotic origin.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/sars-cov-2-laboratory-origins-not-the-lancet-microbe-has-the-answers-stop-any-discussions-moving-forward-585d963c
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
12 August, 2024
Are COVID-19 Vaccines Working? A New Paper Seeks to Challenge this Notion
Before delving into the paper, it needs to be noted that the study by Steve Kirsch and colleagues was published in an online repository called preprints.org on 6th August 2024 and has not undergone a peer-review process. The absence of peer review means that the research has not been subject to the rigorous evaluation by other experts in the field, which can impact the credibility and acceptance of the findings.
Let us begin by understanding the focus of the study. The new study critiques a 2023 analysis by Xie et al., published in JAMA, evaluating vaccination rates in patients admitted to all U.S. Veterans Administration hospitals for COVID-19 and influenza. According to the authors of the new paper, if the vaccines for these diseases are indeed effective, there should be significant differences in the vaccination rates between those hospitalized for each illness. However, they found that the vaccination rates for both groups were identical, suggesting that neither vaccine effectively reduced the risk of hospitalization. They propose using this comparative method as a practical tool for assessing vaccine efficacy and call for a reconsideration of the approval of both vaccines based on these findings.
Shaking the Foundations of Vaccine Efficacy
The authors propose a surprisingly simple but bold method for establishing vaccine efficacy: the comparison of hospitalization rates among vaccinated individuals with different diseases. In this comparative approach, the authors have found a useful tool that cuts through complex statistical modeling and real-world confounders. This approach, they argue, offers a clear and practical way to see if vaccines are doing their job.
"Our method shows that the vaccines aren't working as advertised," says Steve Kirsch, one of the lead authors. "If they were, we would see a clear difference in the hospitalization rates. Instead, what we see are nearly identical rates for both COVID-19 and influenza."
Assumptions Under Scrutiny
Amid the changing COVID-19 research, the Kirsch paper stands out with its questioning assertion targeting vaccine efficacy. Though the results of the authors' study are intriguing, and that depending on bias, some experts will jump to conclusions. However, as we look closer at the study, we find several assumptions and limitations that need more careful examination.
First and foremost, the Kirsch paper makes several critical assumptions. One key assumption is that the baseline characteristics of COVID-19 and influenza patients in VA hospitals are comparable. This assumption is crucial because it underpins the entire analysis. If these groups are not truly comparable, the conclusions drawn could be flawed from the start. And the approach itself the authors take cannot by itself prove their conclusion.
Another significant assumption is that if vaccines were indeed effective, there should be a noticeable difference in vaccination rates between hospitalized COVID-19 and influenza patients. This line of thinking drives the argument that similar vaccination rates suggest vaccines are not working as intended. This hypothesis assumes a lot about real-world vaccine performance and patient behavior.
Furthermore, the paper also relies heavily on a statistical technique called propensity score, matching to balance the groups being compared, assuming this method adequately controls for all possible confounding factors. This methodology certainly is very useful but there’s always the risk that some lurking variable wasn’t accounted for, skewing the results.
Missing the Bigger Picture - Uncovering Hidden Limitations
Despite the attempt at a rigorous approach, the Kirsch paper has other notable limitations. The study is confined to patients in U.S. Veterans Administration hospitals, and thus the outcomes are not necessarily generalizable to the broader population. VA patients, often older and with specific health profiles, may not represent the broader population. This limits the generalizability of the findings.
There is also the potential for residual confounding. While propensity score weighting is employed, it is impossible to control for every variable. There could be unmeasured factors that influence the outcomes, and the paper does not dive deeply enough into this possibility.
The authors assume that ideal vaccines would prevent all hospitalizations, expecting 100% unvaccinated among the hospitalized, which seems a little illogical. Vaccines are powerful public health tools with demonstrable outcomes over the past decades, but they are far from perfect in outcomes.
Rushing to conclusion also ignores real-world complexities where no vaccine is perfect and 100% effective. Various factors, including underlying health conditions and the emergence of new virus variants, can still lead to hospitalizations even among the vaccinated.
The paper focuses solely on hospitalization rates, missing other vital outcomes such as disease severity, duration of hospital stays, and morbidity rates, and mortality rates, which could provide a more comprehensive view of vaccine impact. Could it be that vaccinated VA patients experienced shorter hospital durations, for example?
The paper primarily focuses on vaccine efficacy as measured by hospitalization rates and does not extensively discuss vaccine safety. While the study provides a critical perspective on vaccine effectiveness, it does not address the safety profile of the vaccines, including side effects or adverse reactions. A comprehensive evaluation of vaccines should include both efficacy and safety to provide a complete picture of their impact. Its noteworthy given Kirsch has been one of the most critical voices against COVID-19 vaccines, claiming they have taken hundreds of thousands of lives, if not more.
Lastly, it does not consider the role of different COVID-19 variants, which significantly affect vaccine efficacy. Remember the mutating pathogen means that if more vulnerable populations are not boosted, the efficacy wanes. Ignoring this dynamic aspect of the virus is a notable oversight.
Acknowledged but Not Addressed
To their credit, the authors do acknowledge some limitations, particularly regarding the risk of residual confounding. However, they do not fully explore the issues such as generalizability or the impact of different COVID-19 variants. The assumption of perfect vaccine efficacy is also not fully addressed.
"The data suggest that the vaccines may not be performing to their full promise," says Paul Marik, a pulmonary and critical care specialist. "However, we should have our ears open to all contributing factors before coming to a drastic conclusion."
What was the intention of the vaccines in the first place? If the goal were to ensure surges of protections during the worst waves of infectious spread, then perhaps the vaccines did live up to their potential.
What is the Impact on Public Health?
If the authors’ findings are accurate, the implications could be significant. Based on its findings, the authors of the present study call for a revisit of approval and distribution of both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. They encourage the public and decision-makers to embrace their comparative approach as a new standard in the assessment of vaccine effectiveness.
However, many experts are urging us to be cautious. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the severity of illness and reduce the burden on healthcare systems, even if they do not completely prevent hospitalizations.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/are-covid-19-vaccines-working-a-new-paper-seeks-to-challenge-this-notion-0c3594a6
**************************************************
My my main blogs below:
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
11 August, 204
Noah Lyles underscores our COVID denial
The 2024 Olympic Games are serving up some less-than-subtle metaphors for how poorly we handle public health. Just after winning a bronze medal in the much-anticipated men's 200-meter race, U.S. sprinter Noah Lyles collapsed on the track in exhaustion — not just because he’d completed a brutal run in just 19.7 seconds, finishing third, but also because he was sick with COVID-19, a diagnosis that he’d concealed from others. He had been favored to take home gold, as he did in the 100-meter race a few days earlier.
But seeing an American Olympic star sprawled out and gasping on the track, and then taken away in a wheelchair, was more than a shocking image. It also represented the general “mission accomplished” attitude toward SARS-CoV-2: We think we’ve won against this virus and we haven’t.
COVID isn’t just spreading like wildfire through the Olympic Village in Paris — we are undergoing surges across the globe, with the World Health Organization tracking steep rises in infections in 84 countries. After more than four years fighting this thing, it is still knocking us out.
In some parts of the U.S., the amount of COVID is so high that experts are claiming this summer surge is on par with winter waves of the virus. But none of this should be unexpected at this point. This is no longer the “novel” coronavirus that once terrified people with its unpredictability. We know how it behaves, with surges in both summer and winter, and we know how to fight against it — yet our apparent strategy at the moment is to pretend it doesn’t exist at all, even when it swipes us off our feet.
It’s true that the pandemic is much different than it was in 2020. For one thing, in spite of this surge, deaths are relatively low, following trends since vaccines became available. In 2023, COVID dropped from the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. to the 10th, according to recent provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's not great, but it does indicate that widespread immunity (from vaccines, previous infections or both) is giving us some level of protection. Though let’s not forget that at least 1.2 million Americans have died to date from COVID. It’s nothing to sneeze at.
Deaths aren’t the only concerning metric, of course. Sometimes a COVID infection is asymptomatic, while at other times, the symptoms last for months or years or never fully go away. Patients call this long COVID and public health experts have described it as a mass disabling event. Lyles isn’t just lucky he won a bronze medal — he’ll be lucky if he doesn’t experience months of headaches, lung issues or extreme fatigue that never goes away.
Yet long COVID is rarely factored into discussions about this pandemic, even when kids get it. Instead, it’s treated as if infections are merely a mild cold at this point. Just shake it off, as Taylor Swift might say, while her summer tour dates become superspreading events.
Millions of patients can attest that COVID is anything but mild — and it's definitely not the flu. The SARS-CoV-2 virus can worm its way into nearly every part of our bodies, trashing our immune system and damaging our organs. We tend to think of the disease as a respiratory problem, given all the coughs and sniffles it produces, but it’s really more of a vascular disease, impacting any system that relies on blood vessels. That can include damage to the brain, which can manifest in symptoms like long-term cognitive impairment and Parkinson’s disease.
Yes, a virus that can literally cause brain damage is spreading at record levels and most people are acting like it’s just another wave. Just keep running.
But we’re not just paying the price with our bodies. The economy is also getting smacked by long COVID. A recent comprehensive review in the journal Nature Medicine found that the “cumulative global incidence of long COVID is around 400 million individuals, which is estimated to have an annual economic impact of approximately $1 trillion.” That's ignoring the long list of ways that long COVID wreaks havoc on the body, including, as the study notes, "viral persistence, immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, complement dysregulation, endothelial inflammation and microbiome dysbiosis."
The fact that we are ignoring this extreme issue, at one of the most intense moments in the pandemic so far, is killing us, disabling us and costing us greatly.
So what can be done? We don’t need to fear the virus anymore, but we need to be conscious of the risks. We know how it works and how to protect ourselves. Taking precautions that will stop the virus from spreading will also give it fewer opportunities to mutate and evolve new ways of getting around our immunity.
We can surveil the virus better using regular testing, but the CDC stopped tracking cases last year (it still tracks hospitalizations, deaths and ER visits) and the Biden administration stopped mailing free tests months ago. Requirements for hospitals to report COVID data were also lifted in May, though that policy will be reversed later this month and will become mandatory come November. Still, that's a good chunk of time with incomplete or inadequate hospital data, and lacking that, it's hard to know what the pandemic really looks like.
Although it's not a perfect gauge, wastewater data remains one of the only consistent metrics throughout the pandemic, which is how we knew this surge was coming more than a month ago. That didn't translate into action at the federal level, and COVID is barely visible as an issue, if at all, in this year's presidential campaign.
We can mask in public, especially in crowds. It's never been fun to wear one, but masks really do work — though they’re a bit like condoms in the sense that their efficacy relies on being used correctly. A KN95 or N95 mask is best, and it needs to cover one's nose.
We can keep up-to-date with vaccinations, which prevent infections from becoming severe or deadly and lower the chances of developing long COVID, even with just a single dose. Yet only about 28% of Americans received the latest shots, a decline from 69% when the first round of vaccines were released. (The reasons why immunization wanes from certain vaccines are complicated, but COVID is far from the only disease that requires boosters.)
We're all suffering from pandemic fatigue after being put through the wringer over the past four years. But COVID doesn’t care how long we’ve been dealing with this crap. It doesn’t care if we’re bored or want to go to sports events or political rallies. It’s a virus, meaning it has no desires, no consciousness, no autonomy. It’s just a bunch of proteins that have been randomly selected through nature to easily and effectively hijack our immune systems.
We have plenty of tools to protect ourselves, but our strategy is instead denial, and it isn't working. The virus doesn't just take advantage of the ACE2 receptors in our bodies, it takes advantage of us, less directly, through conspiracy theories, misinformation, vaccine skepticism and regular old negligence and apathy. We all want to stop running this race against COVID. But to do that, we have to turn around and face it.
https://www.salon.com/2024/08/10/noah-lyles-collapse-underscores-our-collective-denial/
*******************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
8 August, 204
The Mask Of Fauci’s COVID Conspiracy Is Finally Coming Off
Truth is winning.
Not too long ago it would have been flagged as misinformation for daring to question the narrative about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic forced on us by those in Washington and China.
But now, experts — including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Energy Department and the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), plus 7 in 10 Americans — believe coronavirus gain-of-function experiments on humanized mice probably infected Patient Zero and prompted the pandemic.
As the real facts come out, the true COVID conspiracy increasingly appears to have been orchestrated by Dr. Fauci and the so-called “experts” who one by one are being exposed, discredited and defunded.
In fact, we are batting a thousand, folks!
First, we defunded China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and got the lab’s mad scientists blacklisted from receiving another cent of taxpayers’ money.
Then, we clipped the wings of EcoHealth Alliance, the shady group that was funneling federal money to Wuhan for the risky gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses that may have caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
As of this May, EcoHealth and its president have been suspended from receiving any taxpayer dollars for their batty research, and the government has proposed a years-long funding prohibition. We are working to ensure every federal agency funding EcoHealth has stopped.
We can now confirm that at least two have pulled the plug. In a July 31 letter, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) confirmed it did so: “ … in accordance with the best interest of the Agency, USAID has decided to end all ongoing activities with EHA.” Similarly, the National Science Foundation wrote in an Aug. 1 letter it had suspended all funding to EcoHealth. We are awaiting a reply from the group’s largest government funder, the Department of Defense (DOD). Taking nothing for granted, an Ernst amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2025 prohibiting the Pentagon from giving EcoHealth taxpayer dollars won approval without opposition in July.
This is welcome news, but long overdue.
In early 2020, EcoHealth and China stonewalled requests for information about the dangerous experiments being conducted at the Wuhan Institute. And National Institutes of Health (NIH) bureaucrats, like Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, stuck to their script that the virus didn’t leak from a lab, while being privately alerted early on the fact that “unusual features of the virus … look engineered.”
Right off the bat, after White Coat Waste (WCW) Project first exposed Fauci’s funding for the Wuhan lab, we called for the Chinese military-linked bioagent facility to be defunded. We also demanded an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) that found EcoHealth violated numerous reporting requirements, including not immediately alerting NIH when they enhanced viruses in the Wuhan lab.
Rather than holding EcoHealth accountable, government agencies kept cutting checks to continue the group’s reckless virus-hunting and animal experimentation all around the world, including funding to set up a new bat lab like the one in Wuhan right here in the U.S.!
In total, we’ve uncovered how EcoHealth amassed $60 million of taxpayer money since March 2020 from the NIH, the Pentagon, NSF and USAID.
With overwhelming evidence of waste, fraud and abuse, how could this happen?
Well, when the Trump Administration canceled funding to EcoHealth in 2020 following WCW’s initial investigation, NIH helped the group get a new grant. Fauci and other senior NIH officials tried to fly under the radar by violating the Freedom of Information Act and using an illegal “‘secret’ back channel” for communicating with and about EcoHealth.
In a Congressional hearing in June, Fauci was asked about this and stated under oath, “I have never conducted official business via my private email.”
Now, emails obtained by WCW through FOIA show Fauci used his personal email to circumvent FOIA and communicate with a Washington Post reporter who wrote numerous stories spreading misinformation and defending Fauci’s funding of EcoHealth, the Wuhan lab and even beagle torture in Tunisia.
The Post and other media fawningly fell for Fauci’s dismissal of a lab leak and even helped police those suggesting otherwise. Undeterred, we stayed focused on following the money and the science.
There really was no way of hiding the facts — EcoHealth funneled more than $1 million of taxpayer money into China’s Wuhan Institute to make bat viruses more dangerous to humans, and the agencies funding the project knew it.
After years of denials by Dr. Fauci — and emails obtained by WCW showing EcoHealth and Fauci’s team coordinating to fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan with little oversight — NIH is even finally fessing up to it.
EcoHealth Alliance should never be allowed to put their hands on bats or taxpayer dollars ever again, and Fauci’s cabal need to be held accountable for years of misleading the public, press and Congress and breaking the law to cover-up their COVID catastrophe.
The world deserves answers to guarantee what happened in Wuhan is never allowed to happen anywhere else.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/08/07/anthony-bellotti-joni-ernst-mask-fauci-covid-conspiracy-wuhan-lab/
****************************************************
How Covid broke our trust in the medical profession
...and why the media shares much of the blame
On 9 July, President Joe Biden’s former Covid czar Ashish Jha conceded that vaccine mandates, which he had backed, ‘bred a lot of distrust’ in the long run and did cause harms as well. Studies continue to be published to the effect that policy interventions to fight the pandemic – lockdowns, masks, vaccines – saved millions of lives. Thus a study by Watson et al. published in Lancet Infectious Diseases in June 2022 estimated, using mathematical modelling of course, that just in its first year to 8 December 2021, vaccinations saved 14.4 million lives. Christopher Ruhm, in an article in JAMA Health Forum on 26 July, found that if all US states had followed the restrictions of the ten most restrictive states, there would have been 118,000-248,000 fewer US deaths in the two years to 8 December 2022. Perhaps.
Other studies claim that to the contrary, the number of deaths that policy interventions have caused and are likely to cause in the long term from the combined downstream effects, including severely disrupted healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chains, missed childhood immunisations, learning disruptions, hunger and poverty, will greatly exceed the sum of lives saved. On 19 July a 520-page paper by three Canadian researchers, based on data from 125 countries for 2021 and 2022, calculated the number of all-cause excess deaths ‘associated with’ Covid vaccines to be 16.9 million – 2.4 times the number of Covid deaths until February 2024 as per the World Health Organisation. An article published online on 21 June in Forensic Science International, based on a systematic review of autopsy data, found that 73.9 per cent of all Covid-related deaths were either caused or significantly impacted by Covid vaccines.
In September 2021, the UK government, acting on the advice of Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty who overrode the more cautious Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation (JCVI), authorised the vaccination of 5-to-11-year-old children. This was done despite a warning from a group of 26 Tory MPs that overruling expert advice from the JCVI risked ‘dissolving the bond of trust’ between the public and the government. A new preprint on 20 May from a team at Oxford University reports on a study of a total of 415,884 vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They came to three important findings: there was not a single Covid-related death in either group among otherwise healthy children; the vaccinated had marginally better health outcomes on hospitalisation (1 additional child per 10,000) and A&E attendance (1 per 20,000); but these were mostly offset by the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis which put 1 in 25,000 vaccinated kids into hospital. The economic cost worked out at £1.3 million for each hospital visit saved and £600 thousand for each A& E attendance saved (not death) that was averted. The moral of the story: trust neither the science nor the scientists.
Record-level data for ten million people in the Czech Republic were analysed by Steve Kirsch to show that all-cause deaths among 45-to-69-year-olds given Moderna vaccines were more than 50 per cent above those from Pfizer vaccines. Treating the latter as the placebo group allowed him to control for other potentially confounding variables and limit causality to vaccines. An Israeli study published on 26 June in the high-impact journal Nature explained how the Pfizer vaccine causes menstrual irregularities. For one compilation of scientific studies documenting vaccine injuries, with hyperlinks, see: https://ladycasey.substack.com/p/scientific-studies-on-vaccine-injuries
Yet, articles and reviews critical of the official narrative on masks and vaccines, authored by well-credentialled experts and published in leading scientific outlets after rigorous peer review processes, were sometimes retracted or had cautionary notes added by nervous editors, only to be vindicated months or a year later, greatly diminishing their impact during the critical period. The eminent British oncologist Angus Dalgliesh wrote on 11 July that there’s been a systematic suppression of the truth about the link between Covid vaccines and cancer and death.
In an interview with the Brisbane Times on 30 April 2020, Queensland’s then-chief health officer (and now Governor) Jeannette Young made it clear that her logic on school closures was primarily political. She accepted the evidence that schools are not a high-risk environment for the spread of the virus but argued that closing them helped to convince people how grave the situation was. ‘So sometimes it’s more than just the science and the health, it’s about the messaging.’ There’s additional evidence of the creeping politicisation of the medical profession. The British Medical Association has rejected the Cass review into gender-identity services in England. Last week it called on the government to lift the ban on puberty blockers for adolescents disoriented about their sexuality. In another sign of the creeping ideological takeover of medical science, an article published in JAMA Pediatrics on 1 July substituted ‘pregnant people’ and ‘pregnant persons’ for pregnant women.
On 1 August, the Australian Medical Association warned that the nation’s overstretched health system is at a tipping point with a real risk of life expectancy falling over the next ten years. Yet the AMA went along with all the questionable Covid eradication policies that wasted billions of dollars that could otherwise have been used to strengthen the public health infrastructure, and also with un- and even some anti-scientific interventions and mandates that damaged trust in the medical profession. A 24-wave survey of 443,455 US adults across the 50 states, published recently in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that overall, trust in physicians and hospitals had plummeted from 71.5 to 40.1 per cent between April 2020 and January 2024. Trust had fallen in every group in the survey by age, gender, race and income. Unsurprisingly, lower levels of trust correlated with lower rates of vaccination. There’s little reason to believe the situation in Australia is much different.
The media could have helped to contain the deepening loss of public trust in the medical profession and the public health clerisy by adopting its customary role of interrogating official claims and reporting fearlessly and neutrally on the significant minority of medical and scientific opinion that expressed disquiet at the abandonment of an established public health consensus on managing pandemics. Instead, as Adam Creighton argued in the Australian on 3 April 2023, ‘a too credulous, incurious mainstream media’, with too many journalists acting as ‘cheerleaders for the health bureaucracy and politicians’, must wear much of the blame for the ‘Covid vaccines’ wall of infallibility’ that has caused so much lasting harm.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/how-covid-broke-our-trust-in-the-medical-profession/
*******************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
7 August, 2024
Swiss-based Study: Moderna mRNA Booster Triggers Persistent Cases of Chronic Hives in Young People, Females
Yet another study finds other potentially enduring adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. This time, physicians and specialized scientists involved with biomedical research affiliated with prominent academic research centers in Switzerland including CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, and the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics report on new onsets of chronic urticaria (CU) post expose to the Moderna mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) COVID-19 vaccine. CU is a form of chronic hives: a rare skin condition that causes itchy, raised, dark red bumps. These bumps can appear anywhere on the body and can be red, purple, or skin-colored. They can also vary in size, change shape, and appear and fade repeatedly. CU can be a sign of a serious internal disease, but it's usually benign.
In this study, the Swiss-based team of collaborators sought to better understand any links between the COVD-19 mRNA vaccine and CU, while factoring in COVID-19 infection, atopy and IgE against the vaccine while monitoring presentation of features in CU patients post vaccination. The study was done in trial sites located in the Swiss Canton of Vaud, the mountainous district in western Switzerland bordered by Lake Geneva to the south and France to the west. Employing use of two surveys, one conducted in 2022, then again in 2023, the investigators took blood samples from 50 individuals diagnosed with CU, with results compared with 135 individuals with no history of urticaria. Performing basophil activation tests (BAT) Yannick Miller, MD, PhD and colleagues investigated anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral response, plus any IgE presence against common respiratory allergens, a surrogate for atopy, , or the genetic tendency to develop an exaggerated immune response to harmless substances in one’s environment. The Swiss-based team reports that Moderna’s booster dose “induced anti-vaccine IgE independently of CU, the latter being not directly associated with COVID-19 infection nor atopy. The tolerance to a new booster in 4/4 patients suggests that the Spikevax vaccine indirectly triggered CU in predisposed individuals.”
Dr. Yannick and colleagues report incidence of post-vaccination CU at a median interval of 10 days, plus “significantly more after the Spikevax booster.” Middle aged persons were impacted more than others (median 41, 66% females).
By 2023, the study team reported in their findings uploaded to Research Square, a preprint server, that CU remained active in 53% of cases. Importantly, the team of authors reports that 54% of the CU in 2022, and 61% in 2023 were inducible, meaning the condition was capable of being formed, activated or expressed in response to a stimulus, in this case the Moderna booster jab. Reporting that BAT positivity lacked specific ties to CU, anti-nucleocapsid positively or atopy, it was significantly associated with higher anti-spike neutralizing activities and younger age.” Only four CU patients tolerated an additional Moderna dose with no disease exacerbation or recurrence meaning substantial evidence for causation.
This study has not been peer reviewed, and the medical-scientific community will not accept this as evidence unless its peer-reviewed and published in a major scientific journal.
Lausanne University Hospital is one of the five university hospitals in Switzerland, with Geneva, Bern, Basel and Zurich. With its 17 clinical and medico-technical departments and their numerous services, the CHUV is renowned for its academic achievements in health care, research, and teaching.
The CHUV is also a well-known center of medical education and research thanks to its collaboration with the Faculty of Biology and Medicine of the University of Lausanne and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL). Together, these institutions form a vast campus in the Lake Geneva region.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/swiss-based-study-moderna-mrna-booster-triggers-persistent-cases-of-chronic-hives-in-young-people-females-6dcfbf30
**********************************************
Patent Lawsuit Goes Against Moderna. Stock Drops but Wall Street Analyst Are Bullish
As the Covid pandemic was ongoing, Moderna was sued by Arbutus for patent infringement over the former’s now famous mRNA vaccine. Arbutus challenged the Cambridge, Ma. based company’s patents covering lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology. mRNA-1273 is a messenger RNA-based vaccine, and LNP technology represents the underlying delivery system. Moderna tried to argue in front of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the Arbutus’ claims are not worthy of patent protection. Arbutus said it developed the lipid nanoparticles that enclose the mRNA payload. This same casing as also introduced problems in the form of inflammatory responses, at least for a minority. The technology is used to deliver RNA to target cells without attacking the body’s immune system, aside from the rare response to the contrary. The patents related to the technology were licensed to Genevant Sciences which is a joint venture between Arbutus and Roivant
Sciences Ltd. We also reported that this venture was affiliated with Vivek Ramaswamy. The court didn’t agree with Moderna, and the company said, at the time, “it may further pursue these matters”. During the lawsuit, Arbutus said it did not wish to interfere with the distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine even though their litigation with Moderna could take years. However, it appears now the lawsuit has finally caught up with the Massachusetts mRNA de
Moderna Shares Fall After Judge’s Decision
Yesterday, Moderna shares fell 4% after U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg issued an order strengthening Arbutus’ claim of patent infringement by Moderna. Goldberg issued a “claim construction order” which interpreted parts of the patents in a way that made the Arbutus claim stronger.
One claim in the suit concerned the total percentage of lipids in the delivery particle. Moderna argued the “particle” should concern only the “finished lipid particle” which doesn’t need further processing and insisted this must be “understood as the exact ranges recited in the claim” unless Arbutus’s patent implies some uncertainty. Arbutus relied on the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the word “particle”.
In a 37-page decision Judge Goldberg agreed with the Arbutus argument that the patent claim doesn’t mean a finished particle “completely free from further processing”. As a result of the decision, Roivant’s shares rose 4%, and Arbutus shares rose 17%.
Regarding the judge’s decision, a Jeffries analyst wrote in a note, "He ruled in favor of Roivant subsidiary Arbutus on 3 of 4 patent claims...It is our understanding Moderna can't appeal for now since this isn't a formal 'judgment' but rather a 'decision'". Arbutus issued a statement saying, “Arbutus and Genevant Sciences are seeking fair compensation for Moderna’s use of its patented LNP technology that was developed with great effort and at great expense, and without which Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine would not have been successful.” Judge Goldberg’s order allows the case to move forward, and the trial is set to begin later this month.
Analysts Bullish on Moderna’s Future
Recently, Moderna got a cash infusion from Blackstone Life Sciences. This was because the mRNA company had announced positive clinical updates on its vaccines. Even with the news of the court decision regarding Arbutus, Wall Street Analysts believe Moderna stock will rise. Because of the positive news about the development of Moderna’s new vaccines, including a jab for Epstein-Barr, Wall Street thinks these shots could be “brisk sellers” for the company.
But at TrialSite the Moderna analyses has centered on their cancer therapies. In “Moderna’s Future Lies with Its’ Cancer Vaccine—Investors Should Read Cautiously” based on a review of the trends with Covid vaccines, market forces with their underlying mRNA platform and other imminent vaccines (such as influenza) Moderna’s game changing breakthrough will be compelling data associated with the company’s Phase 3 clinical trials, both testing mRNA-4157 (name changed to Adjuvant V940), one against lung cancer and the other against melanoma. And Moderna has other earlier-stage mRNA-based cancer vaccines, one called mRNA-5671 and the other mRNA-4359, which is the basis for some mainstream media touting a potential “cure for cancer.” None of these studies have as their endpoint “cure for cancer” so the hyperbole in the media is real, but we believe the Cambridge based company can regain its momentum should the cancer trials lead to compelling data. Only time will tell.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/patent-lawsuit-goes-against-moderna.-stock-drops-but-wall-street-analyst-are-bullish-77995c22
*******************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
6 August, 2024
In a Podcast, Mike Rowe Asks, “Who’s Really Responsible?”
Mike Rowe, best known as the host of the TV series Dirty Jobs, is also a producer, author, spokesman, actor and singer. Rowe happens to also host a podcast titled The Way I Heard It, and in one episode he interviews author Gavin de Becker, and one of the subjects they examine is the phenomena of excess deaths and who’s really responsible?
Excess Mortality/” Electric Fence Topics”
The title of the entire podcast between Rowe and de Becker is The Art of Making Money from Fear. The one quote the two of them refer to is “We’re not curious and we don’t want to be skeptical”. But de Becker points out that in 2021 to a supposed insurance industry study pointing to 60,000 excess death claims with insurance companies in a population which had no reason to die. This was a 40% increase in death claims, says the report cited by the parties. The Wall Street Journal confirmed the report chronicling the report.
“Society is moving toward people not having personal responsibility for their behavior, for their choices, for their safety”, de Becker says. They pointed out that in the Wall Street Journal article several possible causes were listed, everything but one glaring omission—the possibility that the mass deployment of COVID-19 vaccine countermeasures in the form of vaccination.
Why no mention of that possible source—it’s possible no?
The two speak about the fact the excess deaths or excess mortality happened at the height of the Covid vaccine program in the United States yet again, no mention of the possibility of vaccine adverse reactions as a contributory force for the surplus deaths. They point to the number of young athletes who suddenly died.
According to de Becker, excess mortality is conducted and counted by every country with a good medical system. Presumably, this would include the United States. The question asked by de Becker, is during the time of Covid there was excess mortality in a population not expected to die, especially those young, fit, and of working age.
The two, specifically de Becker, refer to what is called “Electric Fence Topics”, meaning topics which are not to be broached like “adverse reactions” when phrases like “safe and effective” are sacrosanct. De Becker even goes to the point of saying the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is actually in the “vaccine business”. A 2022 article from The Wall Street Journal is referred to citing the fact insurance companies were complaining about not only the number of death benefit payouts they had to make over a large number of Covid-19 deaths but also a jump in other death claims. These other deaths are attributed to lack of healthcare or delayed care. But among the causes of these death were heart and circulatory issues and neurological disorder.
Earlier on in the pandemic, an Israeli doctor reported to Pfizer a large number of events of myocarditis in young men and the doctor was ignored.
In December of 2023, TrialSite News reported on studies linking neurological disorders to the Covid-19 vaccine. This media reported on many published reports showing possible health challenges with the vaccines. TrialSite as well collaborated with vaccine injured organization React19 to establish the Scientific Publications Directory, an online hub of over 3,500 peer-reviewed journal entries associated with possible vaccine injuries.
According to the Wall Street Journal article, “The impact on the cost of life insurance from Covid-19 both directly and indirectly is unclear. Some insurers say they are repricing group-life contracts modestly on the assumption that the virus will be around at least through 2022. Those contracts are typically repriced every couple of years. Meanwhile, insurers are still trying to determine what implications there may or may not be on long-term mortality.”
Not On the Package Insert
In discussing vaccines, de Baker points out that according to the CDC, approved vaccines are “safe and effective”. The main issue is the drawbacks of vaccines are on the package inserts, like the fact the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines can cause myocarditis in young people. But de Baker vehemently points out the consumer never sees the package insert because, in the US, the consumer receives the vaccine from a doctor or pharmacy. As de Baker says, “Nobody at the pharmacy says would you like to see the package insert before you make this decision?” Rowe points out, “We’re not curious and we don’t want to be skeptical.” De Baker comments on the idea that governments “scare your first” and then say, “We’ll take care of it…nobody says, ‘go and learn’, everybody wants you to listen to authority.”
Of course, it’s the job of the provider to disclose any potential risks to the recipient of the vaccine.
Several groups have found data pointing to the vaccines as cause of the surge in excess mortality in developed, heavily vaccinated nations.
Independent Analysts Refuted
Last year for example the authors of the V-Damage Project led by Edward Dowd, a founder of Phinance Technologies, tweeted that the “estimated human cost” of the vaccines was 26.6 million injuries, 1.36 million disabilities and 300,000 excess deaths. Dowd has repeatedly claimed that COVID-19 vaccines have led to a large numbers of deaths.
However various fact checkers have responded with claims that have been shown such claims, supposedly, to be debunked.
What about Legal Discovery?
Could litigation expose some answers? In June TrialSite News reported the State of Kansas preceded by Texas, both suing Pfizer over “misleading the public”. Maybe litigation might generate some of the answers to the vexing problems of excess mortality, especially from 2021 to 2023.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/in-a-podcast-mike-rowe-asks-whos-really-responsible-e86e2d14
**********************************************
Australia: Former NSW premier Dominic Perrottet says harsh vaccine mandates were wrong in valedictory speech
The former NSW premier who oversaw the state’s exit from the Covid pandemic said it was a “mistake” for the state to implement strict vaccine mandates, stating that “people’s personal choices shouldn’t have cost them their jobs”.
Dominic Perrottet, who delivered a speech following his resignation on Tuesday, succeeded Gladys Berejiklian as the premier in October 2021, just as the state was easing restrictions following the Omicron lockdowns.
“Without dwelling on every decision, I believe it’s important to point out one mistake which was made by governments here and around the world, the strict enforcement of vaccine mandates,” he said.
While decisions were made with the “right intentions,” he said the impact on transmissions was “limited at best”.
“As is mostly now accepted, the law should have left more room and respect for freedom,” he said.
“Vaccines saved lives but ultimately mandates were wrong.
“People’s personal choices shouldn’t have cost them their jobs. When I became Premier, we removed them, or the ones we actually could, but this should have happened faster.”
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/best-intentions-former-nsw-premier-dominic-perrottet-says-harsh-vaccine-mandates-were-wrong-in-valedictory-speech/news-story/85bdc31a091be3e32a3906ccc18592b8
**********************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
4 August, 2024
74% of ALL Deaths ‘Directly’ Linked to Covid Shots, Autopsy Data Shows
The journal report of 2024 Jan 14:
Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis
Abstract
COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to myocarditis, which, in some circumstances, can be fatal. This systematic review aims to investigate potential causal links between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis using post-mortem analysis. We performed a systematic review of all published autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-induced myocarditis through 3 July 2023. All autopsy studies that include COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis as a possible cause of death were included. Causality in each case was assessed by three independent physicians with cardiac pathology experience and expertise.
We initially identified 1691 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 14 papers that contained 28 autopsy cases. The cardiovascular system was the only organ system affected in 26 cases. In two cases, myocarditis was characterized as a consequence from multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The mean age of death was 44.4 years old. The mean and median number of days from last COVID-19 vaccination until death were 6.2 and 3 days, respectively.
We established that all 28 deaths were most likely causally linked to COVID-19 vaccination by independent review of the clinical information presented in each paper. The temporal relationship, internal and external consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, its pathobiological mechanisms, and related excess death, complemented with autopsy confirmation, independent adjudication, and application of the Bradford Hill criteria to the overall epidemiology of vaccine myocarditis, suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38221509/
Frank Bergman
A damning new study has revealed that autopsy data shows Covid mRNA shots have overwhelmingly contributed to all-cause deaths around the world.
The bombshell study found that Covid shots are “directly” linked to a staggering 73.9% of all deaths.
The study found that 73.9% of all deaths were “directly due to or significantly contributed to” by Covid mRNA injections.
The autopsy data exposes a direct link “between COVID-19 vaccination and death,” the researchers note in their study’s paper.
In the “Background” section of the study’s paper, the researchers explain:
“The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, has led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, Spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction, and carcinogenicity.
“The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.”
In the “Methods” section, they note:
“We searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023.
“All autopsy and necropsy studies that included COVID-19 vaccination as an antecedent exposure were included.
“Because the state of knowledge has advanced since the time of the original publications, three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.”
The research team initially identified 678 studies.
After screening for our inclusion criteria, the researchers included 44 papers for the study that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case.
The mean average age of death was 70.4 years.
The most implicated organ system among cases was the cardiovascular (49%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (11%), and multiple organ systems (7%).
Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases.
The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days.
Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration.
A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.
Among those directly linked to Covid shots, the primary causes of death include:
Top Doctor Reveals the Root Cause of ED in Men Over 50
Sudden cardiac death (35%)
Pulmonary embolism (12.5%)
Myocardial infarction (12%)
VITT (7.9%)
Myocarditis (7.1%)
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%)
Cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).
In the “Conclusions” section of the paper, the authors write:
“The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death.
“Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.”
The researchers warn that findings “indicate the urgent need to elucidate the pathophysiologic mechanisms of death with the goal of risk stratification and avoidance of death for the large numbers of individuals who have taken or will receive one or more COVID-19 vaccines in the future.”
The study comes amid a growing body of evidence linking the Covid mRNA injections to multiple deadly health conditions and related sudden deaths.
Another bombshell new global study of 2.7 billion people has just determined that COVID-19 did not cause any excess deaths during or after the pandemic, despite widespread claims to the contrary from health agencies around the world.
However, the same explosive study has revealed that Covid mRNA shots, which were supposedly unleashed on the public to tackle the virus, have caused millions of excess deaths globally.
The study’s comprehensive 521-page report contains hundreds of figures and a detailed examination of excess all-cause mortality during the years 2020 to 2023 in 125 countries.
The dataset analysed by the researchers comprises approximately 2.7 billion people which is about 35% of the world’s population.
The researchers calculated that the global death toll associated with Covid mRNA shots, up to 30 December 2022, was 16.9 million people.
https://slaynews.com/news/74-all-deaths-directly-linked-covid-shots-autopsy-data-shows/
***************************************************
Japan-Based Study Finds Biguanide Associated with Reduced In-Hospital COVID-19 Death and Acute Kidney Injury
Mari Sugimoto Hiroaki Kikuchi and colleagues from the Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) look into biguanide (BG), the most-prescribed oral glucose-lowering medication globally is considered a prospect for other therapeutic targets including COVID-19. With no established low-cost treatments (authorized by authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) against COVID-19, of which the morbidity and mortality rates varying from country to country, the authors of this Japan-based study investigate the national population to better understand therapeutic effect of BG against COVID-19.
Tapping into inpatient databases in Japan, the data covers the period from September 2021 to March 2023, which encompasses the era following the development of COVID-19 vaccines. The study focuses on 168,370 COVID-19 patients aged 20 to under 80 years who has diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic agents. The primary outcome was 100-day in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcome was the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization. Comparing outcomes in patients who received BG with those in patients who did not, using a logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards under both propensity score-unmatched and matched cohort, the authors report COVID-19 patients, the use of oral biguanide use may be associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality and risk of AKI.
The Drug
Biguanide is a colorless, organic compound with the formula HN(C(NH)NH?)? that dissolves in water to create a highly basic solution. Biguanides are also known as antihyperglycemic agents, which means they promote euglycemia and help lower blood sugar levels. They are commonly used as oral medications to treat Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, and gestational diabetes. Biguanides work by reducing glucose production in the liver and glucose absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, while also increasing insulin sensitivity in certain cells.
Many manufacturers make biguanides, including chemical manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies:
Chemical manufacturers
Bio Lab® makes biguanide-containing products under the name Soft Swim, and other chemical manufacturers make biguanide-based pool care products like Revacil® and Aqua Silk®.
Pharmaceutical companies
Boehringer Ingelheim makes Jentadueto®, a biguanide indicated for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Ciba-Geigy marketed phenformin (phenylethyl biguanide), but its association with lactic acidosis limited its use
The Study
The study was funded with grants to specific researchers from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) and the Uehara Memorial Foundation.
Of interest, the authors report in the paper uploaded to the preprint server, “The incidence of in-hospital death was significantly lower in the BG group (1.18 %) compared to the non-BG group (2.41%) (p < 0.001).”
Also, the Tokyo-based the incidence of AKI during hospitalization was significantly lower in the BG group (0.66 %) compared to the non-BG group (1.12%) (p < 0.001). Further running a Kaplan-Meier analysis from the propensity-score matched cohort demonstrated markedly improved survival rate in the BG group (adjusted HR, 0.580; 95% CI 0.510-0.658; p < 0.001).
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/japan-based-study-finds-biguanide-associated-with-reduced-in-hospital-covid-19-death-and-acute-kidney-injury-622e140b
**********************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
1 August, 2024
Study In Iran Reveals Frequent Long COVID Incidence, Myriad Symptoms
Colleagues associated with Shiraz Medical School at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences designed and conducted a population-based cross-sectional survey in the Fars province situated in southwest Iran in 2023. Recruiting and enrolling adult participants with a history of COVID-19, the study team using a cluster random sampling method, alongside a control group with similar characteristics through the same methodology. The Iranian medical researchers collected the study data via in-person interviews using two researcher-developed data collection forms focused on demographic and clinical information. Shining some light on features of both COVID and long COVID, these Iranian researchers find “significant prevalence of long COVID” involving myriad presentations, differing symptoms and the like. Just as important are the efforts to both standardize criteria and control groups for long COVID research, all part of the ongoing quest to address the substantial heterogeneity, possible overestimation of symptoms and other factors involving this condition and its unfolding science.
Funded by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, under a specific grant this academic medical center funding source provided support for sample selection, population assessment, and data collection as detailed in the manuscript. The outcomes incorporated in the paper were published in BMC Public Health, with an impact factor of 4.5, close to the high threshold level.
What did the study team led by Mehrdad Askarian, MD, MPH Professor of Community and Preventive Medicine, and Ehsan Taherifard, part of the Student Research Committee at the university’s medical school find?
Out of 2010 participants—the researchers included 1561 (77.7%) and 449 (22.3%) individuals with and without a previous history of COVID-19. Among those with COVID-19 history, the great majority of participants report symptoms, at 93.7% (95% CI of 92.3%-94.8%) during the disease acute phase and 36.4% (95% CI of 34.0%-38.8%) in the post recovery stage.
What was the incidence of symptoms solely linked to COVID-19? 13%, according to the researchers’ math-- calculated by comparing the symptom rates between participants with and without a history of COVID-19.
Long Covid symptoms were also associated with older age, previous hospitalization for COVID-19, presence of cardiovascular disease, and use of steroids/chemotherapy.
Study Limitations
The team acknowledges a handful of study limitations.
Reliance on self-reported data collection.
A signficant proportion of missing data regarding the approximate date of SARS-COV-2 contraction was noted during interviews, which impeded our ability to explore temporal patterns of LC and to investigate the progression of symptoms over time.
The cross-sectional nature of the study design (observational) precludes the establishment of causation.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/study-in-iran-reveals-frequent-long-covid-incidence-myriad-symptoms-0ddb8192
**************************************************
Australia slowly retreats from vaccine mandates
The retreat from Covid hysteria in Australia has been painfully slow and uneven.
In one dispatch from the virus overreaction front, the news is good, if long overdue. The South Australian Health Department (SA Health) has, after more than three years of alarmism and public health messaging, abandoned its last foxhole and announced that its Covid vaccination mandate for ‘medical staff with patient-facing roles’ is no more.
The 245 medical practitioners, ambos, dentists, allied health practitioners, disability workers, and social workers who were sacked for exercising their basic human right to control what goes into their bodies will now be able to get their old jobs back. Sort of. Returning employees will have the charge of ‘misconduct’ recorded against their personnel record. SA Health bosses couldn’t resist a swift kick to the shins…
In its partial retreat, SA Health admits no error or misjudgement concerning the old policy of mandatory employee vaccination, citing increased Covid immunity in the population as a reason to change their position. The department is still ‘recommending’ that all staff be vaccinated but, at long last, health officials have recognised that pretty near everyone has had (or will get) Covid. Thus, naturally-acquired immunity exists within the community.
What we will not see is an admission that vaccines had little to do with ‘increased Covid immunity in the population’ because that would mean publicly acknowledging their monumental failure. SA Health’s belated and begrudging retreat from its last Covid stronghold is an example of bureaucratic foot-dragging and bottom-covering at its worst.
Meanwhile, in Paris, Covid hysteria has returned. Australia appears to be one of the only countries bothering with Covid testing, isolation, and mask wearing.
In all the hoopla about the unveiling of the Australian Olympic uniform, no one thought to mention that face masks would be part of the green-and-gold outfit, but the 41-member Australian swimming team arrived in Paris fully kitted out. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would approve. It ‘strongly encourages’ Australians travelling abroad to mask up. Meanwhile, French health authorities recommend masks be worn ‘in enclosed and small spaces, and at large gatherings’ (which pretty much covers all bases where humans gather).
The current sports carnival promised to be a ‘return to normal’ after the soulless outing in Japan in 2021 which played to empty stadiums and diminished TV viewership (down 27 per cent compared to Rio in 2016) but Australia, apparently, is not quite ready to return to normal just yet.
In spite of the lingering Covid charade being acted out by the Australian Olympic contingent, five of the thirteen-member women’s water polo team tested positive to Covid (none of them are ‘particularly unwell’, according to Australia’s chef de Mission,) whilst two members of the athletics squad were also ‘isolating but have tested negative’. The infectious athletes are permitted to train but with, you guessed it, ‘protocols in place’. The public health Covid theatre Downunder is running longer than Agatha Christie’s The Mousetrap.
There are some who say that Australia escaped the worst of the ‘pandemic’ because of our ‘tough’ policy response, but the Covid encore in Paris is a reminder that, in many ways, Australia experienced the worst of Covid mania.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/australia-slowly-retreats-from-vaccine-mandates/
**********************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
31 July, 2024
Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Fails in Children’s Study, No Protection Against Symptomatic COVID-19, Grim Implications for Low-and Middle-income Countries
Cristina de Oliveira Rodrigues, Campus Toledo, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Brazil and a group of investigators from Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Inova Medical and Pfizer called the Toledo BNT162b2 Study Group Investigators designed and conducted a prospective test-negative, case-control study in the southern Brazilian city of Toledo occurring June 2022 to July 2023, involving young patients aged 5–11 years seeking care for acute respiratory symptoms in the public health system.
In addition to being tested for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the investigators in their primary analysis primarily sought to better understand the actual effectiveness of the two dose (primary series) original wild-type BNT162b2, co-developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, against symptomatic COVID-19. The Toledo BNT162b2 Study Group Investigators, sponsored by Hospital Moinhos de Vento and others in southern Brazil, used an unvaccinated cohort as the reference exposure group in the study. This is an important question because effectiveness of this vaccine early on upon first roll out becomes important in guiding comparable vaccine policy moving forward.
Results of this study were published in Science Direct, Immunology Letters.
The Study
The study was a prospective test-negative case-control study (NCT05403307). The group used the same study method for both case and controls, while again deploying RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 prospectively to distinguish both cases and controls in addition to whole genome sequencing to identify variants of SARS-CoV-2. The authors designed in the protocol vaccination status before testing as well as possible confounding factors in both cases and controls as well.
As described in Clinicaltrials.gov, the study the test-negative design study was designed to estimate the real-world effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and its consequences among children aged 5 to 11 years in the city of Toledo in Southern Brazil.
The Toledo investigators enrolled persons aged 5 to 11 years accessing the public healthcare system with symptoms suggestive COVID-19. The cases were followed-up for a period of 3 months by means of structured telephone interview.
Findings
The Toledo study team was able to meet its study plan enrollment target of 757 children/patients and out of that total number, 461 (25 cases; 436 controls) were included in the primary analysis.
The average age of the study participant was 7.4 years with 49.7% female and 34.6% classified as obese and finally 14.1% of the participants identified with chronic pulmonary disease.
Not surprisingly, by the time of this study, Omicron made up 100% of all identified SARS-CoV-2 variants with BA.5, BQ.1, and XBB.1 accounting for 35.7%, 21.4% and 21.4%, respectively.
The adjusted estimate of two-dose vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Omicron was 3.1% (95% CI, -133.7% to 61.8%) after a median time between the second dose and the beginning of COVID-19 symptoms of 192.5 days (interquartile range, 99 to 242 days).
Analysis
This is an important study given the dearth of data associated with COVID-19 vaccination and real-world effectiveness, especially against the mutating Omicron variant in young people across low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many LMICs do not have the financial wherewithal to continuously deliver expensive, cumbersome to deliver (refrigeration, etc.) expensive mRNA vaccines.
So, as will often be the case in the real world, the first delivered vaccine in LMICs (in this case Brazil) was put to the test via this study to determine effectiveness against symptomatic Omicron infection in the age 5–11-year cohort. We note that Omicron generally has been considerably milder in effect in both adults and children. With delta, while rare, multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) in children emerged, yet studies reviewed by TrialSite during Omicron found this condition extremely rare.
The reality behind the vaccine effectiveness’s numbers from the Toledo study raises profound questions about vaccine policy during a pandemic, especially in LMICs which represent as high as 80-85% of the world’s population!
What defines an LMIC? The World Bank defines countries into income groups based on gross national income per capita in US dollars. In 2022, the World Bank categorized countries as low-income if their income was US\$1045 or less, and upper-middle-income if it was US\$4096–US\$12 695. This classification placed 137 countries in the LMIC category, which is 63% of the world's countries.
The two-dose primary series use of the first released Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine according to the authors “was not associated with a significant protection against symptomatic Omicron infection after a median time between the second dose and the beginning of COVID-19 symptoms of 192 days.”
Of course, limitations must be factored into this study, given the low number of cases, which by itself raises questions of why there was so much pressure put on by governments to vaccinate all children. Given the numbers the risk of an underpowered study is real.
The first pivotal Pfizer clinical trial testing BNT162b2 led to almost 95% relative risk reduction and under 1% absolute risk reduction as reported by TrialSite early on. See an opinion piece by TrialSite founder Daniel O’Connor on the topic for some perspective.
No doubt the vaccine became ineffective at delivering any protection due to the combination of virus mutation and vaccine duration. And regardless of other limitations the pragmatic policy implications scream for attention. Will anyone listen?
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/pfizer-vaccine-fails-brazil-based-childrens-study-no-protection-against-symptomatic-covid-19-grim-implications-for-low-and-middle-income-countries-9f23b9d8
*************************************************
Australian centrist politician Signs Letter Asking PM to Expand COVID-19 Vaccine Compensation Scheme
“Teal” MP Monique Ryan has signed a letter calling for an urgent review and extension of the COVID-19 Vaccine Compensation Claims Scheme.
The letter, addressed to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, raises concerns about the scheme’s proposed end date of Sept. 30, 2024.
“While the Australian government indemnifies vaccine manufacturers and continues to promote the take up of boosters, it makes no sense for the ’safety net' of the scheme to be removed,” the letter states.
The document was also signed by United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet, Nationals Senator Matt Canavan, Liberal Senators Gerard Rennick and Alex Antic, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, and former Liberal turned independent MP Russell Broadbent.
The letter raises concerns the scheme’s “narrow scope of eligibility” means the majority of vaccine-injured Australians are unable to access support.
“It has been designed in a manner which makes it near impossible for applicants to access fair compensation for their injuries,” the letter states.
“The very system designed to support the vaccine injured is creating insurmountable barriers which are near impossible to overcome—further exacerbating their suffering and distress.”
Copies of the call to action were also sent to Health Minister Mark Butler and Government Services Minister Bill Shorten.
“We implore you to heed the advice of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, which recommended that the government review the scheme and consider the merits of a national no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme,” the letter states.
“As such, we urge you to extend the COVID-19 Vaccine Compensation Scheme, expand its eligibility criteria, and ensure that those Australians who have been injured can access the support they need.”
Compensation for Moderate to Severe Vaccine ‘Adverse Events’
The COVID-19 vaccine scheme enables individuals to claim compensation for moderate to severe vaccine-related adverse events.
The scheme covers vaccines approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), including the AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax jabs.
Australian government agency Services Australia administers the scheme on behalf of the Department of Health and Aged Care.
In December 2023, the Australian government extended the closing date of the scheme to Sept. 30, 2024.
To make a compensation claim, individuals need to meet the definition of harm, be admitted to the hospital as an inpatient, or have a waiver if seen in outpatient care.
Also, those who suffered harm need to have experienced losses or expenses of more than $1,000 due to the vaccine.
The conditions included range from anaphylactic reaction to erythema multiforme (major), myocarditis, pericarditis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
Also included are shoulder injuries from the vaccine or other moderate to significant physical injuries that caused permanent impairment or need an extended period of medical treatment.
“In both cases, the injuries must have been sustained during the physical act of being given the vaccine. You must also have been admitted to hospital as an in-patient,” Services Australia explains.
“Presenting to an emergency department is not recognised as being admitted to hospital.”
Services Australia adds the following “harm” isn’t covered under the scheme—contracting COVID-19, psychological and psychiatric conditions and secondary injuries.
“For example, an injury suffered when fainting, or a haematoma where you were injected that becomes infected,” the government agency explains.
Other side effects not accepted include headache, nausea or vomiting, lethargy, hyperhidrosis, chills, decreased appetite, malaise, lymphadenopathy, urticaria or rash, pruritus, somnolence and abdominal pain,
Services Australia told The Epoch Times in May it had received 4,191 claims and paid 286 claims worth around $20.5 million.
The 2024-25 federal budget allocates $490 million over four years to continue the national COVID-19 vaccine program.
Within the budget (pdf), $6.9 million has been allocated to Services Australia to support “ongoing access to vaccines” in 2024-25, but this has been reduced to $3.3 million in 2025-26.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/teal-mp-signs-letter-asking-pm-to-expand-covid-19-vaccine-compensation-scheme-5695615?ea_src=au-frontpage&&ea_med=top-news-australia-top-news-5
**********************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
30 July, 2024
Court Rules EU Commission Hid Vax Contract Details From Public
The EU’s top court today ruled that the European Commission’s decision to heavily redact key portions of COVID-19 vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic violated the commission’s transparency obligations
The European Court of Justice found that the commission failed to provide sufficient public access to COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreements, in a ruling that could deal a blow to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the eve of her re-election bid, according to The Associated Press.
The ruling came in response to legal challenges brought by EU lawmakers and private citizens seeking fuller disclosure of the multibillion-euro vaccine deals.
It highlights ongoing concerns about the secrecy surrounding the EU’s vaccine procurement process, a contentious issue since the early days of the pandemic.
“The Commission did not give the public wide enough access to the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines,” the court said in its judgment, pointing to several areas where the executive body fell short in being sufficiently transparent.
In response to the ruling, the commission wrote, “The Commission needed to strike a difficult balance between the right of the public, including MEPs [Members of the European Parliament], to information, and the legal requirements emanating from the COVID-19 contracts themselves, which could result in claims for damages at the cost of taxpayers’ money.”
‘Green’ MEP Tilly Metz, one of the deputies who submitted the original request, said, “This ruling is significant for the future, as the EU Commission is expected to undertake more joint procurements in areas like health and potentially defence,” Euractiv reported.
“The new European Commission will have to adapt their handling of access to documents requests to be in line with today’s ruling,” Metz said.
However, Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender that the court ruling is not the victory it seems. She argued that the EU court has given the commission a “giant loophole” to keep parts of the contracts secret “to protect ‘business interests.’”
“It is not possible to both protect public health and full transparency and at the same time protect the business interests of the supplier,” Terhorst said. “We, the public, will not get the access to the information we need. The cat and mouse play continues.”
The commission, which has two months to appeal the decision, said it would “carefully study the Court’s judgments and their implications” and that it “reserves its legal options.”
Scale and speed of purchases unprecedented
In 2020 and 2021, von der Leyen negotiated purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines with several pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, according to the AP.
EU member states mandated the European Commission organize the joint procurement of vaccines and lead negotiations with manufacturers.
The scale and speed of these purchases were unprecedented. According to the court, approximately 2.7 billion euros ($2.95 billion) was quickly mobilized to place firm orders for more than one billion doses of vaccines.
This joint procurement approach allowed for the rapid acquisition of vaccines for all 27 EU member states.
Initially, von der Leyen received praise for her leadership during the COVID-19 crisis, particularly for her role in securing collective vaccine access for EU citizens. However, the spotlight quickly shifted to concerns about the negotiations’ lack of transparency.
In 2021, several members of the European Parliament requested full details of the agreements. The commission, citing confidentiality reasons, agreed to provide only partial access to certain contracts and documents, which were placed online in redacted versions.
The commission also refused to disclose how much it paid for the billions of doses it secured.
Concerns over secret deals with Pfizer
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla twice in 2022 refused to testify before the European Parliament’s special committee on COVID-19. Bourla was expected to face tough questions about secretive vaccine deals and negotiations between Pfizer and the European Commission.
Of particular interest were text messages between Bourla and von der Leyen that preceded a multibillion-euro vaccine contract. In January 2023, The New York Times sued the European Commission over its failure to release the messages.
That suit followed a January 2022 inquiry by the EU ombudsman charging the commission with maladministration over its handling of a previous request for the messages.
In June, a Belgian court took up the issue of the secret negotiations between Bourla and von der Leyen, with a former lobbyist for the EU Parliament claiming “destruction of public documents” and alleging von der Leyen violated the commission’s code of conduct.
Commission officials argued the messages didn’t contain any important information and have thus far refused to provide them, according to the AP.
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in 2022 opened an investigation into the acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines in the EU during the pandemic. This investigation stems from a criminal complaint filed by an individual, with the governments of Hungary and Poland later joining the lawsuit, euronews reported. EPPO adjourned the case until December.
Implications for the European Commission and von der Leyen
The court’s ruling comes at a critical time for von der Leyen, just one day before the European Parliament is set to vote on her reappointment as commission president.
Von der Leyen had previously won backing from a majority of EU leaders in June. To secure her position, she now needs to garner support from at least 361 MEPs in the 720-seat European Parliament, WIONews reported.
This ruling presents a dilemma for the ‘Greens’, who initiated the legal challenge against the commission’s redactions. In recent days, von der Leyen has been courting the ‘Greens’ to shore up support for her nomination ahead of the vote.
During a press conference in Strasbourg on Wednesday, Manon Aubry, a French MEP from the Left group, expressed strong concerns about the European Commission’s “lack of transparency.”
On the heels of the EU court ruling, German MEP Christine Anderson today said she would call for the removal of von der Leyen and the continuation of the criminal investigation of her actions.
https://principia-scientific.com/court-rules-eu-commission-hid-vax-contract-details-from-public/
****************************************************
Large Korean Study Backs Monitoring mRNA Vax Patients for Auto-immunity
There is great concern that with continued dosing of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the human body is forced to produce not only the foreign and potentially lethal Wuhan Spike protein, but probably about a dozen additional frameshifted proteins as shown by Boros and colleagues.
Invariably these peptides induce an immune attack against the human body as they are expressed on cell surfaces and in some cases like Spike protein, trimerize and are circulatory in blood for months after injection.
In clinical practice my screen for autoimmunity is through blood testing: ANA, rheumatoid factor, and anti-citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies. If there are skin, kidney, or vasculitic features, I add the ANCA test.
Now a large study from Korea by Jung et al, suggests there are increased risks for some autoimmune illnesses after at least two mRNA shots, but not nearly as high as the established dangers of vaccine myo-pericarditis or Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
“In this nationwide, population-based cohort study involving 9,258,803 individuals, we aim to determine whether the incidence of AI-CTDs is associated with mRNA vaccination.
The study spans over 1 year of observation and further analyses the risk of AI-CTDs by stratifying demographics and vaccination profiles and treating booster vaccination as time-varying covariate. We report that the risk of developing most AI-CTDs did not increase following mRNA vaccination, except for systemic lupus erythematosus with a 1.16-fold risk in vaccinated individuals relative to controls.
Comparable results were reported in the stratified analyses for age, sex, mRNA vaccine type, and prior history of non-mRNA vaccination. However, a booster vaccination was associated with an increased risk of some AI-CTDs including alopecia areata, psoriasis, and rheumatoid arthritis.
Overall, we conclude that mRNA-based vaccinations are not associated with an increased risk of most AI-CTDs, although further research is needed regarding its potential association with certain conditions.”
Because these diagnoses are based on laboratory tests, Jung and coworkers may have underestimated incidence since not all vaccinated patients get laboratory monitoring in follow-up.
Jung concluded: “long-term monitoring is necessary after mRNA vaccination for the development of autoimmune connective tissue diseases.” These data suggest however, I could reduce the intensity of screening for auto-immunity and make it more clinically directed based upon symptoms.
When auto-immunity is found, the most common drug I use in my practice is hydroxychloroquine. However, I have had advanced cases that have required methotrexate, prednisone, and even rituximab. Media star Megyn Kelly serves as an example of this very real vaccine hazard.
https://principia-scientific.com/large-korean-study-recommends-monitoring-mrna-vaccinated-patients-for-auto-immunity/
**********************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
29 July, 2024
COVID effect to cause 'excess' deaths for years to come
Death rates in Australia could be impacted for years by the lingering effects of COVID-19. (Steven Saphore/AAP PHOTOS)
Australia could continue to feel the tail effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for years as more people die because of the virus and its impacts.
Some 8400 more people died in 2023 than would have been expected under pre-pandemic conditions, an Actuaries Institute report, released on Monday, found.
The figure was down from the 20,000 "excess" deaths recorded in 2022.
Of the extra deaths logged in 2023, 4600 were directly because of COVID-19 while another 1500 were linked to the virus.
The institute's mortality working group said the substantial drop in excess deaths between the two years had not prevented the 2023 rate sitting higher than it had during bad flu years before the pandemic.
"We think COVID-19 is likely to cause some excess mortality for several years to come, either as a direct cause of death or a contributing factor to other causes such as heart disease," actuary Karen Cutter said.
"In our view, the 'new normal' level of mortality is likely to be higher than it would have been if we hadn't had the pandemic."
A higher death rate could remain as things such as vaccination rates and jabs' efficacy continued to be managed, Australian National University epidemiology lecturer Rezanur Rahaman said.
"It could be said that the excess deaths will continue for some time as it is a highly contagious respiratory pathogen that will not die out anytime soon," he told AAP.
But University of Technology Sydney bio-statistics professor Andrew Hayen noted the report found the age-standardised death rate in 2023 was almost the same as in 2019.
"We've already witnessed a considerable decline in excess deaths as measured by the Actuaries Institute (and) we are likely to see a continued decline in mortality, particularly due to COVID," he said.
It was difficult to attribute deaths specifically to post-COVID effects, rather than reduced health care during the pandemic, Professor Hayen said.
"Many of the deaths in 2022 were probably due to mortality displacement and there may also be issues relating to pressures on emergency services and delays in standard care, like elective surgery rates," he said.
"However, it's not possible to attribute exactly what proportion is attributable to putative causes."
Comparing Australia's experience with 40 other countries, the actuaries' report found the local excess death rate of five per cent between 2020 and 2023 was low by global standards, which averaged 11 per cent.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8710518/covid-effect-to-cause-excess-deaths-for-years-to-come/
*********************************************************
Pentagon went all-out to discredit Chinese vaccine
Finally, a serious academic from globally known university has issued a statement on the what TrialSite has labeled the largest anti-vax operation worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic: the U.S. Department of Defense, Pentagon operation to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in the Philippines and other Middle Eastern countries to ensure COVID-19 Chinese vaccines were not embraced.
TrialSite also suggests the U.S. government used this elite psychological unit based in Tampa to clear the market space for American-based vaccine sales. Salvador Santino F. Regilme Jr, a tenured Associate Professor at Leiden University International Relations at the History and International Studies Section, Institute for History in the Netherlands was actually born in the Philippines and educated in Germany. Just published days ago in the Journal of Public Health is his “International Relations in public health: the Pentagon’s anti-vax campaign during COVID-19 pandemic.”
TrialSite has asked, “Where is the mainstream media” on this scandal dug up by Reuters? In fact, where is the so-called medical freedom movement who don’t seem to care about this news.
Professor Regilme points to growing dismay involving how “natural hazards and armed conflict intertwine” and along the way shape public health vulnerabilities. The Reuters piece most certainly raised attention, particularly from someone with roots in the Philippines.
Acknowledging that geostrategic interests insert with local health crisis in complex manners, Professor Regilme introduces the U.S. military’s “secret campaign to counter China’s influence in the Philippines” via the spreading of what is actually disinformation about Chinese vaccines plus other countermeasures (e.g. masks etc.).
Describing what TrialSite has already reported multiple times (probably more than any other media out there), Regilme summarizes the details of the operation, which don’t need to repeat.
With an aim of attacking China’s credibility and influence in the Southeast Asia region just as a deadly pandemic was spreading, he notes the U.S. diplomatic objections, undoubtedly futile attempts at common sense rationality.
The Leiden University professor also adds that the operation targeted Russian vaccines, which ironically TrialSite also raised concerns about via our reporting. The Philippine media was in touch with TrialSite and a government contact at one point which was covered in PhilStar, a Philippines media.
In the article titled “US Trials Watchdog: Philippines be Cautious trying out Sputnik V Vaccine” dated August 2020 the media cites TrialSite News specifically as a source of intelligence. But the concern was not statecraft—rather it was the shocking way the Russians cut corners to be the ‘First” to authorize a COVID-19 vaccine.
Of course, mounting tension between America’s interests and then-president strongman Rodrigo Duterte didn’t help matters. Under Duterte the foreign policy tone shifted away from America, a traditional ally since she seized the lands during the Spanish-American war in 1898. Russia and China were getting closer and units within the DoD sought to do something about it, pandemic or not. TrialSite has reported on a military-focused media that was able to elicit more information from a spokesperson who expressed no remorse about the operation--just business as usual in the information war against China.
But is this for public health branding:
“The Pentagon’s secret anti-vax campaign, which spreads false information about Chinese vaccines, reveals systemic hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy.”
Contrary to the very public advocacy the U.S. government embraced and promoted under both Trump and Biden regimes, especially the latter’s importance placed on health and vaccine equity, the Pentagon effort further undermines any U.S. federal effort to “combat misinformation and support international health initiative.”
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/leiden-university-professor-calls-out-u.s.-foreign-health-policy-hypocrisy-the-worlds-top-anti-vaxxer-was-the-pentagon-4778eea4
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
28 July, 2024
Covid curbs such school closures and stay-at-home orders did more harm than good, major US study finds
Some restrictions designed to limit the spread of Covid caused more harm than good, a major study suggests.
The research found shutting schools down had little effect on virus death rates in the US but 'hurt' children's 'educational outcomes.'
Meanwhile, stay-at-home orders, restaurant, bar and gym closures and visitor restrictions in nursing homes did nothing to save lives and caused 'harmful social isolation.'
'The absence of evidence that these [curbs] ...reduced pandemic deaths suggests that they may have been too aggressively pursued in some states,' the study said.
The analysis did, however, find controversial measures like mask mandates and vaccine passports saved hundreds of thousands of lives across the US.
It comes weeks after Dr Anthony Fauci, who was instrumental in several of the anti-Covid measures, admitted many were not based on any firm science.
The new analysis, from researchers at the University of Virginia, looked at mortality and population data from the CDC in all 50 states for 2020 to 2022.
The results were compared to data for 2017 to 2019.
During those two years of the pandemic, there were 1.2million excess deaths, or fatalities of any cause that were above average.
Many of these excess would have been Covid itself.
But previous research has shown that harms associated with lockdowns also accounted for excess deaths, such as missed cancers, heart attacks, delayed hospital treatment and suicides.
The study found states that imposed the strictest and longest restrictions, such as New York and swathes of the North East, experienced lower death rates.
For example, the 10 states with the toughest curbs had an excess death rate of 282 per 100,000 over the 2-year period.
That was a third lower than the 417 per 100,000 estimated for the 10 states that imposed the 'weakest' restrictions, many of which were Republican-led and in the South.
The analysis estimated that if all 50 states had imposed the toughest level of restrictions then there would have been up to 250,000 fewer excess deaths.
Whereas there would have been up to 447,000 more deaths if all states had refused to implement vaccine passports and mask mandates.
However, the study highlights that many social factors were at play.
People in southern states that suffered large excess deaths were more likely to work labor jobs and other blue collar work, meaning they did not have the luxury of working from home and avoiding others.
These states are also more likely to have high levels of obesity and diabetes, which raise the risk of dying from Covid. They also have fewer hospitals and doctors.
The study estimated that behavioral changes, such as working from home, avoiding crowded places and getting vaccinated accounted for between 50 and 75 percent of the reduction in deaths.
The positive association between masks and lower death rates conflicts with other major studies that found they made little difference on Covid's spread.
The research around Covid vaccination is stronger. Those who were vaccinated were much less likely to die from the virus, especially among seniors.
The study conceded that some Covid restrictions caused long-term harm that we don't know the full extent of yet.
'Prior research indicates that school closings hurt educational outcomes,' wrote economics professor Christopher Ruhm, from the University of Virginia, the sole author of the paper.
'The absence of evidence that these also reduced pandemic deaths suggests that they may have been too aggressively pursued in some states.
'On the other hand, school mask mandates were probably more effective and imposed lower costs [to the government].
'Similarly, the social isolation experienced by nursing home residents was harmful, raising questions about activity limitations that restricted personal interactions for this group.'
The study was published Friday in JAMA Health Forum.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13676727/covid-school-closures-isolation-harm-study.html
**************************************************
COVID left Australians poorer, sicker and with a big financial headache, inquiry told
COVID-19 has left Australians with poorer physical and mental health, helped fuel inflation because of too many government handouts and encouraged people into the black economy, the first wide-ranging inquiry into the pandemic has heard.
Businesses, unions, health experts and the education sector have told the inquiry, due to report in weeks, that Australia needs to prepare for future pandemics to avoid repeating mistakes made across all levels of government that are still being felt in some parts of the nation.
The inquiry, promised by Anthony Albanese ahead of the 2022 federal election, is being headed by former senior public servant Robyn Kruk plus economist Angela Jackson and infectious diseases expert Professor Catherine Bennett.
Established last year, the 12-month inquiry is due to report by September. It has been given a wide remit to look at joint Commonwealth-state actions, although its terms of reference preclude examining unilateral actions taken by states and territories or international programs.
Across a series of roundtables, the inquiry has been told of major shortcomings with elements of the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19 and the long-term problems these have caused.
Health experts said border closures had a “significant” impact on healthcare provision, particularly in rural, remote and border communities, arguing health workers should be exempt from such restrictions.
Australia’s average age fell last year while the country experienced a record number of deaths in 2022.
Chronic disease monitoring and cancer screening were disrupted, the sector said, noting a nationally co-ordinated effort was now required to clear the backlog of tests.
“People are currently waiting longer for care than before the pandemic, are often sicker and [are] finding it less affordable,” the sector said.
Experts said the mental health system was in crisis before the pandemic, and COVID-19 had exacerbated problems that had only worsened since.
Anthony Albanese announces inquiry into COVID-19 pandemic
An inquiry into how Australia dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic has been announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
“Australian communities are experiencing a process of rolling recoveries from one emergency to the next (extreme weather events and the pandemic), with resulting cumulative trauma,” they told the inquiry.
“More emphasis is needed on community resilience and on strengthening the system ahead of the next emergency.”
Economists from academia and the private sector said original government spending was important in supporting households and businesses, but the speed at which it was rolled out meant “compromises” in policy design that should be avoided in future pandemics.
However, the ongoing financial support proved too much for the economy, they said.
“The scale of the initial fiscal and monetary support was likely warranted during a period of uncertainty. However, the winding back of these measures as the pandemic progressed was too slow,” they said.
The small business sector said differences in public health orders between the states and territories caused significant problems for many companies.
This, coupled with confusion over the definition of essential services and essential workers, encouraged some businesses to participate in the black economy.
“The lack of clarity and consistency around important definitions and public health orders resulted in an increase in the number of sole traders operating in the cash economy in some sectors, such as hairdressing,” it told the inquiry.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/covid-left-us-poorer-sicker-and-with-a-big-financial-headache-inquiry-told-20240725-p5jwer.html
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Jul 25th 2024
Navy SEALs fired for refusing COVID vaccine for religious reasons score major win against Biden administration
Thousands of Navy SEALs and service members negatively impacted by President Joe Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate scored a major win in court after a years-long legal battle.
The mandate enacted in August 2021 led to the forced firing of over 8,000 service members who refused the shot on religious or medical grounds.
Navy SEALs and other special operators suffered professional setbacks for refusing the vaccine, despite having their religious accommodation requests denied multiple times.
They were fired, denied trainings to advance in rank and, in some cases, even forced by the military to repay their initial signing bonuses between $4,000 and $7,000.
SEALs and other special operations warfare troops were also told they would have to pay back the cost of their training by the federal government - hundreds of thousands of dollars - and hand over their hard-earned 'Trident' pin.
According to the settlement first obtained by DailyMail.com, service members who quit the Navy after being 'mistreated' will have their records corrected.
In addition, the Navy also 'agreed to post a statement affirming the Navy's respect for religious service members.'
The military will provide 'more training' for the actual commanders who review religious accommodation requests as well as change their policy.
Lastly, the government will pay $1.5 million in attorneys' fees that accumulated over nearly four years of litigation.
'This has been a long and difficult journey, but the Navy SEALs never gave up,' Danielle Runyan, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute told DailyMail.com.
'We are thrilled that those members of the Navy who were guided by their conscience and steadfast in their faith will not be penalized in their Navy careers.'
First Liberty and Hacker Stephens LLP secured the settlement on behalf of the troops that was accepted by the United States District Court Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division on Wednesday.
Heather Gebelin Hacker added that it is a 'hard-fought but significant victory.'
A spokesperson for the Navy referred DailyMail.com to the Department of Justice for comment which did not immediately respond.
Earlier this year, over 200 active duty and retired service members vowed to hold the Biden administration accountable for 'trampling' on their rights by enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Over 200 service members declared that they will do 'everything' in their power to get accountability since not a single leader has resigned or been held to account despite the rollback of the vaccine mandate last year.
In a letter obtained by DailyMail.com, the current and former troops accuse Biden's military brass of 'continuing to ignore' their pleas to correct the 'injuries and laws that were broken.'
They are threatening to even force Biden's top leaders to be brought out of retirement so they can be court-martialed and held to account.
'While implementing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, military leaders broke the law, trampled constitutional rights, denied informed consent, permitted unwilling medical experimentation, and suppressed the free exercise of religion,' the letter states.
It goes on to say both service members and their families were 'significantly harmed' and their 'suffering continues to be felt financially, emotionally, and physically.'
'Some service members became part of our ever-growing veteran homeless population, some developed debilitating vaccine injuries, and some even lost their lives,' the letter continues.
The mandate was eventually rescinded in the December 2022 defense authorization bill, but it did not reinstate service members who were fired for not receiving the shot nor provide any other compensation.
In the open letter, they explicitly name now-retired and still serving top commanders that they are demanding accountability from.
Those include the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley who exited the military in October and Gen. James McConville who served as the 40th chief of staff of the Army until 2023.
'These individuals enabled lawlessness and the unwilling experimentation on service members,' they state.
'The moral and physical injuries they helped inflict are significant. They betrayed the trust of service members and the American people. Their actions caused irreparable harm to the Armed Forces and the institutions for which we have fought and bled.'
They have 'refused to resign' or take any accountability for their actions, the service members state.
The letter goes on to mutually pledge to hold them to account through 'lawful word and action.'
The Army recently was under scrutiny for attempting to win back favor with soldiers who were fired after declining the COVID-19 vaccine for religious or medical reasons, offering a 'correction of military records.'
But the letter sparked an outcry of fury at the Defense Department by lawmakers and current and former service members who said there was always a process in place to do just that.
Since the mandate, Army has also faced a huge shortage of recruits in fiscal year 2022 at 55,000 - which was 10,000 short of its target for the year.
Congress is also working to further remedy the wrongs that these service members faced, but many soldiers have told DailyMail.com that it is just the start.
In the most recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed a year later in December 2023, there is a provision allowing former service members who were fired to change their discharge status.
But some current and former troops are saying that the amendments in the FY 2024 NDAA are not strong enough to undo the 'serious harassment' they endured over the last two years.
John Frankman, who was in the Special Forces as part of the Green Berets, said that the 'missed career opportunities' he endured over the last two years could never be undone by any action of Congress.
Another active-duty Army officer previously told DailyMail.com that the fired troops have had 'their lives turned upside down and were betrayed by those charged with protecting them.'
And a formal apology from their service branches would be key to be able to have trust restored, he added.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13668593/navy-seals-covid-vaccine-religious-biden-administration-settlement.html
******************************************************
Large % of Brazilian Patients Struggle with Long COVID
This observational, prospective plus follow-up study was performed with a cohort of adults and older adults diagnosed with COVID-19 in 2020 in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Patients were included at twelve months after hospital discharge, plus answered a phone questionnaire about the persistence of symptoms after three levels of exposure to COVID-19’s acute phase (ambulatory, medical ward, and intensive care unit).
Findings
Collecting and analyzing participant characteristics, the researchers calculated the prevalence of Long COVID-19 with use of logistic regression analyses. The investigators were able to analyze data from 1822 participants (980 adults [?18–<60 years] and 842 older people [?60 years]) across three exposure levels.
In a surprising finding, incidence of Long COVID equaled 64.2%. Moreover, Salci and colleagues report, “Long COVID was observed in 646 adults (55%; of which 326 were women) and 523 older people (45%; of which 284 were women).”
Concurring with some other study findings, females experienced greater incidence of long-term symptoms (52%) compared with men.
Interestingly, when it comes to musculoskeletal symptoms, long COVID afflicts males more (aOR = 0.50). Other determinants were also considered risky, such as the presence of comorbidities (aOR = 1.41).
TrialSite can confirm multiple studies showing those individuals with more acute cases of COVID-19, that were hospitalized are associated with the development of Long COVID and this Brazilian study reaffirms this unfolding evidence.
Further heightening the risk at least for the Brazil cohort, the risk of developing Long COVID was twice as high for forward patients (aOR = 2.53) and three times as high for ICU patients (aOR = 3.56) when compared to non-hospitalized patients.
Those patients presenting digestive (aOR = 1.56), endocrine (aOR = 2.14), cutaneous (aOR = 2.51), musculoskeletal (aOR = 2.76) and psychological systems (aOR = 1.66) clinical manifestations have a greater chance of developing Long COVID.
Overall, as the outcomes show herein “Long COVID was present in a large proportion of people affected by the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Presence of Long COVID symptoms displayed a dose–response relationship with the level of disease exposure, with a greater prevalence of symptoms associated with the severe form in the acute period.”
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-of-brazilian-patients-struggle-with-long-covid-cohort-study-d7118fc6
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
24 July, 2024
Newsom Continues Dreadful COVID-19 Crackdown: Reality dysphoria mounts across the Golden State
On March 3, 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency, “deploying every level of government to help identify cases and slow the spread of this coronavirus.” In April, the governor announced spending of $1 billion on masks from a Chinese company, but the state of emergency was more far reaching.
Newsom backed a ban on sport fishing and police arrested solitary paddle boarders. The governor shut down schools and his rules for private gatherings banned singing and the playing of musical instruments. And so on, by some accounts, the most rigid regime of any state.
Newsom officially ended the state of emergency on Feb. 23, 2023, but the people have grounds to wonder. Newsom now deploys a SMARTER Plan not just for COVID-19 but “strategies and systems for future emergencies.” SMARTER stands for Shots, Masks, Awareness, Readiness, Testing, Education and Rx. As Katy Grimes of the California Globe noticed, Newsom was simply extending his previous COVID protocols.
According to the SMARTER plan, “Vaccines are the most powerful weapon against hospitalization and serious illness.” This ignores the reality that the COVID-19 vaccines backed by the CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci failed to prevent infection and transmission of COVID-19. Though fully vaccinated and boosted, both Dr. Fauci and Joe Biden tested positive.
“Properly worn masks with good filtration help slow the spread of COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses,” the SMARTER plan proclaims. As Californians may recall, Dr. Fauci said there was no need to wear a mask before claiming that masks were necessary, and that it was “common sense” to wear two masks. The guidelines ignore studies making a case that the masks don’t work.
“COVID-19 IS not going away,” the SMARTER plan proclaims, and “we will continue to stay aware of how COVID-19 is spreading, evolving variants.” According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, the variant JN.1 is “closely related to the variant BA.2.86” and JN.1 has “only a single change” in the spike protein with BA.2.86. That variant is a “grandchild of Omicron,” according to Dr. William Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and “about the same,” in infectiousness and transmissibility.
There is very little difference between the variants, but the CDC gives them menacing tags like “Pirola,” for JN.1. SMARTER takes no notice of these realities, and Californians have other reasons to ignore the governor’s plan.
In November of 2020, during the state of emergency, Newsom and a squad of lobbyists partied sans mask at the upscale French Laundry. He kept details of the $1 billion Chinese mask deal secret, even from fellow Democrats, and many Californians wonder where the money went. Newsom ordered many wineries to cease indoor operations but his own PlumpJack operation remained open.
Newsom claims that California’s COVID-19 death rate was the nation’s lowest, that the state GDP grew faster than U.S. GDP between 2019 and 2022, that California students experienced less learning loss than the rest of the nation, and so forth. As Grimes explains, this excludes the 50 percent of all California restaurants forced to close by the lockdown, the ongoing labor shortage, and the students who lost one year of learning due to Newsom’s school closures. For Grimes, the bogus statistics are intended to bolster Newsom’s “senseless three years of emergency powers,” and they should come as no surprise.
In his recent state of the state address, Newsom claimed “California is not a high-tax state.” As UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian notes, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation “identifies California as a very high-tax state,” with the highest tax collections per person among all states.
California collects $7,200 per person per year in state tax revenue, some 65 percent more than the national average of $4,375. And as taxpayers might note, Newsom recently teamed with former Jerry Brown to have the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act taken off the November ballot, for which it had already qualified.
COVID-19 rules aside, Newsom seems to be suffering from reality dysphoria. A healthy intake of economic and medical reality will prevent this ailment from spreading to other states.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14997&omhide=true&trk=title
*************************************************
The IRS and the Scale of Fraud during the Pandemic
The scale of fraud against U.S. taxpayers during the coronavirus pandemic amounts to billions, possibly even trillions of dollars. Count the Internal Revenue Service among the government agencies that enabled the frauds that were perpetrated. The numbers aren’t small, as Reason’s J.D. Tucille reports:
You can add the Internal Revenue Service to the ranks of federal agencies conceding that raining taxpayer money on all and sundry to offset the negative effects of pandemic-era closures didn’t go as well as intended. Not only was a program meant to offset the cost of paying workers during lockdowns and voluntary social-distancing prone to being gamed, but the “vast majority” of claims submitted to the program show evidence of being fraudulent.
In the course of a detailed review of the Employee Retention Credit, “the IRS identified between 10% and 20% of claims fall into what the agency has determined to be the highest-risk group, which show clear signs of being erroneous claims for the pandemic-era credit,” the IRS announced June 20. “In addition to this highest risk group, the IRS analysis also estimates between 60% and 70% of the claims show an unacceptable level of risk.”
The Employee Retention Credit was offered to businesses that were shut down by government COVID-19 orders in 2020 or the first three quarters of 2021, experienced a required decline in gross receipts during that period, or qualified as a recovery startup business at the end of 2021. But it was clear early on that scammers were taking advantage of giveaways of taxpayer money, either to claim it for themselves or to pose as middlemen helping unwitting business owners file claims.
In March of 2023, the tax agency warned of “blatant attempts by promoters to con ineligible people to claim the credit.” In September of that year, it stopped processing claims amidst growing evidence that vast numbers of applications were “improper,” as the IRS delicately puts it. In March 2024, the agency announced that its Voluntary Disclosure Program had recovered $1 billion (since raised to over $2 billion) in improper payouts from participants who got to keep 20 percent of the take.
As of September 23, 2023, the IRS had processed 3.5 million claims and paid $230 billion to those who filed for the benefit.
If only 60% of those claims were fraudulent, the lower end of the latest estimate, the fraud enabled by the IRS would have cost U.S. taxpayers $138 billion.
That’s more than the $127 billion the U.S. government spent on the Department of Transportation and all its infrastructure projects in 2023. However, the IRS can’t point to any highways, seaports, or airports to show for having sent out even more money without adequate oversight.
The IRS has recovered only about 1.5% of that loss.
Just imagine how much better the U.S. government’s fiscal situation would be if it were more serious about recovering the money it lost through the Employee Retention Credit to fraud.
https://blog.independent.org/2024/07/22/the-irs-and-the-scale-of-fraud-during-the-pandemic/
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
23 July, 2024
Breaking: Largest Study of Its Kind Finds Excess Deaths During Pandemic Caused by Public Health Response, Not Virus
A study released today of excess mortality in 125 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic found the major causes of death globally stemmed from public health establishment’s response, including mandates and lockdowns that caused severe stress, harmful medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccines.
A study released today of excess mortality in 125 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic found the major causes of death globally stemmed from public health establishment’s response, including mandates and lockdowns that caused severe stress, harmful medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccines.
“We conclude that nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon,” the authors of the study wrote.
Researchers from the Canadian nonprofit Correlation Research in the Public Interest and the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières analyzed excess all-cause mortality data prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with the March 11, 2020, World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic declaration and ending on May 5, 2023, when the WHO declared the pandemic over.
The results, presented in a detailed 521-page analysis, establish baseline all-cause mortality rates across 125 countries and use those to determine the variations in excess deaths during the pandemic.
The researchers also used the baseline rates to investigate how the individual country variations in excess death rates correlated to different pandemic-related interventions, including vaccination and booster campaigns.
Not all of the results on a country-by-country basis were the same. For example, in some countries, mortality spikes occurred before the vaccines were rolled out, while in other places, the mortality spikes tracked closely with vaccine or booster campaigns.
In some places, excess mortality rates returned to baseline or close to baseline in 2022, while in others, the rates persisted well into 2023. Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., lead author of the study, told The Defender the disparities result from the complex nature of pandemic measures — and the data — in different areas.
Once Rancourt’s team was able to establish the baseline and excess mortality data for each place, they clustered and examined the data through different filters to interpret it, and drew several conclusions.
Data ‘incompatible with a pandemic viral respiratory disease as a primary cause of death’
The researchers established that there was significant excess mortality worldwide between March 11, 2020, and May 5, 2023.
Overall excess mortality during the three years in the 93 countries with sufficient data to make an estimate is approximately 0.392% of the 2021 population — or approximately 30.9 million excess deaths from all causes.
The conventional explanation for the excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, Rancourt said, is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus caused virtually all deaths — and there would have been even more deaths if there hadn’t been a vaccine.
The variations in excess all-cause mortality rates across space and time, the authors wrote, “allow us to conclude that the Covid-period (2020-2023) excess all-cause mortality in the world is incompatible with a pandemic viral respiratory disease as a primary cause of death.”
They said the theory that the virus caused the deaths is propped up by mass virus-testing campaigns that should be abandoned.
‘Idea that vaccines saved lives is ridiculous’
Rancourt and his team cited several factors they believe disprove the theory that the virus caused a spike in all-cause mortality.
For example, they wrote that excess mortality surged almost simultaneously across several continents when a pandemic was declared, while there were no comparable surges in areas that had not yet declared a pandemic.
This suggests that pandemic interventions like lockdowns, which were implemented synchronously across many countries, likely caused the surges.
The researchers also pointed out the significant variation in mortality rates during the pandemic in all time periods, even across different political jurisdictions directly adjacent to each other. If the virus caused the deaths, it would follow that the infection fatality rate would be the same, or at least similar across political boundaries.
The researchers also found a lot of variability in death rates within countries over time, which also would not be an expected outcome if those deaths were caused by a pathogen.
Rancourt said they found “the idea that the vaccine saved lives is ridiculous,” and based on flawed modeling as he and colleagues also showed in a previous paper.
Here again, they found no systematic or statistically significant trends showing that vaccination campaigns in 2020 and 2021 reduced all-cause mortality.
Instead, they found that in many places, there was no excess mortality until the vaccines were rolled out, and most countries showed temporal associations between vaccine rollouts and increases in all-cause mortality.
Medical interventions — including denial of treatment — caused premature deaths
Rancourt said the excess deaths his team identified are strongly associated with the combination of two major factors — the proportion of elderly in a country’s population and the number of people living in poverty. Both factors increased peoples’ vulnerability to “sudden and profound structural societal changes” and “medical assaults.”
While the proximal cause of death may be classified on death certificates as a respiratory condition or infection, the researchers noted, they argue the true primary causes of death are actually biological stress, non-COVID-19-vaccine medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccination rollouts.
The study provides an overview of plausible mechanisms for this hypothesis, including research showing that some people experienced severe biological stress from measures like mandates and lockdowns.
“If you structurally change the society by preventing people from moving, breathing, working, having their lives, having to stay at home, lock them in. If you do all these incredibly huge changes, structural changes in society, that is going to induce biological stress,” Rancourt told The Defender.
“There’s very compelling scientific evidence that biological stress is a massive killer,” he added.
Rancourt also pointed out that the stress of lockdowns affected poor people quite differently than it did people who could easily work from home, have food delivered and live relatively comfortably.
The authors also pointed to extensive evidence showing that medical interventions — including denial of treatment — caused premature deaths.
Such interventions included but were not limited to the denial of antibiotics and ivermectin against bacterial pneumonia, the systematic use of mechanical ventilators, experimental treatment protocols, new palliative medications and overdoses, isolation of vulnerable people and encouraged voluntary or involuntary suicide.
The March-April 2020 COVID-19 peak they identified in several countries is difficult to explain without such medical interventions, they wrote.
17 million excess deaths tied to COVID vaccines
Finally, the researchers projected that 17 million of the excess deaths they identified were associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, confirming the findings of their previous research on a smaller sample of countries.
Those vaccine-related estimations were based on analyses of places that had large spikes immediately following vaccination or booster campaigns and also by examining the numbers of vaccine doses and their relation to deaths over time.
Thirty percent of the countries they analyzed had no excess deaths until either the vaccine rollouts or the booster campaigns. And there were significant correlations between COVID-19 vaccine rollouts and peaks or increases in excess all-cause mortality. Ninety-seven percent of countries showed a late-2021 or early-2022 peak in excess all-cause mortality temporally associated with booster rollouts.
It is highly unlikely, the researchers wrote, that the vaccine-mortality associations are coincidental.
Rancourt noticed that people critical of this idea point to the fact that in some places, there are sometimes campaigns or booster campaigns that aren’t associated with spikes in excess mortality.
However, he said vaccination campaigns don’t always lead to such spikes because vaccination was not related to death in the same way in every situation. Vulnerability factors like the age of those vaccinated, the health of the population and other sociological factors related to stressors on the immune system change how they are affected by vaccine toxicity or the vaccines’ effects on the immune system.
Based on their analysis and interpretations, they concluded, “We are compelled to state that the public health establishment and its agents fundamentally caused all the excess mortality in the Covid period.”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/excess-death-covid-public-health-measures/
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
22 July, 2024
Comparing the impact on pregnancy of Covid versus influenza using VAERS data
A Canadian Obstetrician and Gynaecologist for 43 years reports The Ghastly Impact of mRNA drugs in pregnancy.
Video here:
https://x.com/i/status/1811088901848846429
He says: “I don’t know if there is any other physician in the country that sees as many patients as I do by ultrasound, so I know what’s going on. I’ve seen death and destruction like I’ve never seen before."
“The vaccine causes a significant inflamatory effect. Anything that causes inflamation in my business, in my area of expertise, causes damage, injury, death and destruction in pregnancy. We’ve known that for half a century.”
Below is the abstract of the relevant article in The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 28 Number 1 Spring 2023. A Google search does now bring it up
COVID-19 Vaccines: The Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes and Menstrual Function
By: James A. Thorp, M.D. Claire Rogers, M.S.P.A.S., P.A.-C Michael P. Deskevich, Ph.D. Stewart Tankersley, M.D. Albert Benavides, B.S. Megan D. Redshaw, J.D. Peter A. McCullough, M.D., M.P.H.
ABSTRACT
This population-based retrospective cohort study assesses rates of adverse events (AE) after COVID-19 vaccines experienced by women of reproductive age, focusing on pregnancy and menstruation, using data collected by the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database from Jan 1, 1998, to Jun 30, 2022.
The proportional reporting ratio comparing AEs reported after COVID-19 vaccines with those reported after influenza vaccines is significantly increased (? 2.0) for COVID-19 vaccine for menstrual abnormality, miscarriage, fetal chromosomal abnormalities, fetal malformation, fetal cystic hygroma, fetal cardiac disorders, fetal cardiac arrest, fetal arrhythmias, fetal vascular malperfusion, fetal growth abnormalities, fetal abnormal surveillance, placental thrombosis, fetal death/stillbirth, low amniotic fluid, preeclampsia, premature delivery, preterm premature rupture of membrane, and premature baby death. When normalized by time-available, doses-given, or number of persons vaccinated, all COVID-19 vaccine AEs far exceed the safety signal on all recognized thresholds.
These results necessitate a worldwide moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
Link for journal article:
https://www.jpands.org/vol28no1/thorp.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
21 July, 2024
COVID Social Distancing Linked to Newborn Mortality and Preterm Births, Study Finds
The authors believe that disrupted prenatal care contributed to newborn mortality. The pernicious lockdown and isolation rules again
Pandemic social distancing is linked to higher rates of preterm births and newborn deaths within one to two months, according to a new study.
In a study published Thursday in JAMA Network Open, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) evaluated over 18 million births in Alabama from 2016 to 2020, comparing prepandemic years to the period after officials enacted public health restrictions in March 2020.
The link was not immediately apparent. However, when researchers examined neonatal mortality and preterm rates two months after social distancing was implemented in the population, they found a link between the population’s social distancing behavior and neonatal mortality and preterm births. The neonatal period includes the first four weeks of a baby’s life.
The study evaluated the “unanticipated effects” of social distancing on infant health outcomes, senior study author Dr. Vivek Shukla, a neonatologist and assistant professor in the UAB Division of Neonatology, told The Epoch Times via email.
The clinician-researcher said that more research is needed to get a more nuanced understanding of these associations.
“This study shows that, on a population level, there might be delayed effects of health interventions,” he said. “Sometimes the effects of measures are not evident on the first day the measures are implemented.”
He added that the study only evaluated how social behavior might have related to health outcomes and did not examine how COVID-19 infections could affect a mother and her child.
Fewer Prenatal Visits
The authors said that their findings may be related to disrupted prenatal care and pregnancy complications.
They observed that during the pandemic, there were fewer prenatal visits and medical checkups during pregnancy, which may have been linked to social distancing behaviors in the population.
“These appointments are important to catch and address complications that could be life-threatening to both mom and baby,” co-author Dr. Rachel Sinkey, an associate professor in the UAB Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, said in a press release.
According to the American Medical Association, 81 percent of physicians surveyed in July and August 2020 reported providing fewer in-person visits than before the pandemic. The average number of in-person visits fell from 95 to 57 per week.
Additionally, disease rates, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, and induction of labor, as well as neonatal intensive-care unit (ICU) admission, were higher during the pandemic.
The study found that neonatal mortality rates were generally lower throughout the 2020 pandemic period, but there were slight increases in neonatal mortality and preterm births after the population became more adherent to social distancing practices.
“COVID-19 affected the health care systems globally, and many lives were lost; it is important to learn from this experience to prepare better for possible future health crises,” said Dr. Shukla.
“We need to understand how changes in health behavior affected outcomes, whether people had limited access to care or healthy habits were altered.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-social-distancing-linked-to-newborn-mortality-and-preterm-births-study-finds-5689980
****************************************************
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination and Colon Cancer
Pfizer Vaccination Conferred Sixfold Increased Risk
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
I recently was asked about COVID-19 vaccination and colon cancer. Are they related? What is new in the literature?
Akkus et al studied the impact of COVID-19 vaccination more than 3 months before newly diagnosed with a special kind of colon cancer. Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colon cancer is a type of colon cancer where tumor cells are highly unstable due to a high number of genetic mutations.
Instability occurs when mismatch repair (MMR) genes, which correct errors during cell division, stop functioning properly. As a result, errors accumulate and tumors become unstable. MSI-H colon cancer cells look and behave abnormally, making it easier for the immune system to recognize them as invaders and with proper immune surveillance, the tumor cells are effectively killed.
Exposure to the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a > 6-fold increased risk for this form of cancer. Because the Spike protein is believed to impair tumor surveillance systems, among several cancer-promoting mechanisms, it is plausible that these cancerous cells are allowed to proliferate among the vaccinated where the cancer was not yet detectable at the time of injection.
Akkus E, Karaoglan B, Akyol C, Ünal AE, Kuzu MA, Sava? B, Utkan G. Types and Rates of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Microsatellite Stable and Instable Non-Metastatic Colon Cancer. Cureus. 2024 Jun 6;16(6):e61780. doi: 10.7759/cureus.61780. PMID: 38975417; PMCID: PMC11227084.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-19-mrna-vaccination-and-newly-diagnosed-microsatellite-stable-and-instable-non-metastatic-colon-cancer-7764a762
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
18 July, 2024
The coverup of vaccine side-effects takes a life
She and her family knew she had vulnerabilities from pre-existing conditions but were not told of the vaccine side effects that combined with those conditions to kill her
The death of a young woman in her 20s after she received a Covid-19 vaccine could progress to a full coronial inquest.
Coroner Catherine Fitzgerald told the involved parties that she would tighten the reins on expert reports being filed to the court, as mountains of medical information piled up.
Natalie Boyce, 21, died in March 2022 at The Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, five weeks after receiving a Moderna vaccine booster.
Lawyers for Ms Boyce's family opposed Moderna's request on the grounds the doctor saw the young woman for lupus four years before she died.
Natalie Boyce died from myocarditis. She spent the last three weeks of her life unconscious.
Ms Boyce was studying at Deakin University. She spent the last three weeks of her life unconscious. Her death certificate lists myocardial infarction with subacute myocarditis as the cause.
When she was 15, Ms Boyce was diagnosed with an uncommon blood clotting disorder that affects about one-in-2000 people.
Ms Boyce's mother, Deborah Hamilton, previously told a parliamentary inquiry that she believed her daughter would be alive if she had not received the Covid-19 vaccine booster.
'Had we known that there were risks there would have been no way that I would have allowed Natalie to receive another vaccine and I know that she would not have had it either,' Ms Hamilton told MPs in Canberra in 2023.
The day after getting the Moderna booster, Ms Boyce fainted, had a fever, stomach pain and vomiting. Her condition deteriorated over trips to doctors and several different hospitals.
Ms Hamilton has blamed both the vaccine mandates and 'medical negligence' from Victoria's health system.
Ms Boyce was encouraged by her part-time employer to get vaccinated and required a vaccination to go to the university campus.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13642351/Natalie-Boyce-died-Covid-vaccine.html
************************************************
Clinical Trial in Australia Reinforced problems with mRNA vaccines
10 to 11% of participants showed severe side-effects. Immunity conferred was weak
The PICOBOO clinical trial conducted in Australia involved immunocompetent adults <70 years old who had received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) followed by a single booster dose of any licensed COVID-19 vaccine at least three months prior. This study involved a random allocation of participants to BNT162b2 (Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) 1:1:1. The study was summarized as the geometric mean concentration (GMC log10 concentration of anti-spike Ig Total was). The team documented and analyzed reactogenicity and safety outcomes for this study registered in the Australia and New Zealand clinical trial registry as: ACTRN12622000238774.
Titled as “Platform Trial in COVID-19 Vaccine BOOsting (PICOBOO), the single blinded, phase 4, adaptive randomized trial to evaluate the immunogenicity of COVID-19 booster vaccines in adults and adolescents.”
The Study
The PICOBOO study platform is designed to be an adaptive randomised trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccine strategies in the Australian context. This will enable regulators, researchers and policymakers to flexibly respond to new policy questions as they arise for example, as new vaccine formulations become available and new variants arise in Australia necessitating changes in strategy. This study aims to evaluate, pragmatically and efficiently, the immunogenicity and reactogenicity offered by alternative booster vaccination strategies against SARS-CoV-2. This adaptive trial is designed to allow for perpetual enrolment for as long as is needed to generate high-quality data to inform Australia's national COVID-19 booster vaccination practice and policy.
Findings
The study was conducted between 29 Mar 2022 and 2 Aug 2023, with 743 participants recruited to the trial with day 28 (D28) samples available.
Out of this total, 120 and 103 belonged to the 18-<50y and 50-<70y strata, respectively.
McCleod and colleagues report, “The mean adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMCs) (95% credible intervals) peaked at D28; these were 41 262 (31 611, 51 105), 45 585 (34 194, 57 441) and 25 281 (20 021, 31 234) U/mL in the 18-<50y stratum and 30 753 (25 071, 36 704), 35 132 (27 523, 42 239) and 17 322 (13 983, 20 641) U/mL in the 50-<70y stratum following boosting with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 and NVX-CoV2373, respectively.”
At D28, mean adjusted neutralization against Ancestral virus was 389, 482 and 259 IU/mL in the 18-<50y stratum and 262, 288 and 130 IU/m in the 50-<70y stratum in each group, respectively.
The investigators report that when measuring concentration of antibodies against Omicron sub-variants they found limited neutralization, meaning the durability of these vaccines are generally weak, even after the fourth jab (second booster).
The Australian investigators report higher rates of severe reactogenicity events in both strata compared to other cohorts following second boosters, with 10% of cases from the 18-<50y-BNT162b2 stratum experiencing severe fatigue following mRNA-1273 and 11% of cases belonging to 50-><70y-BNT162b2 experiencing severe fatigue following BNT162b2 vaccination. This is consistent with data reported globally which has found higher rates of reactogenicity and adverse events following mRNA compared to protein subunit vaccines. Overall, reactogenicity events and ARs reported in this trial remain small and are within acceptable limits. >-<50 BNT162b2 stratum experiencing severe fatigue following mRNA -1273, and 11% of cases belonging to 50-<70 year-BNT162b2 experiencing severe fatigue following the Pfizer jab.
The authors report, “This is consistent with data reported globally which has found higher rates of reactogenicity and adverse events following mRNA compared to protein subunit vaccines. Overall, reactogenicity events and ARs reported in this trial remain small and are within acceptable limits.”
According to Peter McCullough, M.D., MPH:
“Four years into the mass vaccination campaign, there are no studies of pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of the widely used Pfizer and Modernal mRNA vaccines. How long does mRNA and its Spike protein circulate in blood? Where does it go in the body? What are the consequences? Studies such as this one fail to procure enough samples over a long enough period of time and do the proper measurements. mRNA vaccines cannot be made safer unless the fundamentals of biotech clinical development are reproducible and reliable."
Limitations
The authors note that this study was not designed to evaluate vaccine effectiveness against clinical disease, rather they depend on correlates of protection. Moreover, variances in post-randomization SARS-COV-2 infection between sites should be interpreted in the context of differences in local transmission, non-pharmacological prevention measures (such as mask wearing and border closures) and testing approaches in different jurisdictions at different stages of the pandemic. Also, COVID-19 infections identified after randomization most likely represent an underestimate of the true number of infections, with a declining propensity for people with symptoms to test for COVID-19 as the pandemic evolved.
Finally, this study reports only on short-term humoral responses for immunocompetent older Australian adults receiving priming doses of BNT162b2. The Australian team plans on reporting on other data, such as cellular and longer term humoral immune responses to these vaccines as data become available
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/picoboo-clinical-trial-in-australia-reinforces-mrna-durability-reactogenicity-issues-2af4ef41
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
17 July, 2024
Moderna shaky?
Eleven of Moderna’s top institutional shareholders control 51% of the company as a highly concentrated capital ownership seeks to ensure their investment remains solid. As reported recently in Yahoo Finance, due to immense leverage these investment groups wield with this company’s stock, their investment decisions certain implicate direction and implication, especially with the individual investor. While generally, such concentration of large institutional players is covered a positive, as TrialSite has chronicled, it may very well be these investors while knowingly or not are propping up the company’s very survival, despite profoundly disturbing underlying trends.
The stock price has been on a downward trajectory currently priced at 121.43 as of this writing Sunday July 14, 2024. But year to date, the company remains north of its price at 112.50 on January 2, 2024.
For a list of their top institutional and mutual fund holders, see Yahoo Finance. Moderna, especially post the COVID-19 pandemic, benefitted from a massive multi-trillion-dollar federal countermeasure initiative.
Moderna’s intellectual property in part derives from the U.S. federal government via the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which of course is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the apex national research institution and part of the department of Health and Human Services.
Last year, TrialSite reported Moderna made a $400 million royalty payment to NIAID for the commercialization of the COVID-19 countermeasure. Countermeasures that in the bigger scheme increasingly have a questionable status in the market.
Why? Because the market for COVID-19 vaccines has collapsed, especially for the mRNA variety, and Moderna’s mRNA-1273/Spikevax has been shown to have more side effects than Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2/Comirnaty), at least in some studies.
But TrialSite has raised other issues concerning Moderna and the mRNA platform. Including an accumulating scientific literature while ignored by mainstream media evidences a lack of stability and sufficient safety. This is why four ex-Moderna scientists have gone on the record in a scientific paper that the mRNA platform needs “derisking.”
Other concerns have been raised by TrialSite. For example, Moderna’s bet on vaccines will fall short. Although the company’s respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine was approved recently, we revealed how the Moderna product performed worse than both GSK and Pfizer’s vaccines. These latter pharmaceutical companies are far bigger and more pedigreed when it comes to open market commercialization. TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor said, “We must remember Moderna came into commercial being via the unprecedented COVID-19 response, in the aggregate tens of billions, if not more, of public funds invested in research and development and commercialization via public procurement contracts of Operation Warp Speed and other efforts, and all of the funds used to promote COVID-19 vaccination which served like free advertising.”
O’Connor continued, “The externalities of this effort were incurred by the public. With the PREP Act there is no liability, no risks or downside from American legislation. But all of this protection was not appreciated by the American public and the pandemic ironically led to a viral understanding, and consternation, as to the protections these companies have amassed per statutory authority.”
The company will have far less support moving forward. Already, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have pared back their recommendation for RSV vaccination which automatically cuts back the market potential for the three vaccine makers, with Moderna paying the most.
Yes, true, the company is close with its influenza jab, and the company also is close with a combination flu and COVID-19 shot, but again myriad market forces will make highly successful commercialization of these mRNA products exceedingly difficult.
TrialSite has suggested in multiple articles that Moderna’s brightest prospects are the cancer vaccines they are developing. With promising data targeting both melanoma and lung cancer in partnership with Merck and the Keytruda product, a compelling set of outcomes in these late stage ongoing clinical trials could lead to robust commercialization potential.
In fact, TrialSite has predicted that it’s these cancer vaccines that represent breakout growth for the company, not its infectious disease vaccines.
But institutional investors, except for the ones subscribing to TrialSite, don’t necessarily see these highly bearish scenarios playing out, at least not in a way that is articulated publicly.
The stakes are big for the institutional investors as the Yahoo Finance piece makes clear. And this can represent a problem as the mainstream investment media website shares “However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They, too, get it wrong sometimes. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time.”
Yes, that would be a big risk for Moderna should a couple institutions make substantial sales. The forthcoming earnings report will be of keen interest. But of course, there are other factors to consider, too.
What does ownership look like?
As mentioned above, institutional investors own more than half the company, meaning they can collectively wield significant power. But hedge funds don't have many shares in Moderna. Baillie Gifford & Co. is currently the company's largest shareholder with 12% of shares outstanding. Meanwhile, the second and third largest shareholders hold 10% and 6.6% of the shares outstanding, respectively. Furthermore, CEO Stephane Bancel is the owner of 5.5% of the company's shares.
Looking at the shareholder registry, we can see that 51% of the ownership is controlled by the top 11 shareholders, meaning that no single shareholder has a majority interest in the ownership.
What’s the direction of analysts?
As of July 12, 2024, the average 12-month price target for Moderna (MRNA) stock from 19 analysts was $141.04, with a range of $62–$310. This average represents a 14.83% increase from the last closing price of $122.82. Moderna also has an average brokerage recommendation (ABR) of 2.45 on a scale of 1–5, based on the recommendations of 22 brokerage firms.
TrialSite will monitor the company’s next earnings call August 1, 2024. Multiple analysts tracking Moderna, as well as employees at Moderna are TrialSite subscribers.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/moderna-share-ownership-dominated-by-just-a-handful-of-institutions-collective-moves-to-bolster-or-will-moves-be-made-cash-out-209d6490
**********************************************************
Suspended Australian doctor says he told truth about COVID
A doctor suspended over allegations he wrote fake COVID-19 exemptions and shared misleading information about the virus insists he told the truth about vaccines and their risks.
Disciplinary proceedings have begun between the Medical Board of Australia and Mark Hobart, with the Melbourne doctor maintaining he did nothing wrong.
In a brief hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Dr Hobart applied on Monday to have the matter dismissed or struck out on the grounds it was "frivolous, vexatious, misconceived".
He has filed a 27-page document setting out his submissions.
Despite this, his application to have the matter dismissed was denied.
A mention for those proceedings is expected to be held on August 16, with a three-day hearing expected to start early next year.
Dr Hobart has been suspended since November 2021 based on eight allegations of misconduct, including issuing almost 600 COVID-19 vaccination and mask exemptions.
Dr Hobart argues that the Board exceeded its jurisdictional powers in the matters, and says it cannot tell doctors what information they can or cannot provide to patients.
He also claims he told the "truth to patients about vaccines" and complied with his duty of care, including the obligation to do no harm.
Tribunal senior member Elisabeth Wentworth denied Dr Hobart's application to dismiss the matter, saying the allegations against him were serious.
"This is not a frivolous proceeding," Ms Wentworth said in her written findings.
She said the allegations raised important questions about a doctor's professional responsibility in relation to disease prevention and control.
Victorians were subject to strict vaccination mandates and mask rules throughout the pandemic.
Melbourne's metropolitan area was subject to six lockdowns of a cumulative 260-plus days in 2020 and 2021, giving the Victorian capital the dubious honour of being the most locked-down city in the world.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/suspended-doctor-says-he-told-truth-about-covid/d1f09909-54a1-41f9-9e1e-33a0aa102c5c
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
16 July, 2024
Norwegian Professor's Analysis Reveals Disturbing Excess Death Data in England
TrialSite met with Jarle Aarstad, a full professor at HVL Business School, Western Norway University of Applied Science. The Ph.D. in Business Administration prides himself on being good with numbers, and he recently had a letter to the editor published in a German letter EXCLI Journal. Aarstad reported on his empirical analysis of cohorts of young people in England, aged 12-29 years, during 12 weeks after their first, second, and third jabs with the COVID-19 vaccine. The data reveals in this younger aged cohort that deaths increased significantly (95 % CIs) in the 10 or 11 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination compared to the first week.
Speaking with TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor, Professor Aarstad said early on in the pandemic he started to significantly question some of the measures taken by his and other governments. He noted that in Norway by the first several months of the pandemic, the case fatality rate was not much higher than a bad flu, yet the response in that nation, including lockdowns and shutting schools down would have severe long-lasting impacts.
He would ask questions to himself like, “Why are we imposing such severe measures in Norway, such as keeping children from school, lockdowns and such given the actual threat faced?
During the pandemic, there were various points in time along the way that he felt something was just not right. One game changer from his standpoint, however, was alternative media. Early on, he started listening to various sources both in Norway and in broader Europe and England.
Professor Aarstad and his family decided that they would not be opting to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Using his own critical facility, intuition and education in economics and business Aarstad started crunching numbers, finding that in most advanced economies after the first waves of vaccination by 2022 a curious observation: heavily vaccinated nations had higher excess death patterns. A striking observation: the Norwegian professor submitted multiple papers based on data he accessed from Eurostat and other sources but all were rejected.
Eary on during the pandemic and after the first substantial waves of vaccination TrialSite reported from Australia and New Zealand to Singapore and Portugal, a disturbing trend of surges in COVID-19 deaths after the big waves of vaccination.
With Aarstad’s quantitative observations, it seemed like no journal wanted to discuss such a phenomenon. Then by late 2022, he noticed substantial excess death tolls in Norway. Aarstad found it curious that an academic speaking in affiliation with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health declared that the excess deaths had nothing to do with the COVID mRNA vaccines. Citing a Nature Medicine paper Nafilyan et al. Aarstad would go on to analyze that paper and found that if the authors had extended the time horizon to several weeks they would have come to the opposite conclusion.
The professor’s analysis of this British data was finally accepted by a German journal called EXCLI Journal a gold open access journal listed in DOAJ, Web of Science, EBSCO, Pubmed, and PubmedCentral; and a backup of the data is kept on the server ELDORADO at Technical University Dortmund.
What did he find?
The Analyses of young people in England aged 12-29 revealed that deaths increased significantly in 10 of 11 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination compared to the first week (blue color in the figure where 95% confidence intervals indicate the probability within the given range). In three of those weeks, the death rate was at least doubled. The tendency was the same for each dose. E.g., the probability of death was 1.95 and 2.67 times higher four weeks after vaccination with the first and second dose and 2.67 higher six weeks after the third dose.
Professor Aarstad shares with TrialSite:
“The findings deviate from a study by Nafilyan et al. claiming that COVID vaccination did not increase deaths among young people in England. By referring to it, Hanne Gulseth at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has argued that, amid an above 50% excess mortality rate from diseases among young in Norway, “There is no evidence the covid vaccine has induced a generally increased mortality”. However, a limitation of Nafilyan et al.’s study is that they compared mortality in the first 12 weeks after vaccination with mortality after that. Not ruling out increased long-term mortality, i.e., after 12 weeks, it can have masked increased mortality also in the first 12 weeks, which I show.”
Covid vaccination can nonetheless, have induced increased mortality in the first week after vaccination, which implies that Aarstad’s estimates are conservative. I.e., using the first week after vaccination for comparison can have masked findings similar to those reported by Nafilyan et al.
Aarstad continued, “As I find increased mortality after the first week despite this, therefore, indicates that the substantial mortality due to the vaccination is even higher.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that Nafilyan et al. also found increased mortality from the 25th week after vaccination and forward, compared to the 24 first weeks. This finding is particularly disturbing as it indicates that covid vaccination among young particularly appears to increase long-term mortality. Unfortunately, it may, along with my findings, explain increased mortality among young people in Norway.”
Now, Aarstad acknowledges that his analysis doesn’t conclusively prove that the excess deaths are caused by the COVID-19 countermeasures. Statistically other studies would need to be undertaken to arrive at such certainty. On the other hand, he also relies on his common sense and the deployment of the countermeasure response across nations clearly demonstrates a disturbing signal, one that should raise alarm.
Conclusion
Professor Arstad explained that alternative media such as TrialSite, credible authors on Substack, podcasts such as John Campbell and the like are absolutely vital for more veracity on life and death topics. With no political agenda, Aarstad doesn’t profoundly question vaccines generally and he remains cognizant of the importance of pharmaceutical breakthroughs in a modern society. Yet the pragmatic Norwegian academic researcher and professor nonetheless found himself questioning many aspects of government response worldwide to COVID-19, as did others in Norway, which typically remains a well-aligned and cooperative society when it comes to response to government.
The type of overreach and irrational decision-making Aarstad observed during the pandemic isn’t healthy for democracy. And he does report changes in the life in Norway that concern him, even before the pandemic. Of course, Norway emerged as a vastly wealthier society after the discovery of oil reserves. Aarstad suggested moves for a “vaccine passport” for example, which raised the alarm that politicians and the bureaucracy was headed in a dangerous direction.
Aarstad explains that when fundamental democratic principles, so cherished in Western societies such as Norway, are under fire, something has to be done in response, and he applied his education and training in the numbers to showcase to the world a real problem.
************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
15 July, 2024
Australian Territory drops more details from its COVID-19 death reports
The history of Covid is one coverup after another
ACT Health has decided to stop sharing the age ranges of COVID deaths in a move to match the reporting of other notifiable diseases.
The change comes after the Health Directorate's weekly report revealed a patient in his 40s had died, making him the youngest-COVID related death this year. ACT Health did not report whether the man was immunocompromised or had any comorbidities due to patient privacy.
Officials were notified of his death between June 21 and 27, but said he did not die during this period. They reported his age range and sex in the weekly respiratory surveillance report along with three other COVID-related deaths - a woman in her 80s and two women in their 90s. The deaths were reported last month, a period which recorded the highest monthly COVID activity this year with 844 PCR-confirmed infections.
In the following weekly report, from June 28 to July 4, ACT Health stated two people had died but did not include their age range like it had done in reports published since March 2023. ACT Health was contacted for comment as the report did not state a reason for the lack of age-related information.
A spokesperson told The Canberra Times the Health Directorate was following a new process and the change in reporting aligned "more closely" with the reporting of other notifiable diseases. Influenza and the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are examples of other notifiable respiratory diseases.
"ACT Health regularly reviews and updates public reporting processes," they said. "[The change] is consistent with the approach taken nationally and in the majority of other jurisdictions. ACT Health does not publicly report death age range or sex information for any other notifiable conditions."
NSW Health stopped including ages and sexes of COVID-related deaths in May 2023 while Victoria's Department of Health still included age ranges in weekly reports.
Although the World Health Organization continues to classify COVID-19 as a global pandemic, Australia's chief medical officer Professor Paul Kelly declared it was no longer of national significance in October last year. He said it was still "a serious threat" but Australia would manage COVID like other common communicable diseases by focusing on prevention, reducing spread, serious cases, hospitalisations and deaths.
The ACT Health spokesperson said the age and sex of all COVID-19-related deaths were reported, especially during the declared public health emergency, on social media. They said social media updates stopped from March 23 last year because the structure and content of weekly COVID reports were updated as part of "transitional reporting changes".
"These changes reflected the ACT government's transition to managing COVID like other notifiable conditions, and a focus on carefully monitoring the severity of illness and the impact on the health system, rather than overall case numbers," the spokesperson said.
About 200 infections and an estimated eight deaths were reported this month, as of July 12. Before the death of the man in his 40s, the last COVID-related death of a patient under 50 years old reported to ACT Health was in January 2023, the spokesperson said in a statement.
Professor Peter Collignon at the ANU Medical School said not reporting age-related information about COVID deaths "distorted" people's view of the disease.
He said the majority of deaths from COVID and the flu were people over 80 years old with underlying conditions but said it was useful to know when younger people died. He said it would improve public awareness of the risk to age groups.
Professor Peter Collignon, professor of infectious diseases, at ANU and Canberra Hospital. Picture by Elesa Kurtz
The infectious diseases expert believed "balanced" public health reporting would share when young people were affected by these diseases, with context. He said governments should report death data annually at the least.
"When [someone young] dies you run the risk of overemphasising their youth, but by the same token, you've got to put a human face on this, and the rare exceptions ... make it real," Professor Collignon said. "I think it's a mistake not to report the ranges."
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8690718/act-health-stops-reporting-age-ranges-of-covid-deaths/
******************************************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
******************************************************
14 July, 2024
Mount Sinai Scientists Track SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Throughout Pandemic, Identify Trends, Racial & Class Disparity
A group of New York City-based scientists led by Florian Krammer, a microbiologist at Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, and colleagues describes results of a cross-sectional hospital-based study of anti-spike seroprevalence in New York City (NYC) from February 2020 to July 2022, and a follow-up period from August 2023 to October 2023. The team collected and analyzed samples from 55,092 individuals, spanning five epidemiological waves during the pandemic.
Why this activity? Because sero-monitoring provides context to the epidemiology of COVID-19, pervasiveness of infection, changes in population immunity ensuing after mass vaccination and the like. For the purpose of the aim of this study, the team used Poisson regression to obtain prevalence ratios (PR), a risk measurement used in cross-sectional studies to measure an association with exposure. The New York City-based team reports that the anti-spike antibody levels increased gradually over the first two waves, with a sharp increase during the 3rd wave coinciding with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in NYC resulting in seroprevalence levels >90% by July 2022. The data generated by Krammer and colleagues offer insights into the dynamic changes in immunity occurring in a large and diverse metropolitan community faced with a novel virus and reflect the patterns of antibody responses as the pandemic transitions into an endemic stage.
Recently published in Nature Communications, the authors educate the reader about the importance of sero-surveillance systems and how they provide the means to describe population patterns in infection and vaccination over time.
Providing an overview of previous research, the group elaborates that antibody prevalence gradually increased over time, reaching levels above 90% by January 2022.
With the maintenance over time for seroprevalence and titers the team reported comparable trends during a follow-up period in August–October 2023, likely due to constant antigenic exposures by vaccine boosters and breakthrough infections.
An analysis of the geographical distribution of antibody prevalence and titers across all New York City’s boroughs, the team of researchers analyzed NP titers–indicative of immunity derived by infection–at discrete time points during the pandemic.
Does the Mount Sinai effort overlap with other estimates driven by New York City Health (DOHMH)?
According to Krammer and colleagues, the present seroprevalence estimates are overall overlapping with the City health agency’s estimates.
However, the analysis diverges in a couple of areas. For example, the authors point to the early phase of the pandemic plus later on, waves 4 and 5. In wave 1 for example, the City Health agency reports a large proportion (>50%) of seropositive individuals who were also tested for COVID-19 via PCR. The authors explain the commonsense explanation—individuals seeking testing at the time were likely infected and hence likely antibody positive.
The Mount Sinai led team reported:
“This is similar to what we observed in the urgent care group that was biased towards SARS-CoV-2 positives in the first wave.”
But a divergence ensues as later in the pandemic (more recent waves) NYC DOHMH tracking shows lower seropositivity as compared to the Mount Sinai tracking, which shows higher exposure. Krammer and colleagues also note, “This could reflect differences in the assays used or differences in the study populations.”
What about racial and class disparities?
Not surprisingly, as TrialSite reported throughout the pandemic, race and economic class mattered in terms of morbidity and mortality and apparently this also translates to seropositivity.
The Mount Sinai-led team reports that they collected early on in the pandemic suggest that seropositivity was relatively high in adults self-identifying as Black and Others. The authors of this paper point to “higher infection rates in essential workers lacking the possibility to socially distance or to socioeconomic constraints leading to more crowded living conditions.”
TrialSite reported in cities like Los Angeles Blacks in south central parts of the city were dying due to SARs-CoV-2 related infection at as high as five times those of wealthy whites in tony western reaches of that sprawling city (e.g. Bel Air, Beverly Hills, etc.).
What about age-based trends?
Krammer and colleagues report that early on, seropositivity tended to be higher among younger cohorts than the elderly, based on behavioral patterns, for example. But post the waves of vaccination, that balance shifted as elderly caught up with other younger age cohorts.
Was there a waning effectiveness of the vaccine?
Yes. Although with Omicron sub-lineage driven waves spike antibody responses were generally cross-reactive with ancestral strains, and the seroprevalence estimates were likely preserved in reaction to the spike of Omicron sub-variants, ultimately the neutralization sera from exposure to ancestral COVID-19 antigens (from infection or vaccination)waned against Omicron strains, yet some protection endured due to T-cell response mechanism.
An important question for research?
Dissecting the contribution of non-neutralizing cross-reactive antibodies upon exposure to emerging variants of the Omicron lineage will be important to have a broader picture of an individual’s immunity.
What limitations did the authors face with this endeavor?
What follows is a bulletized summary:
Mount Sinai Health System patient catchment area limits the study scope
The collection of residual de-identified samples impeding longitudinal tracking
Use of neighborhood tabulation areas (NTAs) for representation of samples limits the geographical distribution analysis
Summary
Given New York City represented an epicenter of the pandemic in America early on, Mount Sinai was able to capitalize on its hospital-based surveillance system to detect patterns comparable to the overall epidemiology of COVID-19, plus the countermeasure deployment.
For example, the authors write that “by early 2022, virtually the entire population had some evidence of COVID-19 seropositivity. Importantly, our data clearly show increasing overall seropositivity in the general population as SARS-CoV-2 vaccines became available.”
Plus, the persistently high “implied immunity” levels across the entire New York City population caught the authors’ attention. The Mount Sinai team offers other public health and epidemiological-focused researchers an important resource moving forward.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/mount-sinai-scientists-track-sars-cov-2-seropositivity-throughout-pandemic-identify-trends-racial-class-disparity-b95a8308
****************************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
11 July, 2024
Why Did Cochrane Pull Their Ivermectin Evidence Article Down from the Internet?
Cochrane, generally believed to be the world’s most elite source of medical evidence covering all ranges of therapeutic areas, became front and center in the ivermectin debacle. While offering a new strategy moving forward, the organization’s review of the ivermectin evidence was damning for the available, economical anti-parasitic drug widely used during the pandemic against COVID-19, especially in low-and middle-income countries.
In the Cochrane ivermectin review in 2021 the group reviewed 14 studies and 2022 another 11 studies, stating they did not find any evidence of efficacy. Alexandros Marinos commented about the 2022 review. “5 of the 11 included studies, covering 2582 of the 3409 patients included in the systematic review did not qualify for inclusion, based on a novel criterion used to exclude many other studies.” In addition, the TOGETHER trial, 1358 patients(40% of the patients) did not meet their criteria.
I started emailing the organization on May 15, 2024. Not surprisingly I was sent a form to submit my data yet received no response. I was supposed to get a response in one business day. I think someone squelched my email. But I was able to publish my article on TrialSite News on May 30, 2024, 5/30/24 communicating that the Cochrane review did not include any trials with omicron patients and failed to review at least four large randomized ivermectin trials with 6000 patients. Those four trials all had terrible problems—and this author has done quite a bit of detective work to find out serious mistakes.
The Cochrane review of March 5, 2024 included studies of 2860 patients with mild to moderate COVID including 1358 patients in the TOGETHER trial and determined that those studies did not show evidence of benefit for ivermectin They found no problems in TOGETHER while others found plenty of problems, Ivermectin and the TOGETHER Trial,
Extreme COI, impossible data, blinding broken, randomization/blinding failure, uncorrected errors, protocol violations, no response from authors, refusal to release data--c19ivm.com
The TOGETHER Files 1: The Andrew Hill connection - How the principal investigator leaked interim results to a private ivermectin research group
Fraudulent Trial On Ivermectin Published By The World's Top Medical Journal
The False, Sinister, and Duplicitous Statements of the TOGETHER Ivermectin Trial Investigators
10 Questions for the TOGETHER Trial Investigators
The Potemkin Argument, Part VII: TOGETHER vs. Carvallo, A Tale of Two Studies
Did the Placebo Group in the TOGETHER Trial Take Ivermectin?
Demonstrating Randomization Failure in the TOGETHER Trial
FDA Reveals Concerns About the Conduct of the TOGETHER Trial, Joining Other Regulators
When Characteristics of Clinical Trials Require Per-Prot
This link lists the trials they reviewed which included the infamous Lopez-Medina trial published in JAMA Network..
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3/references#characteristicStudies .
The Publication of Fraudulent Ivermectin Trials by the High Impact Medical Journals
The Potemkin Argument, Part VI: The Ballad of Lopez-Medina
More Fraud Uncovered In The Lopez-Medina Ivermectin Trial Published In JAMA
I assume someone showed them the TrialSite News article and on June 3, 2024, I was requested to submit my complaints on a different form. I submitted my original complaint. I was told it would take 3 weeks for them to respond. I noticed that on June 11, 2024, the article disappeared from Google and on their website. Why would they take the article down? Should they not offer an explanation?
Below is their final reply to me. In that reply all Cochrane does is claim they did not do anything that was false even though they claimed ivermectin had no evidence of efficacy for prevention based on no studies and for mild to moderate COVID based on 2860 patients, 1358 of which came from TOGETHER which had all kinds of problems and 398 of which came from the infamous Lopez-Medina study.
Based on 11 studies, the Cochrane group published a report May 5, 2024, which determined that there was no evidence that ivermectin was effective for prevention based on no studies, ineffective for inpatients and ineffective for outpatients based on studies of 2860 patients which included 398 patients from the discredited Lopez-Medina trial and 1358 patients from the discredited TOGETHER trial.
They did not include any patients from trials with omicron patients and failed to include the last four large randomized ivermectin trials which were full of evidence of mistakes and bias.
No knowledge of different dosing, taking with food vs, an empty stomach, timing of receipt of the medication and biases in the data analyses all represented a problem this author identified. They were caught putting out a ridiculous report and pulled it off the internet with no comment after they were caught. One has to wonder about their “new strategy” and could that be related to this behavior?
Unfortunately, when people read that Cochrane group reported on something, they assume it to be of the highest quality and completely accurate. Their 2022 report included data from TOGETHER which had innumerable problems called out by others which the Cochrane group ignored. In the case of their 2024 ivermectin report it is obvious that they reported, at least according to this author’s detective work, deceptive data that had no clinical relevance and failed to evaluate the most recent data. Did this represent an intentional effort to falsely discredit ivermectin and keep the 8 billion people of our planet from potentially getting an effective drug for COVID?
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/why-did-cochrane-pull-their-ivermectin-evidence-article-down-from-the-internet-34c68ae7
************************************************
10 July, 2024
How an Australian Doctor, My Le Trinh, by Saving Some COVID Patients and Getting Suspended, May Save Millions More.
By LtCol Kevin Loughrey(Ret’d) BE Mech(hons) psc, jssc
Dr My Le Trinh came to Australia as a refugee at the age of 12 and went on to become a doctor of medicine. That she could do that makes me very proud of my country. That pride, though, is now morphing into dismay as I watch how authorities, medical and Governmental, are intent on deregistering Dr Trinh because of her use of Ivermectin, Doxycycline, Zinc, Prednisone, and a number of other readily available, inexpensive medicines, to effectively treat COVID-19 sufferers and protect those who, because of their age and medical condition, would have suffered very badly had they contracted that disease.
Dr Trinh’s troubles started when a patient at her clinic was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with COVID-19. This patient discharged herself because she was concerned by the lack of effective treatment and she objected to having to wear a mask even though she was in a single room. Being an asthmatic, wearing the mask was uncomfortable and distressing.
Dr Trinh became involved in the case when the lady returned home and was entering the late stages of COVID-19 where her oxygen levels were dropping dangerously low. Because of lock-down restrictions, Dr Trinh couldn’t treat the patient face-to-face but instead had to work through her adult children. She decided to use the protocols favoured by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and other physicians successfully treating late stage COVID-19; this being the use of large, pulsed doses of Prednisone with other medicines specific to the patient’s circumstances. She also used Professor Tom Borody’s recommended medication of Ivermectin, Zinc and Doxycycline for the early treatment of COVID-19.
The high dose Prednisone protocol worked well and, in all probability, saved the patient’s life, but at the end of the treatment, the patient suffered steroid-induced psychosis. She was admitted to a different hospital from her first admission and came under the care of the neurology team which asked Dr. Narendra Gunja, the Toxicologist at the hospital, to provide an opinion on the patient's condition. The treating doctor wanted to rule out Ivermectin overdose, even though the patient was not taking Ivermectin at the time of admission. About two weeks before the patient's readmission, between 1 September and 3 September 2021, Dr. Gunja had appeared on radio and television to discuss the case of a man from Western Sydney who supposedly presented with an Ivermectin overdose. This purported incident sparked a media blitz, and a week later, on 10 September 2021, the Federal Therapeutic Goods Administration(TGA) banned the use of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. It is of considerable interest that Gunja’s story bore a striking resemblance to a similar false narrative being promoted at around the same time in the US which, despite being untrue, had the same effect in that the FDA published it’s now famous and much discredited, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Serious y'all. Stop It." (See false claim, by Dr Jason McElyea of largescale Ivermectin poisoning, rebutted by Northeastern Health System- Sequoyah 5 September 2021.)
Dr Gunja disapproved of the treatment Dr Trinh had provided and ordered a first year intern to report Dr Trinh to the Medical Council of New South Wales for malpractice. After the TGA had banned the use of Ivermectin, Dr Trinh’s chemist was ordered by AHPRA to surrender any such scripts issued after the ban. Dr. Trinh had provided a prescription for Ivermectin for a close relative before the ban but due to a lack of supply, she had left it at the chemist. The chemist later informed Dr. Trinh that the Ivermectin prescription had been handed over to an AHPRA agent as per their instructions.
Somewhere, during the course of this, a "Mr John Smith" was invented and a complaint was submitted under that name, with the Ivermectin script for her close relative, to the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission. The complaint, made by this fictional John Smith, was that Dr Trinh, by prescribing Ivermectin, and her apparent reluctance to unequivocally promote the use of mRNA injections, had not followed National Health Guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. The complaint makes interesting reading:
“This physician is promoting and writing prescriptions for ivermectin for community groups online for inappropriate clinical use of ivermectin and doxycycline and azithromycin. We called the medical center to confirm and they confirmed the doctor is anti-vaccine and promotes other alternative unaccepted methods of treating/preventing covid. We have attached a friend's prescription for ivermectin, said friend does not suffer from worms, its principal use as prescribed by the doctor is for preventing covid. We know of at least 3 cases where the doctor has done that and we have evidence of such.”
Some of this was true but other “facts” in this complaint amount to lies and deception. The prescription was not for a “friend” of John Smith. It was for a close relative of Dr Trinh. Dr Trinh was not “anti-vaccine” but instead went to great lengths to fully inform her patients and to protect those that might be vulnerable from possible catastrophic adverse ill effects; all of which she obliged by law to do. I personally relate to this very much as both my son-in-law’s parents suddenly dropped dead a short time after they had received a booster. In both cases, thorough autopsies, according to Burkhardt’s protocol, were never conducted and no adverse reaction reports were ever submitted. This is a common tale in Australia.
In Australia, people suffering from COVID-19 were prescribed analgesics, sent home and told, should they have trouble breathing, to call an ambulance. Instead, Dr Trinh chose a different route, adopting instead treatment protocols based on her research of the FLCCC and Professor Tom Borody’s triple therapy of Ivermectin, Doxycycline and Zinc; all of which were reportedly delivering great success. This is best described by this graphic published by the FLCCC.
As a consequence of these complaints Dr Trinh had to appear before the Medical Council of New South Wales on 27 October 2021. Presiding at that hearing was:
Dr Candice Newbury
Dr Brian Morton and
Mrs Catherine Berglund
That hearing did not go well and much of that I believe could be attributed to poor legal representation. At the conclusion of that hearing Dr Trinh was suspended and her case was forwarded to the Health Care Complaints Commission(HCCC) for further investigation. Of interest this commission overseen by a Commissioner, Mrs Sue Dawson, and is composed entirely of Parliamentarians:
McGirr, Joe (IND, LA Member) - Chairman
Cohn, Amanda (GRNS, LC Member)
Crakanthorp, Tim (ALP, LA Member)
Donnelly, Greg (ALP, LC Member)
Kemp, Michael (NAT, LA Member)
MacDonald, Aileen (LIB, LC Member)
Saliba, David (ALP, LA Member)
(Note: LA= Legislative Assembly, LC=Legislative Council. IND=Independent, GRNS = Greens, ALP= Australian Labor Party, NAT = National Party, LIB= Liberal Party)
Being Parliamentarians, without being otherwise briefed, they took the word of the Medical Council without question and so the matter has been forwarded to the New South Wales Administrative and Civil Tribunal(NCAT). A hearing has been set down for 15 July and has been scheduled to run until 17 July 2024. Dr Trinh wrote to HCCC Commissioner, Mrs Dawson, multiple times but did not receive any response from her. Dr Trinh, on numerous occasions, requested AHPRA conduct an investigation into how the prescription, confiscated by AHPRA from her chemist, ended up as part of the complaint made by the fictitious “John Smith”. AHPRA has been unable to explain this and claims it does not have the prescription. As the Commissioner, Mrs Dawson is responsible for overseeing the operations of the HCCC. It is important to note that politicians are not directly involved in its day-to-day functions. It would, however, be within their ambit, in this instance, to require Mrs Dawson to step down.
The members of the NCAT can be found on https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/about-ncat/tribunal-members.html . They are too numerous to mention here.
At the heart of this complaint lies the suppression of early treatment by Government authorities and ignorant doctors who have blithely gone along with this abominable policy. The motivation behind the policy was always to force people to submit to an experimental series of injections based on mRNA technology which is really a gene therapy. Dr Trinh was one of a number of exceptional doctors who would not comply and they have all been suspended or deregistered.
The mRNA Anti-COVID Injections have now been shown to not only be ineffective in preventing people from contracting COVID-19 but evidence suggests people are more likely, over a period of time, with more doses, to become more susceptible to COVID-19 and die from the disease. This gene therapy also has numerous other issues deleterious to the health of the recipient. At the moment, Australia has an excess mortality rate running between 10 and 18%. There is no doubt in the minds of most sensible people that the mRNA Anti-COVID injections are responsible for this carnage; the untimely deaths of around 20,000 Australians annually.
When Dr Trinh faces the NCAT I have arranged that she will have some of the most distinguished doctors and pharmacologists supporting her. This could be a seismic moment in the history of medicine in Australia and one that is long overdue. Its resolution could even affect the world and save many lives far in excess of what Dr Trinh, through her brave actions doing what she felt was best for her patients, could ever have contemplated.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/dr.-my-le-trinh-attacked-by-australian-health-authorities-for-following-the-kory-and-mccullough-protocols-for-the-successful-treatment-of-covid-19-b4fb5f40
***********************************************************
9 July, 2024
Hundreds Of Doctors And Scientists Sign Accord Calling For Suspension And Investigation Of MRNA Vaccines
Written by Will Jones
Hundreds of doctors and scientists from around the world have signed an accord calling for the suspension and investigation of mRNA Covid vaccines due to serious concerns about their safety and efficacy.
The statement, called the Hope Accord, was released this week and swiftly gained nearly 3,000 signatures. These included endorsements from over 200 doctors, 300 other healthcare professionals and over 100 scientists and academics, with all signatures being verified to ensure they are from real and qualified people.
The statement, which also calls for recognition and support for the vaccine injured, addresses five key priorities:
Immediate suspension of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine products: It says mRNA vaccine products should be suspended immediately due to a growing body of evidence suggesting a link between the vaccine rollout and alarming trends in disability and excess deaths.
Comprehensive re-evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy: It demands independent investigations to thoroughly reassess the safety and efficacy of all COVID-19 vaccine products, ensuring transparency and full disclosure of data.
Recognition and support for the vaccine injured: The accord stresses the need to acknowledge and support individuals who have suffered vaccine-related injuries, providing them with the necessary medical care and compensation.
Restoration of ethical principles abandoned during the COVID-19 era: It calls for a return to core medical ethics, including informed consent, bodily autonomy and the protection of children, all of which were compromised in the last few years.
Addressing the root causes of the current predicament: The accord advocates an honest investigation into the factors that led to the current ethical and medical issues, including institutional groupthink, conflicts of interest and the suppression of scientific debate.
The initiative grew out of the U.K. People’s Vaccine Inquiry, beginning life as a statement by members of Doctors for Patients U.K., including GP Dr. Ayiesha Malik, Surgeon Dr. James Royle and Cardiologist Dr. Dean Patterson. Emergency physician Dr. Tim Kelly saw the need for a broader international ethical statement and drew in supportive clinicians from the U.S., Canada, South Africa and Australia.
In a press release, the organisers said the accord “calls on the medical community and policymakers to reassess the ethical breaches of recent years and ensure future health crises are managed with greater adherence to ethical principles and scientific integrity”.
Healthcare professionals, scientists and concerned members of the public are invited to join the movement by adding their signature and support.
Top heart doctor Aseem Malhotra has endorsed the statement in a video on X.
Jordan Peterson has also backed the initiative, saying that while he doubts ethics can really be brought back to medicine, “these people are worth supporting”.
Dr. John Campbell has done a video looking at the Hope Accord that is worth a watch.
https://principia-scientific.com/hundreds-of-doctors-and-scientists-sign-accord-calling-for-suspension-and-investigation-of-mrna-vaccines/
***********************************************************
Scientists Who Were Instrumental to COVID-19 ‘Natural Origin’ Narrative Received Over $50 Million in NIAID Funding in 2020–21
Four prominent scientists who played key roles in shaping the public narrative about the origins of COVID-19 received substantial increases in grant money from the institute headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci in the subsequent two years, a review of funding data by The Epoch Times has found.
Three of these scientists—Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, and Michael Farzan—were advisers to a teleconference organized by Fauci held on Feb. 1, 2020, in response to increasing public questions about the origins of the virus.
The scientists also were instrumental in the publication of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a highly influential paper that promoted a natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and has been frequently cited by the government and media.
Emails released under Freedom of Information Act requests show that the scientists told the senior members of Fauci’s teleconference that they were 60 to 80 percent sure that COVID-19 had come out of a lab.
Notably, despite their private concerns about the origins of the virus, the first draft of “Proximal Origin” was completed on the same day as the teleconference. Andersen and Garry were co-authors of the paper, and Farzan was acknowledged in the version published by the journal Nature for his participatory discussions in the article’s creation.
Additionally, Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) provided a substantial increase in funding to EcoHealth’s Peter Daszak, through whom NIAID had funded controversial gain-of-function coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
Some of this funding has continued through 2021—and one of the newest grants will continue through at least 2025.
A significant portion of the funding increase for Daszak, as well as for Andersen and Garry, was provided through NIAID’s creation of the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID).
The program, which was originally referred to as Emerging Infectious Diseases Research Centers (EIDRCs) during the early planning stages in 2019, was formally announced under a new name on Aug. 27, 2020. It isn’t known why the program was initially delayed or why it was renamed.
The new initiative, described as a global network that involves “multidisciplinary investigations into how and where viruses and other pathogens emerge from wildlife and spillover to cause disease in people,” provided 11 new grants totaling $17 million of new funding in the first year and $82 million in total funding across five years.
Andersen and Garry were the co-recipients of a new $8.9 million, five-year grant made under the CREID initiative that established the West African Research Network for Infectious Diseases (WARN-ID). Daszak was the recipient of a new $7.5 million, five-year CREID grant that established the Emerging Infectious Diseases: South East Asia Research Collaboration Hub (EID-SEARCH). The other participants of the NIAID CREID program can be found here.
Notably, although the creation of CREID wasn’t publicly announced until Aug. 27, 2020, the award notice date for the grants to Andersen and Garry is listed as May 21, 2020. The CREID grant to Daszak lists a date of June 17, 2020. The timing of Daszak’s grant is particularly noteworthy, as it came shortly after President Donald Trump had revoked Daszak’s previous grant from Fauci’s NIAID in April 2020 because of Daszak’s entanglements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Andersen, who had privately told Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020, that the virus “looked engineered,” but later helped spearhead Fauci’s efforts to promote a natural origin narrative, received a total of $7.4 million in funding in 2020 as compared to $4.5 million in grant proceeds in 2019. Andersen’s total grant funding increased to nearly $9 million in 2021. The new CREID grants (co-awarded with Garry) accounted for approximately $1.9 million of his 2020 grant proceeds and $2 million of his grant proceeds in 2021. Included in Andersen’s 2021 figure is a $266,250 CREID grant that was made to Andersen but didn’t include Garry as a co-recipient.
While it isn’t known currently whether there was a connection between the increased funding and the scientists’ involvement in shaping the public natural origin narrative, these revelations raise an obvious question: How is it that among the thousands of scientists eligible to participate in the much-desired funding from the 11 grants provided by Fauci’s new $82 million CREID initiative, three of those chosen happened to be the same individuals who had led the way in promoting Fauci’s natural origin narrative—despite their private concerns that the virus had been created in a lab.
During the Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference, Andersen claimed to be “60 to 70 percent sure the virus came from a laboratory,” while one of Andersen’s “Proximal Origin” co-authors, Edward Holmes, put that figure even higher, at “80 percent.”
Garry, who told the senior members of Fauci’s teleconference group that he “really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus” to SARS-CoV-2, received $7 million in NIAID grants in 2020, compared to $5.7 million in 2019. Garry also received $6.6 million in grants in 2021. The new CREID grant (co-awarded with Andersen) accounted for about $1.9 million of his 2020 grant proceeds and $1.8 million of his grant proceeds in 2021.
During the Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference, Garry cited the remarkable sequences of mutations that would have to occur for SARS-CoV-2 to arise naturally, telling the group, “I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.” However, Garry noted that a lab-created virus would easily explain the virus data he was seeing, telling Fauci’s group that “in the lab, it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.”
Notably, Garry recently admitted in written correspondence with The Intercept that he had been advised not to discuss a lab leak in the “Proximal Origin” paper, stating, “The major feedback we got from the Feb 1 teleconference was: 1. Don’t try to write a paper at all—it’s unnecessary or 2. If you do write it, don’t mention a lab origin as that will just add fuel to the conspiracists.”
Garry—along with Andersen—must have heeded that directive, because on Feb. 1, 2020, the same day as Fauci’s teleconference, both men helped to complete the first draft of “Proximal Origin.” The paper, which sought to exclude the possibility of a laboratory leak, became the media’s and the public health establishment’s go-to evidence of a natural origin for the virus.
The choice of Andersen as a lead author for the paper is particularly curious, since Andersen had no material experience in researching coronaviruses. His stated focus was related to the Zika virus, Ebola virus, West Nile virus, and Lassa virus. It wasn’t until sometime after the Feb. 1 teleconference that he changed his biography to incorporate SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/scientists-who-were-instrumental-to-covid-19-natural-origins-narrative-received-over-50-million-in-niaid-funding-in-2020-2021-post-4220769?ea_src=ai_recommender&ea_med=a_bot_2_ads
****************************************************
8 July, 2024
It’s Time to Tell The Scientific Truth About the COVID-19 Vaccines
daniel_oconnor
Remember during the pandemic when the clinical trials concluded, and TrialSite advisor committee member Ron Brown, Ph.D. educated readers about the difference between relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR)? While the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine efficacy was about 95% as measured in RRR, as for ARR, that number came in just under 1%. But neither the pharmaceutical sponsor nor government health-related agencies bothered to discuss that latter number.
Dr. Brown wasn’t the only one to mention these divergent numbers. In a piece in the Lancet Microbe titled “COVID-19 Vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room” University of Oxford infectious disease and poverty researcher Piero Olliaro and colleagues also reiterated these figures. See graph below for the divergent spread between RRR and ARR for all the COVID-19 vaccines at the time.
It turns out that ARR and RRR are both ways to measure risk reduction, and they can be used in medical interventions and they should both be used. More on that topic below.
And this is an important point about say the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. To speak of this reality in social media would lead to censorship, even accusations of being a conspiracy nut, a loon or even—an anti-vaxxer.
Yet so many ethical scientists, front line doctors and health-related researchers or for that matter, journalists seeking to democratize scientific communications such as at TrialSite that took on and challenged the government’s narrative during the pandemic were wronged in so many ways,
To promote a big, lie a government-industry-academic medical system tripartite needs to be able to censor or gaslight anyone who has opposing views and the mainstream media machine along with big tech emerged as the vehicle for suppression during the COVID-19 crisis--with military precision--smearing anyone that questions the top-down, rigid, draconian policies and strategy.
But at TrialSite, a biomedical and health research media platform democratizing scientific communications in the biomedical and health research space, we encouraged pursuit of truth in this critically important field. In fact, we were the only media in the English speaking world that I know of that consistently reported on studies showing both the benefits of the vaccine—and there were many mostly observational studies with lots of limitations, yet showing benefit, but also the problems with the mRNA vaccines.
The mainstream media and trade press only reported on good news associated with the COVID-19 countermeasures, while groups considering themselves part of the medical freedom movement only published bad news. Today, there are numerous Substackers that literally hang out at the obituary page to connect any cardiovascular death to the vaccines. They have absolutely lost their minds in some cases. Yes, TrialSite continues to get an earful, and more from both sides.
But it turned out that when it came to Pfizer and the mainstream media, science is immutable. Yes, Pfizer claimed a 95% efficacy rate but we knew that based on the ARR the effectiveness in the real world could be far less.
Importantly, we should use both ARR and RRR when interpreting clinical trials results. Both ARR and RRR should be used when presenting the results of a clinical trial. Each measure provides different information and can be useful for different audiences:
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR):
Definition: ARR is the difference in the event rates between two groups (e.g., treatment group and control group).
Importance: It gives a direct measure of the reduction in risk attributable to the treatment. This can be more intuitive for clinicians and patients to understand the actual benefit of a treatment.
Example: If a drug reduces the incidence of a disease from 10% in the control group to 5% in the treatment group, the ARR is 5%.
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR):
Definition: RRR is the proportionate reduction in risk between the treatment group and the control group. It is calculated by dividing the ARR by the event rate in the control group.
Importance: It expresses the reduction in risk relative to the baseline risk, often making the treatment effect appear more impressive. This can be useful for comparing the effectiveness of different interventions. It’s used frequently in marketing communications.
Example: Using the same numbers, if the drug reduces the incidence from 10% to 5%, the RRR is 50% (since 5% is half of 10%).
Why Use Both Measures?
Comprehensive Understanding: Using both ARR and RRR provides a more complete picture of the treatment’s effectiveness.
Communication: Different stakeholders (e.g., clinicians, patients, policymakers) may find one measure more intuitive or useful than the other.
Contextual Clarity: ARR helps understand the real-world impact, while RRR can highlight the effectiveness in relative terms, especially when the baseline risk is low.
Additional Considerations:
Number Needed to Treat (NNT): This is another useful measure derived from ARR, indicating how many patients need to be treated to prevent one additional adverse event.
Context of the Study: The baseline risk and the clinical context should be considered when interpreting and communicating these measures.
Overall, presenting both ARR and RRR helps ensure that the information is clear, transparent, and useful for making informed decisions in clinical practice.
Now, if we look at some recent data, or for that matter dozens of real-world studies reviewed at TrialSite over the past couple years, that 95% effectiveness rate has gone way, way down. In fact, so far down after a few months its performance starts to look like that initial ARR.
One recent The Lancet Regional Health paper states: ‘Compared to a waned third dose, fourth dose vaccine effectiveness was 24.0% in the first two months post-vaccination, reducing to 10.3% and 1.7% at two to four and four to six months, respectively’.
If we take wide confidence intervals, the waning numbers could easily wane to below zero.
And remember those Cleveland Clinic studies authored by Shrestha et al.? They found each vaccine dose was associated with a higher number of infections, with those on zero doses doing better than the others.
Study after study covered by TrialSite, published in the New England Journal of Medicine to the MMWR reports from the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention we see in real time how effectiveness has dramatically dropped, including for severe COVID, with in some cases the previously infected and unvaccinated having lower infection rates than those double doses and never infected.
One British study according to social and medical entrepreneur Sir Ray Avery revealed the effectiveness of one to two doses of AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines dropping to zero, and turning negative, after only two to three months.
Then just days ago, TrialSite covered the latest piece from Australian academic researcher Raphael Lataster BPharm, Ph.D., Associate Lecturer, FASS, University of Sydney. Published in the Australian Journal of General Practice (AJGP) Lataster addresses COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness (where the vaccine according to this assessment boosts one’s probability of not only COVID-19 infection, but also hospitalization and yes in some cases even death.
As New Zealand based Sir Ray, an important figure few know about here in America recently inserted in a LinkedIn post, “There comes a point where labelling these respected authors as conspiracy theorists just doesn’t wash.”
His point, and this author in this opinion piece at this moment in history has to concur, that at best case, this is not a vaccine that provides long term immunity against Covid-19 and there is a decent probability now that for many cohorts the vaccine could be doing more harm than benefit. And that’s based on the unfolding science. Meaning any government discussion to the contrary is propaganda, a spin to try to keep a story going as long as possible to figure a way out.
Did the COVID-19 vaccines help, especially early on in the pandemic? Yes, they did especially elderly people at higher risk of acute COVID-19 infection. And hundreds of studies we have reviewed suggest a benefit. But has their performance waned materially? Absolutely. Is that conspiratorial to admit? Absolutely not.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/its-time-to-tell-the-scientific-truth-about-the-covid-19-vaccines-7c2e9515
**********************************************************
7 July, 2024
European Medicines Agency Top Scientists Acknowledge mRNA-Based Spike Protein a Potential Threat with Myocarditis
TrialSite has chronicled many dozens to nearly a hundred studies involving myocarditis and COVID-19 vaccines. Chronicling a growing body of quality evidence that a circulating spike protein likely represents a problem, at least in some relatively rare number of cases. Yet mainstream science in North America as represented by academic medical centers, apex federal health institutions and physician societies have avoided the free spike protein question despite growing evidence. It is for this reason that even though TrialSite questions many of the assumptions underlying the conclusions in a recent paper authored by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) top scientists, it’s nonetheless a breakthrough that the esteemed group of authors has opened up the discussion, acknowledging a potential problem with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and free spike induced cardiovascular injury.
Alessandra Buoninfante, Ph.D., Scientific Officer, and colleagues at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) first and foremost, wield quite a bit of influence in the European continent when it comes to regulation of drugs and vaccines.
In this latest review article in NPJ Vaccines, the four authors acknowledge that the available evidence reveals that COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is associated with a greater risk of myocarditis, but emphasize the risk remains far greater with COVID-19 infection.
While the high-level EMA operatives emphasize a benefit/risk ratio overwhelmingly favoring use of the vaccine versus the risk of COVID-19, they nonetheless open up the door to take on the mRNA vaccines.
In this latest paper, the scientific leadership from this powerful regulatory body declares that to date, no definite mechanism for vaccine-associated myocarditis has yet to be identified, necessitating ongoing epidemiological, clinical and non-clinical research. And they introduce select examples of the mRNA vaccine-triggered free spike protein as a possible culprit.
According to Buoninfante and colleagues prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccination, COVID-19 patients faced approximately 16 times the risk for myocarditis relative to patients without COVID-19. What is the basis for this claim? Boehmer, T. K. et al. Association between COVID-19 and Myocarditis using hospital-based administrative data — United States, March 2020–January 2021. That observational; study was limited however and was not designed to establish any causation.
One glaring issue with this underlying study the European regulators use for their evidence is that the risk estimates from the study reflect the risk for myocarditis among persons who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 during an outpatient or inpatient health care encounter and do not reflect the risk among all persons who had COVID-19. This point cannot be glossed over.
The vast majority of COVID-19 infections (90-95%) were mild to moderate with no clinic encounter. In fact, many cases were asymptomatic. So TrialSite must challenge the underlying premise based on this point alone, not to mention other risks for misclassification as well as other biases.
Buoninfante et al, also point to matched analyses from medical records (Dec 2020 to May 2021) from the largest healthcare organization in Israel. Cited as Barda et al. study according to the authors revealed that “COVID-19 vaccination was associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24) compared to unvaccinated and SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28) compared to uninfected.”
The Israeli reports the mortality rate involving myocarditis to be less for those vaccinated compared to persons with viral infection-related myocarditis.
Plus they refer to a more contemporary study result in Husby et al. suggesting that the relative risk of heart failure within 90 days was 0.56 and 1.48 for myocarditis associated with vaccination and COVID-19 disease, respectively. Again, multiple limitations and the observational nature of the study raises the specter of association but not causation.
The authors use these selected studies to conclude that “myocarditis associated with COVID-19 disease, myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines occurs less frequently and in addition is associated with a better clinical outcome.”
Real World Recognition
The authors which include pharmacovigilance experts from EMA also point to the likely uncertainty in all the numbers. Among other reasons in trying to identify an accurate background incidence rate in healthy people and the actual number of vaccine-associated cases. Cases are likely underestimated in pharmacovigilance systems.
Estimating the extent of potential under-reporting in the pharmacovigilance systems is influenced by public awareness, the disease severity spectrum, demographics, and/or local practices and other factors beyond the regulator's control.
A Breakthrough Spike Protein Discussion
Interestingly the European Medicines Agency scientists raise the specter of implication of free spike protein as a potential culprit, and this is a big deal given a growing body of literature and mostly silence from mainstream science in North America.
For example, Buoninfante and colleagues point out that “despite not being systematically screened and checked for in myocarditis samples, the spike protein could be a key player in the etiology and/or progression of the disease.”
The speculation suggests, according to the European regulators, that “the spike protein (expression) could directly contribute to inflammation of the endothelium and cardiac tissue. Detailed antibody- and T-cell multiplex cytokine response profiles of 16 subjects who developed post-vaccine myocarditis within the first week after vaccination appeared to be indistinguishable from those generated from vaccinated control subjects and only a modest increase in cytokine production linked to innate cell response was observed.”
Yet they point to “elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies were detected in the plasma of these myocarditis subjects, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects citing Yonker et al. Correlating with cardiac troponin T levels as well as innate immune activation with cytokine release was the unbound spike.
The authors cite Avolio et al noting that the spike protein may interact with and trigger “dysfunction of cardiac pericytes” not to mention contribute to endothelial inflammation in mice as reported in Robles et al.
Moreover, EMA’s authors cite Roltogen et al and Ogata et al “demonstrating the presence of spike antigen post second COVID-19 mRNA dose in circulation longer than originally anticipated.”
Going back to Yonker et al., the European regulatory establishment in the form of this paper acknowledges vaccine-induced myocarditis may be directly explained by an “unbound circulating spike protein, not in inducing immune hyperactivation, but in contributing directly to the effects recorded in myocarditis subjects.”
Summary
While EMA”s Scientific Officer along with Marco Calaveri Head of Anti-infectives and Vaccine and other high ranking colleagues continue to suggest the risk of myocarditis in association with COVID-19 infection remains far higher than via mRNA vaccination, the evidence they depend upon isn’t designed to make such claims while the influential, we would argue powerful group offers the scientific world an important opening in this recent review—they embrace the unfolding scientific evidence that a mRNA COVID vaccine-induced spike protein may be doing damage. Calaveri as with many making this claim do not consider time ordered exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection followed by vaccination, vaccination followed by infection, and repeated sequences.
This makes it impossible to claim infection alone causes myocarditis. With infection alone, there have been no published clinically adjudicated cases of myocarditis. There have been no fatal cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination where myocarditis was identified on autopsy. This is a breakthrough given that for at least a couple years now in reviews of substantial amounts of literature industry, government and academia continue to lag behind more independent scientists critically scrutinize the mRNA-induced spike protein in the context of vaccine injury, including myocarditis.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/breaking-european-medicines-agency-top-scientists-acknowledge-mrna-based-spike-protein-a-potential-threat-with-myocarditis-337834f0
************************************************
4 July, 2024
Major Medical Journal Publishes Article Showing Negative Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines
BY DR RAPHAEL LATASTER
I don’t like to say things are huge, but this is huge. As promised, my own little article on COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness (where the jab increases one’s chance of Covid infection, hospitalisation and even death) has been published in a major medical journal, the Australian Journal of General Practice. Published by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, AJGP is literally the medical journal for general practitioners (family doctors) in Australia. Also discussed in what became an epic and frank discussion amongst several Australian health professionals are vaccine injuries and ‘Long Covid’ potentially being ‘long jab’.
This all started with Tindle’s article in AJGP earlier this year, which contained scarcely believable quotable quotes like: “Because COVID-19 vaccines were approved without long-term safety data and might cause immune dysfunction, it is perhaps premature to assume that past SARS-CoV-2 infection is the sole common factor in long Covid.” He declared that “COVID-19 vaccination per se might contribute to Long Covid, giving rise to the colloquial term ‘Long Vax(x)’”, since the “spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 exhibits pathogenic characteristics and is a possible cause of post-acute sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination”. Not to mention the “class switch to IgG4 antibodies”, which Tindle thinks could lead to autoimmunity and cancer.
With the editorial team apparently happy to publish on the jab potentially causing immune dysfunction, I thought this could be my chance to once again bring up negative effectiveness in a major medical journal. Indeed, it accepted, and here is what I spoke about:
I cite several articles apparently displaying some sort of COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, including one published by NEJM, another published in a Lancet journal and the little discussion involving myself in the BMJ. In the worst cases, the vaccines’ effectiveness drops to zero, and even turns negative, within mere months.
I cited the JECP4 articles, which show “that issues with counting windows have likely led to exaggerations of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety estimates, for both the clinical trials and later observational studies”.
I also pointed to Fürst et al., a recent study revealing “strong evidence for the healthy vaccinee effect”, countering any excuse involving the idea that sicker people are the ones getting vaccinated. A pretty silly excuse anyway, since most adults took the jab.
I conclude: “All this makes it plausible that the COVID-19 vaccines have always had an effectiveness that was very low, zero, or even negative, with inadequate methods allowing for a highly exaggerated effectiveness initially – an exaggeration that is lessened with time. It is, as Professor Tindle noted, possible that the vaccines could be causing immunosuppression. With the ubiquitousness of the vaccines, and the fact that some vaccine mandates are still in place, to say nothing of the upcoming Senate inquiry into excess mortality, I suggest we investigate this further.”
Awesome, huh? But wait, there’s more. A few more follow-up articles were published by AJGP, one involving Liu and Macartney (from the influential pro-jab Liu et al. study I’ve ‘refuted’, publishing forthcoming), with the usual attempts to “counter the unsubstantiated assertions that COVID-19 vaccination is causally associated with Long Covid”, customary claims that the jab “saved millions of lives” included.
Okay, so that bit of propaganda wasn’t so exciting, but another follow-up was also published, by Murnane. They were also concerned about “spikeopathy” and declared:
Professor Tindle’s concerns about ‘Long Vax(x)’ very much echo conditions I have observed working as a general practitioner. I have seen patients present with Long Covid symptoms post COVID-19 vaccine without prior COVID-19 infection. I have also observed patients with Long Covid that has been acquired post COVID-19 infection, who have experienced a worsening of their symptoms post COVID-19 vaccination. This is consistent with studies that have shown a worsening of symptoms in 21% to 31% of Long Covid sufferers post COVID-19 vaccination.
They also shared that they “personally suffered from a COVID-19 vaccine injury leading to dysautonomia, small fibre neuropathy, thyroiditis and mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)”.
Finally, Tindle was granted the opportunity to wrap things up. He apparently agreed with my “case counting window concerns”, observations of negative effectiveness and the healthy vaccinee effect, countering Liu et al. Tindle is all of us when he opines that the “amount of spike protein from the vaccine is likely many fold greater than that from infection with virus because of stability mutations introduced into the vaccine mRNA, and the tissue penetrance of spike protein mRNA into a far more diverse set of tissues than infection”. In response to Murnane, Tindle claims that other GPs echoed similar concerns, about ‘Long Covid’ being “a side effect of the Covid vaccination”, and mentions the persecution of doctors who dared to speak out. Ending by questioning if the jabs are truly beneficial for all, Tindle even boldly noted that earlier “posts implicating COVID-19 vaccines were removed by the site moderators”. Things are changing. We’re winning.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/01/major-medical-journal-publishes-study-showing-negative-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines/
*****************************************************
From Solzhenitsyn to US Governors: No Lessons Learned
This year marks half a century since Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago: An Experiment in Literary Investigation appeared in English. Northwestern University professor Gary Saul Morson calls this work “the masterpiece of our time,” and there’s a backstory here.
After visiting the Soviet Union in 1919, California journalist Lincoln Steffens proclaimed, “I have seen the future and it works,” a claim repeated by many Western luminaries during the 1930s, as Malcolm Muggeridge recalled in Chronicles of Wasted Time. Solzhenitsyn showed how the USSR didn’t work, except as a vast prison camp, and confirmed that the first Communist state was much worse than anybody imagined. In some quarters, the revelations did not receive a warm welcome.
While the courageous Solzhenitsyn was being hailed around the world, U.S. President Gerald Ford declined to meet with the author. During an October 1976 debate, Ford proclaimed “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” As this confirmed, ignorance and reality dysphoria are not new problems in America. Had other politicians given Solzhenitsyn’s work the attention it deserved they might have gone easier on the people during difficult times.
Independent peasants known as “kulaks” resisted the collectivization of agriculture. During Stalin’s campaign to eliminate the kulaks as a class, as Solzhenitsyn noted, food was confiscated and even fishing in the rivers was prohibited. Jump ahead to January, 2020.
The CDC’s Dr. Nancy Messonnier announces that a “novel coronavirus” has arrived stateside from China and will spread across the country. Quick to proclaim a state of emergency was California governor Gavin Newsom, who considered a statewide ban on freshwater sportfishing.
Newsom told the anglers “we are not cancelling the fishing season. We just want to delay, not deny, that season.” But he presented no scientific evidence that anglers on the state’s remote rivers and lakes posed a danger to public health.
The governor also closed nearly all beaches in southern California, including beach bathrooms, piers, promenades, and beach bike paths. In early April, 2020, police arrested a solitary paddleboarder near the Malibu pier. Gov. Newsom and his aides failed to show how a single person on the water posed a threat to public health. The governor also ordered many businesses, including wineries, to shut down their indoor operations, but he exempted Napa County from the state’s monitoring list.
That’s why the governor’s own PlumpJack Winery, purchased with Gordon Getty, remained open. Napa County is also home to the upscale French Laundry restaurant, where Newsom and lobbyist colleagues partied sans masks, which the governor demanded for ordinary people. None of the highly restrictive rules for private gatherings were in force for the governor and his friends. In similar style, while many of the state’s government schools were shut, Gov. Newsom’s four children received in-person instruction at an exclusive private school in Sacramento County.
Across the country in New York State, elderly patients, the group most vulnerable to Covid, were forced into nursing homes where thousands perished. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) boss Dr. Anthony Fauci, who claimed to represent science, didn’t want to talk about it.
From the nursing home victims on down through school shutdowns and the ban on paddleboarding and fishing, the government pandemic regime reflected an authoritarian mindset more than any quest to keep the people safe. As Solzhenitsyn noted, the Soviet Communist Party elite enjoyed special powers and privileges, so it’s more a matter of degree than kind.
Stalin set out to eliminate the kulaks as a class and murdered millions. American President Gerald Ford tried to free Eastern Europe with his mouth. American politicians such as Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo, in alliance with government bureaucrats such as Dr. Fauci, caused vast damage to the people while claiming to keep them safe. From the Red Terror to white coat supremacy, it’s all about memory against forgetting.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14969&omhide=true&trk=rm
************************************************
3 July, 2024
Large Korean Study Finds Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Linked to Long COVID
Researchers from Kyung Hee University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea investigate any evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked to short-and long-term neuropsychiatric symptoms.
The Korean-led team capitalized on the Korea nationwide cohort involving 10,027,506 (discovery) individuals plus the Japanese claims-based cohort involving 12,218, 680 (validation) to estimate the short-term (<30 days) and long-term (?30 days) risks of neuropsychiatric outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with general population groups or external comparators (people with another respiratory infection).
This propensity score matching study led to the conclusion that in both the short and longer term, COVID-19 is elevated with risk of neuropsychiatric symptoms as compared to persons in Korea and Japan infected with another respiratory condition.
What symptoms and conditions emerge in this long COVID population as measured by propensity score matched outcomes in the 30-plus day cohort? Myriad neurological-based conditions:
Guillain-Barré syndrome
Cognitive deficit
Insomnia
Anxiety disorder
Encephalitis
Ischemic stroke
Mood disorder
Are there any mitigating factors, interventions reducing risk of these neuropsychiatric symptoms linked with long COVID?
According to the study which has its limitations and is not designed to prove causation factors ranging from mild severity of COVID-19, increased vaccination against COVID-19 and heterologous vaccination could be associated with lower long-term risk of adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes in the targeted populations.
The time attenuation effect was the strongest during the first six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and this risk remained statistically significant for up to one year in Korea but beyond one year in Japan, according to the authors’ entry in the peer-reviewed journal nature human behavior.
Thanks to the validation cohort with Japanese data, the authors were able to replicate the findings. The authors point out that their “findings contribute to the growing evidence base on long COVID by considering ethnic diversity.”
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-korean-study-finds-neuropsychiatric-symptoms-linked-to-long-covid-9f7e13c4
****************************************************
A top Republican is demanding the Pentagon explain why it tried to hide taxpayer dollars sent to China for risky virus research
A new Defense Department report shockingly revealed the agency lost track of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to the adversary of the US.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is now demanding Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin explain what exactly happened, according to correspondence exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com.
Paul says he's 'deeply concerned' over the Pentagon report finding the department couldn't determine whether it sent money to China for pathogen research.
'It is unacceptable that DoD cannot account for the full extent of taxpayer funding it has spent on pandemic pathogen research at Chinese research laboratories,' Paul wrote to Austin.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has requested files from the Pentagon regarding their use of taxpayer dollars to fund pathogen research in China. Paul has been investigating the origins of COVID for years and was shocked over the Pentagon's neglect in tracking funding to foreign countries
The Republican requested Sec. Austin turn over files relating to the Pentagon's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) that funded Chinese pathogen research, similar to the research done on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the COVID pandemic.
The senator has been vigorously investigating the origins of COVID and former White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci for his role in the pandemic and its policies.
Now he is examining the Pentagon's role in using 'American taxpayer dollars for risky virus research in China and other foreign countries.'
'This lack of oversight represents a significant gap in our national security and undermines public trust in the DoD,' Paul said.
Previously, the senator disclosed to DailyMail.com how Fauci still receives a taxpayer-funded 24/7 US Marshal security detail despite not being a government employee.
'The only other person probably getting his level of security would be the president, vice president, maybe cabinet members, and a few members in leadership in the House and Senate,' Paul told DailyMail.com.
Paul has also been outspoken in accusing Fauci of obfuscating the origins of the virus.
The Republican has twice sent referrals to the Justice Department for Fauci's prosecution, telling DailyMail.com 'he committed a felony by lying to Congress saying he didn't fund gain and function research. He's still saying that.'
'It is annoying that he's still out there crowing how great he is, when really his philosophic opinion that gain-of-function research is worth the risk is something that I think history should remember, and I'm going to do every bit of making sure that history remembers that he was philosophically in favor of the research that I believe allowed millions of people to die from this lab leak,' Paul told DailyMail.com.
Last month, the Kentuckian grilled several eminent doctors during a Senate hearing on the origins of COVID and definition of gain-of-function research.
The hearing became heated as lawmakers and witnesses sparred over the good that could come from the research that enhances viruses to make them more effective.
And Paul said if Republicans gain control of the Senate in November and he gets committee power, his first action will be to subpoena those files.
'The most important information is the NIH deliberation over what is, what is not gain-of-function,' he told DailyMail.com. 'They won't give us the information.'
Those documents will truly reveal whether Fauci lied to Congress about whether he was overseeing the dangerous research method, which he previously denied doing before the Senate, Paul said.
Still, the reputation damage to US public health officials is done, he added.
'We have public health officials that appear to be more salesmen for Big Pharma, than they do objective scientists, and that still is a problem,' Paul told DailyMail.com.
'It's led to a great deal of distrust, much more distrust over what the government tells us, than ever before,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13593491/pentagon-hid-taxpayer-funding-chinese-labs-rand-paul.html
******************************************************
Jury Awards $687,000 to BlueCross BlueShield Scientist Fired for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine
A federal jury has awarded $687,000 to a research scientist who was fired from BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee for refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Tanja Benton, who had worked at the firm for 16 years when she was fired, was awarded $177,240 in back pay, $10,000 in compensation, and $500,000 in punitive damages, according to a document made public by the federal court in eastern Tennessee on June 30.
Company officials told Ms. Benton in August of 2021 that she would need to be “fully vaccinated” to keep her position, according to her lawsuit. Ms. Benton refused, saying aborted fetal cell lines were involved in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines and she couldn’t “in good conscience consume the vaccine, which would not only defile her body but also anger and dishonor God.”
BlueCross BlueShield said her position involved “regular external public-facing interactions” so she couldn’t keep it. While Ms. Benton said her position became fully remote in 2020, BlueCross BlueShield said it would have involved some in-person interaction with clients.
Ms. Benton was told to pursue other positions within the company and applied for two. But she was fired on Nov. 4, 2021, and was told five days later that, “Unfortunately, all positions require the vax now,” according to an email entered in the case.
Her lawsuit charged that BlueCross BlueShield violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says an employer may not “discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that person’s religion. Employers can disregard religious exemption requests if they can prove accommodating them would create an undue hardship.
BlueCross BlueShield “cannot prove that allowing Plaintiff to continue her employment as a Bio Statistical Research Scientist without being vaccinated for COVID-19 constitutes an undue hardship,” the suit stated. The company “also cannot show that it made any good-faith efforts to accommodate plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”
BlueCross BlueShield also was accused of violating the Tennessee Human Rights Act, which bars discrimination by employers at the state level.
“We’re disappointed by the decision,” Dalya Qualls White, chief communications officer for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, told The Epoch Times in an email. “We believe our vaccine requirement was the best decision for our employees and members, and we believe our accommodation to the requirement complied with the law. We appreciate our former employees’ service to our members and communities throughout their time with our company.”
A lawyer representing Ms. Benton didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, presented with the case, cleared Ms. Benton to sue her former employer.
Company lawyers had argued the firm would be unduly burdened by providing Ms. Benton an indefinite exception despite her role as a “public-facing employee.” The lawyers said she couldn’t have continued to work remotely indefinitely.
The company also asserted that Ms. Benton didn’t hold a sincerely held religious belief and “denies that the COVID-19 vaccine was derived from aborted fetus cell lines, which is verifiably false,” according to the company’s filing.
Johnson & Johnson used cells derived from an aborted fetus in the design, production, and testing of its COVID-19 vaccine. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also utilized the cells in early testing. The companies have said the final products don’t contain aborted fetal cells.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/jury-awards-687000-to-bluecross-blueshield-scientist-fired-for-refusing-covid-19-vaccine-5678321
************************************************
2 July, 2024
Pfizer About To Find Itself In Court Again
Pfizer Inc. previously admitted it behaved improperly in not reporting major clinical trial safety issues during the original COVID-19 “vaccine” trials because they claimed the US FDA were aware of what they were doing, therefore, it was OK. That is a very creative defence
But momentum is building to bring Pfizer, Moderna and “health experts” like Fauci to justice.
Grilling of Dr. Fauci goes on before US Senators and admissions of misinformation (read “lies”) are now flowing…..there was no science to support lockdowns, masking or social distancing.
The “experts” didn’t even bother to look at the science according to Dr. Scott Atlas who was part of the Trump Covid task force team.
We know better now and nobody should be so easily fooled again (think Bird Flu).
Now details are emerging of the specifics of the Kansas State lawsuit against Pfizer Inc. over the COVID-19 “vaccines”.
A Substack by Carl Heneghan of June 27th details the main alleged points which may be summarised as follows:
· Pfizer misled the public in relation to its claim of “safety and efficacy”
· Pfizer used confidentiality agreements to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine
· Pfizer used its confidentiality agreements with the US government and others to conceal, suppress, and omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including the safety and efficacy of the vaccine
· Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data – the study was repeatedly delayed
· Pfizer has not honoured its promise to release safety data
· Pfizer destroyed the vaccine control group
· In its press release announcing emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer did not disclose that it had excluded immunocompromised individuals from its COVID-19 vaccine trials
· Pfizer knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis and did not properly report these in a timely manner
· Pfizer’s February 18, 2021, press release also did not disclose other adverse effects on the reproductive systems of women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine
· Pfizer’s study on pregnant women failed and the results are secret
· Pfizer misrepresented and concealed material facts relating to the durability of protection provided by its COVID-19 vaccine
· Pfizer said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission even though it knew it had never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission
· Pfizer worked to censor speech on social media that questioned it’s claims.
These alleged crimes have been well known for some time but now they will be tested in a court of law.
https://principia-scientific.com/pfizer-about-to-find-itself-in-court-again/
*************************************************
Unvaccinated Police In Australia Fired Two Years After Covid Mandates Dropped
Two years after the Covid mandates ended, the West Australian Police Force has fired nearly 20 unvaccinated police officers and public servants for refusing to get the jabs.
A legal challenge against the mandates, brought by WA Police officer Ben Falconer and staff member Les Finlay, had previously secured an injunction preventing the force from firing unvaccinated staff until the matter had been settled in the courts.
However, a Supreme Court ruling that then-WA Police Commissioner Chris Dawson’s Covid vaccination directive was “valid and lawful” brought an end to the injunction in April. WA Police announced the resumption of disciplinary action against 17 affected employees immediately after the hearing, with all 12 police officers and five staff having now been sacked.
Falconer was the last to be formally notified of his dismissal on Friday, for disobeying the Commissioner’s vaccination directive. Despite no prior history of disobedience, Falconer refused the jabs due to his concerns over the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccines and the way in which mandates violated the bodily integrity of officers and staff.
While Deputy Commissioner Allan Adams said that Falconer’s dismissal was “regretful”, Falconer maintains that refusing Covid vaccination is the “best decision I’ve ever made”. Falconer, a Senior Constable who served in the force for 15 years, says that the sacked police officers had over 150 years of policing experience combined.
The firings come amid staffing shortages and low morale, with WA Police turning to overseas recruitment to prop up its frontline forces.
In April this year it was reported that WA Police was well short of its target of recruiting 950 new frontline officers by mid-year, with only 450-500 having signed on.
Opposition leader Libby Mettam (Liberal) said that in the past four years, there has been a “mass exodus of police with nearly 1,000 officers resigning” from the roughly 7,000 strong force.
Police Commissioner Col Blanch admitted that the force saw a “significant” reduction in police numbers after the Covid pandemic, with 570 officers leaving the force in 2022, of which 473 were resignations and 97 retirements.
WA Police was asked to provide comment along with up-to-date recruitment, resignation and retirement figures, but did not respond prior to publication deadline.
The Labour Government has blamed market forces for WA Police’s struggles with retention and recruitment. However survey data collected by the WA Police Union in 2022 showed that 77% of staff exiting the force claim poor work culture and dissatisfaction with management as their reasons for quitting.
Another union survey of members conducted in 2022 found that morale in the force is at an “all-time-low”, with almost two thirds (64.6%) of respondents describing morale as “poor”. This is more than double 28.2% who said the same in the last poll in 2017. None of the 1,966 respondents described morale as “excellent”.
A majority of respondents complained that their workload had increased, and half or more complained of fatigue, management problems, unpaid overtime and rostering issues.
Nearly three quarters (71.4%) of respondents said they’d used the WA Police mental health services, with 36.6% of service users reporting their experience was “very negative” or “negative”.
Public sector census data obtained under Freedom of Information by the Liberal opposition showed that in 2023, less than half (47.1%) would recommend their agency as a workplace, compared to almost 70% for the public sector overall.
Some of this discontent appears to be driven by the force’s Covid response. In an unauthorised survey of WA Police staff initiated by former officer Jordan McDonald, who resigned over vaccine mandates, employees said they felt “bullied” into getting vaccinated and complained about resources being diverted away from traditional policing towards the state’s Covid response.
In 2022, WA Police began an international recruitment drive to fill vacant frontline positions, with the aim of recruiting 750 officers from the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand over a five-year period. WA Police has also been creative with its recruitment campaign at home, appealing to lonely hearts on hookup app Tinder.
The WA Police Union said it supports the overseas recruitment drive but characterised it as a “band-aid solution”.
“It’s only a matter of time before these new recruits obtain permanent residency and become familiar with the many cultural and organisational issues in WA Police,” the union said in a media statement.
The WA Police Union was approached by unvaccinated members for assistance with their industrial action resisting the mandates, but Falconer, who was a member, says the union’s response was “hostile”. The union also declined to provide information and comment for this article.
Unvaccinated WA Police staff had been on paid leave since the Covid vaccine mandate came into effect in December 2021 until their recent dismissals, an arrangement that Falconer has called “fiscally irresponsible”.
In an essay posted to social media platform X, Falconer said that the South Australian Police Force responded to the situation better. Unvaccinated SA Police officers were allowed to use accrued leave until the mandates dropped, after which they were allowed back to work “without ever being stood down and no disciplinary action taken whatsoever”, he said.
“I could have been back at work from June 2022 [when the mandates were dropped] and there were plenty of administrative tasks that could have been done with remote access to police systems if allowed to work from home,” said Falconer, who said he informed WA Police more than 30 times of his willingness to return to work.
Former police officer of 27 years Lance French, who was also fired this month for not complying with the Police Commissioner’s 2021 Covid vaccination directive, said that he too had informed WA Police numerous times that he wanted to return to work since the mandates were dropped.
Now that his two-and-a-half year legal fight has come to an end, Falconer said that he will take some time out to consider his next career move.
French expressed gratitude for the support of his wife, family and colleagues, opining on social media that while “the trajectory we are heading (as a society) is not good,” he was appreciative for “the legislative and judicial structures enabling our lawful challenge of Commissioner Dawson’s… draconian order to undergo a medical procedure”.
WA Police officers and staff are not the only Australian workers still experiencing repercussions from the Covid mandates, even after most of the public have well and truly moved on.
In January of this year, Queensland Health was criticised for continuing to discipline and fire healthcare workers for failing to comply with vaccination directives issued in late 2021.
More than 50 unvaccinated firefighters remain banned from returning to work in Victoria despite critical staffing shortages, and mandates remain in place for some nurses, midwives and doctors around the country.
The Australian state and territory governments’ coercive Covid vaccination mandates have come under fire recently with AstraZeneca’s admission that its vaccine can cause deadly blood clots, and with mounting vaccine injury claims.
https://principia-scientific.com/unvaccinated-police-in-australia-fired-two-years-after-covid-mandates-dropped/
************************************************
1 July, 2024
The Great Lockdown Swindle
Written by Alex Kriel
Many people will remember the Covid policy response as a nightmare involving: reduced access to medical treatment, businesses closures, disrupted schooling and fear generated by Government brainwashing.
After the event, it is always worth doing a ‘cui bono‘ (who benefits) exercise to identify who benefited, especially since the hopeless mainstream media have largely failed to do this.
Counterintuitively, the über-wealthy owners of 0.1% of wealth in the United States, increased their net worth by a staggering $6.4 trillion over the 2022-2023 pandemic period.
With their net worth growing from $12.1 trillion to $18.5 trillion, a pretty cool $20 million per head for approximately 300,000 people.
This outcome is counterintuitive since the lockdowns temporarily wrecked the economy and had a significant negative impact on Government debt, which ballooned due to staggering budget deficits. All things being equal, you would expect stock markets to move lower under these circumstances.
In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of extreme money printing though the stock market exploded and the benefit from this explosion accrued primarily to the über-wealthy, who hold most of the financial assets.
Regular folk without significant financial assets tended to get left with the rough end of the stick in the form of elevated inflation.
We covered the link between money printing and financial asset values in a previous note (‘Where did the money go?‘), the chart below shows that money printing (red), moves in almost exactly the same way as the size of the wealth owned by the wealthiest 0.1% (blue). Both axes are in trillion (millions of millions).
You could credibly argue that the aim of monetary policy seems to be to prop up the value of the financial assets held by the über-wealthy. Within the group of über-wealthy, gains were not evenly distributed.
The world’s second richest man, Jeff Bezos, made over $90 billion in paper gains over the first nine months of 2020 due to an increase in Amazon’s share price. A large part of this was thanks to lockdowns, which closed down the bricks and mortar competitors and diverted tens of billions of dollars to Amazon, whose sales growth doubled from around 20% to 40% towards the end of 2020.
Another group which seemed pleased with the lockdowns was that of the social engineers who had since the 1970s wanted to redesign society, including to reduce or even eliminate growth.
The Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab co-authored a book, COVID-19:The Great Reset.
The book calls for significant parts of the lockdown response to be made permanent; the book’s cover makes clear that he wanted to leverage Covid for the purposes of introducing massive societal change.
They say that you should never let a good crisis go to waste, but what if rather than waiting for a good crisis, some interest groups created or simply exaggerated a crisis?
One thing that has become clear over the recent past is that the über-wealthy have access to enormous lobbying power via their foundations.
A large foundation can comfortably spend around $400 million a year on lobbying (philanthropy). As we discussed in our note on green money, the resources of the oligarch foundations dwarf the funding available to regular political parties.
In addition to having access to foundations, the über-wealthy have significant media reach in their own right. This is what several high profile business leaders said in 2020 about the coronavirus:
As we now know, the global infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.03% for the under-60s: this was not the existential threat that it was made out to be. The fact that Covid was not an existential threat and that the infamous Imperial model was significantly overstated was clear from March 2020, as soon as the Diamond Princess figures came in. Professor Levitt identified that the Imperial model was massively overstated (I was able to help him correct some small errors in the calculations).
We can identify a small group of über– wealthy who on an ex-post basis enjoyed rapid and large increases in wealth as lockdowns favoured their businesses whilst disadvantaging competitors.
Furthermore, the eye watering money printing significantly raised the value of pretty well all financial assets. Finally, a group of social engineers who wished to see a “Great Reset” involving reduced consumption also seemed well pleased with lockdowns, the WEF website carried gushing articles about the benefits of lockdowns.
It could be that the quotes above from Schwab, Soros and Gates were alarmist as they were made in the heat of the moment. I was always dubious about this explanation: Bill Gates’s quote was the earliest from February, but the others were later and after actual data were available.
These individuals are very wealthy and must presumably be highly numerate and able to accurately assess risks. They would also have access to the best available researchers and sophisticated databases. It feels unlikely that they would get simple ratios significantly wrong, in my opinion.
In any event, a credible case could be made to say that some vested interest groups wanted to see a terrible overreaction to Covid, provided that this was accompanied by enough money printing.
It is worth remembering that the pre-existing pandemic response plans explicitly excluded lockdowns as a policy option:
In other policy areas, I have noticed a pattern whereby high profile oligarchs float a policy idea, which subsequently becomes Government policy years later (more about this later).
I am not making accusations, but identifying interest groups that either benefited financially or achieved the policy response that they wanted.
Worryingly, the issue of lockdown effectiveness is being largely ignored, even though Professor Ioannidis et al. have convincingly shown that lockdowns achieved next to nothing.
There is a danger that various interest groups are ensuring that this topic is not addressed so that they can repeat lockdowns in the future.
Crime requires three elements and we have all three in lockdowns: motivation ($6.4 trillion increase in net worth), method (enormous lobbying resources) and opportunity (venal politicians). Is this too conspiratorial?
https://principia-scientific.com/the-great-lockdown-swindle/
***********************************************
University of Hong Kong Pediatric Specialists Identify Mechanisms Driving Vaccine Induced Myocarditis
Aggregated data recently suggests that Natural Killer (NK) cell activation by mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contributes to the pathogenesis of acute myocarditis in genetically and epidemiologically vulnerable subjects.
This is the conclusion of a study funded by the Hong Kong Collaborative Research Fund (CRF) 2020/21 and the CRF Coronavirus and Novel Infectious Diseases Research Exercises
Patrick Ip, a specialist pediatrician at University of Hong Kong and colleagues collected and analyzed samples from 60 adolescents with vaccine-related myocarditis: these including pro-inflammatory cytokines, cardiac troponin T, genotyping, and immunophenotyping of the corresponding activation subsets of NK cells, monocytes, and T cells.
The findings, compared with samples from 10 vaccinated individuals without myocarditis and 10 healthy controls, the study team in investigating the rare, but real vaccine-related acute myocarditis they pursue a clearer understanding of precise mechanisms based on their hypothesis that natural killer (NK) cells play a central role in its pathogenesis.
In a previous epidemiology study, the authors found a significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis with rapid onset (median only 2 days) following vaccination with Pfizer’s mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2), particularly among male adolescents, especially after the second dose. But what are the underlying immune mechanisms involved? What follows is a summarized breakdown.
What’s the observation in this study?
The Hong Kong-based physician specialists and scientists observed very high levels of serum cytokines pivotal for NK cells in post-vaccination patients with myocarditis.
What was particularly noticeable in male patients and those individuals receiving their second jab?
Other than KIR polymorphism, the NK cell-specific eQTLs DNAM-1 (CD226) and FuT11 were also known to be key determinants of NK cell activities.”
What about after a third dose—why a lower incidence of myocarditis?
The authors of this study cannot be certain about why the cases of myocarditis are lower after a third jab.
They propose one possible answer: that this dose’s administration occurs during the longer time gap between the second and third doses of the vaccine. Could it be that genetically vulnerable subjects would have already developed the complication after the second dose. If not, the likelihood of developing myocarditis after the third dose would be low. More research would be needed to elucidate these and other possibilities.
Core hypothesis
The authors of this study find evidence backing their core hypothesis: NK cells serve a key role in the cause of rapid-onset of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-induced acute myocarditis.
The Hong Kong-based research team now offers world-novel insights into the fundamental immune mechanisms associated with rare, but very real, and potentially deadly, side effects.
The authors assume the growth in adoption of the use of mRNA vaccines meaning these findings raise implications for “designing improved mRNA vaccines that would have minimal NK activation effects.”
Physicians must be aware of patients who not only have a history of post-vaccination myocarditis but who are also genetically susceptible. Thus, clinicians can be more proactive, acting earlier with sound medical advice, and based on these insights close monitoring could very well be warranted before and after receiving a similar mRNA vaccine.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/university-of-hong-kong-pediatric-specialists-identify-mechanisms-driving-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-induced-myocarditis-75c50d7c
***********************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*******************************
My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal); Index to blog backups; My Home page supplement; My Alternative Wikipedia; My Blogroll; Menu of my longer writings; Subject index to my short notes. My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;