This document is part of an archive of postings by John Ray on Dissecting Leftism, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written.

This is a backup copy of the original blog

Below is the backup of this blog for January, 2024. To access the backups in earlier years, click here

31 January, 2024

FDA minimizes side effects of Updated COVID-19 Vaccines

Updated COVID-19 vaccines may cause heart inflammation and severe allergic shock, according to a new study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Researchers with the FDA, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and companies like CVS looked at health care databases to try to figure out if there were signs the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent COVID-19 vaccines might be linked to any health issues.

They found several safety signals. One signal was for myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, and a related condition called pericarditis following Pfizer vaccination in adults aged 18 to 35. Another was for anaphylaxis, or severe allergic shock, following Moderna and Pfizer vaccination in people aged 18 to 64.

The signals were detected in a database from Carelon Research.

The incidence rate for anaphylaxis was 74.5 cases per 100,000 person-years following Pfizer vaccination and 109.4 cases per 100,000 person-years following Moderna vaccination.

Researchers arrived at an incidence rate of 131.4 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis per 100,000 person-years after a Pfizer shot.

No stratification was done by gender, despite myocarditis, according to many studies, disproportionately affecting males.

Person-years is a measure used in some studies. In this study, all time during post-vaccination periods of time known as risk intervals were included. The risk intervals were different depending on the health outcome. For anaphylaxis, the risk interval was 0 to 1 day; for myocarditis/pericarditis, it was 0 to 7 days or 0 to 21 days.

Additional issues were also identified in the four databases that were analyzed, but none rose to the level of a safety signal, a set criteria that is an indication of a vaccine causing an issue.

The study analyzed data from people aged 6 months and older from August 2022 to July 2023. The bivalent shots were replaced soon after by updated vaccines because their effects, which already started low, were shown to wane in observational studies.

Researchers only included people who were continuously enrolled in an insurance plan and did not suffer health issues during a “clean interval,” or if the health outcome in question did not occur during a certain interval.

“References for the clean interval could not be located in the literature and are based on clinician input,” the authors said in a footnote.

Patricia Lloyd, an FDA researcher, and her co-authors said the study “supports the safety of these vaccines” and “supports the conclusion that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.”

Asked for evidence to support those conclusions, Ms. Lloyd referred a request for comment to the FDA.

“With over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, available scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the vaccines are safe and effective. The FDA stands behind its findings of quality, safety, and efficacy for the mRNA vaccines. Additionally, it is simply a fact that millions of lives have been saved because of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which most Americans undergoing vaccination have received,” an FDA spokesperson claimed.

The agency provided a single citation from the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that used modeling to estimate that through November 2022, the vaccines prevented millions of deaths.
The study was published ahead of peer review on the medRxiv server.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and president of the McCullough Foundation, told The Epoch Times in an email that results from the paper show “cardiovascular and neurological safety events are numerous and unacceptable on a population basis.”

Dr. McCullough, who was not involved with the paper, noted that the study did not analyze COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

“The FDA’s conclusion on risk benefit is not valid and reflects agency bias in attempting to promote the unsafe, ineffective products,” he said. “Our regulatory agencies should not be promoting or advertising the products they are charged with regulating.”

The FDA clears vaccines. The agency in 2022 authorized and approved the bivalent vaccines despite there being no clinical trial data available.

Limitations of the new paper included the lack of medical record review. Many authors reported their employment for health care companies as conflicts of interest.

A previous study analyzing the health claims databases detected signals for seizures/convulsions among children aged 2 to 4 after Pfizer vaccination and children aged 2 to 5 following Moderna vaccination. That study analyzed the version of the vaccines that preceded the bivalent shots.

In another new study, co-authored by Dr. McCullough, researchers reported finding a spike in reports of myocarditis in the federally-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in 2021.

“We found the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination in 2021 was 223 times higher than the average of all vaccines combined for the past 30 years,” the researchers said.

Applying causality principles, the researchers said that COVID-19 vaccination was “strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death.”

Federal officials have said that the COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis, pericarditis, and anaphylaxis, but that the vaccines also provide protection against infection and severe illness, tilting the risk-benefit balance in their favor. They have increasingly cited, in lieu of clinical trials, observational studies from the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), some of which lack peer review.

Current U.S. recommendations are for essentially all Americans aged 6 months and older to get one of the newest COVID-19 vaccines, introduced in 2023. That contrasts with a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, which have stopped offering or no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccination for wide swaths of their populations.


Australia: Daniel was forced to have a Covid jab to keep his job. Then he fell gravely ill. Now he has secured a HUGE legal victory

A public servant who was forced to get a Covid vaccination to keep his job, but then fell gravely ill, has won a major legal battle and will be paid compensation.

Daniel Shepherd, 44, received two Covid-19 vaccinations when he was a youth worker at Baptist Care South Australia in 2021 and suffered adverse reactions to the jab.

The father of one started a new job with the Department for Child Protection (DCP) on October 19 that year, but was told on January 28, 2022, that he had to get a booster shot to keep his job as a child and youth worker.

Mr Sheperd was given a Pfizer mRNA jab on February 24, 2022, but a day later he had serious chest pains.

The pain kept getting worse until March 11, when he thought he was having a heart attack and was rushed to Adelaide's Ashford Hospital. There he was diagnosed with post-vaccine pericarditis - an inflammation of the membrane around the heart.

The illness meant Mr Shepherd was only able to work for a few months in a part-time administrative capacity.

DCP acknowledged the pericarditis was caused by the Pfizer mRNA booster shot, but it denied workers compensation liability, saying it was a legal government directive and so was excluded under the SA Emergency Management Act.

But Judge Mark Calligeros, the SA Employment Tribunal's deputy president, rejected the DCP's arguments.

'It is not surprising that some people who receive a dose of Covid-19 vaccine will sustain injury as a result,' he wrote in his judgment.

'It would be astonishing if parliament intended that an employee of the state, injured adhering to an EM (Emergency Management) Act direction, was to be precluded from receiving workers compensation.

'I am not satisfied that parliament intended to deny compensation to employees of the state injured by heeding a vaccination mandate designed to protect the health and welfare of citizens.'

Judge Calligeros added that Mr Shepherd was required to be vaccinated to continue working in healthcare.

This was 'because (the state) sought to protect and reduce the risk of infection to the public and general and those members of the public receiving healthcare services in particular.

'It would be ironic and unjust if Mr Shepherd was denied financial and medical support by complying with the state's desire to preserve public health.'

In a landmark ruling, the judge ordered that Mr Shepherd should get weekly income support payments and the payment of medical expenses.

The ruling came despite SA Health still enforcing a mandatory Covid vaccination policy for some employees, even though similar policies have been dropped in other states.


30 January, 2024

Before Pandemic Preparations, We Need Better Evidence Of Risk

Written by Meryl Nass MD

The world is currently reorienting its health and social priorities to counter a perceived threat of increased pandemic risk.

Spearheaded by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the Group of 20 governments (G20), this agenda is based on claims of rapidly increasing infectious disease outbreaks (epidemics), driven largely by an escalating risk of major “spillover” of pathogens from animals (zoonosis).

To be globally prepared for such pandemic risk, many quarters have pushed for comprehensive and urgent action, to avert an “existential threat” to humanity.

It is prudent to prepare for public health emergencies and pandemic risk. It is also sensible to assure that these preparations are reflective of the best available evidence concerning pandemic risk, and that any policy response is proportional to that threat.

One hallmark of evidence-based policy is that policy decisions should be substantiated by rigorously established objective evidence and not based merely on ideology or common belief.

This enables appropriate allocation of resources among competing health and economic priorities. Global health resources are already scarce and stretched; there is little doubt that decisions about pandemic preparedness will have significant implications for global and local economies, health systems, and well-being.

So, What Is The Evidence On Pandemic Threat?

The G20 declarations from 2022 (Indonesia) and 2023 (New Delhi) are based on the findings of its High Level Independent Panel (HLIP), laid out in a 2022 report informed by the World Bank and the WHO, and analysis commissioned from a private data company, Metabiota, and the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

The report summarizes the evidence in two annexes (Figure 1 below), noting in its Overview that:

“Even as we fight this pandemic [Covid-19], we must face the reality of a world at risk of more frequent pandemics.”

while on page 20:

“The last two decades have seen major global outbreaks of infectious diseases every four to five years, including SARS, H1N1, MERS and Covid-19. (See Annex D.)”

“There has been an acceleration of zoonotic spillovers over the last three decades. (See Annex E.)”

By “zoonotic spillovers,” the report refers to the passage of pathogens from animal hosts to the human population. This is the generally accepted origin of HIV/AIDS, the 2003 SARS outbreak, and seasonal influenza.

Zoonosis is assumed to be the major source of future pandemics, barring laboratory releases of pathogens modified by humans. The basis of the G20 HLIP report’s sense of urgency is these annexes (D and E) and their underlying data.

In other words, it is this evidence base that supports both the urgency of establishing robust global pandemic policies, and the level of investment that these policies should involve.

So, What Is The Quality Of The Evidence?

Despite the importance the HLIP report gives to the data in Annex D, there is actually little data to assess. The Annex presents a table of outbreaks and the years they occurred, with no attribution or source provided.

While Metabiota and McKinsey are quoted elsewhere as primary sources, the relevant McKinsey report does not include this data, and the data could not be found when conducting searches of publicly-available Metabiota material.

To better understand the implications from the data in Annex D, we created a corresponding “best-fit” table of pathogen outbreaks and year (Figure 1), with official mortality data for the entire outbreak per pathogen (some extend beyond 1 year – see sources in Table 1).

In order to address an apparent oversight in the Annex D table, we also included the 2018 and 2018-2020 Ebola outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo in our analysis, since there were no large outbreaks of Ebola reported in 2017.

This is likely what “Ebola 2017” was intended to denote in the Annex D table. In our analysis (Figure 1) we exclude Covid-19 since its associated mortality remains unclear and its origin (laboratory-modified or natural) is contested, as discussed later.

When comparisons are made between the HLIP outbreaks table and our table of the last two decades, one mortality event dominates – the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak that resulted in an estimated 163,000 deaths. The next highest, the West African Ebola outbreak, resulted in 11,325 deaths.

Although these absolute numbers are worrisome, in terms of pandemic risk it is necessary to note that the Ebola virus requires direct contact for spread and is confined to Central and West Africa, where outbreaks arise every few years and are dealt with locally.

Furthermore, in relative terms, consider that malaria kills over 600,000 children every year, tuberculosis kills 1.3 million people, while seasonal influenza kills between 290,000 and 650,000.

So, putting Annex D in context, the West African Ebola outbreak, the largest in history, thus resulted in the equivalent of 4 days of global tuberculosis mortality, while the Swine flu outbreak of 2009 killed less than influenza normally does.

The third largest outbreak listed by the G20 HLIP was the cholera outbreak in 2010, which was confined to Haiti, and thought to have originated from poor sanitation in a United Nations compound.

Cholera once caused major outbreaks (peaking between 1852-1859) and was the subject of the first international agreements on pandemics. Improved water and sewage sanitation has reduced greatly to a point where the Haiti outbreak was unusual, and there has been a consistent overall downward trend since 1859.

In terms of threat, no other outbreak listed by the HLIP over the 2000-2020 period killed over 1,000 people. The HLIP considers this table to show major global outbreaks every 4-5 years, whereas it actually shows mostly small, localized outbreaks of illness dwarfed by the everyday infectious and non-infectious diseases that all countries deal with.

There were just 25,629 non-Swine flu and non-Covid-19 deaths over two decades from the outbreaks considered by the HLIP to be severe (it is noted that other outbreaks occurred through this period that the HLIP did not consider sufficiently significant).

Covid-19 has of course intervened – the first outbreak since 1969 to result in greater mortality than seasonal influenza does each year.

This mortality has occurred predominantly in the sick elderly, at a median age above 75 years in higher-mortality high-income countries, and in people with significant comorbidities, a contrast to the predominantly childhood deaths from malaria and young to middle-aged adults who die from tuberculosis.

Excess mortality rose over baseline but separating out Covid-19 mortality from mortality resulting from the ‘lockdown’ measures, reducing disease screening and management in high-income countries and promoting poverty-related diseases in low-income countries, makes actual burden estimates difficult.

However, if we accept Covid-19 (for sake of argument) as a natural event, then it should obviously be included when determining risk.

There are meaningful debates about the accuracy of how deaths were recorded and attributed to Covid-19, yet assuming the WHO is correct in its estimates, then the WHO records 7,010,568 deaths attributed to (or associated with) the SARS-CoV-2 virus over 4 years, with most in the first 2 years (Figure 2).

Allowing for population increase, this is still higher than the 1.0 to 1.1 million deaths attributed to the influenza outbreaks in 1957-58 and 1968-69, and the largest since the Spanish flu that inflicted a mortality several-fold higher over a century earlier.

With an average mortality of 1.7 million per year over 4 years, Covid-19 is not greatly different from tuberculosis (1.3 million), but concentrated in a considerably older age group.

Tuberculosis, however, continues before and will continue after Covid-19, whereas Figure 2 indicates a rapidly waning Covid-19 outbreak.

As the first event in 100 years of this magnitude, though little different from major endemic tuberculosis, and against a background that does not demonstrate an overall increase in mortality from outbreak events, it appears to be an outlier rather than evidence of a trend.

The second piece of evidence used by the HLIP to substantiate its claim that we are living in a “pandemic age” is research conducted by Metabiota Inc., an independent company whose epidemiology team has since been absorbed by Ginkgo Bioworks.

The Metabiota data forms Annex E of the HLIP report (see Figure 3), which shows outbreak frequency of zoonotic non-influenza pathogens over 60 years to 2020, and influenza ‘spillover’ events for 25 years.

Although Metabiota is cited as the source, the data itself is not further referenced. That said, an identical non-influenza data set appears in an online presentation by Metabiota to the Center for Global Development (CGD) on August 25th, 2021 (Figure 4).

This dataset also appears in a more recent academic article in the British Medical Journal in 2023, co-authored by Metabiota personnel (Meadows et al., 2023). The authors analyzed the Metabiota database of 3,150 outbreaks, including all outbreaks recorded by WHO since 1963 as well as “historically-significant” prior outbreaks (Figure 5).

The data used in Meadows et al. (2023) is available in the article’s supplementary information, and former Metabiota staff confirmed to REPPARE that the dataset used in that article, as in the earlier analyses, is now commercially available through Concentric by Ginkgo Bioworks.

The data points are summarized in the HLIP Annex E via two corresponding claims. Firstly, that there is an “exponential” increase in non-influenza outbreak frequency. Secondly, that influenza ‘spillover’ (transfer from animals) has increased from “almost none” in 1995 to around 10 events in 2020. Both claims require examination.

Yet, as Meadows and co-authors confirm in their later paper, this increase in reporting frequency does not take into account the development of new surveillance and diagnostic technologies, which have enabled better (or in some cases any) detection.

PCR testing was only invented in 1983 and has steadily become more accessible in laboratories over the last 30 years. Antigen and point-of-care serology tests were only widely available in the past couple of decades, and genetic sequencing only very recently.

Since 1960, we also have had significant improvements in road transport, clinic access, and digital information sharing. As a result, this limitation in the Meadows study raises a key issue.

Namely, that advancements in detection technology may account for the large increase in reported outbreaks, since most small and localized outbreaks will have been missed 60 years ago.

As just one example, HIV/AIDS was missed for at least 20 years before identification in the 1980s.

What the above suggests is that there are certainly known spillover effects and that these do occur with some frequency and deadly effect.

What is less reliable is the claim that there is an increased frequency of zoonosis and/or that the increase in reporting cannot be fully or partly explained by advancements in detection technologies.


29 January, 2024

COVID Vaccine Trials Show Counting Window Issues

"Counting windows" refers to how long you wait for an effect to emerge. For example: If you took two years to die from the effects of a vaccination but your counting window is only one year you may fail to pick up that death as caused by vaccination

Written by Raphael Lataster, PhD

The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice’s hugely important unofficial series of articles on exaggerated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety claims, involving BMJ editor Peter Doshi and myself, has now concluded. The initial Fung, Jones, and Doshi paper outlines statistical biases, such as the case counting window bias, that likely lead to the COVID vaccines’ effectiveness being exaggerated in observational studies.

The subsequent paper by Lataster (that’s me) then explained the situation is worse, as the case counting window bias is often accompanied by a definitional bias, and noted that this could exaggerate vaccine safety as well.

Doshi and Fung then returned with a further paper indicating that numerous cases in the vaccinated were overlooked in the clinical trials, likely leading to exaggerated effectiveness estimates.

The fourth and final article in this ‘series’, again by myself, notes that this also appears to apply to safety estimates in the clinical trials, whilst also confirming my earlier concerns about safety estimates in observational studies, and noting that the myocarditis issue alone could mean that the jabs are not worth the risk in the young and healthy.

Safety estimates appeared to be exaggerated in a recent observational study championing the use of the jabs in the omicron era, which OTN readers will already know all about.

I again state that Doshi’s team may have understated things. While they expect that effectiveness was exaggerated in the clinical trials, I note that “numerous issues with the clinical trials and FDA briefing documents had gone unmentioned.

For example, there are a significant number of trial participants lost to follow-up, and Pfizer also acknowledged ‘3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population’ in the FDA briefing document on their vaccine trial, split almost evenly between the treatment and placebo groups, which would have drastically brought down treatment efficacy estimates.”

Counting windows for adverse effects in the clinical trials were incredibly short, going against long-established norms, especially with the treatment and placebo groups quickly merged, and reliant on unsolicited reporting, as well as the opinions of researchers paid by BioNTech and Pfizer (like cardiovascular deaths being written off as unrelated to the jab when we now know the jab does cause cardiovascular deaths).

I note the concerning “large number of trial participants lost to follow-up” and that “deceased trial participants will not be contacting the researchers to describe their issues”. Wrap your head around that one. You’re in the vaccinated group. You die, thanks to the jab. As a result, you don’t report this to Pfizer. Your death is not included in the data, as with the potentially many other jab-caused deaths. With relatively few adverse reports the jab is declared safe. It’s a bit like how we can’t refer to many of the adverse event reports as they’re perpetually unverified.

Couldn’t avoid again referring to the Fraiman et al. and Benn et al. articles indicating that, with the data as unreliable as it is, the trials indicated an excess of deaths and “serious adverse events of special interest” in the vaccinated groups, relative to the unvaccinated groups.

I note that increasing research on myocarditis alone appears to indicate that the risks of the jabs outweigh the benefits in the young and healthy, the topic of my BMJ rapid response.

I reveal that Pfizer acknowledges myocarditis risks and limitations of their study. And that Pfizer is currently running a trial, again plagued by counting window issues, to “determine if COMIRNATY is safe and effective, and if there is a myocarditis/pericarditis association that should be noted”.

Would this information have been handy before you got jabbed, and before the jabs were universally declared “safe and effective”, and before people were fired for not submitting?
I conclude that there is more than enough here to “nullify the claim that the benefits of the vaccines still outweigh the risks in all populations”. Source.

Just remember that the claims about these COVID-19 vaccines being safe and effective were, at best, based on these clinical trials and observational studies.


Overwhelming Percentage of VA Patients Eligible, Not Given COVID-19 Antivirals

In the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) titled “Underuse of Antiviral Drugs to Prevent Progression to Severe COVID-19—Veterans Health Administration (VA), March—September 2022,”

Boston-based rheumatologist Paul Monach, M.D, Ph.D., and colleagues from VA Boston Healthcare System/VA Boston Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute report based on their observational study of electronic medical records that 80% of 110 immunosuppressed patients in the VA system with non-severe COVID-19 at risk for progression were not offered any antiviral drugs.

For nearly 50% of the participant cohort, the only rationale offered for the lack of access to antiviral drugs was that the SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were mild. Other reasons for withholding antivirals to COVID-19-infected at-risk persons include symptom duration of less than 5 days (22.7%), lack of symptoms (22.7%), and drug interaction concerns (5.7%). 20% of the study participants declined any antivirals.

The antivirals for COVID-19 include both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) as well as remdesivir (Veklury)–both approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Merck’s molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is authorized for emergency use.


As the weight of the evidence suggests, FDA-approved or emergency-authorized antivirals can reduce risk of hospitalization and death and are recommended for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 facing a higher risk of disease progression due to age or medical conditions. The study team was concerned that other research revealed that eligible at-risk patients were not being prescribed antivirals nearly enough.

The authors of this CDC-backed study report that the basis for this investigation concerned the fact that the VA reported the use of outpatient antiviral medications among 24% of all documented SARS-CoV-2 infections in 2022, remaining at that level through early 2023.

The authors expressed concern that many of the patients met the criteria for access to these drugs. Interestingly, similar overall rates of use (maximum = 34%) were observed in a large cohort from healthcare systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet).

Purpose of this Study

The study authors tapped into a sample of VA patients with COVID-19, reviewing their records to better understand the barriers to antiviral use. What were the reasons for the non-treatment of these patients with mild-to-moderate disease at the time of initial evaluation and testing?

All of the patient cohort were deemed fully vaccinated and were associated with one of three relatively common conditions linked to severe immunocompromise, thus placing them in the at-risk category for COVID-19, vaccinated or not. These included 1) solid organ transplantation 2) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or plasma cell malignancies.


This observational study identified 110 COVID-19 mild-to-moderate VA system patients during the period March to September 2022 with either solid organ transplantation, CLL, or plasma cell malignancies. They had previously received a COVID-19 vaccine but did not receive antiviral treatment after receiving positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, again during a mild-to-moderate or asymptomatic infection.

While 20% of the total study group were offered antivirals but declined, 80% of the study population were not offered treatment

The authors cannot be certain why so many patients who fit into an at-risk category are not administered antivirals for COVID-19. To further investigate this quandary, with a deeper probe into electronic medical record text, the authors propose “algorithms to determine these reasons.” As these algorithms would need to be textual in nature, they would be bias-prone, according to the authors.

The authors also point out that VA EMR data also underestimates antiviral use yet the percentage of eligible patients who are not offered an antiviral remains considerable.


28 January, 2024

Email Reveals Why CDC Didn’t Issue Alert on COVID Vaccines and Myocarditis

The nation’s top public health agency didn’t send an alert about a connection between COVID-19 vaccines and heart inflammation because officials were concerned they would cause panic, according to an email obtained by The Epoch Times.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2021 drafted an alert about the risk of heart inflammation, or myocarditis, resulting from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. Officials prepared to release it to the public, taking steps including having the agency’s director review the language, internal documents show.

The alert would have been sent through the CDC’s Health Alert Network (HAN), which goes to state and local officials, as well as doctors, across the country.

The alert was never sent.

In the May 25, 2021, email, exclusively obtained by The Epoch Times, a CDC official revealed why some officials were against sending the alert.

“The pros and cons of an official HAN are what the main discussion are right now,” Dr. Sara Oliver, the official, wrote in the missive. “I think it’s likely to be a HAN since that is CDC’s primary method of communications to clinicians and public health departments, but people don’t want to appear alarmist either.”

Dr. Oliver was corresponding with an employee of either Pfizer or Moderna. The employee’s name and email were redacted in the copy obtained by The Epoch Times.

Dr. Oliver didn’t respond to a request for comment. Asked about the email, the CDC didn’t address Dr. Oliver’s statement.

The “CDC’s apparent decision to not immediately issue a formal alert to clinicians warning them about the increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in vaccinated individuals is not only inexcusable, it’s malpractice,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“CDC should never prioritize its own public perception over the public’s health, and those who made the decision to do so must be held fully accountable.”

It remains unclear which official or officials decided not to send the alert at the time, when doctors across the country were seeing patients with myocarditis report to emergency rooms with chest pain and other symptoms.

Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who helped convince regulators to add a suicide warning to antidepressants, said the CDC’s move to downplay the risk of heart inflammation fits into a longstanding pattern of transparency issues with agencies and drug companies.

“I can’t even believe that this was even a discussion where they’re like, ‘We don’t want to alarm them.’ We do need to alarm people. We need people to be aware that this is a real potential [problem] that could happen,” Ms. Witzcak told The Epoch Times.

Those kinds of choices have helped erode consumer confidence in public health, she said.

Dr. Tom Frieden, a former CDC director who now serves as president and CEO of the global health project Resolve to Save Lives, also reviewed the messages.

“It is important to carefully weigh the risk of COVID-19 against the risk and benefit of any treatment, including the vaccine. The vaccine safety systems worked—they found a very rare but real signal of myocarditis soon after distributing vaccines that were administered to adolescents,“ Dr. Frieden told The Epoch Times via email. ”When public health officials see a safety signal, they must investigate whether it is ‘true’ or ‘random.’ It is important to consider multiple data angles and gather evidence from partners on the ground, including clinicians. This needs to be done quickly but carefully and thoroughly.”

Moderna, Pfizer Given Heads Up

U.S. authorities identified myocarditis and a related condition, pericarditis, before the vaccines were cleared as events that could be caused by the vaccines. People who received the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines began reporting myocarditis and pericarditis to health authorities and the vaccine manufacturers shortly after the vaccines were rolled out in December 2020.
A signal in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which the CDC helps manage, was triggered in February 2021, the same month that Israel warned the CDC and U.S. drug regulators of a “large number” of cases, primarily among young males.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director at the time, first addressed the issue publicly in April 2021. She falsely said the agency had seen no reports and that no signal had triggered, while disclosing that the CDC was in touch with U.S. military officials on cases among service members.

In reality, hundreds of cases had been reported to the CDC, including some that resulted in death; the CDC either missed or ignored the signal in VAERS; and the CDC helped hide a signal that emerged from a Department of Veterans Affairs system, internal documents and other data reviewed by The Epoch Times show.

The CDC did communicate to certain state officials about myocarditis issues starting in April 2021 and told some doctors in a May 14, 2021, email that the agency was monitoring reports of inflammation following Pfizer and Moderna vaccination.

Shortly after that missive was sent, the CDC began considering its next steps, according to the newly obtained documents.

Dr. Oliver emailed representatives of Moderna and Pfizer on May 21, 2021, to warn them that the CDC was planning to go public with information on the myocarditis cases.

“Wanted to make sure you were aware before anything was made public,” Dr. Oliver wrote in one of the messages, which were obtained by The Epoch Times and are being reported for the first time. “You may be aware, but there have been concerns for myocarditis seen in adolescents and young adults after receipt of the mRNA vaccines. Thankfully, the cases appear relatively mild, but there is concern that we need to make providers aware of this issue. CDC is discussing communication options, and we may have more information tomorrow.”

Cardiologists say there’s no such thing as a mild case of heart inflammation, and research has since shown that in many cases, myocarditis doesn’t resolve for months, if at all.
The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines both use modified messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.

Moderna and Pfizer didn’t respond to requests for comment.

One representative from Pfizer sent information to Dr. Oliver and colleagues ahead of a planned meeting, the emails show. The information was redacted.

Moderna officials met with the CDC on May 22, 2021. The discussion covered how the CDC was considering saying there was a “possible causal relationship,” or that the vaccines might be causing the inflammation, according to the emails.

Moderna asked how government officials thought the myocarditis was being caused, or the mechanism of action.

“My current understanding is that it isn’t necessarily a defined mechanism, but that we’ve seen very similar/consistent findings where mRNA vaccines have been used all occurring within days of receipt of an mRNA vaccine (although it could be that systemic inflammation plays a role),” Dr. Oliver wrote.

A representative with one of the companies then checked in on May 25, 2021, asking if the CDC had decided how to communicate to the public about myocarditis.

“Apologies that there hasn’t been more solid communication on this. Unfortunately, I still don’t have a firm update to share. Things have been changing rapidly here,” Dr. Oliver wrote. In the next email, she wrote that some officials didn’t want to cause panic.

“I am not trying to be vague on purpose- I really don’t know,” she said. “If I had to guess, I would think it’s likely to be a HAN, but can’t say for sure yet. I anticipate there will be firm decisions within the next 24 hours so I'll let you know.”

Scaled-Down Response

A two-page draft of the alert obtained by The Epoch Times was completely redacted. The Epoch Times is working on acquiring an unredacted copy.

The draft was circulated internally, including to Dr. Walensky, emails show. The messages indicated that the CDC chose not to send the alert after consulting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The CDC said on its website on May 20, 2021, that a review of post-vaccination myocarditis found “relatively few reports” and that rates of myocarditis “have not differed from expected baseline rates.”

Instead of the alert, the CDC decided to publish a webpage called “Clinical Considerations.” The page, published on May 27, 2021, stated that “increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna)” since April 2021.

The page also stated that the CDC and the agency’s partners were investigating the issue before recommending COVID-19 vaccination for everyone aged 12 and older.

A draft of the page was shared with Moderna and Pfizer at least several hours before publication, according to the emails.

A CDC spokeswoman said that safety data prompted the CDC to publish information on myocarditis online “for public awareness and to provide guidance to clinicians.” She said the clinical considerations webpage reached the same 300,000 provider recipients that a HAN alert would have.

“A clinical consideration is useful when information needs to be updated as circumstances evolve, and more data is collected and evaluated,” the spokeswoman said.

In a separate email, she said that “CDC’s focus and concern on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination is well known and documented.”

An FDA spokesperson declined to detail its influence on the shelved alert.

“The FDA continues to work collaboratively with the CDC to monitor for known safety risks related to vaccines and determine how best to ensure any relevant safety information is conveyed to the public, health care providers and clinicians,” the spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “After thorough assessment and when the potential risk was clear, the FDA updated the fact sheets for the COVID-19 vaccines and communicated with the public in a manner that was determined to be appropriate for the assessed risk.”

Federal rules require the FDA to add a warning about a “clinically significant hazard as soon as there is reasonable evidence of a causal association with a drug; a causal relationship need not have been definitely established.”
The FDA added warnings about myocarditis to the labels for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines on June 25, 2021.


25 January, 2024

Public Skepticism Grows in China as Officials Downplay COVID-19 Amid "Pneumonia" Outbreak

Public skepticism is growing in parts of China as health authorities attribute an ongoing pneumonia outbreak to influenza while downplaying COVID-19 infections.

Interviews with The Epoch Times with local Chinese found that the official rhetoric regarding the outbreak has been unconvincing, with many suspecting the infections are another round of COVID-19.

Residents in major cities such as Shanghai and Tianjin have reported severe infections in their communities, including “white lung” symptoms, which are typical in severe COVID-19 cases.

China’s National Health Commission spokesperson, Mi Feng, said on Jan. 14 that the current respiratory diseases are still mainly influenza, adding that the COVID-19 infection rate is low.

On Jan. 18, China’s National Influenza Center released its latest weekly influenza surveillance report, which found that the number of emergency department visits for respiratory infectious diseases in major hospitals has increased.

The main pathogen is the influenza virus, which will still be in the epidemic period over the next few weeks, according to the report.

However, as pointed out by medical experts, COVID-19 has never disappeared in China. In recent months, pneumonia infection cases soared across the country, exhibiting similar symptoms as COVID-19, with hospitals constantly overcrowded.

Chen Yun (pseudonym), a medical worker in the mega port city of Tianjin in north China, told The Epoch Times: “The government does not report, test, or manage the current epidemic, and does not take the epidemic as a priority at all.”

She said that currently, more people are suffering from white lung symptoms.

Mr. Zhang, also a Tianjin resident, told The Epoch Times that many people have been infected in this wave of the epidemic, many of whom are seriously ill and have developed white lungs.

“There must be some deaths from it, but the government just doesn’t report them,“ Mr. Zhang said. ”There are currently no beds available in hospitals; people have to wait in line for at least a day to get admitted.”

He said that both his parents were infected and were hospitalized a few days ago.

“It should be pneumonia; the chest X-ray looks pretty serious,” he said.

“After the doctor saw the chest X-ray, he said that the patient’s lung infection was quite serious, but the doctor didn’t say what virus he was infected with. In fact, they knew it but just didn’t say it,” he said.

“The doctor just said that they should be hospitalized for IV (intravenous ) treatment as soon as possible. There is no effective treatment in the hospital, and they are just putting them on IV treatment.”

Mr. Zhang said that the official media is simply not reporting on the mass infections as they should.

Mr. Chen, a Shanghai citizen, told The Epoch Times that it is now the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

He said some people around him are currently infected, and their symptoms are quite severe.

A female colleague of his, who is about 35 years old and is the mother of two children, had an infection, and half of each lung became white.

“She requested to have a chest X-ray, and the X-ray revealed the white lungs. If she hadn’t requested, the hospital wouldn’t have taken a chest X-ray for her,” Mr. Chen said.

“As for the official data, I feel there are many problems. Sometimes they say it’s influenza A, and sometimes they say it’s influenza B. I think they must be covering something up.”

Mr. Chen complained about reporting on the issue in the state-run media, adding that reports on COVID-19 infections have been mentioned but given little attention.

Mr. Chen believed the intention of such official reporting is “in the future (when the epidemic gets very serious) it will say: ‘We reported it at the beginning’. But when they made the announcement, they couldn’t say it directly and tried to downplay it. The government needs pretty data in many aspects to make it look good, so it has to fake it, and it has ways to fake the data.”


Could Serum Protein Changes Link to Long COVID?

Could serum protein changes be the culprit behind long COVID? Could this observation done via a study of blood samples lead to possible biomarker for a long COVID diagnosis and maybe even treatments? Carlo Cervia-Hasler with University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich and colleagues from multiple academic medical centers report the findings of a longitudinal analysis of blood serum from 113 patients who either fully recovered from COVID-19 or developed Long Covid, as well as healthy controls. Using high-throughput proteomics approaches, Cervia-Hasler et al. measured serum levels of 6596 human proteins across study participants. Those with confirmed acute COVID-19 were followed for up to a year, and their blood serum was sampled again at 6 months and at 12 months where possible. Patients experiencing Long Covid exhibited changes to blood serum proteins, indicating dysregulated activation of the complement system, altered coagulation, and tissue injury, suggesting ongoing thromboinflammatory responses.

The Problem

Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and about 5% of all SARS-CoV-2–infected persons develop lingering symptoms, called Long Covid, that can persist for many months. Symptoms of Long Covid can include fatigue, post-exertional malaise, and cognitive impairment, and involve multiple organs. Although previous studies have shown that patients with Long Covid display signs of immune dysfunction, persistent immune cell activation, and autoimmune antibody production, the root cause of Long Covid is poorly understood, and diagnostic biomarkers for the condition aren’t well defined. Currently, Long Covid also lacks an effective treatment.

Study Findings

In this latest study published in the November 2022 study in Science Translational Medicine investigators identified persistent neutrophil-associated immune signatures in pulmonary Long Covid.

The study’s authors demonstrate that at the cellular level, the thromboinflammatory signature associated with Long Covid was linked with increased monocyte-platelet aggregates.

Dysregulation of complement proteins may contribute to the thromboinflammation associated with Long COVID. The findings of the study identify potential biomarkers for Long Covid and new treatment strategies that warrant further diagnostic and therapeutic investigation. “Although therapeutic interventions with coagulation and complement inhibitors in acute COVID-19 produced mixed results, the pathological features specific for Long Covid suggest potential interventions for clinical testing,” writes Wolfram Ruf in a related Perspective.


24 January, 2024

COVID Vaccines Could Trigger Vasculitis, Damaging Multiple Organs

Various diseases associated with COVID-19 vaccines have been reported. A recent case study indicated that COVID-19 vaccination may trigger the development of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, potentially damaging multiple organs. Among 29 patients, five underwent plasmapheresis treatment (the separation and replacement of plasma from blood), and five relied on dialysis therapy.

ANCA-associated vasculitis can cause damage to small blood vessels. Since these are distributed throughout the body, any part of the body can be affected, with the most common areas being the lungs, kidneys, joints, ears, nose, and nerves.
Neutrophils are a type of white blood cell that aids the body in fighting infection and healing injuries. ANCA are harmful autoantibodies that bind to neutrophils in the blood, releasing toxic substances and damaging the walls of small blood vessels. This can also result in the migration of neutrophils through blood vessel walls, inducing inflammation in the surrounding tissues. Additionally, it releases signaling factors that attract even more neutrophils, perpetuating inflammation and further damaging small blood vessels.

Case Report of ANCA-Associated Vasculitis

A case report published in Case Reports in Nephrology in April 2023 detailed an 82-year-old woman with high blood pressure who, after receiving her third booster COVID-19 vaccine booster, developed myeloperoxidase anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (MPO-ANCA)-associated vasculitis. MPO-ANCA is one of the primary autoantibodies in ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The patient received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in May and June 2021, followed by a Moderna booster shot in early February 2022. The next day after the booster shot, she experienced a headache, which subsided after three days. However, starting in early March, her body temperature began to rise, accompanied by general malaise.

Upon examination, no apparent bacterial infection was found, but blood tests revealed an inflammatory reaction. The C-reactive protein level was elevated, and her white blood cell count was 13,000/microliters (the normal range is between 4,000 and 10,000/microliters), suggesting a bacterial infection. The doctor prescribed antibiotics for seven consecutive days, but there was no improvement.

The patient was later admitted to the hospital. Physical examination and imaging tests did not reveal fever, and kidney size and structure appeared normal. However, microscopic analysis uncovered hematuria (blood in the urine) and urinary protein. Additionally, the MPO-ANCA level was notably high. A kidney biopsy revealed cellular crescents in six glomeruli—the tiny filters inside the kidneys—and mild inflammation.

Furthermore, immunofluorescence confirmed pauci-immune glomerulonephritis. This is a rare small vessel vasculitis associated with rapidly progressive glomeruli inflammation, clinically characterized by kidney issues such as urinary abnormalities (hematuria and proteinuria) and high blood pressure resulting in kidney failure within days or weeks. Based on the pathological findings, the patient was diagnosed with renal-limited MPO-ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The patient was put on a steroid medication, and symptoms such as fever, malaise, and inflammatory reaction improved, while both hematuria and urinary protein disappeared. The doctor gradually reduced the steroid dosage, cutting it in half, and the patient’s condition stabilized.

The researchers stated that blood and urine tests conducted on the patient before her third vaccine dose did not reveal kidney damage or abnormalities, suggesting an association between the COVID-19 vaccine and the onset of MPO-ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The researchers suggested that the possibility of MPO-ANCA-associated vasculitis should be considered for patients experiencing fever, prolonged general malaise, hematuria, or kidney impairment after receiving a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, especially Moderna, as was the case with this patient.

5 COVID-19 Vaccines Related to ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
An increasing number of reports indicate that widespread vaccination has led to the development of vasculitis in some people, resulting in damage to multiple organs.

A case-based review reported five types of COVID-19 vaccines linked to ANCA-associated vasculitis.

The study included cases from 29 patients, with 22 receiving mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer), four receiving AstraZeneca, two receiving Covaxin, and one receiving Johnson & Johnson. They all exhibited symptoms of ANCA-associated vasculitis after receiving one of these COVID-19 vaccines.

Specifically, 22 patients exhibited kidney damage, manifested as new-onset or recurrent glomerulonephritis. At least 24 individuals presented with hematuria. Ten experienced lung damage, with five cases involving alveolar hemorrhage. One person developed optic neuritis, and another had auricular chondritis. These are manifestations of organ damage following vaccine administration.

Most patients received immunosuppressive treatment, including steroid medications. Additionally, five underwent plasma exchange, and at least five patients continued to rely on dialysis at the last follow-up.

The study mentioned that mRNA vaccines may stimulate myeloid and dendritic cells to varying degrees, activating downstream pathways to generate autoinflammation. Furthermore, mRNA vaccines generate antiviral-neutralizing antibodies and activate CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, triggering strong immune responses. Compared to natural infection, mRNA vaccines may enhance innate and acquired immunity stimulation. In some individuals with compromised immune systems, the ability to clear nucleic acids may decrease, potentially impacting neutrophils.

Vasculitis May Lead to Multiorgan Damage

There are different types of ANCA-associated vasculitis, including microscopic polyangiitis, where the frequency of MPO-ANCA positivity is notably high.

According to data from the Japan Intractable Diseases Information Center, approximately 70 percent of patients with microscopic polyangiitis experience systemic symptoms, including fever, weight loss, and fatigue. Additionally, symptoms such as hemorrhage, ischemia, or infarction in body tissues may occur.
Necrotizing glomerulonephritis is the most common, presenting with symptoms like hematuria, protein in urine, and elevated serum creatinine.

Early diagnosis is crucial, as the condition often progresses rapidly to kidney failure within weeks to months. Other prevalent manifestations include rash, with livedo reticularis, purpura, skin ulcers, and subcutaneous nodules in approximately 60 percent of patients with necrotizing glomerulonephritis. Polyneuropathy is observed in about 60 percent, joint pain in around 50 percent, and muscle pain in roughly 50 percent of cases.

Additionally, interstitial pneumonia is seen in approximately 25 percent, and alveolar hemorrhage in about 10 percent. Both conditions are attributed to vasculitis affecting the pulmonary capillaries, leading to cough, shortness of breath, rapid breathing, coughing up blood, bloody sputum, and severely low blood oxygen levels. Gastrointestinal involvement occurs in around 20 percent of cases, and myocardial involvement resulting in heart failure occurs in approximately 18 percent.

ANCA-associated vasculitis can be life-threatening if not promptly treated. Early diagnosis and appropriate treatment lead to improvement in the majority of cases. However, delayed treatment or poor response to initial therapy may result in irreversible organ dysfunction, necessitating procedures such as blood dialysis for patients experiencing kidney failure. Moreover, due to the possibility of symptom recurrence, patients should undergo regular checkups with specialists.


Senator Rand Paul Says Dr. Anthony Fauci “Should Go to Prison”

Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci have a history. The senator from Kentucky has grilled the former chief medical advisor to the president and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) multiple times. Paul has questioned Fauci over everything from royalties to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for research grants and questioning the former NIAID head about the validity and vaccine risks of Covid boosters for children. Senator Paul has gone as far as writing a letter to the Department of Justice accusing Fauci of perjury. Paul claims Fauci lied to Congress regarding funding for the Wuhan Lab in China. Now, the senator is claiming Fauci deserves to go to prison.

Paul says Fauci is “dishonest”

“For his dishonesty, frankly, he should go to prison,” said Paul in an interview. “Do you think the scientific knowledge that was gained from this research was worth the deaths of 20 million people?” In June of 2023, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that said the NIH had contributed more than $1.4 million to Chinese research institutions between 2014 and 2019, in spite of biosafety concerns. This included the Wuhan Lab. Fauci denied, in testimony to Congress, the NIH-funded gain of function research in China.

Paul is astounded Democrats still treat Fauci as a “medical messiah” and protect him. Paul believes Fauci is a “symbol of big government.” “He’s never been held responsible,” says Paul. The senator added, “History should judge him as a deficient person who made one of the worst decisions in public health history — in the entire history of the world.” For his part, Anthony Fauci responded by saying putting him in jail is “irresponsible,” and he doesn’t have a response to this “craziness.” “I mean, prosecute me for what? What are they talking about? I mean, I wish I could figure out what the heck they were talking about. I think they’re just going off the deep end.”

Fauci “Doesn’t Recall”

In early January, Fauci testified in front of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Fauci’s testimony was behind closed doors, but Congressman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the subcommittee, said in a statement after the first day of testimony the interview had uncovered “drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems.”

The chairman was also surprised by how much Fauci said he “doesn’t recall” about the early days of the Covid outbreak. Senator Paul jumped on the fact Fauci couldn’t recall. “A guy that’s smart enough to think that he can shut down the schools, shut down the economy, force everybody to get vaccinated, including children, including people who have already had COVID, including the military – we had mandates everywhere, and he was all for them – yet he can’t recall how the decision-making went or what the science is to support this,” Paul said.

Wenstrup’s statement added, “Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview revealed systemic failures in our public health system and shed light on serious procedural concerns with our public health authority. It is clear that dissenting opinions were often not considered or suppressed completely. Should a future pandemic arise, America’s response must be guided by scientific facts and conclusive data.”

During the pandemic TrialSite came across various documents and artifacts that certainly contributes to the evidentiary weight of the lab leak hypothesis. According to interactions with the Department of Defense’s research arm (DARPA), they could not deny a memorandum summarizing the American origin of SARS-CoV-2. In an email interaction the head of communications for DARAP informed TrialSite while they could not verify or deny the veracity of the memo they could go on the record that they were not funding EcoHealth Alliance, the nonprofit that Fauci has a record of helping to fund. Of course, EcoHealth Alliance served as a way to outsource what was likely gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

How could Fauci not know?

Author Says US Needs a “Pentagon” for Diseases

Donald G. McNeil, Jr., the author of “The Wisdom of Plagues: Lessons from 25 Years of Covering Pandemics,” claims what is needed now is a Pentagon for disease. “I’ve reported on pandemics and plagues for nearly three decades in over 60 nations, and one thing has become unquestionably clear: our greatest flaw in the battle against disease is that, below the president, no one is in charge.” McNeil points out when a pandemic occurs too often it “becomes mired in denialism, fatalism, bigotry, rumormongering, profiteering and partisan politics.”

McNeil goes further by saying there is no provision in the Constitution for Health. Too often, it’s left to local governments and private industry. According to McNeil, private industry needs to be incentivized but also has to be reined in so it doesn’t prioritize profits over people’s lives. Also, hospitals have to be reorganized, resources have to be moved to the front lines, and McNeil advocates for the drafting of doctors. Additionally, the author says the director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should not be a political appointee. But McNeil adds, given the polarization of the United States he “despairs” about the country’s ability to adopt new thinking.


23 January, 2024

Injuries and Deaths Associated With the Very First Vaccines

Injurious side-effects were not always rare

This is Part 3 in the series “Revisiting the Historical Vaccines”
In this series, we will explore the multifaceted history of vaccines, examine historical data, and seek a nuanced understanding of vaccine efficacy and safety.

Deaths and injuries linked to vaccines were not only observed after the mass COVID-19 vaccination. There are records of severe adverse events since the first vaccines in human history were developed.

Deaths and Severe Injuries After Vaccination

The journey of smallpox vaccination, dating back to the late 18th century, is marred by numerous accounts of adverse effects and complications. Severe complications such as progressive vaccinia, an infection resulting from the vaccine virus itself, eczema vaccinatum, and encephalitis were rare yet grave adverse effects.
Official records from England from 1859 to 1921, as documented by J.T. Biggs in the 1912 book “Leicester: Sanitation versus Vaccination,“ reveal the disconcerting trend of vaccination-related complications that led to approximately 1,530 deaths directly attributed to the smallpox vaccine.

Notably, in the period from 1906 to 1922, the mortality rates from both smallpox and vaccination-related deaths were alarmingly similar.

The table, sourced from the Annual Returns of the Registrar-General, as recorded in Biggs’ book, was considered an indicator rather than a comprehensive record, omitting permanent or severe injuries.

It is well noted in the table above that due to the enforcement of vaccination, the nomenclature of the adverse events post-vaccination was limited to “cowpox” from 1898 through 1910. The causality of the smallpox vaccine in these death cases was further strengthened by a report in 1897 referring to the 36 deaths reported for that year as directly attributed to the effects of vaccination. Furthermore, the cause of death was either clearly stated in the medical certificate or was confirmed by investigation.

In June 1902, Dr. W. J. J. Stewart reported that out of 587 vaccinated men at Gore Farm Lower Hospital, over 28 percent ended up on sick leave as a result of vaccination, a significant finding not publicly disclosed. These individuals received public sick pay, and contractors were compensated for their loss of services.

“Fresh vesicles subsequently formed around the vaccination pocks coalescing with them and causing them to spread. They also developed on the face, head, body, and in the mouth; the [latter] prevented the child from suckling, and it died exhausted on the 45th day after vaccination. (Case of a healthy child after vaccination, March 13, 1891.)” This child was likely to die of a progressive form of disease following the vaccination.

The vaccine’s potential to cause serious harm was further underscored by specific cases of erysipelas, a severe form of skin infection resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Instances included a 13-week-old infant succumbing to “general erysipelas after vaccination” and a 4-month-old girl dying from the same condition post-vaccination. These cases were not isolated incidents but were part of a broader pattern of severe reactions to the smallpox vaccine, likely caused by the numerous pathogens the vaccine carried that led to severe skin infections.

Eczema vaccinatum, another serious condition linked to the vaccine, presented further evidence of the risks associated with smallpox immunization. In one case, a 15-month-old boy tragically died after developing this condition following his vaccination. This was likely caused by the inflammatory cytokines in those so-called “pure lymph” or other types of smallpox vaccines.

Encephalitis following vaccination, though uncommon, often results in fatalities, particularly in babies and young children. The death rate in reported cases varies between 9 to 40 percent. Unfortunately, 10 to 25 percent of those who survive this condition suffer from lasting neurological damage.

A 2003 systematic review of the risk for serious complications and death from smallpox vaccination in the United States from 1963 to 1968 found post-vaccinial encephalitis and vaccinia necrosum had life-threatening complication rates of at least 3 per million and 1 per million primary vaccinations, respectively. The death rate was 29 percent for post-vaccinial encephalitis and 15 percent for vaccinia necrosum cases.

Similar to smallpox vaccine failures, current COVID-19 “vaccine” issues involve adverse effects that are also closely linked to the components of the vaccine, including blood clots, brain bleeds, myocarditis, pericarditis, aggressive cancers, and autoimmune diseases.

‘The Heighth of Absurdity’

In a 1900 letter to the editor of “The Medical Brief,” Dr. Harman, a medical doctor, stated that introducing cowpox poison into the bloodstream of a healthy person was not only flawed logic but risky. “It would be the heighth of absurdity” to administer medicine to a person in good health and claim to prevent a disease they did not contract, he said.

The book ”The Value of Vaccination: A Non-Partisan Review of Its History and Results“ by Dr. George William Winterburn cited the following report from the March 4, 1882, Washington National Board of Health Bulletin:

“Our town authorities have employed a physician to vaccinate all persons who present themselves for the purpose.

“The result has been fearful. Nearly everyone vaccinated has suffered from Erythema or Erysipelas, the arms swollen from shoulder to wrist, and the point of puncture [where the person was vaccinated] presenting the appearance of sloughing ulcer [a separation of dead from living tissue], discharging freely sanious pus [blood and pus]. Many of the sufferers have been confined to bed, with high fever, from five to ten days, requiring the constant application of poultices [medicated treatment] to the arm, and the free use of morphia [morphine] for the relief of pain.

“Those who have tried it tell me they would much prefer to have smallpox.”

Ladies Played a Role

Regardless of the controversies over the effectiveness and safety of the smallpox vaccines, the vaccines were forced upon healthy people anyway. The first campaign for global smallpox vaccination took place from 1803 to 1813.

Smallpox was not only the most significant cause of blindness in the population, but it also left survivors with pockmarks. These physical aftereffects were particularly significant for women, as societal norms at the time placed a high value on a woman’s appearance. Smallpox scars could seriously diminish a young woman’s prospects for marriage, which was a critical aspect of a woman’s social and economic stability during that period.

The article “Jenner’s Ladies: Women and Vaccination against Smallpox in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain” by Michael Bennett highlights the significant role played by women in making vaccination fashionable and widely accepted in the early 19th century. They sponsored and encouraged vaccination through voluntary societies and used their influence in their respective spheres to promote this new prophylactic.

For example, Mrs. Bayley of Hope Hall near Manchester made a notable contribution by vaccinating the poor and offering a monetary reward to anyone who caught smallpox after her vaccinations.

In another instance, Dr. Lettsom highlighted that “ladies of rank” had vaccinated 30,000 children by the end of 1805. This is an aspect of medical history that has not been extensively studied.

Leicester Opposition

Although claimed to be infrequent, these complications presented a significant challenge in the widespread acceptance and administration of the vaccine.

The English government began enforcing mandated smallpox vaccination in the mid-19th century, specifically 1840 and 1853.

Despite high vaccination rates, a severe smallpox epidemic struck in the small manufacturing town of Leicester and other parts of England in the early 1870s, resulting in 3,000 cases and 358 deaths in Leicester alone. This led to public skepticism about the efficacy of vaccination, as reflected in an 1884 letter published in the Leicester Mercury newspaper.

Contradictorily, the government intensified its vaccination efforts, employing officers to prosecute those refusing to vaccinate their children. Opposition to vaccination was fueled by numerous instances of severe health complications and fatalities following vaccination. One notable case involved Arthur Ward, whose two children were harmed by vaccination; he refused further vaccination for his other child and faced legal penalties.

Despite serious health risks, the government’s unwavering support for mandatory vaccination spurred widespread revolt. Thousands protested in Leicester, drawing participants from various English countries and diverse professions. The demonstration was grand, with music, banners, and flags bearing messages championing liberty and criticizing vaccination. The procession, stretching 2 miles, received enthusiastic support from townspeople.

The scale of the protest, with attendance estimated between 80,000 to 100,000, signified a major public stance against compulsory vaccination. The event was led by Mr. Councillor Butcher of Leicester and included speeches and resolutions advocating personal liberty and parental rights. An evening meeting, attended by delegates from over 60 towns, further solidified the demonstration’s success.

Dr. Spencer T. Hall, a senior participant, expressed profound joy at the challenges to vaccination. This historical event marked a significant moment in public health, where thousands courageously opposed a prevailing medical belief and stringent government regulations, advocating for self-determination in health decisions.

70 Years of Laboratory Manipulation

According to modern vaccine quality standards, there are valid reasons to question the safety and efficacy of the smallpox vaccine, which has been highly praised for eradicating smallpox. The precise components of the smallpox vaccines remain a mystery.
The modern smallpox vaccine has gone through three generations of development. The first and second generations of the vaccine, developed between the 1950s and 1970s, used original live viruses grown on animal skin or in cell cultures. These versions carried a higher risk of severe or life-threatening side effects, including 1 to 2 fatalities per million vaccinations, 3 to 9 cases of postvaccinal encephalitis, 1 to 7 instances of progressive vaccinia, and 2 to 35 cases of eczema vaccinatum.

Because the viruses contained in the smallpox vaccine were still alive, they had to be maintained in lab animals and cell cultures. People may not be aware that modern smallpox vaccines have a complex 70-year history of passage in various laboratory animals, including rabbits, mice, goats, and cows, to make the modern attenuated smallpox vaccines.

This may be the first example in human history of the initial types of laboratory manipulation of a virus later used for vaccination.

For example, the most widely used Dryvax vaccine was from calf lymph derived from the New York City Board of Health strain. Dryvax, a vaccine licensed in the United States, is a lyophilized (freeze-dried), live-virus preparation of the infectious vaccinia virus, which was thought to play a significant role in eradicating smallpox.

Third-generation vaccines utilized attenuated strains of vaccinia and had limited usage before smallpox eradication. These vaccines have relatively milder side effects due to weakened virus strains, replacing Dryvax.

A Complex ‘Broth’ of Viruses

In the late 1990s, when researchers studied the genetic components of vaccines via advanced gene sequencing tools, they discovered that Dryvax was far more complex than initially thought.

The study suggested that Dryvax was made up of many different viruses. The sequencing identified an evolving mutation pattern, with some genes highly fragmented and others disrupted in specific strains.

The study emphasized the significant complex nature of the Dryvax vaccine, highlighting the huge impact of human laboratory interventions on orthopoxvirus populations (viruses that cause poxvirus diseases such as smallpox, cowpox, and monkeypox).

Even modern smallpox vaccines do not contain cowpox or smallpox virus but are a hybrid human and animal agent that never existed in nature until the era of vaccination. This is similar to the story of COVID-19 and the profound impact of human research on the evolution of wild-type viruses, drawing parallels to the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 virus has far more advanced gene editing technologies responsible for the origin of the SARS-CoV-2, while the smallpox vaccine used a simpler method of virus culture.

Propagating a False Narrative

The smallpox vaccine has been described as a magical medical invention. However, a closer look at the historical data reveals a more nuanced story of the disease’s prevalence and mortality, as well as the impact of the vaccine.

Nevertheless, this narrative was devised over hundreds of years. Propagating such a narrative is easier when there’s limited access to historical documentation of deaths and injuries after smallpox vaccination. This has made examining the causal relationships between the natural smallpox waves and the vaccination campaigns nearly impossible.

People also tend to trust public health authorities who have made this the official narrative. We have the same problem today with the COVID-19 narrative, which has been easier to propagate with control over the media.


22 January, 2024

A pandemic mea culpa from Francis Collins

IT COMES three years too late. But Francis Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health, has finally admitted that the COVID-19 lockdowns caused a massive amount of harm — harm to which he and other government public-health experts, such as Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, were oblivious because they were obsessed with doing things their way.

The mea culpa came last summer during a conversation hosted by Braver Angels, an organization that promotes dialogue among Americans with sharply different ideologies and political loyalties. Collins, who as NIH director played a central role in shaping Washington's response to COVID-19, was paired with Wilk Wilkinson, a Minnesota trucking manager and podcast host who strongly opposed how government officials addressed the pandemic. The 90-minute exchange, moderated by Boston College professor Martha Bayles, was recorded six months ago but only recently attracted attention when excerpts were posted on social media.

The whole conversation was interesting, but one segment in particular was jaw-dropping. Collins described with remarkable candor just how narrow-minded, how willfully myopic, he and other high-level public health officials had been as they dealt with the crisis.

"As a guy living inside the Beltway, feeling the sense of crisis, trying to decide what to do in some situation room in the White House with people who had data that was incomplete, we weren't really thinking about what that would mean to Wilk and his family in Minnesota a thousand miles away from where the virus was hitting so hard," confessed Collins, who retired from the NIH at the end of 2021. "We weren't really considering the consequences in communities that were not New York City or some other big city."

That was a stunning admission. What he said next was even more scandalous.

"If you're a public health person and you're trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is, and that is something that will save a life. Doesn't matter what else happens. So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people's lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never recover from."

"Collateral damage," said Wilkinson.

"Collateral damage," Collins agreed. He and his colleagues were locked in what he now concedes was the "public health mindset" — a monomaniacal approach that blinded them to the injuries they were causing. "A lot of us had that mindset, and that was really unfortunate."

Was it ever.

As early as March 2020, Fauci recommended a nationwide lockdown and called for a "dramatic diminution of the personal interaction" in daily activities. He warned that "life is not going to be the way it used to be in the United States," while insisting that was "best for the American public." Collins said at the time that the only correct approach was "one that most people would find to be too drastic because otherwise it is not drastic enough."

Now, of course, it is far too late to mitigate any of the pain endured by millions of Americans hurt by the government's high-handed edicts and recommendations. Those curbs and controls began with the declaration of a federal emergency and travel ban, which in turn spurred many states to order their own restrictions.

The coast-to-coast lockdown destroyed tens of millions of jobs and at least 200,000 small businesses. It exacerbated numerous social ills, worsened mental illness, and took a deadly toll in missed cancer diagnoses and untreated heart disease. The prolonged school closures inflicted unprecedented damage on children. The social distancing and mask mandates were enforced with a ruthlessness that at times turned despotic. And countless men and women — from ordinary citizens to noted epidemiologists to elected state officials — found themselves demonized, censored, or shunned for challenging those who attached "zero value" to their concerns.

All this damage was caused not by the pandemic but by politicians who abdicated their judgment and left it to public-health experts. Whether out of panic, pigheadedness, or perversity, they declined to balance costs against benefits, a basic function of policymaking. Instead, they insisted they would "follow the science" — as though scientists were endowed with an infallible road map to navigate COVID's complex interplay of disease, economics, education, psychology, and politics in a nation of 330 million people.

The great economist and social historian Thomas Sowell has often observed that "there are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs." That is a fundamental reality in all policymaking. There are pros and cons to everything government does. For officials responding to the pandemic, there can hardly have been a more shocking intellectual failure than the one to which Collins now confesses: attaching "infinite value" to stopping the disease and no value at all to everything else.

The same sort of thinking can be a pitfall in many other areas. Focus on reducing fossil fuel use at any price, for example, and the results will be stunted economic growth and continued misery for many of the world's poorest people. Assign maximum importance to achieving racial diversity in student admissions and the result is affirmative action preferences so lopsided that they violate the Constitution. Allow the prevention of another 9/11 to override every other consideration, and the CIA ends up torturing prisoners in secret "black sites" beyond the reach of law.

From crime to homelessness to addiction to national defense, there are always costs to be weighed against benefits. And if acknowledging tradeoffs is indispensable to the work of government, it is especially so at times of crisis.

Toward the end of the Braver Angels conversation, Collins acknowledged another way in which he and many of his inside-the-Beltway colleagues blundered.

It was folly, he said, to think that Washington knew what was best for the whole nation. "The fact that we could put blanket recommendations across this incredible wide, broad, and diverse country and expect them to be right . . . obviously could not have been correct. And yet that's what was done."

COVID-19 would have been a terrible destroyer in any case. But it was made all the more catastrophic by the failure of politicians and experts who not only were sure they knew best but were unwilling even to consider other views. Americans' respect for public-health experts took a beating during the pandemic, and it is a black mark on Collins's legacy that he was so complacent about the harm the government's policies caused. For belatedly admitting where he went wrong, he certainly deserves credit. Let him continue to speak out, to warn other scientists against falling into the same trap, and he'll deserve a lot more.


UK Covid Inquiry Put on Hold

The Covid Inquiry in the United Kingdom initially looked like it was going to be just “window dressing”. The Inquiry, which began at the end of May in 2023, as an independent public investigation with many of the government ministers wanting trying to stop or dodge questioning. The Inquiry is headed by Baroness Heather Hallett, a former Court of Appeal Judge. The important aspect of the Inquiry is that it exists. In December of last year, alternative viewpoints to Covid and the vaccine were heard along with politicians, specifically testimony from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Johnson admitted mistakes in his handling of the pandemic but that he did his “level best” at the time. Now, it appears the UK Covid Inquiry is on “hold.”

Public Hearings Postponed

Last week, the UK COVID-19 Inquiry issued a statement formally announcing the Inquiry will be “rescheduled”. The hearings were scheduled to take place in the summer of 2024, but will now happen at a later date to allow organizations time to “prioritize” their materials for the inquiry’s third investigation on the impact of the pandemic.

Baroness Hallet, the chair of the Inquiry, said she knows people are disappointed with the postponement but said more time was needed to prepare for a separate investigation on how the pandemic impacted the British National Health Service (NHS). "I want to ensure our hearings in 2024 are as effective as possible and I recognize the increasing pressure on organizations to respond to requests and provide information to the inquiry," the Baroness said. "I remain committed to not allowing the inquiry hearings to run beyond my original aim of summer 2026," she added.

Different “Phases”

The UK Covid Inquiry has been split up into different phases. The first phase, which started in 2023, was set up to gather evidence in the planning for the pandemic. The findings and recommendations of this phase are due this summer. The second phase is looking at how political decisions were made after the Covid pandemic hit Britain. The second phase started in London in October of 2023, and will travel to the rest of the UK to collect evidence.

Public hearings will start again this September, to look at the impact the pandemic had on the NHS. There is also an investigation into vaccines which will cover the safety of the Covid jabs and the link between the serums and heart ailments. The investigation will cover whether reforms are needed. No timetable has been set for the return of the hearings, but the Inquiry has promised more details in the “coming weeks.”


The political implications of the Inquiry could influence the next election in Britain. First, Simon Case, the current cabinet secretary for the Conservative government, is expected to testify in a special hearing in the spring. Reportedly, Case was critical of British ministers during the pandemic and had said former Prime Minister Boris Johnson was “unable to lead.” Second, the publication of the independent Inquiry could cause election problems for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The findings could reveal how the government was obsessed with Brexit and the pandemic was downplayed.

Already, former ministers have criticized the UK Covid Inquiry. Former Health Minister Lord Bethell complained the investigation was too focused on “office tittle tattle”. Reportedly, Bethell was involved in negotiating “controversial contracts.”

Rivka Gottlieb, a spokesperson for the COVID-19 Bereaved Families, UK said, the Inquiry’s findings “must be released as soon as possible so they can be put into action to protect us from a future pandemic.” Unfortunately for those most in need, such as individuals struggling with injuries or long COVID it will likely be too little too late, in other words, window dressing.


21 January, 2024

Ask Why 429 Moms Died

“U.S. maternal deaths are on a worrisome trajectory,” the American Medical Association declared after news that pregnancy-related deaths soared 40 percent in 2021 to levels unseen since 1965.

But in releasing its 2021 maternal mortality report—seventeen months after the fact—the U.S. Centers for Disease Control left out crucial context. It made no mention of the role of Covid-19, even in the pandemic’s worst year and even as data was readily available.

We analyzed that data, assisted by a programmer and an actuary, and found a disturbing trend. Of the 1,205 mothers who died in or within forty-two days of pregnancy in 2021, 429 had Covid-19 on the death certificate as either the primary or a contributing cause—a 321 percent increase in Covid pregnancy deaths from the first wave in 2020. By comparison, total Covid deaths in the United States rose a relatively modest 20 percent—one-fifteen as much as in pregnant women.

Such a huge disparity suggests that Covid, which typically claims the elderly and medically compromised, did not solely drive these pregnancy deaths. Rather, the campaign to vaccinate pregnant women in the heat of the second Covid wave may have combined to make infections worse in the vaccinated. The phenomenon, often minimized as “breakthrough infection,” is called vaccine-associated enhanced disease or VAED and has been documented in measles, respiratory syncytial virus, and dengue fever.

The 429 women who died from pregnancy-related Covid in 2021 are a tiny fraction of those who birthed 3.6 million babies in 2021. But their role in the nation’s 40 percent increase in maternal deaths deserves official scrutiny. When we looked at deaths of women for whom Covid was the prime killer—the underlying cause—we found an increase of 2,000 percent, from 16 mothers who died in 2020 to 335 in 2021.

Since the rollout of Covid vaccines in late 2020, a concerted effort has been made to minimize vaccine failures of efficacy and safety while overstating vaccine success. We contend that this awful chapter in Covid history, when more than 400 families lost wives and mothers, is instructive. It may also offer insight into vaccine-driven sickness and death in the general population that has been studiously ignored.

“All cases of vaccine failure should be investigated for VAED,” said a 2021 article in the journal Vaccine on Covid-19 vaccines.

Clearly, that is not happening.

Pregnant Women Excluded

In the spring and summer of 2021, pregnant women were repeatedly urged to protect themselves and their babies by taking Covid vaccinations, with website and social media depictions of smiling mothers holding their blossoming bellies. CDC did this knowing that supporting data was spare.

“Pregnant women were excluded from COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials and thus data to date on safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy is limited,” a CDC proposal to monitor safety reads from June 2021. There is “an urgent need for outcome data following [emphasis added] use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant populations.”

Although the vaccines were still under “emergency use authorization,” which is well short of formal approval, the CDC on April 23, 2021, first encouraged and on August 11, 2021, urged Covid vaccination before, during, and after pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists got on board on July 30, 2021.

For the first time in history women were exhorted—some were mandated by employers—to take a novel, minimally tested, injected pharmaceutical even in the sacrosanct first trimester of fetal development. Yet the CDC endorsements referred to research only in third-trimester vaccination. This includes a study of 827 pregnancies that found normal rates of miscarriage but inexplicably included 700 women who were vaccinated after 20 weeks, when fetal losses are not characterized as miscarriages.

Lacking robust safety data, the CDC was acting on published reports of serious illness and deaths of pregnant women from Covid, which some studies found was higher and others equal or lower. But while the vaccination campaign was supposed to lead to fewer deaths, more women died than in pre-vaccination 2020 and at rates higher than the general population, our study found.

‘Enhanced’ Disease Dismissed

By August 7, 2021, 48 percent of pregnant women had been inoculated, including 22 percent during pregnancy. Half of the 2021 Covid-in-pregnancy deaths in our data occurred in August and September, coinciding both with advisories to vaccinate and the Delta wave—perfect conditions for enhanced disease. Blaming Delta for the maternal deaths is an incomplete explanation. The Delta wave was indisputably difficult among other groups; Covid deaths of 18- to 49-year-olds, for example, rose 147 percent from 2020 to 2021, we found. But the government chose to vaccinate our way out of Covid. Successive waves suggest that approach—applied even to people with infection-induced natural immunity—failed.
Moreover, the vaccine program may even have driven up Covid cases and Covid mortality. Pfizer’s own documents, released under a court order and studied by the Daily Clout, point in this direction.

In the first ninety days of the rollout, Pfizer researchers recorded 2,585 cases of vaccinees whose “serious adverse event” was actually Covid-19 itself, the Daily Clout reported. Of those cases, 136 people died (and 2,110 had “unknown” outcomes), the Pfizer documents show.

“These cases are very suggestive of VAEDS,” three physicians who analyzed Pfizer reports for Daily Clout told us in an emailed statement. Yet Pfizer claimed that none of the cases, including in seventy-five vaccinees with “severe” disease, “could be definitively considered” as vaccine influenced. The physicians, Joseph Gehrett, Barbara Gehrett, and Chris Flowers, called VAEDS “an unattainable diagnosis…almost impossible” to meet under the current definition applied to Covid.

Asked about our findings, the physicians commented, “If a large proportion of the 2021 maternal deaths from COVID-19 occurred in vaccinated women, it would be highly suspicious for probable or possible VAED and should be aggressively investigated.”

Testament to the issue’s lack of urgency, a CDC study of what it called vaccine-mediated enhanced disease in Covid, launched in June 2021, has not reported results more than thirty months later. An agency spokesman said research concluded six weeks ago and is undergoing peer review.

In 2022, after the Omicron variant took over and vaccinations slowed, eighty-eight women died from Covid in or within forty-two days of pregnancy, about one-fourth the number of 2021. Erased was the 40 percent increase in maternal mortality of a year earlier.

Pandemic’s Darkest Time

Clearly, the pandemic was a turning point in the use of new pharmaceuticals in pregnancy. Barriers fell, and so did caution.

The new drug remdesivir, sold as Veklury, was given to hospitalized pregnant women with Covid, first under emergency use authorization in 2020. Yet the package insert—similar to those for mRNA vaccines—still stipulates, “There are insufficient human data on the use of Veklury during pregnancy.”

Dr. Peter A. McCullough, a published cardiologist who first warned of post-vaccine myocarditis, told us, “I am very concerned that antecedent or gestational administration of COVID-19 vaccines is associated with maternal death.” The virus and vaccine together, as he put it, can “super-load” the body with dangerous spike proteins from each. CDC should focus on these pregnancy outcomes, he proposes, by merging vaccine and mortality data, which is often out of researchers’ reach.

The third quarter of 2021, when maternal deaths peaked, is infamous for the start of another worrisome trend, first reported by OneAmerica insurance company, of a 40 percent increase in deaths among 18- to 64-year-olds. “We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business—not just at OneAmerica,” CEO Scott Davison said then.

Similarly, actuarial data shows excess deaths soared then among insured working-age adults—with double the mortality, for example, in 35- to 44-year-olds from the pre-pandemic norm. This trend continues even now and cannot be fully explained by Covid. Nor can a 33 percent rise since 2020 in the number of disabled Americans. Yet the government has shown little inclination to study this catastrophic toll of early death and infirmity.

Excess deaths, disability rolls, and maternal mortality numbers are trying to tell us something. They should be heeded.


Autopsy Findings in Cases of Fatal COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis

The American College of Cardiology in 2022, with an unprecedented position statement on an illness outside of their field, published the ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19 in Adults, and in that document stated, “The ACC has long supported vaccination as a vital protective measure against dangerous illness and for personal and community health. There is no question that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination generally outweigh the risks.”

Now, a paper peer-reviewed and published today should make every cardiologist question their support of COVID-19 vaccination with the reality that some patients have died with myocarditis sacrificing their lives for a vaccine without randomized trial data demonstrating reductions in viral transmission or adjudicated COVID-19 hospitalization, death or any hard outcome. The dangerous ACC proposition based on a false premise has eroded: “COVID-19 illness causes more myocarditis than the vaccine, so we should vaccinate patients” and therefore, cause MORE and FATAL myocarditis! No reasonable and prudent doctor could practice with this perverse rationalization.

Hulscher et al. published in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure a report on 28 cases of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis and concluded based on the pathologic findings that death was caused by the injection. Without vaccination, these patients with an average age of 44 would be alive today. They also conclude using the Bradford-Hill criteria, that cardiac death after vaccination can be inferred using epidemiological criteria, in other words, unexplained cardiovascular deaths in the vaccinated with no prior antecedent disease are likely caused by vaccination.

I expect the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex to exert tremendous pressure on Wiley the publisher and the journal to retract the paper in violation of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. This has occurred numerous times during the pandemic as a form of medical censorship when valid papers are published demonstrating the fatal harms of COVID-19 vaccination. To be prepared, here are the COPE criteria:

Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)

It constitutes plagiarism

The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)

It contains material or data without authorization for use

Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)

It reports unethical research

It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process

The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

We have taken every step to ensure none of these criteria could be met for this paper. In my view, the most important figure in the paper demonstrates how large numbers of vaccine deaths are occurring among young people otherwise known as “sudden adult death syndrome.”

Hulscher N, Hodkinson R, Makis W, McCullough PA. Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis. ESC Heart Fail. 2024 Jan 14. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.14680. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38221509.


18 January, 2024

Cardiovascular Autonomic Dysfunction at Crisis Levels in Long COVID Patients

A group of cardiovascular-focused expert researchers spanning the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Austria and Sweden investigate cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction (CVAD), a malfunction of the cardiovascular system triggered by deranged autonomic control of circulatory homeostasis. CVAD is a malfunction of the cardiovascular system caused by deranged autonomic control of circulatory homeostasis. CVAD is an important component of post-COVID-19 syndrome, also termed long COVID, and might affect one-third of highly symptomatic patients with COVID-19.

With effects present throughout the whole body, prominent observations include impairment of heart rate and blood pressure control, plus manifestation in specific body regions; for example, manifesting as microvascular dysfunction.

Corresponding author Arthur Fedorowski, M.D., Ph.D., a notable cardiology specialist-investigator with Karolinska University Hospital, as well as Lund University and colleagues, report long COVID patients meeting severe conditions “meet the diagnostic criteria for two common presentations of CVAD” including:

1) postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

2) inappropriate sinus tachycardia.

Other related CVAD-linked conditions are associated with hypotension, such as orthostatic or postprandial hypotension, and recurrent reflex syncope.

Any Research Breakthroughs?

Fedorowski and colleagues point out that the pandemic did manage to accelerate long COVID research investigation helping to identify “new potential pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnostic methods and therapeutic targets in CVAD.”

The clinician/specialist-scientists point to the need for clinicians in the field who may encounter patients with CVAD on a daily basis and point out that more important than ever is “knowledge of its symptomatology, detection and appropriate management.”


Summarizing the recent medical literature research review in the journal Nature, the cardiology-centered researchers both establish a working definition based on the unfolding long COVID dynamic not to mention delineate the condition’s major forms presently reported on in lost COVID-19 syndrome patients.

Describing etiologies

In this review, we define CVAD and its major forms that are encountered in post-COVID-19 syndrome and describe possible CVAD etiologies (cause of disease) the cardiovascular-focused collaboration seeks to establish a more detailed linking of CVAD and post-COVID-19 syndrome or long COVID.

The goal obviously is to help empower more clinicians to both diagnose and manage this unfolding situation, plus delineate a research trajectory with an aim of a more efficient treatment pathway to address the ever more prevalent and enduring medical condition.


Japanese Vaccine Study Group Holds Press Release Six Months After Launch—Pervasive Safety Problems with MRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

Japan was the scene of a press conference for the General Incorporated Association Vaccine Issues Study Group in that Asian nation of 125.7 million, and the world’s third largest economy as measured by gross domestic product. A major pharmaceutical market, the Japanese group’s January 11, 2024, event centered around a concerted, systematic review of the medical literature covering COVID-19 vaccines. Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima, M.D., Ph.D., from Kyoto University cites the database of studies made possible by patient advocacy group React19 along with the TrialSite partnership to continuously promote the existence of a large body of peer-reviewed medical literature tracking adverse side effects, some of them injury causes, associated to the COVID-19 countermeasure program. The Japanese event occurred January 11, 2024.

The COVID-19 vaccines side effects can adversely impact every organ across the human body as more data supports the spike protein hypothesis. That is, that the mRNA induced spike protein can persist and travel in the human body for not only weeks, but months and even years.

Apparently, Japanese volunteer physicians have been amassing their own study hub, a set of documents derived from peer review case studies to more comprehensive population studies.

Substacker Aussie17 circulated the video snippet across the internet but few media picked up the event.

Ongoing medical censorship, according to the press conference, hinders physicians attempting to find ways to collaborate and care for patients. Then there’s the societal pressure, much like what we are experiencing in North America and Europe applying subtle and not so subtle pressure against any critical discussion about the COVID-19 vaccines, including vetting of mRNA-based vaccine injuries.

The participants also raised the specter of censorship at the level of scientific and medical journals, a phenomenon TrialSite has chronicled throughout the pandemic. TrialSite observed such censorship first with the discussion of alternative repurposed drugs such as ivermectin, then this same intuitive applied to critical discussion of the COVID-19 vaccines, or countermeasures as they are formally called by the U.S. government.

Professor Yasufumi Murakami went on the record at the event concerning adverse events, “One thing I want to say initially is that it is clear how the adverse effects occur, which is still holding many victims today. I believe it should be stopped immediately.”

Back to the spike protein hypothesis, not even acknowledged by the medical establishment in the developed nations, a mechanism of action now well understood, documented in multiple peer-reviewed studies and a recognition that the spike protein can at least in some cases circulate In the human body acting as an irritant with toxic impact.

Also problematic, at least for some patients, is the mRNA vaccines’ lipid nanoparticles (LNP), which can induce toxic reactions as well.

TrialSite reviewed and verified the General Incorporated “Association Vaccine Issues Study Group” and its press conference to discuss its report on six-month results.

Note that TrialSite includes multiple COVID-19 vaccine injury forums and publishes articles based on study after study suggesting government need for investment in ongoing investigation. Importantly many of the studies currently covering incidence involving side effects and the vaccine are case reviews, meaning they are not designed to establish causation.

Moreover, much dis-information and mis-information continues to circulate, especially from fringe groups claiming that the COVID-19 countermeasures were designed to specifically hurt people, such as part of a global cabal’s plan to depopulate the planet. This is dis-information and the more governments around the world withhold and suppress safety data the more these fringe groups benefit with an audience.


17 January, 2024

How Moderna Came Up With a Vaccine Against Vaccine Dissent

Finances at the vaccine manufacturer Moderna began to fall almost as quickly as they had risen, as most Americans resisted getting yet another COVID booster shot. The pharmaceutical company, whose pioneering mRNA vaccine had turned it from small startup to biotech giant worth more than $100 billion in just a few years, reported a third-quarter loss last year of $3.6 billion, as most Americans refused to get another COVID booster shot.

In a September call aimed at shoring up investors, Moderna’s then-chief commercial officer, Arpa Garay, attributed some of the hesitancy pummeling Moderna’s numbers to uninformed vaccine skeptics. “Despite some misinformation,” Garay said, COVID-19 still drove significant hospitalizations. “It really is a vaccine that’s relevant across all age groups,” she insisted.

To get past the “misinformation” and convince the public to take continual booster shots, Garay briefly noted that Moderna was “delving down” on ways to partner “across the ecosystem to make sure consumers are educated on the need for the vaccine.”

What Garay hinted at during the call, but didn’t disclose, was that Moderna already had a sprawling media operation in place aimed at identifying and responding to critics of vaccine policy and the drug industry. A series of internal company reports and communications reviewed by RealClearInvestigations (RCI) show that Moderna has worked with former law enforcement and public health officials and a drug industry-funded non-governmental organization called The Public Good Projects (PGP) to confront the “root cause of vaccine hesitancy” by rapidly identifying and “shutting down misinformation.”

Part of this effort includes providing talking points to some 45,000 healthcare professionals “on how to respond when vaccine misinformation goes mainstream.” PGP and Moderna have created a new partnership, called the “Infodemic Training Program,” to prepare health care workers to respond to alleged vaccine-related misinformation.

The company has also used artificial intelligence to monitor millions of global online conversations to shape the contours of vaccine-related discussion. The internal files—shorthanded here as the Moderna Reports—show high-profile vaccine critics were closely monitored, particularly skeptics in independent media, including Michael Shellenberger, Russell Brand, and Alex Berenson. PGP, which was funded by a $1,275,000 donation from the Biotechnology and Innovation Organization, a lobby group representing Pfizer and Moderna, has identified alleged vaccine misinformation and helped facilitate the removal of content from Twitter, among other social media platforms, throughout 2021 and 2022.

Emails from that period show that PGP routinely sent Excel lists of accounts to amplify on Twitter and others to de-platform, including populist voices such as ZeroHedge.

The messages also suggested emerging narratives to remove from the platform. “People opposed to vaccines are capitalizing on the NYT [New York Times] article about the CDC withholding vaccine information. The articles do not contain misinformation themselves but are using the news to further prove the CDC is untrustworthy,” wrote Savannah Knell, PGP’s senior director of partnerships, in an email to a Twitter lobbyist in September 2022. In another email the following month, Kaitlyn Krizanic, PGP’s senior program manager, told Twitter to be on the lookout for “reports that Sweden is no longer recommending the vaccine for children.” In some cases, conservative accounts expressing outrage at restrictive pandemic policies, such as vaccination passports, were deemed by PGP as “misinformation” that warranted removal.

The Moderna Reports consistently show the company raising red flags about those reporting documented side effects of the vaccine the biotech company was selling. Such concerns, which may be typical of corporate public relations efforts that want their product shown in the best light, take on a darker cast when it involves medicine injected into people’s bodies.

Like the Twitter Files, the Moderna Reports highlight the push by powerful entities—especially government, Big Tech, and Big Pharma—to identify and brand dissenting opinions about establishment narratives as risky forms of speech. The growing network these efforts rely on shows the growth of what has been called the censorship industrial complex. Moderna’s faltering financials also suggest, at least for now, the limits of that project.

Public Good Projects and Moderna did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

In an internal email sent last July, Moderna notified its team of its latest efforts to shape the vaccine debate. “We have partnered with PGP (The Public Good Projects) and Moderna’s Global Intelligence, Corporate Security, Medical Affairs, Corporate Communications, Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance teams to provide media monitoring for misinformation at scale,” Marcy Rudowitz, the company’s customer program lead, wrote. “If and when a response is needed, our team will notify the appropriate stakeholders with recommendations,” she added.

The extent to which the company may intervene to shape content decisions is not clear. PGP continues to boast close relations with establishment institutions, including major medical associations.

The rise of censorship is inextricably connected to the pandemic, which emerged in the United States in early 2020. As federal, state, and local governments imposed unprecedented regulations on Americans in the name of public health, efforts arose to discredit counter-narratives that could be spread easily on social media. Early in the pandemic, criticism of policies such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates came almost entirely from independent media, which faced shadowbans and outright censorship on various platforms.

When they introduced their vaccines in 2021, manufacturers such as Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson also had a powerful financial interest in bolstering such censorship.

Moderna, perhaps more than other drug firms, is overwhelmingly reliant on the continued success of its vaccine. The company announced a price hike of up to $130 a dose this month, far higher than the $15–26 for American federal contracts, according to the Wall Street Journal. “We’re expecting a 90 percent reduction in demand,” Modena CEO Stéphane Bancel said, when he was asked to defend the decision. “As you can see, we’re losing economies of scale.”

Far from acting as a neutral arbiter, the Moderna Reports show that the company blurred the lines between public relations and public health. In many cases, Moderna’s intelligence and communications team targeted accurate information that had “the potential to fuel vaccine hesitancy” as menacing forms of misinformation in its reports. Given the size and scope and the censorship industrial complex, it can be difficult to draw a clear straight line between Moderna’s surveillance and actions taken against specific articles, posts, and writers. Instead, as Garay suggested, the company is one stream in an evolving ecosystem aimed at undermining dissent.

Alex Berenson

Independent journalist Alex Berenson is a repeated subject of the company’s surveillance efforts. A former reporter for the New York Times, Berenson quickly emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of vaccine-related policies. He was among the earliest to cast doubt on the Biden administration’s false claim that the vaccinated people could not transmit the COVID-19 virus to others. After government pressure on Twitter, Berenson was banned from the platform in 2021, only to return after successfully litigating against the company.

He appears to still be in the crosshairs. In September 2023, Moderna flagged a tweet from Berenson that highlighted the CDC’s data showing that among 1 million mRNA-vaccinated teenagers, there were from zero to a single COVID death and up to 200,000 side effects.

The company cited Berenson’s tweet under a report headline “Attacks on pediatric COVID-19 vaccines escalate” and claimed he had “cherry-picked data.” However, the company did not directly rebut any of Berenson’s claims in its report. Rather, Moderna noted the “high-risk” danger of Berenson’s viral tweet related to the potential for low child COVID-19 vaccination rates. “Fears about side effects and long-term dangers are major reasons parents report not vaccinating their children,” the report stated. It further concluded that “resistance to COVID-19 vaccines for children can be a gateway to broader anti-vaccine beliefs.”

Other Moderna reports flag Berenson’s tweets for “misinformation about mRNA safety” and claim that he is a “conspiracy theorist” for suggesting that health authorities have not properly taken into account the documented risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) for young men receiving the vaccine. Such questions have been posed by an increasing number of health professionals, but the misinformation reports dismiss any Berenson criticism as inherently false.

“It’s nice to know Moderna is watching me,” said Berenson, when asked about his response to the revelations. “I’m watching them too. mRNA shots carry unacceptably high heart risks for teenagers and young adults. Nearly the entire rest of the world accepts this reality and now discourages or bans people under 50 from taking mRNA Covid boosters. It is unconscionable that Moderna and Pfizer continue to market them to non-elderly adults.”

“They can call me whatever they like,” he noted, “but they can’t stop my reporting.”

Russell Brand

Russell Brand, the British commentator and comedian, is also a repeated name in the Moderna misinformation files. The left-leaning populist routinely pillories the pharmaceutical industry for exploiting the pandemic to generate unprecedented profits.
Moderna has closely monitored Brand’s criticism of the drug industry.

In various “low-risk” reports produced in August 2023, Moderna flagged videos produced by Brand twice. In one, Moderna noted that Brand had broadcast a monologue about Jonathan Van-Tam, a former senior health official who helped formulate COVID-19 policies in Britain. Van-Tam had just taken a position with Moderna, a move that raised eyebrows with many in the press. In the video, Brand noted that the company had just “made a fortune during the pandemic selling vaccines to the government,” and that the “government worker that bought all those vaccines” was now moving through the revolving door.

In another report, Moderna alleged that Brand “claimed that COVID-19 vaccine mandates were based on a lie in a recent podcast episode.” The video was broadly accurate. The monologue highlights CDC documents that had come to light showing that officials were aware that the virus would “break through” and still infect vaccinated patients. In an ironic twist, Brand finished the segment with a discussion of efforts to censor debate around the vaccine.

Moderna noted they were not yet taking action on this broadcast, but “we are monitoring with our partner, the Public Good Projects.”

The following month, several media outlets reported that several women who insisted on anonymity were claiming that Brand had abused them nearly twenty years ago. The ensuing media firestorm, which led to YouTube demonetizing his account, became fodder for other Moderna misinformation reports. The company warned that the cancellation of Brand was sparking a backlash among social media users, who believed that he may be targeted by government and corporate censors for his outspoken opposition to pandemic narratives.

In a Moderna high-risk report, the company noted that speculation was swirling that “allegations are part of a conspiracy to silence the comedian, who has been a vocal opponent of COVID-19 vaccines.” The report linked an X video of Brand sharply criticizing Moderna and Pfizer for generating “$1,000 of profit every second” in 2021. The specific claim of profiteering was a mainstream claim, a statistic that was produced by Oxfam.

Nowhere in its reports on Brand did Moderna highlight any incorrect information. But the reports noted that they monitored Brand because he “has a large platform with over 6.6 million YouTube subscribers and over 21 million followers across multiple social media platforms.” Moreover, his “videos are widely circulated in anti-vaccine spaces where he is viewed as a truth-teller and threat to authority,” and that Brand maintained support from Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk.

Michael Shellenberger

The Moderna misinformation reporting system reveals that the pharmaceutical firm maintained an interest in pandemic-related issues that go beyond vaccine policy, overlapping with general issues surrounding the unexplained questions that still swirl around the source of the pandemic.

The company, for instance, flagged discussions around news last year of a congressional whistleblower who came forward with allegations that the CIA suppressed an assessment from analysts that COVID-19 originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The story has garnered widespread coverage in NBC, Science, and ABC News, among other outlets.

But Moderna’s misinformation alerts flagged Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and journalist Michael Shellenberger for distributing information about the CIA allegation. Shellenberger—with whom this reporter has worked on the Twitter Files—had exclusively reported earlier last year that U.S. government sources believed that the “patient zeros” of COVID-19 were a group of Chinese scientists at the Wuhan lab—a major revelation later confirmed by the Wall Street Journal.

Despite his work on the issue, Moderna dismisses Shellenberger in its reports as among its known “misinformation authors.”

“Moderna has spent years spreading disinformation about their vaccines and so it makes sense that they would smear the scientists and journalists who expose them as conspiracy theorists and sources of misinformation,” Shellenberger told RCI.

“The question is why is Moderna spreading disinformation on the high probability that Covid escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab?” he added. “A company that makes its money selling a coronavirus vaccine shouldn’t care where Covid came from.”

More here:


16 January, 2024

DNA Contaminants in COVID Vaccines Are ‘Beyond the Pale’: Florida Surgeon General Explains the Call for Vaccine Halt

On Jan. 3, the office of Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo issued a statement calling for the halt in the use of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, citing the recent discovery of DNA contaminants in the vaccine vials.

On the Jan. 12 episode of EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,“ Dr. Ladapo explained why he called for a halt, saying that while there are also safety concerns with the COVID mRNA vaccines linking them to a multitude of adverse events, the recent discovery is ”beyond the pale.”
“DNA is a common contaminant of many biological products,” he told the show’s host, Jan Jekielek. “We can use DNA to produce different drugs like insulin, other biologics—and that’s a wonderful innovation, and normally, that DNA doesn’t pose a problem.”

Human cells are resistant to DNA entry, and this prevents harming the integrity of the cell’s DNA.

However, since the mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles, which deliver mRNA into the cells directly, DNA contaminants could also be able to enter the cells. Some scientists, like Dr. Ladapo, are concerned that the DNA from the vaccine may integrate with the human genome.

Prominent officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) disagree.

On Dec. 6, Dr. Ladapo sent a letter to FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, Dr. Mandy Cohen. In his letter, he asked if there have been risk assessments of the vaccine DNA integrating into human DNA, especially regarding the controversial SV40 promoter/enhancer region found in Pfizer’s vaccine.

Other questions included whether risk assessments have been done on DNA integration in reproductive cells and if the current levels of DNA residuals are acceptable under the FDA’s standards.

“We’ve gotten ... lengthy responses that don’t answer the question,” Dr. Ladapo said.

In his response, Dr. Marks wrote that DNA integration “is quite implausible,” adding that animal studies show “no evidence indicative for genotoxicity.”
No tests were mentioned that would assess if DNA integration is occurring.

Dr. Ladapo believes it would be reckless not to test for DNA integration, a potential risk once DNA enters the cell.

“Their position is, oh, no, it’s fine. Everything’s fine; safe and effective. That’s not only not good enough, but it’s completely unacceptable,” Dr. Ladapo said. “And that’s why I made that determination, and it’s absolutely the correct call.”

DNA Contamination: The SV40 Promoter Controversy

Both Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines contain DNA contaminants, but only the Pfizer vaccines have also been found to contain SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA, which has since become a topic of debate.
SV40, or simian vacuolating virus 40, is a DNA virus that sometimes causes cancer in animals.

However, the SV40 promoter/enhancer found in the vaccines is only a tiny section of the DNA; it is not equivalent to the entire SV40 virus or its protein.

Promoter-enhancers are sections of DNA that can control the activity of other DNA.

“With DNA, there are different regions that tell other parts of DNA whether to be active or not,” Dr. Ladapo said. “This type of control process is very important ... The absence of control can, for example, lead to cancer ... [and] other metabolic abnormalities.”

In his letter to the FDA, Dr. Ladapo asked about the additional risk of the SV40 promoter/enhancer region’s DNA integration.

Dr. Marks answered that there were no genes for SV40 proteins nor SV40 proteins themselves present in the vaccine.

But Dr. Ladapo believes Dr. Marks is intentionally not answering the question. “No one’s talking about SV40 protein ... we talked about the promoter/enhancer region. They have to be doing it intentionally,” Dr. Ladapo said.

The Risks of DNA Integration

It is currently unknown whether DNA introduced into the body is being integrated into the cell’s human genome; and if it’s integrated, what impact will it have.

Only around 1 percent of the human DNA produces protein; the job of the other 99 percent of DNA is mostly unknown.

“There’s ... a lot of uncertainty about our genome—what it does, how it supports life and creates life, and creates the miracle of each individual human being,” Dr. Ladapo said. “What we do understand is that some of the potential risks of DNA integration include development of cancers, because ... of the regulation of different aspects of DNA and cell growth.

“Other possibilities include the disruption of the normal expression of some proteins, which then subsequently could lead to disruption of normal human function.”

Since biodistribution studies in rats have shown that the mRNA vaccines can accumulate in the reproductive organs, Dr. Ladapo’s letter expressed concern that there may also be DNA integration of reproductive cells.

“We are the most complex beings—the most complex machines, if you will—living machines that exist on this Earth. So I do believe that our genome is part of our connection to God. So that is to say that there’s quite a lot at risk in terms of not taking proper precautions and sensible precautions, with maintaining the integrity to the best that we can—life ain’t perfect, but to the best that we can with our human genome.”


FDA Launches Fresh Bid to Toss Out High-Profile Ivermectin Case

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking to persuade a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its repeated advisories against using ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

The FDA in a sealed motion asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the suit, which was brought by three doctors who allege the FDA’s warnings were illegal.

The late 2023 motion was sealed because exhibits the government cited “include confidential information” from a separate legal proceeding, according to a government brief.

Government lawyers said they would file redacted versions of the motion for public perusal but still haven’t done so.

Attorneys for the doctors said on Jan. 12 that the court should reject the government’s fresh bid to throw out the case.
“The FDA exceeded its authority by repeatedly issuing public directives not to use ivermectin for COVID-19, even though the drug remains fully approved for human use,” they wrote.

The government motion came after an appeals court found that the FDA likely overstepped its authority with the warnings.
“FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ’stop' taking medicine,” U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett, an appointee of then-President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling.

The appeals court remanded the case back to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, who said in 2022 that the doctors failed to prove their allegations.
The FDA in the sealed motion asked Judge Brown, another appointee of President Trump, to dismiss the case.

According to lawyers for the doctors, the FDA’s motion includes the argument that the plaintiffs haven’t suffered injuries that are traceable to the FDA and that can’t be remedied by a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

“The FDA is wrong,” the lawyers said. “Plaintiffs have suffered interference with their practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship, economic harm, reputational harm, and increased exposure to malpractice liability, and have been subject to disciplinary proceedings and forced resignations, all of which clearly trace to the FDA’s campaign against ivermectin and would be remedied by equitable relief.”

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act enables the FDA to authorize or approve drugs for a specific use, but doctors are free to prescribe cleared drugs for other purposes, in what’s known as “off-label” prescribing. The law doesn’t grant authority to the FDA to regulate off-label use.

The plaintiffs include Dr. Robert Apter, who was investigated by medical boards in two states for prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The referrals to the boards include some of the FDA’s warnings against using the drug as a COVID-19 treatment.

The FDA’s position in seeking a dismissal stems in part from the negative actions against the plaintiffs being taken by third parties such as pharmacies, according to a description of the sealed motion. It was quoted as saying that the referrals “are not fairly traceable” to the FDA’s statements.

An exhibit included by the FDA, however, showed that one of the referrals came from a pharmacist who cited FDA documents as a reason for “increased scrutiny” with regard to ivermectin prescriptions. The pharmacist wrote that Dr. Apter wouldn’t provide a “valid medical reason” for the ivermectin prescription and was thus engaging in “inappropriate prescribing.”

“The FDA is the common thread through all of [the] plaintiffs’ injuries, which began only after the FDA embarked on its campaign to stop the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and which often involve explicit invocation of the FDA’s directives and recommendations,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers said.

They are seeking an order that would force the FDA to rescind or amend its warnings. That would remove the justification of the parties that have taken actions against the plaintiffs, the lawyers added.


15 January, 2024

Nurses Share Experiences In Hospitals During COVID-19--Incredibly Disturbing If Accurate & Generalizable to Broader Health System

An early internet marketing pioneer now retired, during the COVID-19 pandemic became one of what has become a small army of dedicated citizen journalists seeking to dig deeper, uncover and expose, and importantly, address what many believe to have been an unacceptable state overreach severely damaging the American economy and society. For Ken McCarthy this pursuit for truth came in the form of a series of hard-hitting interviews with experienced nurses. Based on recurring themes emerging from these interviews, McCarthy identifies a shocking potential reality: the top-down protocols promulgated across American health care systems contributed to the enormous U.S. COVID-19 related death toll.

During the spring of 2020 McCarthy started interviewing seasoned nurses working in hospital ICUs treating COVID patients. He questioned these providers about the reasonableness, efficacy, and safety of government-recommended and hospital-enforced COVID protocols. What he learned would profoundly shake him to the core.

Actually, McCarthy was not alone in investigating hospital COVID-19 protocols. Already some nurses and physicians resigned, at times in protest over what they deemed a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

Mostly censors continuously eradicated any such talk materializing on social media channels, while the mainstream media of course mostly avoided such journalism all together. But there was some flare up of interest in select media, with some coverage and even chatter online that would eventually be scrubbed.

A Pioneer

Ken McCarthy literally helped mature the commercial capacity of the internet during the first part of the 1990s, as a marketer conducting experimentation to help develop pay-per-click advertising for example, as well as early attempts to establish monetization of online videos.

Suffice to say McCarthy did well for himself financially which later in life would come in handy for his career out of retirement: COVID-19 sleuth with a particular focus on hospital protocols.

What started as a deep concern, translated into a pursuit of journalism with a series of in-depth interviews of experienced nurses and other credentialed health care professionals. The topic: their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Does McCarthy’s nurse interview-sourced discovery fit into an ongoing thesis as to why so many people died in the United States during the pandemic?

With 1,191,815 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States, mortality was higher, far higher, than any other nation. But how could this be? The world’s richest economy with over $4 trillion spent annually on health care! And apparently more fortunes were spent during the pandemic as the federal government incentivized hospitals and health systems, not surprisingly, accompanied by top-down protocols of care. Then of course the entire countermeasure value chain, all protected with near universal liability assumption by the government.

After several in depth interviews McCarthy wasn’t sure any more about the official narrative pertaining to the causes for COVID-19 death. This led to the book titled What the Nurses Saw.

McCarthy connected with TrialSite founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss his book, a summary of findings and his point of view as to any underlying rationale or reasons.

McCarthy shared that he first started the nurse interviews in the late spring of 2020 during the first surge of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, for at least a while he put the matter aside, but revisited the topic three years later when it became obvious that no one else was going to.

The nurses point of view during the pandemic most certainly seems quite important. Often silenced with no voice in their place of employment, also out in the medical freedom community the nurse voice was often silenced by the prominent critical doctors gaining and keeping the spotlight,

TrialSite’s O’Connor mentioned “We thought it was important, given that Ken McCarthy worked tirelessly investing in his own budget to capture and share the voices of highly experienced nurses and their points of view as to what happened.”

The book includes in-depth interviews with eight veteran nurses from the U.S., one from the UK, and two from Canada plus a veteran respiratory therapist with 23 years of clinical experience. Their consistent narratives raise alarm and suggest that in addition to all the other problems COVID-19 caused, that possibly the U.S. government led response also precipitated a collapse of medical practice, ethical standards, and common sense that may have been the cause or a major contributing factor to what is a currently uncounted number of iatrogenic deaths and injuries.

Meaning that potentially thousands if not tens of thousands or more deaths were possibly linked to COVID-19 protocols for example aggressive intubation and ventilation, overuse of remdesivir and the like.

The author was even told of hospitals that did not allow providers to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients with ibuprofen or steroids to reduce inflammation. Some of the nurses also reported that their specific employer was incentivized based on duration of stay, use of remdesivir and other activities.

Need for Serious Inquiries

Although the book is based on anecdotal evidence, nonetheless the interview topics, the observations and allegations are based on direct nurse testimonials.

While not a medical professional, McCarthy studied science in undergraduate and went on to a very successful career as mentioned above. Over the years he advocated for using the internet to publish, as well as a tool for challenged communities where he developed strategies to use the internet to organize citizens and engage in education, outreach and community empowerment.

An environmentalist as well, McCarthy’s community organizing helped to defeat what was planned to be along the Hudson River North America’s largest coal-fired cement plant.

Combining his technical -minded skills with citizen journalism , publishing and community activist McCarthy’s now on a mission to understand any hospital culpability during the pandemic. According to his interview subjects, various hospitals became dangerous places during COVID-19, not just due to the novel coronavirus, but because of the unprecedented transformation of medicine.

The ultimate culprit? The author informed TrialSite’s Daniel O’Connor that he suspects the federal government’s hand, via the emergency apparatus triggered by the announcement of federal health emergencies.

TrialSite plans on a video interview with the author and will support him in various research endeavors. For example, a nagging question: were the same intubation and ventilation protocols the standard for previous respiratory ailments involving acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)? What about for the first two coronavirus surges—SARS-CoV and MERS?

If the protocols were not the same, meaning new standards of care suddenly appeared with SARS-CoV-2, why would the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, part of the U.S. Health and Human Services offer more payments for such deviations to existing practices? What was the rationale?


Australia: Pregnant nurse Ella refused to get a Covid jab and was duly sacked from her job at a children's hospital. Now she's plotting revenge

A passionate nurse is threatening legal action after she was sacked this week for refusing to get a Covid jab in 2021 - even though the mandate for healthcare workers was repealed in September 2023.

Ella Leach, 29, secretary of the Nurses Professional Association QLD, sued Queensland Health for her 'unfair dismissal' last weekend.

The seven-months pregnant mum-to-be is also demanding an apology from Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace for making 'misleading' comments about her case.

Ms Leach claims that by firing more than 1,200 nurses in a similar position, the state's government is 'just trying to prove a point' in the middle of a health care worker shortage.

'Terminating experienced nurses in a critical workforce shortage after keeping them in limbo for over two years, which to all appearances seems to be a power play… .I don't think, passes the pub test,' she told Daily Mail Australia.

'This is not about me. This is about thousands of healthcare workers prevented from working in their profession.'

Ms Grace had said there had been 'specific circumstances' behind Ms Leach's firing when she was asked about the decision to sack her.

According to Ms Leach however, the only allegation listed in her termination letter regarded her refusal to comply with the vaccine mandate.

'Ms Grace has my permission to elaborate further about the 'specific circumstances' surrounding my case,' she told the Courier Mail.

'Considering another pregnant nurse was sacked from Queensland Health two days after myself, I know that this is not an isolated incident.'

The Minister had previously said that 'there was more' to Ms Leach's case than met the eye, but that she was unable to disclose any extra details due to privacy concerns.

'It's very hard to comment on an individual case, but I think there's more to this case in relation to this,' Ms Grace said.

'We are doing all that we can to attract health workers but quite clearly, when directions are given, we expect them to be followed.'

In a letter replying to the Minister, Ms Leach wrote that she had 'relinquished any right to privacy' and was 'eager' to hear the circumstances that Ms Grace was referring to.

'I am yet to receive any further information ... beyond what was espoused in my termination letter,' Ms Leach wrote.

'Otherwise, I would like to receive an apology from you for portraying my circumstances of dismissal as anything other than what they were - a pregnant Queensland Health nurse being dismissed for disobeying a Health Employment Directive that is no longer in force.'

Queensland's hospital system has been plagued since the pandemic by long waiting times and ambulance ramping.

Ms Leach believes this is almost entirely due to a chronic lack of staffing.

'Nurses are pushed to the point of burn out, women are unable to give birth in our rural facilities and forced to have caesarians far from home - and all exacerbated by the fact that we don’t have enough nurses and midwives in our healthcare facilities.'

Daily Mail Australia has contacted Ms Grace's office and Queensland Health for comment.

Ms Leach worked as a registered nurse for seven years and had experience in neurosurgical, neurology, orthopaedics, medical and oncology.

Prior to the pandemic she had never been subject to disciplinary processes or management intervention.

Speaking to Sky News Australia on Tuesday, Ms Leach said that the drama had taken her attention away from her pregnancy.

'I should be focused on the joys of becoming a first time mum but it has been overshadowed by this whole process,' she said.


14 January, 2024

CDC Ordered to Disclose Crucial Information From COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance System

The top U.S. public health agency must disclose information provided by people who experienced problems following COVID-19 vaccination, a federal court has ruled.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is being ordered to produce 7.8 million free-text entries from V-safe, one of its vaccine surveillance systems.

Data from the system released under court order in 2022 showed that 25 percent of V-safe participants missed school, work, or other normal activities due to post-vaccination issues, and nearly 8 percent of participants reported seeking medical attention, such as hospitalization after receiving a shot. That data, from boxes checked by users, came through an order in a case that started as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
But the CDC resisted releasing the free-text entries, arguing that many of them include information that should remain private.

“CDC determined that many of these responses contain personally identifiable information, the disclosure of which would publicly link participants to highly sensitive health information,” government lawyers representing the agency said in one brief. “And because it would take tens of thousands of workhours to manually review and redact millions of free-text responses, CDC determined that segregating the non-exempt information within these responses would be unreasonably burdensome and was therefore beyond its FOIA obligations.”

The CDC said it would take one worker 59 years to complete the work if it were ordered.

The government’s arguments were rejected by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in response to a fresh lawsuit.

“While the burden to produce the requested free-text responses may be heavy, this court does not find that it is unreasonable,” he said in the new ruling.

The CDC can go through the records and redact personally identifiable information as allowed by FOIA but must do the work and produce the records with the redactions, he added later. Evidence produced in the case indicates that about 93 percent of the records will require no redactions.

The materials will be important for people who experienced problems following vaccination, the judge said.

“Production of the free-text data will permit independent researchers to put the government agencies to their proof by considering all of the available data,” he said. He noted that CDC studies on v-safe data only covered data from the first week or two after vaccination but that the surveys collected data for up to one year after receipt of a shot.

The CDC must produce at least 390,000 free-text entries by Feb. 15. Freedom Coalition of Doctors for Choice, which brought the case in 2023, said the entries would be posted to its website.

The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.

V-safe is a system run by the CDC. Introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, it features people inputting information through a phone application. Participants are asked to provide basic information such as their name and check boxes that answer various questions, such as whether they missed school or work after vaccination. They can add additional information in a free-text area.

The portion where participants checked boxes did not include many adverse events the CDC thought the COVID-19 vaccines might end up causing, according to previously released documents.
Lawyers say the free-text entries will provide crucial details on those health issues and others.

The Informed Consent Action Network, which brought the case that resulted in the disclosure of some of the V-safe data, obtained a free-text entry from a V-safe user that showed her writing, at one point, “Help me!” She said she suffered from a number of symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, and went to the emergency department. Six months later, she wrote, “Still no response from CDC, no help from public health.”
“This ruling,” the network said in a statement, “sends a clear message to our federal agencies: we are not moving on and forgetting about the pandemic or the actions they took.”


Nurses in Queensland who were stood down during the pandemic for refusing to get a Covid vaccine are being sacked despite the lifting of mandates

Nurses in Queensland who were stood down during the pandemic for refusing to get a Covid vaccine are being sacked despite the lifting of mandates months ago.

Ella Leach, secretary of the Nurses Professional Association QLD, was one of those who was recently notified through a letter she had been fired, even though she is seven months pregnant.

'I should be focused on the joys of becoming a first time mum but it has been overshadowed by this whole process,' Ms Leach told Sky News Australia.

When asked why the Queensland Health Department would continue pursuing employees who are no longer in breach of any vaccine rule, Ms Leach said she felt the authority was 'doubling down' on its position during the pandemic.

In September 2021 all Queensland Health staff working in facilities where healthcare was provided were told they must be vaccinated for Covid, however, this directive was repealed in September 2023 by new director-general Michael Walsh.

'They're just trying to prove a point with us,' Ms Leach said. 'There's no sensible reason why they would continue with this action.'

'We know that our hospitals are screaming out for staff. We're seeing ambulances ramped outside hospitals, people dying in ambulances, our rural areas are suffering.'

Ms Leach said she was one of at least 50 staff she knew of that had been fired since September 25 last year.

Ms Leach's former employer Children's Health Queensland said in a statement it is 'unable to comment publicly on the employment situation, including disciplinary action, of individual staff'.

'Employee disciplinary matters are handled on a case by case basis and governed by robust and equitable processes.'

Ms Leach said she was aware some staff had been told they could reapply for their old jobs. 'In my role as the secretary I've seen hundreds of letters sent to staff about this matter.'

'They say they've been looked at on a case by case basis but they are templated letters and they insert what you've written back to them and say ''even if we haven't addressed your concern don't think we haven't taken it into account'',' she claimed. 'Then they just terminate you, it's disgraceful'.

'I've spoken to nurses who have lost their homes over this'.

In repealing the vaccine mandate, Mr Walsh said wide ranging advice had been submitted that informed the decision. This included employee feedback, expert clinical advice, official immunisation advice, and a 'human rights assessment'.

Similar vaccine mandates for health workers were lifted in NSW at the end of 2022 but the mandate still stands in Victoria.


Management of Oral Lesions after COVID-19 Vaccination

I was always a bit prone to mouth ulcers but a natural remedy fixed them rapidly for me. A mouthful of salted peanuts taken during the day usually resulted in no ulcers the next day -- an extremely effective remedy. JR

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

I recently had a patient who had salivary gland problems after vaccination and when I looked in her mouth I saw unusual lesions at the orifice of the parotid duct. I wondered if there were any solutions.

Joseph et al published a brief summary of the litany of oral/facial problems that develop after COVID-19 vaccination.

“Most common oral lesions reported in the literature following COVID-19 vaccination include maculae, petechiae, desquamation, edema, erythema multiforme-like lesions, erosions, and ulcers on the hard palate, oral floor, lips, tongue, and gingiva (Chun et al., 2022; Mazur et al., 2021; Sayare et al., 2021). Few studies also reported pemphigus vulgaris, bullous pemphigoid, herpes zoster, lichen planus, Stevens–Johnson syndrome, Behçet's disease, Bell's palsy, facial swelling, and lips, face, or tongue swelling associated with anaphylaxis, burning mouth syndrome, and oral candidiasis (Chun et al., 2022; Mazur et al., 2021; Thongprasom et al., 2021).”

Then the authors go on to give some very practical solutions I plan to keep in mind for my clinic.

“In most cases, after consulting a physician to rule out any other medical issue, application of 0.1% dexamethasone solution thrice daily, 50 mg/g nystatin syrup five times daily, acyclovir ointment, and 0.1% chlorhexidine gargle twice daily relieved the symptoms. Similarly, lichen planus in the buccal mucosa resolved with 0.1% dexamethasone solution, nystatin solution (100,000 U/mL), and 0.1% dexamethasone gargle thrice daily. Neuropathic pain following the COVID-19 vaccination was managed by 0.5 mg clonazepam and 150 mg pregabalin daily. Burning-mouth syndrome was relieved using a 2% lidocaine gargle daily and 10 mg nortriptyline. Oral candidiasis cases found relief using 0.5 mg clonazepam and fluconazole syrup regularly. All cases were resolved within a varying period of 1 week to 1 month, while some even took up to 2 months. These treatments significantly relieved all symptoms, including tongue pain and ulcerative lesions. However, erythema of palatal gingiva took a few weeks longer (Chun et al., 2022).

It is recommended that after COVID-19 vaccination, patients may avoid high-intensity workouts, alcohol consumption, and smoking for a few days after vaccination.”


11 January, 2024

The Covid vaccine gave me side effects that ruined my life, but Facebook keeps censoring me from telling my friends about what happened

A woman who says she suffered chronic health complications after taking the AstraZeneca vaccine claims to have been censored from sharing her story on Facebook.

Caroline Pover, 52, received the jab in March 2021 and within nine hours, experienced convulsions, shivering, breathing difficulties and low blood pressure.

Ms Pover, of Cirencester, Gloucestershire, says she was hospitalised when her condition escalated to 'stroke-like' symptoms, in addition to exhaustion, breathing difficulties, a racing heart and migraines.

Her story was shared in a national newspaper in March last year as she and 800 other victims struggled to claim the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS).

But after sharing the link on her Facebook feed at the start of this year, Ms Pover says the website put a warning notice on her account.

Ms Pover, herself a freelance journalist and entrepreneur, said: 'My posts about what was happening to me started having FB “notes” appearing underneath them about vaccination.

'A group page I was an admin on was shut down completely by Facebook in the summer of 2021.

'When I posted the Daily Express article, which did an excellent job of not discussing anything pro or anti... I received a warning and the post was hidden.

'It's a ridiculous situation for vaccine-injured people, who have a right to information.

'If this was an online support group relating to cancer or another type of serious condition, we'd be outraged at the thought of it being censored and we'd be very sensitive to people having to navigate a very complicated health situation.'

Ms Pover said she made her first post about vaccine side effects on March 3, 2021, shortly after receiving a Covid jab.

She said: 'In the week that followed I was posting about my health and I always thought I'd be fine the next day.

'After a few weeks, I noticed that little notes from Facebook were appearing whenever I posted anything relating to the vaccine.'

Ms Pover claims she was subsequently 'shadow banned' on Facebook and that often, her posts failed to appear in the timelines of her friends and family.

She said: 'People would tag me in posts and complain that they weren't getting any traction. I'd say to them, "don't tag me, it will just disappear if you do."'

Ms Pover says that over time, the censorship led her to develop a specific writing style that would help prevent posts from being flagged up.

She has also written a book about people receiving adverse reactions from Covid jabs, which was picked up by a publisher last year.

And she says her experiences with censorship have only made her even more determined to share her message.

Ms Pover said: 'The physical health struggles we face aren't just what happens in the minutes, hours or days immediately after injection; it's what we are still dealing with years later, as well as the impact of being censored.'

Facebook has been approached for comment.

Elsewhere on the platform, UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her sports therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

AstraZeneca said in a statement: 'Patient safety is our highest priority and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines.

'Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems.

'From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, Vaxzevria has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.

'The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) has granted full marketing approval for Vaxzevria for the UK based on the safety profile and efficacy of the vaccine.


Fauci Admits 'Six-Foot Social Distancing' Was Based on Nothing During Closed-Door Testimony

During Dr. Anthony Fauci’s second day of his closed-door interrogation with members of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, the former head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases admitted shocking details about COVID-19.

The Committee, led by chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), dove into 14 hours of testimony where Fauci acknowledged that his six-foot social distancing recommendation “was likely not based on any data.”

“It just sort of appeared,” the GOP-led Committee wrote, quoting Fauci. “Dr. Fauci acknowledged that the lab-leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory.”

Nearly four years after civilization collapsed due to Democrats pushing a mostly non-life-threatening virus, Fauci suggested that his “recommendations”—AKA mandates— were based on the desire to control the sheep, which proved that the majority of society is obedient and uninformed.

The Committee revealed that Fauci “advised American universities to impose vaccine mandates on their students,” despite the former NIH director admitting that vaccine mandates could “increase vaccine hesitancy in the future.”

“This comes nearly four years after prompting the publication of the now infamous ‘Proximal Origin’ paper that attempted to vilify and disprove the lab-leak hypothesis,” the Committee wrote.

Wenstrup said things became very “evident” following Fauci’s two-day-long testimony, adding that the above admissions from the NIH official were suppressed completely.

“During his interview today, Dr. Fauci claimed that the policies and mandates he promoted may unfortunately increase vaccine hesitancy for years to come,” the Republican wrote in his findings. “Further, the social distancing recommendations forced on Americans ‘sort of just appeared’ and were likely not based on scientific data. “[The transcribed interview] revealed systemic failures in our public health system and shed a light on serious procedural concerns with our public health authority.”


10 January, 2024


Google has deleted the post that I put up here yesterday. It reported a very skeptical article about the Pfizer Covid vaccine.

 Never mind, however as the post is still available on my backup site:

Just scroll down tothe post of 9th.  

The article is also still available on the site from which I took it:

The originating story is here:

There were actually two articles in my post yesterday.  The second was a  perfectly rigorous statistical analysis of seasonal influences on Covid incidence.  I can't see that Google would object to it so I have reprinted it under yesterday's date.  It is also still available on the site from which I took it:


People More Likely to Suffer Vertigo, Tinnitus Soon After COVID-19 Vaccination: Study

People were more likely to present with tinnitus and vertigo shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, Australian researchers reported in a new study.

Some 65,468 visits to general practices with an audiovestibular problem were recorded in a database called POLAR that collects data from the practices, the researchers found. The visits, in Victoria and New South Wales, were more likely to happen within 42 days of a COVID-19 shot.

Another 678 problems relating to the ear were reported within 42 days of a vaccine dose to the Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Vaccination In the Community, or SAEFVIC, a surveillance system in Victoria, in the timeframe studied.

That timeframe was January 2021 to March 2023.

A safety signal, or sign the vaccines may cause the problems, was established for tinnitus and vertigo, according to the new paper.

Researchers found that there was an increase in general practice visits with vertigo following a Moderna or Pfizer vaccination, and visits with tinnitus after a Moderna, Pfizer, or AstraZeneca vaccine. At the same time, there was no increase in visits with hearing loss.

New COVID Variant Spreading in US, but Risk Is Low: Experts
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use modified messenger RNA (mRNA) technology while AstraZeneca’s vaccine uses an adenovirus.

A separate analysis of SAEFVIC found that reports of audiovestibular problems were more common after AstraZeneca vaccination than after a Moderna or Pfizer shot. That analysis excluded, owing to what researchers said were insufficient records, reports of problems after certain kinds of COVID-19 vaccines, including one version of Pfizer’s vaccine and Novavax’s vaccine.

“This is the first study that demonstrates an increase in audiovestibular presentations following COVID-19 vaccination, in particular, vertigo and tinnitus. Healthcare providers and vaccinees should be alert to potential audiovestibular complaints after COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Aishwarya Shetty, with the Centre for Health Analytics at The Melbourne Children’s Campus, and her co-authors wrote.

The paper was published ahead of peer review on the medRxiv server. Dr. Shetty did not respond to a request for comment, including whether the study has been submitted to any journals for peer review. Pfizer and the other vaccine manufacturers did not respond to requests for comment.


Tinnitus, or ringing in the head, has particularly been previously linked in case reports and patient accounts with COVID-19 vaccination.

To explore the possible relationship, the Australian group took the primary care data and conducted what’s called a self-controlled case series. In such an analysis, comparisons are made using the same people but different periods of time. In this study, the method involved examining visits for audiovestibular conditions and separating out visits that happened within 42 days of vaccination. Any visits in the time periods before and after that window were used as comparison.

For all audiovestibular conditions, including hearing loss, people were more likely to present within 42 days of vaccination than during the other time periods. When analyzing by specific condition, the increased risk of vertigo after mRNA vaccination and the increased risk of tinnitus after all vaccines was statistically significant while the increased risk of hearing loss was not.

The researchers also calculated the rates of reports of the conditions made to SAEFVIC per 100,000 doses. They found people were about two times more likely to suffer from most hearing problems after AstraZeneca vaccination than after Pfizer or Moderna vaccination.

The rates of reported audiovestibular conditions were 9.7 per 100,000 AstraZeneca doses and 5 per 100,000 mRNA shots. The rates of reported vertigo cases were 5.9 per 100,000 AstraZeneca doses and 3.1 per 100,000 mRNA doses, while the rates of reported cases of tinnitus were 3.2 per 100,000 AstraZeneca doses and 1.7 per 100,000 mRNA doses.

One theory to explain the difference is that older people, who face a greater risk of vertigo, predominantly received the AstraZeneca vaccine, the researchers said.

Some previous papers, such as one from the United States, have not found an increase in tinnitus after COVID-19 vaccination, but those mostly relied on self-reports “and are prone to recall bias,” according to the Australian researchers.
Limitations of the paper included not capturing people who reported to health care settings outside of general practices.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Funding was listed by the Department of Health in Victoria.

Increased Risk Versus Unvaccinated

In another new study released on medRxiv, South Korean researchers reported finding vaccinated people were at increased risk of tinnitus and ear disease when compared to unvaccinated people.

Taking data from a national health care database, the researchers said vaccinated people three months after vaccination had increased rates of tinnitus, inner ear disease, middle ear disease, and other ear disease.

The researchers said the results showed COVID-19 vaccination “significantly increased” the risks of what they described as non-fatal adverse events, such as tinnitus.

The group found that females were more likely to suffer from tinnitus and ear disease than males, and that people who received a non-mRNA vaccine were more likely to suffer from tinnitus and inner ear disease than those who received an mRNA shot. On the other hand, the risk was about the same across vaccine types for middle ear disease and higher for mRNA recipients for other ear disease.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest and no funding.


UK: The conspiracy of silence around Covid even four years on betrays our values

It is more than four years since the World Health Organisation was tipped off about a mysterious new disease that had emerged in Wuhan. This proved to be the start of a deadly pandemic as the virus hurtled round the planet, sparking the most serious public health catastrophe for a century.

Now, it is beyond dispute that China’s dictatorship covered up Covid’s eruption in Wuhan – with disastrous consequences. The regime’s officials hid the initial outbreak, silenced whistleblowers and censored data that could have saved millions of lives.

Yet, last year, when Michael Gove told the UK Covid-19 inquiry there was ‘a significant body of judgment that believes that the virus itself was man-made’ he was slapped down as the lead counsel, Hugo Keith, told him: ‘We’re not going to go there.’

So this bloated, costly inquiry is happy to admonish British politicians while ignoring the much bigger issue of whether the pandemic was sparked by cutting-edge scientific research or if there was ‘natural’ transmission from infected animals.

Keith’s hasty response reflected the desperate efforts of Western political, scientific and media establishments to stifle such discussion as they kowtow to China’s bullying rulers and cover up funding ties to risky research outsourced to Wuhan labs.

Zero reliable evidence has emerged to back claims of zoonotic (animal to animal) transmission. But there has been a steady trickle of evidence to suggest that it may be no coincidence that Covid emerged in the city with China’s maximum bio-safety lab, the biggest repository of bat coronaviruses in Asia.

I have reported on these issues since early 2020 – and it has been deeply disturbing to witness systemic attempts to shackle debate for it corrodes public confidence in science, politics and the media.

Obstruction has been led by heads of key American and British funding bodies. Yet last month a study disclosed 309 laboratory-acquired infections between 2000 and 2021 – along with 16 cases of pathogens escaping a laboratory.

Alarming details about the work in Wuhan and China’s cover-up have been exposed along with concerns over ‘Wild West’ safety and details of secret schemes to boost the infectivity of coronaviruses.

Today, there is growing acceptance that a laboratory incident might have caused the pandemic.

While no one knows for sure the answer to this scientific riddle, one thing is clear. There has been a toxic conspiracy of silence in collusion with China over Covid’s origins that has betrayed the values of democracy and science.

This undermines all efforts to prepare for the next pandemic.


9 January, 2024

Ex WHO Advisor—mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Dangerous

A former World Health Organization (WHO) consultant, a vaccine expert, and retired professor, plus founding president of the Singapore Society of Oncology, has gone on the record that while steadfastly supporting traditional vaccines, he issues a warning for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. According to Gabriel Oon who conveyed his thoughts via Aussie17’s PharmaFiles blog, there are material risks with the mRNA platform.

According to that entry, Oon, now in his 80s, sent letters to not only three government ministers from Singapore, but also 14 supposed government experts that substantial risks were involved with the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 mRNA vaccine product, suggesting that the platform generates live virus.

By the spring of 2021, Oon also issued an advisory that investors should sell their shares in Sinovac, the Chinese vaccine also in use in numerous countries. Sinovac Biotech Ltd. trades as SVA and presently is at $6.47. The Chinese company developed a full-length inactivated vaccine targeting COVID-19. TrialSite has reported in the past on investor troubles with that company.

Picked up by the Daily Telegraph New Zealand the piece also emphasized Oon was not surprisingly attacked by the Singapore government for yet another “fake news” source. However, TrialSite is looking to substantiate the claim that the Daily Telegraph New Zealand alleges that Singapore’s First Lady Ho Ching had invested nearly $3 billion in Pfizer-BioNTech plus was intimately involved in the national procurement scheme for the City-State. Could this be yet another instance of COVID-19 corruption? TrialSite’s journalists in Asia are looking deeper into this matter.

Would “the lack of inactivation in the Pfizer product…lead to the creation of Vaccine Escape Mutants (VEMs),” that is, variants? Of course, this premise is off, as the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine does not have an activated/live virus. He is likely referring to the spike protein circulating thereafter in some vaccinated persons. But this premise, although captured by the evolving science in now a dozen or so peer-reviewed journals, is not accepted by medical establishments.

Oon wrote, “I believe these VEMs on the Covid mRNA are the cause of the continuous eruption of spike mutants ranging from Delta to Omicron variants seen today, as humans have become reservoirs for these mutants.”

On SARS-CoV-2 Origins

Remember, TrialSite’s access to the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) memo suggesting that the novel coronavirus was developed in a U.S. laboratory. When TrialSite reached out to DARPA leadership on the official memo with the DARPA seal, the chief communications officer could not verify or deny the veracity of the document. But she did declare in her email that DARPA was not funding EcoHealth Alliance, the coronavirus research experts. Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) awarded grants to EcoHealth Alliance to conduct what appears to be gain-of-function research involving coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In Oon’s writings, he pointed out that the molecular structure of the original ‘Wuhan’ virus appeared quite similar to the US CDC’s patented invention (No. 7220852/B1 filed on May 22, 2004), with the addition of an HIV glycoprotein insert in the spike protein – later confirmed by Nobel Laureate Professor Luc Montagnier.

The New Zealand Daily Telegraph reported that In late 2021, Montagnier disclosed on French TV his opinion that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, as it contained unmistakable sequences of inserted HIV-virus – a virus which he co-discovered and won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for.

In that interview, Montagnier was asked about the HIV sequences in the COVID-19 virus.

‘There’s a pattern that’s obviously a classic virus, and there’s a model that especially comes from bats. But on this model, someone added some sequences including HIV, the virus for AIDS,’ he said.

‘But when you say, ‘someone added’, who added?’ he was asked.

‘I don’t know.’ ‘It’s not natural, is that what you say?’ ‘No, it is not natural.’

Endemic & Deaths

The New Zealand media shared Oon’s belief that much like influenza, SARS-CoV-2 would be around indefinitely, but his explanation deviates from the medical establishment there. He suggests that “the reservoirs of VEMs are evolving from failed protection in millions but causing deaths, delayed deaths, and illnesses. The 95% who received Pfizer and other mRNA vaccines, and not inactivated vaccines like Novavax, are developing new mutants.”

Oon alleges that the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 jab is deadly as well: the retired Singapore expert suggests that the mRNA vaccine was to blame, at least in part, for the deaths of 34 of his senior medical colleagues since 2021.

‘Between 2021 and now, I have lost 34 senior medical colleagues. Most were working in institutions and had been vaccinated with Pfizer.”

Also referred to as DTNZ, this media is not affiliated with any other “Daily Telegraph” publications in England or elsewhere, according to Malcome Dreaneen, the media’s editor.

Oon went on the record about his opinion amplified by the independent Kiwi media, “I lost my eminent elder obstetrician aunt on March 31, 2022, who was infected by a Pfizer-vaccinated caregiver who had contracted the Delta spike mutant. She became too weak, stopped playing mahjong, stopped eating, and five days before she passed, she became blind. She died in my arms. I also lost my elder brother, a senior physician at 85, who received Moderna, followed by two boosters of Pfizer. He contracted COVID and died two months later.”


New research finds the natural seasonality of coronaviruses had more influence on the COVID-19 pandemic than government interventions

A new international study on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in six northern European countries has unexpectedly discovered that the pre-existing seasonal nature of coronaviruses may have played more of a role during the pandemic than any of the government public health intervention policies – including vaccinations, lockdowns, masks and travel restrictions. The scientific study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Journal of Clinical Medicine.

The international team of scientists and medical experts used 10 years of human coronavirus monitoring data collected in Sweden before the pandemic to estimate the seasonal variations in coronavirus incidence in northern Europe. They then used publicly available data on the COVID-19 pandemic for six northern European countries (Ireland, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland) to compare the relative contributions to the progression of the pandemic in each country of: (1) seasonality; (2) vaccination programmes; and (3) other public health measures. They studied the various waves of the pandemic from early 2020 until May 2023, when the WHO declared the public health emergency over.

The authors found that the increases and decreases of each wave consistently followed the natural seasonal behaviour of coronaviruses – increasing during the winter “cold and flu season” and decreasing during the summer. In contrast, the scientific team were surprised to find no clear or consistent influence from either the vaccination programmes or the many public health interventions that were implemented.

The lead author, Dr. Gerry Quinn, a research scientist specialising in microbiology and immunology, described the significance of these surprising findings as follows:

“Since the start of the pandemic, governments and societies around the world have been implementing unprecedented measures in an attempt to control the spread of the virus. Whenever cases began to fall, many people believed that this was due to the public health interventions. But, a careful examination of all the available data shows that this belief was mistaken. It now transpires that most of the changes were probably due to natural seasonal changes of coronaviruses.”

Another author of the study, Prof. Karol Sikora (Medical Director of Cancer Partners International and Consultant Oncologist; former Director of the WHO Cancer Programme), emphasised:

“The finding that most of the apparent successes of the government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were actually due to the natural seasonality of coronaviruses makes the negative health impacts of the lockdowns and other interventions even more disturbing. In the UK, we are still reeling from the harms these policies caused for cancer treatment and diagnosis and many other health concerns throughout the pandemic. Now, it seems that these dramatic health interventions did not even noticeably alter the progression of the pandemic.”

Prof. Norman Fenton, a Professor Emeritus of Risk at Queen Mary University of London and a mathematician who specialises in data analysis and statistics, was also a co-author. He warned that,

“From the beginning of the pandemic, there have been major problems in the interpretation of the publicly available COVID-19 data. During the first waves, health agencies were still developing, changing and increasing testing capacity. This meant that initial attempts to evaluate the COVID-19 public health measures were hindered by inconsistencies in the official data. Ambiguities in the definitions of COVID-19 vaccination statuses also led to considerable confusion in assessing the impacts of the vaccination programmes. Another problem was that many of the model-based studies only considered either the first or the second wave.

However, this comprehensive new study overcame many of these statistical challenges by considering five different indicators of the pandemic and separately analysing each country over multiple waves of the pandemic. The results show that the overwhelming influence of seasonality created a false, and scientifically invalid, confidence in the many previously untested public health interventions that most governments used.”


8 January, 2024

'Vaccine victims' left with life-changing injuries from the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab say they've been censored online when speaking out

I have put this up as a free-speech issue but it is of course a medical issue too. So I thought I might mention that I got two shots of the AstraZeneca vaccine and did not get even a sore arm out of it. And I gather that most recipients were not significantly troubled by it. So the people who are complaining below may be:

1). Blaming the vaccine for some injury that had another cause. Many things may oocur in close sequence without one causing the other.

2). Affected by some rare pre-existing physical condition that interacted with the vaccine.

In both cases it is a bit much to blame the vaccine-makers for failing to see and prevent the problems concerned

People who were left with life-changing injuries after being given the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab claim they have been censored while trying to speak out on social media about their symptoms.

They believe they are vaccine victims who suffered a number of severe reactions, including a father-of-two who formed a blood clot after being given the vaccine in spring 2021 causing a permanent brain injury.

The man is in the process of suing the pharmaceutical giant at the High Court in London over the injury, while the widower of a woman who died from the jab has also brought a claim.

Now other 'victims' who claim they reacted badly to the jab who are not involved in legal proceedings have claimed sites such as Facebook have given them 'warnings' when they have tried to speak to others about their experiences.

They alleged that they are being forced to 'self censor' and speak in cryptic language to avoid having groups shut down, the Telegraph reported.

UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her Sports Therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.


Why Florida's Surgeon General Has Called for a 'Halt' in the Use of mRNA COVID Vaccines

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo is calling for a “halt” in the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines over a health risk federal officials dispute.

In a Dec. 6 letter, Ladapo addressed his concerns “pertaining to the safety assessments and the discovery of billions of DNA fragments per dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines” to the directors of the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But federal officials have strongly disagreed with his assessment.

A top FDA official last month pushed back against Ladapo and what the FDA called "the proliferation of misinformation" on vaccine safety.

Ladapo raised concerns about the agency's approval of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a Dec. 6 letter to FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf and CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen. His letter cited a pre-print study that, according to the surgeon general, showed there are "billions of DNA fragments per dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines."

Pointing to FDA guidance on vaccines that "use novel methods of delivery regarding DNA integration," Ladapo questioned whether the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines had been assessed to meet FDA's standards, noting a potential risk of cancer.

In a written response, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote that it is "implausible" that residual small DNA fragments could find their way into the nucleus of human cells and then alter DNA to cause cancer.

"We would like to make clear that based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process, FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines," Marks wrote in a Dec. 14 letter. "Additionally, with over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified." (Fox News)

But Ladapo said the FDA’s response did not adequately address his concerns.

“The FDA’s response does not provide data or evidence that the DNA integration assessments they recommended themselves have been performed,” he said in a statement. “Instead, they pointed to genotoxicity studies – which are inadequate assessments for DNA integration risk. In addition, they obfuscated the difference between the SV40 promoter/enhancer and SV40 proteins, two elements that are distinct.

“DNA integration poses a unique and elevated risk to human health and to the integrity of the human genome, including the risk that DNA integrated into sperm or egg gametes could be passed onto offspring of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients,” Ladapo continued. “If the risks of DNA integration have not been assessed for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings.”


7 January, 2024

Apparently, Elderly Patients in Europe Died After Receiving the Pfizer Vaccine. Why Has There Been No Widespread Reporting?

Late last year, TrialSite News reported on a Brown University study analyzing the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines. “The study team summarized that when comparing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 with Moderna (mRNA-1273), the latter was associated with a lower risk of adverse events, possibly due to improved protection against COVID-19. Put another way, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine represents a higher-risk product for the elderly.

Yet this finding has never seen the light of day in mainstream media. “However, though not widespread, there have been some reports on the risk of the Covid vaccine to the elderly. TrialSite reported all during the pandemic from one concern to another involving regulatory shortcuts, to anomalies to hundreds of articles involving COVID-19 vaccine injuries with Pfizer-BioNTech. A group of scientists known as “Team #3” found bombshell information that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was associated with over twice the number of deaths during the pivotal 20-week clinical trial than the placebo group. The scientists found that data was suppressed by Pfizer, hence the FDA would not have been able to detect the safety signal.

Reports in 2021

In February of 2021, an article about all 78 elderly residents of a Spanish nursing home in Madrid developing COVID-19 after being vaccinated with the Pfizer jab surfaced. Note the article was published in the Global Times, which is a China-based media, and thus does raise a question of objectivity.

The residents contracted the virus after receiving the first dose of the shot and seven of them died. But in November of the same year, an article was published claiming deaths attributed to the Covid jab in Spain, “cannot be linked to Covid-19 vaccines by the mere fact of being notified until a study confirms the causal relationship between the vaccine and death or the serious side effect."

In other words, if a person dies due to a blood clot a few days after getting vaccinated against COVID-19, there is an undeniable possibility that this may have occurred for other reasons than the COVID-19 vaccine.

But Spain wasn’t the only country in Europe to report elderly deaths after receiving the Pfizer Covid shot. Norway investigated the demise of 23 seniors after getting the Pfizer jab. The Norwegian Medicines Agency labeled the victims as “frail” and such common adverse reactions to the mRNA vaccine such as nausea and fever may have contributed to the deaths.

In a statement, the agency said, “We cannot rule out that adverse reactions to the vaccine occurring within the first days following vaccination (such as fever and nausea) may contribute to a more serious course and fatal outcome in patients with severe underlying disease.” This news was covered by mainstream CNN.

However, also The British Medical Journal (BMJ) went further. It published an article in May of 2021, saying the Norwegian review said the “Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine is ‘likely’ to have been responsible for at least 10 deaths of frail elderly people in nursing homes in Norway, an expert review commissioned by the Norwegian Medicines Agency has concluded.”

The Norwegian report further conveyed that even though the mortality rate in nursing homes was generally very high and deaths of nursing home residents were anticipated after vaccination, the review concluded “a causal link between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and death was considered ‘likely’ in 10 of the 100 cases, ‘possible’ in 26 cases, and ‘unlikely’ in 59 cases. The remaining five were deemed ‘unclassifiable.’”

In Switzerland, at least 16 elderly people reportedly died after receiving the Covid vaccine according to the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic). The agency said it had recorded about 364 suspected adverse drug reactions, with 199 incidents linked to the vaccines developed by Pfizer and BioNTech and 154 to the Moderna jab.

TrialSite also tracked data in Australia after mass vaccination with both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. By the end of Q1 2022—a period when nearly the entire Australian population was fully vaccinated—more than double the number of people who died from COVID-19 in those three months than all of 2020 and 2021 combined. See “Heavily Vaxxed Australia First 3.5 Months of 2022 has Double the COVID-19 Deaths from 2020-2021 Combined.”


Last year, Northern Irish politicians were complaining about the underreporting of deaths related to the COVID-19 vaccines. In June of 2021, MDPI, which is a publisher of peer-reviewed open-access journals, published a paper by a group of European medical professionals questioning the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, which was later retracted. Members of the journal’s board resigned afterward.

The question is, why does the possible danger of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine seem to be covered up and what kind of power and influence does the pharmaceutical company have over the European Union and the United States?


Florida Clinic Conducting Large Ivermectin Study Targeting COVID-19

Dr. Patrick Robinson and his partner Dana Robinson run the Matters of Beauty aesthetics and med spa clinic in San Antonio, Florida. The duo registered a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated cohort, a prospective observational study targeting 1,000 patients.

Can the clinic’s patients who opt for ivermectin as a regimen against COVID-19 have a faster path to recovery and keep out of the hospital more than others? The Robinsons are to be commended for making the investment to study the benefits of ivermectin formally. They are following other front-line physicians who made the investment to design and execute formal, organized studies including another Florida-based husband and wife team Drs. Jean-Jacques Rajter and Juliana Cepelowicz both with Broward Health, who led the well-known ICON study, with promising results published in the journal Chest.

Also, Malibu, California-based Dr. Sabine Hazan, a pioneer in microbiome-based research, became the first independent physician to formally register an ivermectin-based clinical trial in the United States during the pandemic. While other physicians have established practices involving ivermectin in various protocols, such efforts were based on their own formal studies within their clinics, registered in, for example.

The study, registered in in May 2022, is scheduled to conclude this May 2024.

The Study

Patients at local physician clinics, as well as my Matters of Beauty, are enrolled when they are evaluated for COVID-19. Patients enrollment is, of course, voluntary and based on their request for treatment with ivermectin.

These patients will be questioned on symptoms and the timing of those symptoms in detail. They will then be followed throughout their treatment course to evaluate their recovery experience. Detailed accounts of their symptoms and their resolution will be followed.

The study patients will stop being followed when they are either admitted to the hospital or are deemed to be symptom-free. Any other medications prescribed to the patients will also be tracked. Medical histories will be taken and documented to make comparisons at the end of the study. Those patients not requesting ivermectin will also be followed for comparisons at a later date.

What are the study’s two cohorts?

As delineated in the national registry, Dr. Robinson and his wife Dana designed two cohorts, including A) the ivermectin cohort and B) the non-ivermectin cohort.

What are the primary outcome measures?

This study includes two primary outcome measures, including 1) complete recovery from COVID-19 with resolution of symptoms following a 4–6-week timeline per participant and 2) admission to hospital for further treatment within the same 4–6-week timeline per participant. In this latter case, the patient was unable to recover at home and thus needed hospital admission.


4 January, 2024

Grand Inquisitor Says Oops

Francis Collins was head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—Anthony Fauci’s parent bureaucracy—during the wreckage caused by the COVID response. Ultimately, Dr. Collins bears a huge measure of the responsibility for the disaster, even if he played the role of the stooge.

It was he who wrote Fauci with the demand for a “quick and devastating takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement that merely reasserted traditional public health wisdom in the midst of an insane science experiment being conducted on the whole population.
Five months ago, an organization that seeks political consensus hosted him for some frank talk about what happened. Here is what he had to say:

There is a sense in which he didn’t need to say this at all. We all knew it. They were thinking only about New York City. The rest of the country never had anything approaching a crisis. The government under Collins emptied hospitals out from coast to coast to reserve them for COVID patients who only arrived much later and never came close to overwhelming health care services.

Meanwhile, the entire country was plunged into a grave crisis at every level—a man-made crisis of the worst sort.

Nor did they think about anything other than this one pathogen. It was a wild fanaticism that seized the whole of the ruling class for the better part of two years. None of it made sense but those who objected could hardly get a hearing. Instead, they were smeared, censored, and often fired for non-compliance.

Even as late as December 2021, Collins was still fear-mongering. He told NPR concerning Christmas celebrations:

“We were planning to invite some of the trainees at NIH who are far from home to come for a brunch on Christmas Day at our house if they’re all fully vaccinated and boosted. Still planning to go forward, very carefully, with a small group, and everybody will be wearing masks except when they’re eating.”

Note that Collins doesn’t apologize. He takes no responsibility. He just continues his masquerade as a tennis-shoe wearing, guitar-strumming, Jesus-loving grandpa who is open and broad-minded, never mind that he wielded absolute power over all our lives only a few years ago.

Later in the interview, he is singing hosannas to the glorious vaccines and how perfectly they worked. We are nowhere near approaching the point where people like this tell the truth. It’s almost like they cannot bear it.

Even in this interview, Collins’s nonchalant delivery is infuriating. You want to scream back: you wrecked the lives of hundreds of millions of people! And no one ever gave you the authority to do so!

Meanwhile, it was incredibly obvious to many at the time that disaster would be the only result of lockdowns. The bit about masking was never serious; no one in the know seriously believed these things would protect anyone from a tiny pathogen with an animal reservoir. The only solution was the traditional one from public health wisdom: preserve normalcy, treat the sick with known therapeutics, and alert the vulnerable to stay away from large crowds until the virus becomes endemic.

Collins directly attacked this solution and demanded that government attack it and ultimately censor it!

As we approach the end of the year, we are surrounded by a cultural and economic darkness this generation has never seen before. Most incredibly, public health itself is wrecked.

Let’s just count the ways. Each consequence dates from the beginnings of the lockdowns. That was the turning point, the end of innocence, the great reset, the moment when the choice between freedom and despotism weighed heavily in the most inhumane direction.


Homeless people are everywhere at record highs (650K), stemming from rampant mental disorder, substance abuse, and incredibly tight leasing standards stemming from the eviction moratorium.

The middle class can no longer afford to buy a home thanks to high rates from the Fed, deployed in an attempt to mitigate against inflation which is still running hot.

Every merchant has hidden fees in everything, struggling to find some way to hide the hot potato of inflation that has eaten 20-plus percent of the dollar’s purchasing power since 2019.

Shoplifting is a major national problem to the point that thousands of stores have closed.

Shrinkflation affects everything. The groceries have shrunk and the bills have soared—a direct consequence of some $8 trillion in stimulus and money printing.

Office real estate in large cities is approaching an accounting crisis because people are not returning to work, their routines totally shattered by lockdowns.

Travel is uncertain with endless delays and cancellations due to pilot shortages stemming from stay-at-home orders, vaccine mandates, and rampant illness.

The “great reset” is all around us, as we are constantly nudged to drive EVs, live without comforts, buy less meat, and even eat bugs.

A wide-open Southern border has created an immigration crisis as government neglected its core duties in favor of insane methods of virus control.

Restaurants are unaffordable for most people. Dependency on government handouts is 28 percent higher than in 2019. All stores close an hour or two earlier because they cannot get workers to stay later.

The learning losses among the kids are unfathomable, two years and rising, and perhaps an entire generation is lost.

There is a population-wide mental-health crisis in addition to rampant substance abuse.

The federal budget has been blown to smithereens. Political divisions are festering as never before, with neither party willing to discuss the COVID elephant in the room.

Our conception of what it means to live in freedom with a government that knows limits to its power has slipped away.

Arts venues are struggling for dear life to survive. World trade is shattered, with new trading blocs replacing the old ones.

The rise of maniacal gender dysphoria of the young is probably connected with this: endless hours online, loss of confidence in the world as it is, plus loneliness.

One could argue that even the war in Israel and Gaza is a result: security concerns were neglected in favor of microbial activism and shot mandates, and the loss of a moral center to policy then unleashed successive rounds of violence.

Finally, there is the loss of trust in everything: government, public health, pharmaceuticals, academia, science, media, and each other. Society cannot function without trust. Not even churches are immune from broad incredulity since most went along with the COVID response in every detail.

This only begins to scratch the surface of what we’ve lost and what has replaced it. Ultimately all such tragedies come down to individual lives. These days you hear them only among friends and families. And they are terrible stories of sadness and personal despair. The pain is only intensified by the silence on the part of all corporate media, government, and other commanding heights. Because of the news block on the whole topic, there is mass and festering anger beneath the surface.

And yet here is this granddad—the man ostensibly in charge over the whole operation—telling us old war stories of mistakes that were made. Does he have any idea of the carnage he caused? Does he even care?

In Dostoevsky’s version of the Grand Inquisitor, the nemesis predicts: “In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us.”


Australian Court Reverses Millions in COVID-19 Fines

More than $36 million (US$24.5 million) in COVID-19 infringements were withdrawn this year by the New South Wales (NSW) fines commissioner following a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Thousands of fines were issued by NSW Police to members of the public who allegedly contravened health orders during the pandemic lockdowns in 2020 and 2021.

But in a landmark ruling in November 2022, Justice Dina Yehia said the fines were not valid because they did not include a sufficiently detailed description of the offences.

Following this ruling, the NSW Commissioner of Fines Administration withdrew four types of public health order fines which were similar to the ones examined during the Supreme Court case.

These included unlawfully participating in an outdoor public gathering and failing to comply with the requirement of public health order.

According to the NSW Customer Service department’s annual report, $36.3 million in fines were reversed in 2023 following the commissioner’s decision.

A spokesperson for Revenue NSW said this amounted to about 36,600 fines being withdrawn.

“The decision to withdraw these fines does not mean the offences were not committed, but that the fine notices in question had insufficient descriptions of the offences committed,” the spokesperson said.

As of Nov. 20, around 90 per cent of the withdrawn COVID-19 fines had been refunded and the remaining were in the process of being refunded.

A total of 62,138 COVID-19 related fines were issued by police during the pandemic.


3 January, 2024

Researchers Point to Statistically Significant Autoimmune & Auto-Inflammatory Adverse Event Incidence Post COVID-19 Vax

Mostly small effects but not all

Biomedical researchers from prominent academic research centers in both South Korea and the United States conducted a study identifying 3620 autoimmune-related adverse events among 223.2 million US residents using Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and the COVID-19 Data Tracker.

Seong-Jan Kim an expert in nuclear medicine from Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital and Sung Ryul Shim, an epidemiological researcher at Konyang University and Yale University-based pharmaco-epidemiologist and mental health investigator Taeho Greg Rhee declare their recent investigation published in the journal Clinical Immunology is the first to quantify the cumulative incidence of autoimmune and auto-inflammatory adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination. This includes an accounting of autoimmune and auto-inflammatory adverse events across six major classes of medical conditions and stratified by age, sex, as well as COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer.

The study involves an accounting of the investigators’ initiative to estimate the cumulative incidence (CIR) of autoimmune and autoinflammatory adverse reactions per 100,000 people fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in the United States.

Study Method

Following STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines, the authors point out that as publicly available de-identified data was used for the study, it was exempted by the Institutional Review Boards at Konyang University and Yale School of Medicine.


Tapping into both the U.S. VAERS as well as the CDC Data Tracker databases, the study authors for this investigation report 3620 autoimmune and autoinflammatory adverse events (AEs) across 223,270,498 fully vaccinated individuals in the United States.

A study duration starting upon first administration of the COVID-19 vaccines based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (December 2020) to September 2022, the reports of AEs by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen groups

Measuring statistical significance at p<0.05, the following adverse event classes were identified:

Cardiovascular and/or pulmonary events (Pfizer-BioNTech 0.109; Moderna 0.180 and Janssen 0.170); Hematologic events (Pfizr-BioNTech 0.195; Modern 0.283 and Janssen 0.217);

Musculoskeletal events (Pfizer-BioNTech 0.554; Moderna 0.738 and Janssen 9.422) and Other events (Pfizer-BioNTech 0.198; Moderna 0.259 and Janssen 0.211).


City University of New York & Pfizer Study: COVID-19 Infected, Vaxxed Americans Mostly Reject Pfizer & Merck Antivirals

TrialSite was at the forefront of reporting the boom in use of ivermectin and other off-label regimen such as hydroxychloroquine and even fluvoxamine during the earlier stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most physicians in North America initially learned of the use of ivermectin in research or in COVID-19 care scenarios in low-and middle-income countries as TrialSite chronicled this activity early on in the pandemic.

TrialSite also chronicled the substantial public investment the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made in novel branded pharmaceutical antiviral development during the pandemic, including those developed by Pfizer (Paxlovid) and Merck (molnupiravir). The market was targeted in the several billions per annum given SARS-CoV-2 was to persist—the biomedical research establishments worldwide made the faulty assumption at first that sterilizing vaccines would eradicate viral transmission, leading to herd immunity. When it became clear that this was not the case—that the vaccines would not do a good job of stopping viral transmission and that SARS-CoV-2 would continue to mutate, the antiviral market was considered a winner by pharmaceutical analysts. See “Feds Now See the Need for Funding Antivirals: TrialSite Will Track the Spend, Carefully.”

During the pandemic, what was especially disturbing to both industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was a report by TrialSite on an obscure study revealing ivermectin use in America surged from about 3,000 prescriptions per week pre-pandemic to nearly 90,000 prescriptions per week during the height of the pandemic. This kind of data raised the risk of off label generic competition.

An aggressive series of public health programs were unleashed, some terming it propaganda including the FDA’s frontal attack on ivermectin. Ultimately, the FDA lost in a lawsuit by frontline doctors arguing the agency overstepped its mandate. Regardless, Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s molnupiravir were to be key antiviral medications in the transition from the COVID-19 pandemic to endemic status.

But much like how the market in America has rejected the COVID-19 vaccines at this point, so too are these antivirals routinely for the most part, avoided despite the greenlight from the FDA. In fact, according to a recent study published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, despite any surges in the number of COVID-19 cases, Americans tended to avoid these products.

In this prospective cohort study involving persons infected with COVID-19 between December 2021 and October 2022, the authors representing the CHASING COVID Cohort Study Team describe the uptake of Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) and Molnupiravir (MOV) among a cohort of highly vaccinated adults across America.

Representing the authors is corresponding authors Yanhan Shen, MS, an epidemiologist and biostatistician at City University of New York (CUNY), Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health. Other authors are affiliated with CUNY and Pfizer.


While overall and not surprisingly, uptake did increase during the study period given surges in underlying COVID-19, overall demand was depressed among the cohort under investigation. This was especially true among African Americans/Blacks and low income Americans.

For example, of those infected, in the study sample of 1,594 only 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9% to 15.2%) opted for Pfizer’s Paxlovid. The situation for Merck was far bleaker—out of 1,398 participants only 1.4% of infected individuals opted for MOV (95% CI, 0.8% to 2.1%).

Undoubtedly, due to a confluence of factors including company marketing and government promotion, Paxlovid use grew substantially during the study period. By December 2021 and March 2022, 1.9% of the total subgroup consumed the drug once infected. That percentage surged to 25.3% between August and October 2022. But the data supports the financial data TrialSite reports on Pfizer’s grim COVID-19 vaccine and antiviral sales numbers. See TrialSite “Pfizer Bloodbath? Collapse of COVID-19 Revenues.”

Given that during the entire study period a majority of participants could access antivirals (Paxlovid 85%; MOV 84%), the study team did find that individuals aged 65 and up opted to use the antivirals more than others. For example, among the elderly cohort Paxlovid use was higher at 30.2% (95% CI, 22.2% to 38.2).

Not surprisingly, participants with comorbidities had higher uptake rates as well.

Interestingly, although COVID-19 at least according to some studies impacted African Americans more than Whites and other racial groups, non-Hispanic Black participants opted to mostly stay away from the COVID-19 antivirals (7.2%[95% CI: 2.4%-12.0%]). Also, low-income groups avoided the products relative to other higher income groups (10.6%%[95% CI:7.3%-13.8%]).

What about persons with long COVID versus those without the condition? This cohort was found to take the Paxlovid more frequently (22.0% vs. 7.9%; P=0.001).

Of 216 persons prescribed Paxlovid, 137 (63%[95% CI: 57%-70%]) reported the antiviral as helpful in reducing symptoms.


2 January, 2024

A New Report Claims US Medical Officials Knew Covid Vaccines Didn’t Prevent the Spread of Variants of the Disease but Pushed Mandates Anyway

In August of 2021, the former governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, instituted a vaccine mandate for all state healthcare workers. This was followed by former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s mandates for workers in NYC in December of the same year. The federal government announced the idea of Covid vaccine mandates in September of 2021, under the Biden administration COVID-19 action plan.

The dates are important because in July of 2021, TrialSite News reported the widely circulated mRNA vaccines lost efficacy against the then spreading Delta variant of Covid. At the time, the Israeli Health Ministry reported that the delta variant cut the Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine’s strength by 64% in preventing infection. It has just been reported that the Israelis weren’t the only government to know there were problems with vaccine efficacy. Apparently, officials in the United States were also aware of the shortcomings of the mRNA jab.


An article in the Washington Examiner reveals US government officials were aware of “breakthrough cases” of Covid in January of 2021, when the vaccines became widely available. Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show the director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Rochelle Walensky and the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins, were discussing the short comings of the Covid vaccine with breakthrough cases but were pushing vaccine mandates at the same time.

Walensky and Collins also included Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who was also serving as the chief medical advisor to the president. In her emails Walensky says the breakthrough cases are “clearly” an “important area of study”.

Public and Private Statements

In public, however, Walensky issued a different statement. Reportedly, two months after discussing the data with both Fauci and Collins, Walensky said vaccinated people “don’t carry the virus” and “don’t get sick”. Walensky repeated this claim in May of 2021, during a Senate committee hearing claiming fully vaccinated people can’t pass COVID-19 to other people. Unfortunately, for the former head of the CDC, emails now reveal she knew this not to be true.

Mandates Based on Falsehood?

What is disturbing here is the fact that vaccine mandates were pushed, even though the US medical officials in charge knew vaccinated people could contract and spread the virus. People lost jobs over refusal to get the Covid vaccine, and political affiliation was defined by who was vaccinated and who wasn’t. Not to mention those who may have been injured or died due to myocarditis as a result of the Covid vaccine.

The question, of course, is why? The relationship between the US government and big pharma has repeatedly been questioned during the entirety of the pandemic along with the profits made by the pharmaceutical industry. If all of this was, in fact, based on a lie, it’s no wonder the American public has lost faith in the medical industry in the United States.


TrialSite Interviews Medical Justice Minnesota Founder--Seeking to Address Immoral COVID-19 Hospital Protocols

Recently, TrialSite covered the nonprofit advocacy formed based on a growing outrage over what are considered negligent, or even worse protocols for COVID-19 care during the declared national emergency. And the litigation ensues, including a group of Minnesotans now suing local hospital systems called Medical Justice Minnesota. A group formed by a part-time attorney and EMT, experienced firsthand what he and many others consider the outcomes associated with COVID-19 protocols involving remdesivir or procedures such as intubation. Started by Andy Barnhart, the Minnesota-based group seeks to raise charitable contributions, seeking to use such funds to advance legal action that it and others may take on behalf of those injured or killed in Minnesota by pandemic protocols which according to the advocacy group, “Violate the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights and generate profits for the wrongdoers.” TrialSite was able to connect with founder Andy Barnhart and learn more about the organization.

What follows is a brief email question and answer so subscribers can learn more about this organization committed to justice for loved ones, including patients and bereaved due to COVID-19 protocols.

How many members are in Medical Justice MN?

As of December 29, 2023, we have 144 members who have reached out to us concerning 84 hospital COVID-19 protocol deaths, the vast majority of which are from Minnesota hospitals.

What COVID-19 protocols does the group believe were most negligent?

We believe that the most negligent aspect of hospital COVID-19 treatment was that it was financially incentivized protocol-driven rather than outcome-driven.

Why do you think these protocols were so off the mark? How did this happen?

We believe the Covid-19 protocols were so off the mark because they drove a financial and administrative wedge between the physician-patient relationship.

How many lawsuits have you filed? Any link to public documents would be greatly appreciated.

We have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Regions Hospital in Saint Paul, MN, on behalf of two widows who each lost their husbands, they believe, due to that hospital’s use of COVID-19 protocols. I do not wish to comment on this case or provide a link to any documents. In 2024 we expect to file additional wrongful death cases against other Minnesota hospitals for their use of COVID-19 protocols including one before the end of January 2024, and another before the end of March 2024 with others to follow.

What are your funding goals?

It is our goal to have all legal fees for these cases paid by Medical Justice MN out of the donations we receive with clients having to pay the legal costs such as filing fees, service of process, expert fees, etc. We are currently bringing in enough donations to allow one attorney and two paralegals to get reimbursed at a discounted rate on a part-time basis.

In order to assess the merit of and take legal action in all the potential Minnesota wrongful death cases we need to raise considerably more money in order to attract more lawyers and paralegals to help. We are a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota with a board of directors and officers. We have applied for federal tax-exempt status and our application is pending. Once we receive our exempt status, donations received while our application was pending may be treated as tax-deductible contributions retroactively. However, if our application is not approved, contributions will not be considered tax-deductible.


1 January, 2024

FDA Commissioner Addresses Life Expectancy Decline

Vaccine toxicity? It's the only obvious cause. Vaccine usage is the big change. You need a big cause to explain a big effect

The decline in Americans’ life expectancy has drawn the attention of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf, who tweeted on X, “We are facing extraordinary headwinds in our public health with a major decline in life expectancy. The major decline in the U.S. is not just a trend. I’d describe it as catastrophic.”

Reversing Course

Two weeks before the tweet, in remarks to the Association of Professors of Medicine, Califf said “blame is toxic,” but the FDA must examine its level of accountability. Califf gave several ways to reverse course.

Califf proposed his agency “create and sustain a post-market evidence generation system” that would evaluate medical products after FDA approval and “teach about the need for participation in evidence generation.” Califf noted clinicians are under financial pressure not to participate.

Another step to increase life expectancy would be to counter medical “misinformation,” Califf said.

“While vaccination is an obvious example, we could go through the list of leading causes of death and disability and find that misinformation is much more pervasive in the lives of susceptible people and communities than valid, reliable scientific information,” said Califf.

Califf also called for expanding the clinical workforce and wider use of artificial intelligence to “lift clinicians out of box-checking hell.”

‘Vaccine Skepticism and Fatigue’

Better alignment of resources with need might also optimize health outcomes, noted Califf.

“And, as we all know, these poor outcomes are far from uniformly distributed,” said Califf. “Disparities as a function of race, ethnicity, wealth, education and geospatial location are profound and widening. A college degree is associated with an 8.5 year longer life and differences of more than a decade in life expectancy are common when we go from urban areas and university towns to rural areas.”

Califf also recommended increased vaccination but did not mention the adverse reactions connected to the COVID-19 shots. Califf noted new vaccines for COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus infections.

“Yet, the combination of vaccine skepticism and fatigue have produced weak vaccination results and parents are seeking exceptions to vaccine requirements for their children in record numbers,” said Califf.

What about Excess Deaths?

Califf does not even pose the obvious question, much less answer it in his remarks, says Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

“The decline in life expectancy is recent and sharp,” said Orient. “Why now? What changed? What are the causes of death? During COVID, there was not a spike in excess deaths. If older, sicker people died of COVID, we should be seeing fewer deaths after the culling effect, not more. Perhaps more fentanyl (overdose deaths), more suicides? How many? Not enough to account for this.”

Califf is ignoring the obvious, wrote Pierre Kory, M.D., and Mary Beth Pfeiffer in The Hill, on December 12. “People are dying in abnormally high numbers even now and long since COVID-19 waned. Yet public health agencies and medical societies are silent,” Kory and Pfeiffer stated.

“Life insurers have been consistently sounding the alarm over these unexpected or, “excess,” deaths, which claimed 158,000 more Americans in the first nine months of 2023 than in the same period in 2019,” wrote Kory and Pfeiffer. “That exceeds America’s combined losses from every war since Vietnam. Congress should urgently work with insurance experts to investigate this troubling trend.”

Dancing Around the Elephant

In researching the increase in excess deaths, researchers should be mindful of the mass COVID vaccination campaign, says Orient.

“Certainly, vaccine status is something you should ask about when collecting all that data,” said Orient. “You’d see a decline in life expectancy if more younger people are dying—as appears to be the case.”

Califf is dancing around an issue that is on most people’s minds, says Orient.

“Which is why they are declining more boosters,” said Orient. “But there may still be delayed effects from earlier shots. There are red-alert levels of safety signals. They are demanding urgent, thorough investigation. Why isn’t Dr. Califf calling for more autopsies, and checking for effects of spike protein or integration of DNA fragments from vaccine production? That a person didn’t go to college is not the reason he died at age 35.”

Evidence-based Medicine

Increasing life expectancy should be a major concern, says Scott Jensen, M.D., a family doctor, and former Minnesota state senator and gubernatorial candidate.

“We see people putting their heads in the sand,” said Jensen. “They don’t want to take blame, but they want to be noble and say it’s catastrophic.”

Jensen says he takes exception to one of Cardiff’s suggestions.

“The phrase ‘evidence-based medicine’ has become similar to ‘follow the science,’ said Jensen. “‘Evidence-based medicine’ is whatever you want it to be. It allows you to pick and choose studies that suit your purpose. But it falls short of the mark. What does it mean and what does it constitute in the practice of medicine?”

The decline in life expectancy should be a primary focus, but the FDA might also examine popular treatments, such as statin drugs, says Jensen.

“There is now data coming out that indicates statin drugs may well be contributing to congestive heart failure,” said Jensen.

FDA’s Image Problem

During the summer, when conservative-leaning media began focusing on excess deaths, the FDA launched a “Rumor Control” webpage to target “the growing spread of rumors, misinformation, and disinformation about science, medicine, and the FDA.”

The problem may go beyond “misinformation,” says Orient.

“The medical establishment has betrayed the people’s trust,” said Orient. “Can they ever get it back?”


COVID Mask Mandates Return Across US Hospitals

Hospitals in places across the United States have reimplemented mask mandates because of what officials say is an uptick in COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.

For example, the NYC Health + Hospitals—officially the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation that operates public hospitals and clinics in New York City—announced that mask mandates will be reimplemented at its hospitals.

“Due to an uptick in respiratory illnesses like COVID-19, flu & RSV in our communities & our hospital, we must return to mandatory masking. Please wear a mask when you visit us!” the hospital operator wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, earlier this week.

The post showed a photo of staff members wearing masks.

A separate NYC Health + Hospitals post states that “mandatory masking” was reinstated at its Jacobi facility in the Bronx because of “the prevalence of COVID-19 in our communities.”

While the hospital and other medical facilities have cited recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data showing an increase in COVID-19 cases, historical data from the same agency show that the increase has been relatively small compared to previous years. As of Dec. 16, the agency data show that more than 25,000 people are currently hospitalized for COVID-19 across the United States, whereas on Dec. 16, 2022, more than 36,000 were hospitalized.

Other Mask Mandates

UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, Massachusetts, confirmed to local media that it would issue a monthlong mask requirement for its staff, effective on Jan. 2. Patients and visitors won’t be mandated to wear face coverings, however.

“These changes are expected to remain in effect for approximately one month, at which time they will be reevaluated based on current trends,“ a spokesperson for the hospital said in the statement. ”The health and wellbeing of our patients, visitors, and employees is our top priority.”

The Mass General Brigham health system in Massachusetts also announced that it’s reinstating masking requirements because of COVID-19. “Our masking policies are based on the current respiratory illness rates in our communities,” Mass General Brigham confirmed in a statement to local media on Dec. 28.

In Delaware, TidalHealth announced on Dec. 28 that it’s mandating masks for all hospital visitors in patients’ rooms. That rule was initiated in “an effort to protect the most vulnerable of our population from close contact with persons that may be contagious but not yet have symptoms,” according to the hospital.

Thousands of miles across the country, in Washington state, Kaiser Permanente confirmed to local media that staffers who work in person with patients have to wear masks. Kaiser spokeswoman Linnae Riesen told The Spokesman-Review that masks are required for its workers but that patients and visitors aren’t required to wear them.

“Masks are not required but are strongly recommended for patients and visitors who do not have respiratory symptoms and are visiting low-risk areas of our medical facilities,” Kaiser Permanente’s guidance reads, according to the media outlet.

Officials at Beacon Health System said Memorial Hospital and Elkhart General, located in South Bend, Indiana, are reimplementing masking requirements for visitors, patients, and staff, according to local reports. Earlier this month, several hospitals in Pittsburgh, hospitals in Boston, and UW Health hospitals in Illinois and Wisconsin also implemented mask requirements to varying degrees.

Multiple California counties across the Bay Area region had already imposed a mask mandate for staff; it started in November and will run until the end of spring because of a predicted rise in respiratory illnesses.