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

31 March, 2022

Sweden Now Has One of the Lowest COVID Mortality Rates in Europe

Early in the coronavirus pandemic, I asked a simple question. Could Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the coronavirus actually work?

Unlike its European neighbors and virtually all US states, the Swedes had opted to not shut down the economy. The country of 10 million people took what was at first described as “a lighter touch.”

While other countries closed schools and businesses, life in Sweden stayed pretty normal. Kids went to public pools and libraries, while adults sipped wine and had lunch in local bistros. Though mass gatherings were prohibited, children kept going to school, though students older than 16 were encouraged to attend classes remotely. The Swedish government also encouraged people to work remotely and asked people over 70 to isolate themselves, if possible.

For taking this approach, Sweden—and the architect of its public health policies, Anders Tegnell—was widely condemned. 

It was an avalanche of criticism Sweden received for not locking down its economy like other governments around the world. 

The Other Side of the Story

I spent a great deal of time in 2020 and 2021 arguing that the media was getting the narrative wrong on Sweden, pointing out that Sweden’s response had resulted in exponentially fewer deaths than modelers had predicted and lower mortality overall than most of Europe.

The BBC also noted Sweden’s economy had not suffered nearly as much as the economies of other European nations, and, more importantly, as other countries were implementing more lockdown measures in 2021, daily COVID deaths in Sweden had reached zero.

That was nearly 9 months ago, however. How does Sweden rank compared to other European countries today?

Like many countries, Sweden saw cases spike with the arrival of Omicron, which resulted in a new wave of COVID deaths. However, the wave was much smaller than in other countries. In fact, Sweden’s overall COVID-19 mortality rate throughout the pandemic is one of the lower rates you’ll find in all of Europe.

The Costs of Lockdowns—New and Old

The point in sharing this information is not to take a victory lap. The point is to learn from the mistakes made during the pandemic.

In March of 2020, when public health officials realized COVID-19 was more deadly than they previously believed, they panicked. Instead of pursuing similar courses humans had pursued in previous pandemics, public health authorities decided to copy the strategy of China—one of the most totalitarian regimes on the planet—and use the government to force entire sectors of the economy to shutdown. (Americans were told this was just for 15 days to “flatten the curve,” something that was quickly proven to be untrue.)

The strategy failed miserably. Study after study after study has shown the lockdowns failed to adequately protect populations, which is why non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been scrapped by countries around the world.

Shutting down society, however, came with serious and deadly consequences. The World Bank reported last year that global poverty surged during the pandemic, with 97 million more people living on less than $1.90 per day. In the United States, 8 million more people fell into poverty in 2020, tens of millions lost jobs, and hundreds of thousands of businesses went under. To mitigate these harms, the government “flooded the system with money,” which has resulted in surging inflation. The losses went beyond financial costs, of course. Cancer screenings plunged and drug overdoses reached record highs, resulting in an untold number of deaths.

And on Tuesday, The New York Times revealed the latest unintended consequence of the government’s lockdown experiment: a new study shows alcohol-related deaths spiked in 2020, increasing 25 percent from the previous year.

“The assumption is that there were lots of people who were in recovery and had reduced access to support that spring and relapsed,” said Aaron White, one the report’s authors and a senior scientific adviser at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The Lesson of Secondary Consequences

Public officials made two serious mistakes above all others in their response to the virus. The first was assuming they possessed the knowledge and ability to contain a highly contagious respiratory virus through lockdowns and other NPIs.

Many world-leading epidemiologists at the time, like Tegnell, saw the futility of such an approach.

“In early March 2020, when Italy and Iran started to report many COVID deaths as the first countries outside China, it was clear to any knowledgeable infectious disease epidemiologist that the virus would eventually spread to all parts of the world,” Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School from 2015 to 2021, told me. “At the time, we only knew a small proportion of the actual cases, so it was clear that it had already spread elsewhere and that it would be futile to try and eliminate the disease with contact tracing and lockdowns.”

The second mistake public officials made was not considering the unintended consequences of their actions. The writer and economist Henry Hazlitt once pointed out this is one of the perennial flaws in policymaking.

“[There’s a] persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy,” Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, “and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups.”

Hazlitt described this as “the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.”

Anders Tegnell, the architect of Sweden’s strategy who recently joined the World Health Organization, was one of the only public health officials in the world who acknowledged these secondary consequences, predicting that “the consequences of shutting down the economy [would] far outweigh the benefits.”

Tegnell was right, the data show. And the critics of Sweden’s policy should acknowledge that.


Omicron BA.2 sub-variant now globally prevalent

A sub-variant of the highly transmissible omicron version of coronavirus known as BA.2 is now dominant worldwide, prompting surges in many countries in Europe and Asia and raising concern over the potential for a new wave in the United States.

BA.2 now represents nearly 86% of all sequenced cases, according to the World Health Organization. It is even more transmissible than its highly contagious omicron siblings, BA.1 and BA.1.1, however the evidence so far suggests that it is no more likely to cause severe disease.

As with the other variants in the omicron family, vaccines are less effective against BA.2 than against previous variants like alpha or the original strain of coronavirus, and protection declines over time. However, according to UK Health Security Agency data, protection is restored by a booster jab, particularly for preventing hospitalization and death. 

The rise of BA.2 has been blamed for recent surges in China as well as record infections in European countries like Germany and the UK. Yet some European countries are now seeing a slower uptick in new cases, or even a decline.

BA.2 has been called the "stealth variant" because it is slightly harder to track. A missing gene in BA.1 allowed it to be tracked by default through a common PCR test. BA.2 and another sibling, BA.3, which is also increasing in prevalence but is currently at low levels, can only be found by genomic sequencing, which some countries do more of than others.

A key concern about BA.2 was whether it could re-infect people who had already had BA.1, particularly as a number of countries seemed to be experiencing "double peaks" in infection rates surprisingly close together. But data from both the UK and Denmark have shown that while omicron can reinfect people who had other variants, such as delta, only a handful of BA.2 reinfections in people who had BA.1 have been found so far among tens of thousands of cases.

Scientists say a possible explanation for the recent rise in BA.2 could be that the global uptick happened at the same time that many countries lifted public health interventions.

"In some ways, it could just be that BA.2 was the variant that was circulating when all these people stopped wearing masks," said Dr Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Study shows higher diabetes risk after COVID infectionVideo
As such, other U.S. experts such as Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California, said it was "a little too early" to call whether the U.S. too would see a significant BA.2 wave.

But whatever the reason for BA.2's rise, scientists said it was a reminder that the virus continues to cause harm, particularly among unvaccinated, under-vaccinated and vulnerable populations.

"It is still a huge public health problem and it is going to continue to be," said Mark Woolhouse, an epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


30 March, 2022

Dishonest comment from the Mayo clinic about kids and Covid

The medical community’s overreactions toward COVID with Children mostly play the major effects on them not due to the coronavirus itself.

Before the pandemic started, people have high respect for the US medical community, but since COVID-19 started they start to follow only orders that they were told and no longer looked at the facts and data. This made a lot of people lose respect and trust in the medical community.

I mean who could blame them?

A lot of doctors around the country are like this, they are pushing their clients to take the vaccine while telling them that not taking the COVID vaccine is like “riding a bike without a helmet”. Despite the fact of how dangerous COVID vaccines are. It’s no longer new to hear news reporting how people were dying from the vaccine and witnessing a lot of people losing their jobs just because they said No to these jabs. This is absolutely alarming.

And one of the most neglected members of society when it comes to the COVID-19 effects is the children. We already knew since the start of the pandemic that the disease was not killing children and those who were affected the most were the elderly and sickly with comorbidities. Still, nothing has changed.

Knowing that children are not dying from the disease made a lot of people ask why children were kept home from school or made them wear masks when in public?

In a statement, the Mayo Clinic responded to these obvious questions as they released information stating that “COVID is affecting kids”. 

But their released argument only proved that they have the most significant negative impacts on children and not COVID itself.  Yet they walk around this and don’t address it.

The clinic started the statement by pushing the vaccine on children:

One of the most common questions parents ask Dr. Ameenuddin is whether children really need to get vaccinated for COVID-19.

“What I’ve stressed to them is that we’ve actually gotten a lot of good information over the past couple of years (about COVID-19’s effects on children), especially the last year, that the vaccines are incredibly effective in preventing very severe side effects,” says Dr. Ameenuddin.

One particular rare and serious side effect of COVID-19 is multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C. Dr. Ameenuddin says among those who have gotten multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, almost all were unvaccinated.

“Vaccination, even if a child still gets sick, makes them much less likely to be sick enough to be hospitalized or die, which, unfortunately, has been happening.”

There is still other information that Mayo Clinic failed to share. Given the fact that a lot of medical communities are reported getting paid by Big Pharma for their COVID-related responses which Mayo Clinic didn’t include in their report.

The reasons that the clinic provided for giving children the vaccine were so bizarre. After reasoning out they then started to jump to the negative side effects that children are suffering from, but what they mentioned were all not COVID related but only connected to the medical community.


Australian Covid-killing ‘fog’ guards Singapore Airport

Hi-tech hand sanitisers, nasal sprays, pills and even cannabis have all been spruiked as treatments to kill or ease symptoms of Covid-19. But could crushing the virus be as simple as using water?

Or more specifically, electrified water, with a sprinkling of salt, that can create a potent dis­infectant?

The nation’s peak science agency, the CSIRO, thinks so and has backed a South Australian company that has developed a Covid-killing “fog” that will be deployed at Singapore Airport in coming months.

The technology has received approval from Australia’s health regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, as well as undergone testing from the world’s two biggest airline manufacturers, Airbus and Boeing.

For the company, Ecas4, it is proof that life can really present bouquets. It originally developed the technology to extend the shelf life of fresh cut flowers.

The “fog” involves electrolysis of salt and water, creating a pH-neutral disinfectant solution known as Ecas4-Anolyte. This solution can be sprayed onto a surface or fogged in an enclosed space using a specialised machine, such as an aircraft cabin, to sanitise all the surfaces it comes into contact with.

Crucially, it has no harsh chemicals or side effects, meaning people can breathe it in (and out), helping stop the spread of Covid.

It is similar technology to the salt chlorinators commonly used in swimming pools, and Ecas4 director Tony Amorico cites this connection when highlighting its safety.

“Chlorine about 2000mg/litre becomes a dangerous, hazardous product. Below that it’s safe. We’re producing at levels two to 300 where we know we kill bacteria and Covid effectively, instantly,” Mr Amorico said.

After international borders reopened last month, Industry Minister Angus Taylor said Ecas4’s technology would help give people the confidence to return to the skies following two pandemic-plagued years.

“From incredible inventions such as rapid breath Covid tests, mRNA technology, to innovations such as this cleaning and sanitising solution from Ecas4 helping to get us back in the skies, this is the kind of groundbreaking innovation the Morrison government is supporting to grow our economy, create new jobs and help our nation reach the other side of the pandemic,” Mr Taylor told The Australian.

But like most fledgling companies with great ideas, committing precious funds for research and development can be risky and cost-prohibitive. And this is where the CSIRO comes in via its Innovation Connections scheme, part of the Australian government’s Entrepreneurs’ Program.

CSIRO introduced Ecas4 to the University of South Australia, which began investigating whether the solution could eliminate traces of Covid-19. The project was successful, and the solution subsequently received approvals from TGA and major aircraft manufacturers.

Other beneficiaries of the CSIRO’s innovation fund include plant-based meat start-up V2food, which formed a partnership with Jack Cowin’s Competitive Foods to launch the Rebel Whopper at Hungry Jacks.

For Ecas4, getting Singapore Airport on board was challenging, given international travel bans prevented them from installing the system in-person.

“Because the cost of transporting a solution to them was prohibitive, we built a purpose built machine to allow a batch production, which we can remotely connect to and we remotely see how much they’re producing,” Mr Amorico said.

“The best part of it is we can switch it off if I need to, as well for any reasons to stop them from producing if we want them to. And that’s how we ensure the quality of the product is produced on a regular basis because we can measure the conductivity of the solution and we can also measure the current and the voltage that we’re providing through that process.”


We actually live in a New World Order

Remember folks when Biden talks about the New World Order it’s just one of those lovable dementia moments, like finding grandad in his slippers wandering the streets at 3am.

It’s nothing to do with all that conspiracy theory nonsense about the New World Order.

When Klaus Schwab dresses up like the Klingon ambassador in an episode of Star Trek and talks about the desirability of depopulating the world, it’s just a lovable quirk and not at all worrying that this man heads one of the most powerful political institutions on the entire planet.

It’s nothing to do with all that conspiracy theory nonsense about the New World Order.

When the Bank of England does research on a fully digital currency including a system where the Bank and government decides whether to approve your every purchase or refuse to allow you to buy things they deem irresponsible purchases, remember it’s nothing to do with all the conspiracy theory nonsense about a New World Order in which you will own nothing and be happy.

Remember when the WEF produces expensive propaganda that says you will own nothing and be happy it’s nothing to do with you owning nothing and being miserable or those absurd conspiracy theories about a New World Order in which you own nothing.

When every western government is drafting and passing laws which prevent peaceful protests against New World Order measures and policies and which allow those governments to seize your assets and freeze your bank accounts and put you in jail for honking a horn remember it’s nothing to do with that ridiculous conspiracy theory about a New World Order in which all the old democratic norms have been swept away.

When every media outlet and every western government conspires to ignore and have you ignore claims that a Presidential candidate’s son has a laptop full of child sex images, proof of multi million dollar corruption including the candidate and foreign powers, and disturbing evidence of incestuous child abuse involving a 14 year old member of the candidate’s family, remember that this is perfectly normal for a free press and a fully functioning democracy and nothing to do with a New World Order in which leaders are selected rather than elected.

Remember when old ladies are run down by cavalry charges and people who did nothing but wander into a public building and support the wrong political candidate are imprisoned and tortured for over a year that is the sort of thing that happens all the time in the Free World and not in the least bit the kind of thing that happens in a New World Order where nobody in charge is accountable in the least for their actions no matter how criminal they are.

Remember when you are subjected to constant psy ops campaigns that have you one minute hating your neighbour for refusing a dangerous experimental treatment and the next minute cancelling dead Russian composers this is all perfectly rational and sensible and not at all the kind of thing that New World Order manipulative psychopaths would do to keep you constantly harassed, fearful and distracted whilst your fundamental rights and freedoms are gradually removed from you.

When anything at all no matter how devastating, scandalous and truthful can be labelled as misinformation and blocked from all social media, all news programming, all television stations, all radio stations, and every public method of communication there is so that debate of or investigation of crimes by those in authority is impossible remember to be proud that you are part of the Free World and not a repressive tyranny like Russia where the exact same thing happens but about different news items.

Remember when a senior Ukrainian politician says they are fighting for a New World Order it’s nothing to do with the New World Order of the absurd conspiracy theory, but an entirely different and wholesome New World Order which only means democracy and peace. Like the Old World Order.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


29 March, 2022

FDA Tells Doctors in 8 States to Stop Using COVID-19 Treatment

U.S. drug regulators have directed health care workers in eight states to stop using a COVID-19 treatment because it may not be effective against an Omicron coronavirus subvariant that’s rising in prevalence.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody used to treat COVID-19, can no longer be used in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Providers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also have been told to stop using stotrovimab.

Regulators believe that the treatment, which was given emergency use authorization in May 2021, “is unlikely to be effective against the BA.2 subvariant,” the FDA said in a statement.

BA.2 is a subvariant of Omicron, a variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, the pathogen that causes COVID-19.

According to genomic surveillance conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, BA.2 was responsible for 12.6 percent of COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending on March 5. But the agency projected an increase to 35 percent in the week ending on March 19, and the subvariant was pegged as circulating widely in the northeast.

Based on the estimates, BA.2 is responsible for the majority of the cases in the states where the administration of sotrovimab is now limited.

The FDA had indicated in February that it would limit the treatment.

Several studies have indicated that sotrovimab doesn’t perform well against BA.2, including one published in Nature Medicine.

But GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology, the makers of the drug, have said that testing suggested that the treatment retained neutralizing activity against BA.2.

The companies said on March 25 that they were aware of the FDA’s move and are preparing to send a data package to the agency and other regulatory authorities that show a higher dose of sotrovimab works against BA.2.

COVID-19 treatments that do appear to be effective against BA.2 include Pfizer’s pill, paxlovid; the antiviral from Gilead Sciences known as remdesivir; and the recently authorized bebtelovimab, a monoclonal made by Eli Lilly, according to the FDA.

“We will continue to monitor BA.2 in all U.S. regions and may revise the authorization further to ensure that patients with COVID-19 have effective treatments available. Health care providers should also monitor the frequency of BA.2 in their region as they choose appropriate treatment options for patients,” the agency said.

The FDA previously cut off authorization for REGEN-COV, a monoclonal from Regeneron, and a separate treatment from Eli Lilly because laboratory testing suggested that they didn’t hold up well against Omicron.


What can people who have health problems linked to the COVID-19 vaccine do to help themselves?

The food recommendations below are fairly "alternative" but may be worth a try

If you believe your COVID-19 vaccination may be responsible for certain conditions that developed afterward, you could be right, and you may need to take measures to recover.

As information and data surrounding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines have become increasingly available, scientists and doctors continue to express concerns regarding the negative health effects being documented around the world, including in Germany, Israel, Scotland.

In May of 2021, Drs. Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh published a comprehensive overview of the potential problems associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.

“In this review, we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail. We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases.”

A study published in CELL on Jan. 24, 2022, demonstrated that people who have received COVID-19 vaccines produce higher levels of the spike protein for longer periods of time than those who were unvaccinated and were infected with the natural virus. The researchers also found that synthetic vaccine mRNA persisted in the lymph nodes of the vaccinated for 60 days, the entire length of the study.

Another study published in Frontiers in Immunology found that the S1 segment of spike protein from natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the body for 15 months. The spike protein is known to be toxic to the human body. This raises concerns over the potential for cumulative toxicity of the spike protein with vaccine booster doses.

These findings raise significant questions regarding how long the synthetic mRNA and spike protein actually persist in the bodies of the vaccinated. A recent interview with Drs. Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, and Steve Kebe provides a more detailed discussion of the significance of these findings.

On March 1, 2022, a pre-print paper published on medRxiv demonstrated that the synthetic mRNA from the Moderna injection didn’t degrade as rapidly as the company claimed it would. After incubating both mouse and human cell lines with the Moderna vaccine, spike protein began to be produced in approximately 6 hours and continued for 12 to 14 days.

In testimony before the Tennessee State legislature, Dr. Ryan Cole said, “These vaccines do not prevent acquisition of the disease … do not prevent transmission of the disease, do not prevent illness from the disease, and do not prevent death from the disease.”

In a recent podcast, McCullough claimed that the COVID-19 vaccines are not sufficiently safe or effective, and “the mass vaccination program worldwide has failed. In fact, [it] has made things worse.”

A U.S. insurance executive noted that during the second half of 2021, there was an excess mortality rate of 40 percent for employed people aged 18 to 64. Hundreds of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed, with many dying on playing fields, often on live TV. After an analysis of CDC data, former BlackRock executive Edward Dowd recently showed that more millennials aged 25 to 44 (61,000) died in the second half of 2021 than the total number of U.S. soldiers (58,000) who died during the whole of the Vietnam war.

Peer-reviewed medical papers have documented that the COVID-19 injections damage the innate immune system T-cells and Natural Killer cells and suppress our own tumor suppressor genes, which interferes with the body’s natural ability to stop cancer growth. Additionally, a paper in Current Issues in Molecular Biology published Feb. 22, 2022, showed that the Pfizer synthetic mRNA was inserted into the DNA of human liver cells in just six hours.

Among the serious side effects of the COVID-19 shots being reported are the following: myocarditis or inflammation of the heart muscle; blood clots throughout the body that can lead to stroke, heart attack, pulmonary emboli, or amputation; vasculitis or inflammation of the lining of the blood vessels; autoimmune diseases, recrudescence of previously controlled infections such as herpes, shingles, and tuberculosis; increase in rapid spread of cancers that had been in remission as well as the development of new cancers; multisystem inflammatory syndrome; and immune system dysfunction comparable to that seen in AIDS.

Despite all this overwhelming and frightening information, there is hope for those who received these injections either voluntarily or under duress. There are ways to rebuild your immune system, fight the emergence of latent infections, reduce the risk of cancer, manage the likelihood of blood clots, and help your body clear any circulating spike proteins.

This Is What I Tell My Patients:

Diet is most important. We literally are what we eat. The body’s only fuel to heal, replace, grow, and renew is the food you eat. You must drink plenty of fresh, clean water. Your diet should consist of organic whole foods, 100 percent grass-fed meat, free-range poultry, wild-caught fish, plenty of green leafy vegetables, nuts, healthy fats such as coconut oil, organic olive oil, grass-fed lard and butter, limited grains, minimal fruit sugars, and a complete avoidance of GMO, pre-processed, or highly refined foods, especially those high in added sugars.

Many respond well to a gluten-free diet, as gluten itself is inflammatory, and many glutinous foods contain high levels of residual agricultural products such as glyphosate. It’s also advisable for some to eliminate dairy from the diet for the same reasons.

Avoid processed vegetable oils and trans fats. Sugar is damaging to the body in many ways and should be avoided altogether, especially sugary drinks and sodas, except for that found in nutrient-packed fruits such as berries. Caffeine intake should be restricted to roughly 100 mg daily and aspartame-containing dietary beverages or foods should be strictly avoided.

It’s also important to avoid all kinds of environmental toxicities, including cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, toxic household cleaners, and non-organic personal care products and makeup.

Immune system support starts with a good organic multivitamin with trace minerals. Support T cells and NK cells with adequate vitamin D3 with K2, zinc with an ionophore such as quercetin to take zinc intracellularly where it’s needed, and vitamin C. Herbs that help support immune system function include andrographis, ashwagandha, cat’s claw, echinacea, Japanese knotweed, garlic, ginseng, morinda or noni, and turmeric. Herbs that help regulate an overactive or dysfunctional immune function include astragalus, berberine (from Coptis chinensis), curcumin, milk thistle, and scutellaria or Chinese skullcap.

Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, artemisinin (from Artemisia annua), isatis (Isatis tinctoria), morinda (Morinda citrifolia), neem (Melia azadirachta), oregano oil, olive leaf extract, star anise (Illicium verum) as well as the amino acid L-lysine can protect against new and recrudescent viral infections.

Reduce the risk of blood clotting and help break up circulating spike proteins by taking omega 3 fatty acids, fibrinolytic enzymes (lumbrokinase and nattokinase), proteolytic enzymes (serrapeptase), lipases, bromelain, and vitamin E, as well as herbs that support the cardiovascular system such as Chrysanthemum morifolium flower petals, danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza), and scutellaria. Low doses of aspirin may also be needed.

Antioxidant support can include alpha-lipoic acid, beta-carotene, coenzyme Q 10, EGCG (epigallocatechin gallate, the most abundant catechin in tea, which is also a zinc ionophore), glutathione, lycopene, lutein, manganese, NAC (n-acetyl cysteine), quercetin, selenium, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and zeaxanthin. Herbs that have strong anti-oxidant qualities include olive leaf and scutellaria. Spices such as cinnamon, clove, garlic, ginger, oregano, parsley, rosemary, and thyme are also anti-oxidants.

Cancer-fighting foods include berries, carrots, citrus fruits, cruciferous vegetables (bok choy, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, garden cress), the garlic family of vegetables (chive, garlic, leeks, onions, shallots), green tea, and tomatoes. Herbs that help protect against cancer include artemisinin, blackberry leaves, Chrysanthemum morifolium flower petals, danshen, morinda, and scutellaria.

Inflammation in the body will be significantly reduced by following all of the above recommendations. Additionally, extracts of shea nut, turmeric, green tea, black tea, broccoli, stinging nettle leaf, black cumin seed, and grape seed; herbs such as andrographis, holy basil, manjistha (Rubia cordifolia), and scutellaria; and antioxidants such as pterostilbene and resveratrol can all help reduce inflammation.

To be healthy, we must clean up our bodies by eating well, reducing incoming toxins, enhancing outgoing toxins, exercising regularly, sleeping well, spending time in nature, and reducing external stress.

It’s likely no coincidence that many of these habits define the daily lifestyles of people in “blue zones.” These are areas of the world where people live the longest and have an unusually high number of centenarians.

These people also share another common feature—they belong to a spiritual community. In other words, they practice a faith.

This is important for several reasons. It reduces stress, teaches self-restraint, and provides companionship. But perhaps even more importantly, these traditions impart morality and belief in the divine.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


28 March, 2022

'Very few, if any' Americans require a FOURTH COVID-19 vaccine - even as Pfizer and Moderna push for more shots

America's two leading vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, are both hoping to push a fourth COVID-19 dose out the door sometime soon, but some experts doubt they are needed as cases continue to fall in the U.S. and the virus poses less of a threat to Americans.

Dr Anna Durbin is an international public health expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, has been a critic of Pfizer, Moderna and the White House's insistence to rollout COVID-19 booster shots before they are needed. This week, she told ABC that she does not believe many Americans will benefit from additional shots.

'There are very few, if any, people who, in my opinion require a fourth dose,' she said. 

In August, when the White House was laying out plans to roll out the first batch COVID-19 booster shots, Durbin was also a critic, telling that there was little science backing up the decision.

A very small number of Americans are already eligible for fourth COVID-19 shots. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises people who are immunocompromised to receive the additional shot now, despite the lack of authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Only around one in every 30 Americans is immunocompromised and is eligible for that fourth shot right now, though. 

Pfizer and Moderna are hoping to get their fourth doses out to the rest of Americans as well. Earlier this week, Moderna submitted data to the FDA in a bid to have a fourth dose approved for all U.S. adults. This comes after Pfizer submitted data for a fourth shot for all Americans 65 and older.

The FDA is expected to grant authorization for both companies to add an additional shot to their Covid regimen.

'In general, it's too early to recommend a fourth dose, except for those who are immune compromised,' Dr Paul Goepfert, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told ABC. 

Americans' interest in receiving additional Covid shots has stagnated as well, with the nation's booster rollout reaching a low point this week.

Cases and deaths caused by the virus are continuing to fall as well, and the 'stealth' variant that took over much of Europe in recent months has failed to make much ground in the U.S. so far.

The U.S. is averaging 29,490 Covid cases every day as of Friday, a 10 percent drop over the last seven days according to data from Johns Hopkins University. The nation is averaging 892 daily deaths as well, a 25 percent fall over the past seven days. 

The 'stealth' variant, which earned the moniker from its ability to avoid detection through some sequencing methods, is believed to be the most infectious version of Covid yet - but is just as mild as the BA.1 version of Omciron that took over the world last last year.

According to the most recent data revealed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week, BA.2 makes up 35 percent of active Covid cases in the U.S., with BA.1 still being dominant.

BA.2's share of Covid infections in America is growing, though, with the variant only accounting for 23 percent of cases in the week previous.

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said this week that he expects the U.S. to suffer a BA.2-fueled surge sometime soon, though, and that his company's vaccine will be needed to control it.

'Already several countries around the world have some of the 4th dose testing in people at high risk,' Bancel told CNBC's Squawk Box. 'There's a big wave of BA.2 variant in Europe right now, as many public health experts have said this should start in the U.S. very soon.'

A growing list of experts are saying the exact opposite, though.

'I would not be surprised at all, if we do see somewhat of an uptick,' Dr Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert and someone who has frequently been among the more cautious voices during the pandemic, said at a Washington Post event this week.

'I don't really see, unless something changes dramatically, that there would be a major surge.' 

Experts at Harvard University said that the BA.2 stealth variant, which is believed to be the reason for the recent uptick of cases, would have likely already started the beginning of a surge in America if it was going to do so anytime soon.

'There's really no indication of an increase in cases or deaths in the region that corresponds to this increase in BA.2 infections that we're seeing,' Bronwyn MacInnis, director of pathogen genomic surveillance at Harvard's Broad Institute, told the Harvard Gazette this week.

While it has failed to make a major impact yet on case numbers, data from overseas - referenced by Bancel - is cause for some concern.

Some countries that had experienced declining cases for months, like the UK, France and Denmark, suddenly saw infection rates start to surge last week. Cases seem to have stabilized in these nations and the growth has stopped for now, though.

Internationally, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that there were over 12 million Covid cases globally last week, a seven percent jump from the previous week.

Deaths dropped, though, down 23 percent to under 33,000 - another sign of the virus's falling mortality.

The increase in cases was entirely clustered in the Western Pacific region, where daily infections jumped 23 percent last week. In Europe, infections stabilized after slightly rising two percent last week.

A fourth dose may be inevitable anyway, even if case numbers remain low. Fauci, Bancel and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla have been among those saying an additional dose was on the way for months, with Bourla even saying annual jabs will be needed for the next decade to control the pandemic.

While the shots have been deemed safe and effective by health officials around the world, and have likely saved millions of lives over the past year, Pfizer and Moderna's goals in the vaccine rollout are not exactly humanitarian.

The companies have each made billions off of the sales of vaccines to the U.S. and other nations around the world.

Pfizer, its partner BioNTech, and Moderna estimate a combined $50 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales this year, and those figures will soar even higher if fourth doses are approved.

Just before Moderna made its submission, Pfizer submitted an application to the FDA to get a fourth Covid jab approved for Americans 65 and older.

Both companies also are hoping to roll out jabs to young children in the near future. Currently, the Moderna shot is only available to adults in the U.S., with Pfizer's available to those five and older.

On Wednesday, Moderna announced that it had successfully completed Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials for its COVID-19 shot in children aged six months old to 17.

The shots, which are a quarter of the size of those given to adults, proved to be around 40 percent effective at preventing infection from the Omicron variant - similar to protection levels it provides adults. 

Pfizer has run into some issues in getting its vaccine out to the youngest age groups. The company had to shift its Covid vaccine regimen for the youngest children up to three doses from two, as the smaller, three microgram doses, were almost entirely ineffective in children three and four years old.

The New York City-based firm also submitted data to regulators for its Covid jab in children under the age of five, though the approval process was paused earlier this year.


‘They didn’t die from Covid, but because of Covid’: the inseparable couple torn apart by the pandemic

Of all the thousands of moments that made up her parents’s lives, it’s their final laboured breaths that their daughter Alexa Every struggles to forget.

Both of Every’s parents died in institutions during the pandemic – Kathleen on Mother’s Day 2020 after a short and distressing stint in an aged care facility, and John in hospital a year later, on Christmas Eve.

Her family wasn’t alone in this unnatural grieving process. Thousands went through what Every calls “Covid-adjacent deaths” – the experience of losing a loved one not from Covid, but wrapped up in the pandemic and its associated pains.

“They didn’t die directly from Covid, but I believe they both died because of Covid,” Every says.

“Kathleen was only five months into living in a nursing home and was still adjusting,” she says. “Once they went into lockdown and we couldn’t visit her, she went into a terrible spiral of terror and confusion and died five weeks later.

“I’m sure a huge part of her very fast decline was fear and confusion because she couldn’t see her family.”

Kathleen was living with early-stage dementia when she entered aged care at the end of 2019, three months before the pandemic. Her 88-year-old husband would visit and eat lunch with her most days.

Then the facility locked down, and her lifeline – her family – was suddenly cut off from her.

“She got really agitated and angry … she was always saying ‘When are you coming?’ to my dad. She always depended on him, to be without him would have been absolutely terrifying … then she just declined before our eyes.”

Within a fortnight, the change was drastic. Eventually, Kathleen was admitted to hospital and died 10 days later.

“She couldn’t live without Dad, she didn’t know how, and died in real fear,” Every says. “I think it broke her heart.”

In the months after Kathleen passed, John had a few small bouts of time in hospital for physical ailments. In early December, he was booked into a busy Melbourne ward for what was expected to be a routine few days.

Three weeks later, on 23 December, the hospital administered final routine blood tests and asked to keep him for 24 hours to track the results. John pushed the doctor to be sent home. But he would never make it there.

“He was really a sharp and competent advocate for himself: he said three weeks is enough – it’s starting to get me down,” Every says.

“I rang the doctor and said same the thing but … they were so busy. It was terrible to see how overworked the nurses were, they were so tired.”

At 3am on Christmas Eve, Every received a call to say her dad had fallen out of bed. She still has no idea what happened (John was perfectly sound of mind) but the injuries he suffered were “catastrophic” – he was conscious but in severe pain.

Every immediately jumped in the car, but Covid protocols were strict and it was late at night. She spent crucial time running around the hospital trying to find an entry point.

“We’d been texting each other a few hours before [the accident]. He still had life to live … and this was an extremely unpleasant way to die … they both died in pain in different ways.”

When she finally arrived, John had just lost consciousness. She had missed him “by a whisker”.

“It’s nobody’s fault, the system was under so much pressure,” Every says.

“So many people have had that experience. But I would’ve liked him to have seen me. It just wasn’t the way to have finished.”


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


27 March, 2022

Why more and more experts say lockdowns didn't prevent people dying of Covid - and call it a 'monumental mistake on a global scale

While there is no doubt that robust measures were necessary against a new and devastating virus, was lockdown truly the only route through those dark days of the pandemic, or the right one?

For the past few weeks, in a series of reports probing the science that has underpinned key pandemic decisions, The Mail on Sunday has investigated the accuracy of PCR tests and the chaotic way Covid-related deaths were recorded.

Today, in the final part, we talk to the growing number of experts who say that lockdowns had little benefit – a cure that was worse than the disease.

One of them is Professor Mark Woolhouse, an epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, who has recently published a book, The Year The World Went Mad, about the UK's pandemic policy failures. 

Speaking this week on The Mail on Sunday's Medical Minefield podcast, Prof Woolhouse said: 'I think that lockdown will be viewed by history as a monumental mistake on a global scale, for a number of reasons.

'The obvious one is the immense harm the lockdown, more than any other measure, did in terms of the economy, mental health and on the wellbeing of society. 

'Clearly things needed to be done to bring waves of infection under control. 

'But many analyses suggest that lockdown itself didn't have a huge impact on reducing the health burden. That was achieved in other ways.'

Analysing the effect of any single Covid measure is difficult, and researchers have managed it with varying degrees of success.

In the UK, 'lockdown' refers specifically to the stay-at-home order. But some studies also include school and border closures, business closures and curfews in their definition of lockdown. 

And when all these measures are looked at together, they do indeed have an impact – reducing infection rates by up to 80 per cent.

One paper that did attempt to tease out the benefits of individual measures, published last month, found stay-at-home orders reduced global Covid deaths by just 2.9 per cent. 

By comparison, business closures cut deaths by ten per cent and school closures by nearly five per cent.

The authors, economists linked to Johns Hopkins University in the US, have been accused of bias – one has repeatedly equated lockdown measures with fascism – and 'cherry-picking' papers to suit their hypothesis. 

'If you start with a premise and select studies which are likely to back that premise, you don't come to an objective answer,' says epidemiologist and Government adviser Dr Raghib Ali, at the University of Cambridge. 

But intriguingly, Dr Ali and others also admit the researchers have a point.

In a critique of the paper, Australian epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz describes it as an 'extremely poor quality study'. 

But he also points out that, while the figures quoted are 'pretty meaningless, the general idea is not totally wild'. 

He wrote: 'If we define lockdown as 'the marginal benefit of stay-at-home orders on top of many other restrictions' it's probably fair to argue that the benefit might be quite small. 

'Indeed, that's been shown before, and is quite a reasonable position based on the evidence.'

Another study that backs this, published in Science in February last year, found 'stay at home' measures reduced Covid transmission by an average of 13 per cent on top of other measures such as closing schools and non-essential shops, and banning small gatherings.

The study, which looked at evidence from 41 countries around the world, concluded this was a 'small effect' and meant 'some countries could control the epidemic while avoiding stay-at-home orders'.

It also found something intriguing: lockdowns could, in a worst-case scenario, actually increase transmission of the virus by up to five per cent. 

This may be an effect of allowing it to spread within households, experts say.

Prof Woolhouse has argued that, if the aim was partially to protect society's most vulnerable, lockdowns failed. 

'We focused on this idea that if we stopped the virus transmitting among everybody, that this would somehow be sufficient to protect those who were at risk,' he says. 'And it wasn't.'

Prof Woolhouse also argues that for lockdown to have had an effect it would need to have been imposed earlier. 

This is what worked in Australia and New Zealand, which pursued a 'zero Covid' strategy.

'We passed that point in the second half of February 2020,' he says. 

'Lockdown as an intervention only makes sense in the context of zero Covid, and by the time it was imposed it was no longer the appropriate tool.

'There are ways we could have responded to the pandemic that would have avoided most of the lockdown, and saved more lives.

'But lockdown happened anyway because by that stage no one – including me – was prepared to risk waiting to find out if [restrictions introduced prior to our full lockdown on March 23] had worked.'

But that stay-at-home order was, for most, the hardest part of the pandemic. 'It made everything so much harder than it might have been,' he adds.

Countries that had earlier lockdowns, better testing capacity and were able to identify and isolate cases fared better during the initial wave of the pandemic.

In the UK, lockdown was seen – at a point of desperation – as the only option left remaining. 

But Prof Woolhouse argues people had already become more cautious. Studies using anonymised mobile phone location tracking data show contacts between people plummeted in early March (although the biggest drop was March 24, the day after lockdown).

Dr Ali says: 'The purpose of lockdown is to reduce contacts, but if people are doing that anyway, the additional benefit [of making it a legal requirement to stay at home] is obviously somewhat reduced.

'Case numbers at the time weren't really available because there was no community testing, so we've had to work backwards from hospital admissions. From that, there's actually some evidence that Covid cases may have peaked before lockdown came in, or around that time.

'If we had known then what we know now, I don't think we would have needed to lock down.'

A recent inquiry by officials in Sweden into the handling of its pandemic – where there was no lockdown and the population was expected to voluntarily follow 'advice and recommendations' – found this reliance on people's behaviour was 'fundamentally correct'. 

Lockdowns across Europe were also neither necessary nor defensible, the report added.

Would this have worked in the UK? The evidence shows the impact of interventions were less effective in the second wave precisely because people were already socialising less frequently and masks, hand sanitiser and safety screens were in use.

This led Dr Ali and others to advise Ministers not to impose lockdown a fourth time in December 2021, with the emergence of highly transmissible Omicron.

'In the second and third lockdowns, in November 2020 and again in January 2021, we have a better idea of when cases peaked and again it seems this happened just before lockdown came in,' Dr Ali says.

Mr Meyerowitz-Katz adds: 'A lot of people underestimated the impact of voluntary behaviour change on Covid-19 death rates.'

Prof Woolhouse believes that the second and third lockdown are 'very hard to defend'.  'We had the tools in place, the knowledge in place, the systems in place to do it a different way,' he says. 'And we didn't do that.' But again, it's easy to say in hindsight. 

Dr Ali, who backed all three lockdowns, says: 'At the time of the second lockdown we hadn't started the vaccination programme, we had predictions that hospitals would be overwhelmed, particularly intensive care units, so for that reason alone I thought it was reasonable. 

'The third was different – we had vaccines, so lockdown was about flattening the curve, postponing infections until people had their jabs.'

The UK is now facing a significant further wave of infections from a more transmissible variant of Omicron, but with a highly vaccinated population even the most cautious experts agree the benefits of another lockdown are unlikely to outweigh the harms.

Like many experts, Professor Stephen Griffin, virologist at the University of Leeds and a member of Independent Sage, believes there is 'no question whatsoever' that locking down first time round 'prevented hospitalisations and deaths'.

He says: 'In the absence of a vaccine – and we need to remember we didn't have anything to treat this virus back then other than oxygen – we needed to reduce cases. 

'If we'd let it run, we'd have had an even more profoundly upsetting mortality rate than we've already seen.' 

However, he adds: 'No one would realistically say lockdown should be a strategy any more. There are so many things we could do to get transmission down.'

Samir Bhatt, professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, agrees. 

'Once you close the shops, suggest people stop going out to work in an office and stop people gathering, the incremental effects of each measure become less and less. 

'But that doesn't mean lockdowns weren't necessary to drive the R rate below one.'

In the end, what we don't know is what scientists call 'the counterfactual' – in other words, what would have happened in the UK if we had not locked down.

Looking just at home nations, which are comparable because of broadly similar populations, Dr Ali says that 'despite England having less stringent restrictions we've had, if anything, a slightly lower death rate [than in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland]. It suggests there's no obvious relationship between restrictions, mandatory interventions and death rates.'

A study published in The Lancet came to a similar conclusion. Sweden, which took a relatively relaxed approach, recorded a similar rate of deaths to neighbouring Denmark and Finland – both of which imposed strict lockdowns – at about 90 per 100,000.

In comparison, the UK – which had tougher restrictions than all three – recorded 127 excess deaths per 100,000. Yet that is still well behind Spain, at 187, and Italy at 227 – both of which had particularly stringent lockdowns. 

Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and Singapore, which had strict border controls, quarantine and testing regimes, did not record any excess deaths.

In Hong Kong, where the zero Covid strategy failed spectacularly to keep Omicron out, the death rate at present is bewilderingly high. 

And China, still attempting to keep Covid out, has just put vast swathes of the country under lockdown.

As Dr Ali puts it: 'Some people say lockdowns were beneficial, others that they were really terrible. 

'The reality actually is much closer to the idea that it didn't make much difference either way.'

For those who made painful sacrifices, that won't be an easy truth to swallow.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


25 March, 2022

Trying to Solve a Covid Mystery: Africa’s Low Death Rates

This is not much of a mystery.  Africa has long been plagued by health challenges -- viruses, bacteria and parasites.  Most Africans, for instance, are full of worms.  You have to be very robust and have a very good immune system to survive and function there.  The less robust have long ago been "weeded out" of the gene pool.  So Covid infections are easily resisted

The coronavirus was expected to devastate the continent, but higher-income and better-prepared countries appear to have fared far worse.

KAMAKWIE, Sierra Leone — There are no Covid fears here.
The district’s Covid-19 response center has registered just 11 cases since the start of the pandemic, and no deaths. At the regional hospital, the wards are packed — with malaria patients. The door to the Covid isolation ward is bolted shut and overgrown with weeds. People cram together for weddings, soccer matches, concerts, with no masks in sight.

Sierra Leone, a nation of eight million on the coast of Western Africa, feels like a land inexplicably spared as a plague passed overhead. What has happened — or hasn’t happened — here and in much of sub-Saharan Africa is a great mystery of the pandemic.

The low rate of coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths in West and Central Africa is the focus of a debate that has divided scientists on the continent and beyond. Have the sick or dead simply not been counted? If Covid has in fact done less damage here, why is that? If it has been just as vicious, how have we missed it?

The first iteration of the virus that raced around the world had comparatively minimal impact here. The Beta variant ravaged South Africa, as did Delta and Omicron, yet much of the rest of the continent did not record similar death tolls.

Into Year Three of the pandemic, new research shows there is no longer any question of whether Covid has spread widely in Africa. It has.

Studies that tested blood samples for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the official name for the virus that causes Covid, show that about two-thirds of the population in most sub-Saharan countries do indeed have those antibodies. Since only 14 percent of the population has received any kind of Covid vaccination, the antibodies are overwhelmingly from infection.

A new W.H.O.-led analysis, not yet peer-reviewed, synthesized surveys from across the continent and found that 65 percent of Africans had been infected by the third quarter of 2021, higher than the rate in many parts of the world. Just 4 percent of Africans had been vaccinated when these data were gathered.

So the virus is in Africa. Is it killing fewer people?
Some speculation has focused on the relative youth of Africans. Their median age is 19 years, compared with 43 in Europe and 38 in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of the population in sub-Saharan Africa is under 25, and only 3 percent is 65 or older. That means far fewer people, comparatively, have lived long enough to develop the health issues (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cancer) that can sharply increase the risk of severe disease and death from Covid. Young people infected by the coronavirus are often asymptomatic, which could account for the low number of reported cases.

Plenty of other hypotheses have been floated. High temperatures and the fact that much of life is spent outdoors could be preventing spread. Or the low population density in many areas, or limited public transportation infrastructure. Perhaps exposure to other pathogens, including coronaviruses and deadly infections such as Lassa fever and Ebola, has somehow offered protection.

Since Covid tore through South and Southeast Asia last year, it has become harder to accept these theories. After all, the population of India is young, too (with a median age of 28), and temperatures in the country are also relatively high. But researchers have found that the Delta variant caused millions of deaths in India, far more than the 400,000 officially reported. And rates of infection with malaria and other coronaviruses are high in places, including India, that have also seen high Covid fatality rates.

So are Covid deaths in Africa simply not counted?

Most global Covid trackers register no cases in Sierra Leone because testing for the virus here is effectively nonexistent. With no testing, there are no cases to report. A research project at Njala University in Sierra Leone has found that 78 percent of people have antibodies for this coronavirus. Yet Sierra Leone has reported only 125 Covid deaths since the start of the pandemic.

Most people die in their homes, not in hospitals, either because they can’t reach a medical facility or because their families take them home to die. Many deaths are never registered with civil authorities.

This pattern is common across sub-Saharan Africa. A recent survey by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa found that official registration systems captured only one in three deaths.

But many scientists tracking the pandemic on the ground disagree. It’s not possible that hundreds of thousands or even millions of Covid deaths could have gone unnoticed, they say.
“We have not seen massive burials in Africa. If that had happened, we’d have seen it,” said Dr. Thierno Baldé, who runs the W.H.O.’s Covid emergency response in Africa.

“A death in Africa never goes unrecorded, as much as we are poor at record-keeping,” said Dr. Abdhalah Ziraba, an epidemiologist at the African Population and Health Research Center in Nairobi, Kenya. “There is a funeral, an announcement: A burial is never done within a week because it is a big event. For someone sitting in New York hypothesizing that they were unrecorded — well, we may not have the accurate numbers, but the perception is palpable. In the media, in your social circle, you know if there are deaths.”

Dr. Demby, the Sierra Leone health minister, who is an epidemiologist by training, agreed. “We haven’t had overflowing hospitals. We haven’t,” he said. “There is no evidence that excess deaths are occurring.”


Scientists identify antibodies that can neutralize omicron

An international team of scientists have identified antibodies that neutralize omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants. These antibodies target areas of the virus spike protein that remain essentially unchanged as the viruses mutate.

By identifying the targets of these "broadly neutralizing" antibodies on the spike protein, it might be possible to design vaccines and antibody treatments that will be effective against not only the omicron variant but other variants that may emerge in the future, said David Veesler, investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and associate professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. "This finding tells us that by focusing on antibodies that target these highly conserved sites on the spike protein, there is a way to overcome the virus' continual evolution," Veesler said.

Veesler led the research project with Davide Corti of Humabs Biomed SA, Vir Biotechnology, in Switzerland. The study's findings were published Dec. 23 in the journal Nature. The lead authors of the study were Elisabetta Cameroni and Christian Saliba (Humabs), John E. Bowen (UW Biochesmistry) and Laura Rosen (Vir).

The omicron variant has 37 mutations in the spike protein, which it uses to latch onto and invade cells. This is an unusually high number of mutations. It is thought that these changes explain in part why the variant has been able to spread so rapidly, to infect people who have been vaccinated and to reinfect those who have previously been infected.

"The main questions we were trying to answer were: how has this constellation of mutations in the spike protein of the omicron variant affected its ability to bind to cells and to evade the immune system's antibody responses," Veesler said.

[Veesler and his colleagues speculate that omicron's large number of mutations might have accumulated during a prolonged infection in someone with a weakened immune system or by the virus jumping from humans to an animal species and back again.]

To assess the effect of these mutations, the researchers engineered a disabled, nonreplicating virus, called a pseudovirus, to produce spike proteins on its surface, as coronaviruses do. They then created pseudoviruses that had spike proteins with the omicron mutations and those found on the earliest variants identified in the pandemic.

The researchers first looked to see how well the different versions of the spike protein were able to bind to protein on the surface of cells, that the virus uses to latch onto and enter the cell. This protein is called the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) receptor.

They found the omicron variant spike protein was able to bind 2.4 times better than spike protein found in the virus isolated at the very beginning of the pandemic. "That's not a huge increase," Veesler noted, "but in the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003, mutations in the spike protein that increased affinity were associated with higher transmissibility and infectivity." They also found that the omicron version was able to bind to mouse ACE2 receptors efficiently, suggesting omicron might be able to "ping-pong" between humans and other mammals.

The researchers then looked at how well antibodies against earlier isolates of the virus protected against the omicron variant. They did this by using antibodies from patients who had previously been infected with earlier versions of the virus, vaccinated against earlier strains of the virus, or had been infected and then vaccinated.

They found that antibodies from people who had been infected by earlier strains and from those who had received one of the six most-used vaccines currently available all had reduced ability to block infection.

Antibodies from people who had previously been infected and those who had received the Sputnik V or Sinopharm vaccines as well as a single dose of Johnson & Johnson had little or no ability to block—or "neutralize"—the omicron variant's entry into cells. Antibodies from people who had received two doses of the Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, and AstraZeneca vaccines retained some neutralizing activity, albeit reduced by 20- to 40-fold, much more than any other variants.

Antibodies from people who had been infected, recovered, and then had two doses of vaccine also had reduced activity, but the reduction was less, about fivefold, clearly demonstrating that vaccination after infection is useful.

Antibodies from people, in this case a group of renal dialysis patients, who had received a booster with a third dose of the mRNA vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech showed only a 4-fold reduction in neutralizing activity. "This shows that a third dose is really, really helpful against omicron," Veesler said.

All but one antibody treatments currently authorized or approved to be used with patients exposed to the virus, had no or had markedly reduced activity against omicron in the laboratory. The exception was an antibody called sotrovimab, which had a two- to three-fold reduction of neutralizing activity, the study finds.

But when they tested a larger panel of antibodies that have been generated against earlier versions of the virus, the researchers identified four classes of antibodies that retained their ability to neutralize omicron. Members of each of these classes target one of four specific areas of the spike protein present in not only SARS-CoV-2 variants but also a group of related coronaviruses, called sarbecoviruses. These sites on the protein may persist because they play an essential function that the protein would lose if they mutated. Such areas are called "conserved."

The finding that antibodies are able to neutralize via recognition of conserved areas in so many different variants of the virus suggests that designing vaccines and antibody treatments that target these regions could be effective against a broad spectrum of variants that emerge through mutation, Veesler said.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


24 March, 2022

Deltacron: What scientists know so far about this new hybrid coronavirus

In many countries, as restrictions lift and freedoms are restored, there's a general feeling that the pandemic is over. There is, however, still the significant concern that a dangerous new variant could emerge.

This happened when Omicron arrived, but we got lucky with that one. Omicron turned out to be more transmissible, but mercifully it hasn't caused an increase in severe disease in most countries where it is dominant.

The race is on to find a variant-proof vaccine

In a state-of-the-art science lab, nestled into the genteel slopes of the NSW Southern Highlands, a group of genetically engineered mice have become frontline soldiers in the fight against COVID-19.

But this wasn't guaranteed. Variants crop up randomly, and new ones have the potential to be more dangerous than previous ones. Another has just arrived, and is currently going by the name deltacron. It is – as you can probably guess – a hybrid of Delta and Omicron, the two variants dominant most recently.

Deltacron's story begins in mid-February, when scientists at the Institut Pasteur in Paris uploaded a genetic sequence of the coronavirus that looked very different from previous sequences. The virus sample had come from an elderly man in northern France and looked odd. Most of its genetic sequence was the same as Delta's, which was dominant worldwide up until late last year, but the part of the sequence that encodes the virus's spike protein – a key part of its external structure, which it uses to get inside cells in the body – came from Omicron.

By March, three further hybrid genetic sequences had been reported, this time in the US. There are now over 60 logged across France, the Netherlands, Denmark, the US and the UK.

There may, however, be different deltacrons. Scientists at the Institut Pasteur have said the deltacron sequences reported in the UK and US have certain differences from those found in other countries. They've said that it might be necessary to add a number to these different forms of deltacron, to indicate which is which.

It's not unusual for viruses to mix and match parts of themselves if two different viruses infect one cell. This is called "recombination", as one virus combines parts of its genetic sequence with parts from another related virus as it assembles copies of itself. It appears to happen at random during viral replication.

What will our next COVID winter look like?

With influenza infections dropping to record lows during the social distancing phase of the pandemic, we are in uncharted waters as we approach winter with a new sub-variant in play. 

However, when there's a transfer of power from one viral variant to another – with one variant becoming less common and another more so, meaning both are circulating in the population and there's a chance for them to simultaneously infect people – the chance of recombination happening increases. This will have been the situation as Omicron emerged to displace Delta as the most dominant form worldwide.

Recombination usually creates a new virus that isn't viable, as the mixing of different genes can interfere with the virus's ability to make the proteins it needs to survive. But sometimes one does survive, and that appears to be what's happened with deltacron.

Indeed, as the deltacron hybrids found in the US/UK appear to be different from those found in mainland Europe, it's possible that this has happened multiple times separately.

A chip off the old block?

At the moment it's hard to say in what ways deltacron will resemble its parents. Delta and Omicron are quite different viruses. They differ in how they infect cells and how they evade immunity. We still don't know enough about deltacron to be able to tell how different it's going to be to either.

Because it's been found in multiple nearby countries, it's likely that deltacron can spread. However, Omicron itself is continuing to spread widely in Europe, so it's still the variant we need to be watching carefully right now.

Time will tell if deltacron will displace Omicron, and whether deltacron will be any better at evading immunity and if it will cause more severe disease. There are currently too few deltacron cases to draw any conclusions on these issues. What we need are experiments to determine the properties of deltacron – scientists have started that process and have been able to infect cells with it, so hopefully we'll have answers in time.

In the meantime, we need to keep an eye on it. The fact that deltacron has probably spread across borders emphasises the need for ongoing genomic surveillance to keep tabs on how the virus is changing and moving. As the coronavirus is continuing to spread widely and infect large numbers of people, it's likely that more variants will emerge – including through recombination.

We can, though, be somewhat confident that prior infection with other variants, as well as vaccination, will offer protection from severe disease should deltacron begin to dominate. We know that vaccines, which are based on the original Wuhan strain of the virus, also protect against severe disease with the more recent variants. Time will tell whether Delta and Omicron have produced a wild child for us to worry about.


A patch instead of an injection?

Australian biotech firm Vaxxas says it will conduct the world’s first human clinical trial of a Covid-19 vaccine patch after securing exclusive rights to a US developed vaccine candidate.

Vaxxas CEO David Hoey said an agreement with the University of Texas and the National Institute of Health gave it exclusive usage of the vaccine in patches, and meant that Vaxxas could now timetable phase one trials of the Covid patch in Adelaide later this year.

Mr Hoey said 50 to 100 people would take part in the trial. They would need to have already been vaccinated three times with an approved vaccine. He said an independent investigator would conduct the trial which was primarily about the safety of the vaccine.

“We’ll then go into a phase two study based on the outcome of phase one and then to a larger phase three study as well.”

Vaxxas argues that vaccine patches are not only less painful and less invasive than regular injections, they also enable vaccines to be dispensed more efficiently over time. The vaccine candidate being used was a relatively inexpensive non mRNA vaccine that survived at room temperature.

Mr Hoey said it could be mailed as Covid patches in the post, or distributed in the developing world. “It’s appropriate for every geography on the planet,” he said.

“As the Covid pandemic transitions to becoming some kind of endemic disease … we see this as a patch that doesn’t need to be refrigerated, is easy to administer, and is something that can have global appeal.

“It’s taking Australian technology, and putting it at the centre of addressing a real global problem and this is the first step.”

Mr Hoey said Vaxxas would look at the blood response to vaccination and see how much it increased the immune response to Covid-19.

He paid tribute to biologist Jason McLellan who with fellow researchers had invented “the next generation of the core piece” of current approved vaccines and the vaccine used in the patch was from the same stable.

McLellan, professor in the Department of Molecular Biosciences at The University of Texas, is also credited with leading a team that produced the first molecular structure of the virus’s spike protein in early 2020.

Mr Hoey said Vaxxas wanted to have its Covid patches available in the market in less than 36 months.

Meanwhile, work is continuing on building Vaxxas’s hi-tech laboratory at Northshore, Hamilton in Brisbane, where the company plans to employ 120 people. Vaxxas plans to produce up to 300 million patch doses each year at full capacity.

Mr Hoey said Vaxxas also had been working on a patch for influenza. It had conducted a study with more than 200 people published two years ago where influenza vaccine was stable at 40 degrees Celsius for 12 months. That again would enable easier distribution of patches at room temperature.

The flu patch was due to go into clinical trials in Australia next year.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


23 March, 2022

Australia: The political response to Covid was much more harmful than the disease itself

Like most countries, Australia aped the Chinese Communist response to the problem:  Heavy restrictions

Four out of five young Australians surveyed say they experienced mental health issues in the last two years.

One in four young Australians thought about suicide over the past two years and 15 per cent attempted self-harm, according to a poll of 16- to 24-year-olds.

Experts called for urgent action to tackle the nation’s deepening youth mental health crisis as the exclusive survey for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald revealed the magnitude of the pandemic’s toll on young people.

Eighty-two per cent of those surveyed said they had experienced mental health issues during COVID-19.

Young Australians have taken the biggest psychological hit – a separate poll found significantly fewer adults aged 25 and over (49 per cent) reported mental health issues.

Those aged 16 to 24 were most likely to report symptoms of anxiety (75 per cent) and depression (62 per cent), while 36 per cent identified eating disorder symptoms, binge-eating being the most common.

While youth mental health was a growing problem before COVID-19, the survey shows issues have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Forty-two per cent said their mental health issues had become worse and 11 per cent said they were caused by the impact of the pandemic.

The survey, conducted by research company Resolve Strategic, was based on questions to 1002 people aged between 16 and 24 from February 16 to 27. The findings have a margin of error of 3 per cent.

Molli Johns, a 19-year-old from the Melbourne suburb of Richmond, said she relapsed into her eating disorder during the pandemic and became depressed.

Ms Johns is one of several young people who shared their experience of mental illness for a new podcast about youth mental health, called Enough, being launched on Monday by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

“I lost all motivation,” said Ms Johns, who studied year 12 remotely in 2020. “I was getting up just to sit in front of my computer screen and what was the point?”

Professor Patrick McGorry, executive director of Orygen, the National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, said mental ill-health in young people was at crisis point.

“We’ve been trying to wake people up for 20 years about youth mental health because it’s been deteriorating, worldwide, and especially in Australia all that time,” Professor McGorry said.

“The pandemic has definitely put the skids under young people.”

The Australian mental health system had been overwhelmed during the pandemic, Professor McGorry said, with GPs, headspace centres (which provide mental health services to 12 to 25-year-olds) and emergency departments inundated and the workforce dwindling and exhausted.

He called on the federal government to urgently invest in specialised early intervention back-up systems of care for the “missing middle” – those young people with severe mental health problems such as anorexia, early psychosis and personality disorders – that the 20 Medicare-subsidised psychology sessions could not fix.

“This is an urgent national priority,” he said.

While the Resolve poll found one in four respondents had suicidal thoughts, the latest Australian government figures show the number of people under 25 who died by suicide remained steady in the first year of the pandemic.

In 2020, 480 Australians under the age of 25 took their own lives, the same number as in 2019.

Resolve director Jim Reed said behind each statistic in the poll was a human story and the sheer scale of the issue was staggering.

“While we can only really be certain that a young person is experiencing a specific or serious problem with an expert diagnosis, surveys like this can capture a lot of people who have not attempted to get a formal diagnosis or for whom the symptoms are less severe,” he said.

A separate Resolve poll of 1414 people aged over 25, conducted a week earlier, found significantly less psychological distress among adults.

Forty-nine per cent of this cohort reported mental health issues during the pandemic compared with 82 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds, 13 per cent had thought about suicide (compared with 25 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds) and 3 per cent had attempted self-harm (compared with 15 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds).

“Ironically, few young people tell us they’re worried about vaccines or COVID itself, and for them social restrictions have been the major force,” Mr Reed said. “The cure has been worse than the disease for this age group.”

Isaac Percy, 23, from Camden in outer Sydney, said his anxiety was exacerbated by COVID-19 uncertainty and fear.

“It was really hard to be pulled away from my support network of friends … and not being able to go do things I enjoy like seeing live music.”

Australian Psychological Society CEO Dr Zena Burgess said the survey findings were sobering and tallied with the experiences of the society’s members.

“Eating disorders got worse, anxiety got worse, depression got worse and generally, all the self-esteem issues of adolescence and young adulthood got worse,” she said.

One in three psychologists have been so busy they have had to close their books, according to an Australian Psychological Society survey of its members last month, compared with one in 100 before the pandemic.


US surgeon general worried COVID views being 'shut out' after Biden admin sought to 'flag' disinformation

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said on "Fox News Sunday" that he worries about differing points of view regarding COVID-19 being "shut out" of the national dialogue.

Speaking to Fox News anchor Trace Gallagher, Murthy was asked to address pushback from those who claim the government's response to COVID-19 has been too political.

Referencing how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has altered its guidance despite urging people to "follow the science," Gallagher noted how "if there were dissenting views on the science, then you were called out, you were called names from a lot of media outlets" at the start of the pandemic.

"Well, listen, what we have to do in this is understand that number one, science evolves," Murthy replied. "We learn new data, and that should inform our response and that's true, you know, with illnesses across the board.

"But what's also really important, Trace, is that we have the ability to have respectful, thoughtful dialogue with one another. I worry about the temperature rise in our dialogue about people being shut out in terms of their points of view being heard. We need to be able to hear all voices, we need to be able to respect one another. 

"We need to be able to recognize that we may have to shift our path from time to time based on new data. Doesn't mean that people were wrong before. It just means that we've got to learn as we go," he continued.

"Because conformity is the enemy of sciences as everybody is taught," Gallagher responded.

Last July, White House press secretary Jen Psaki revealed that the White House was working with Murthy's office to "flag" posts on Facebook that allegedly conveyed COVID-19 disinformation.

"Within the Surgeon General's Office, we're flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation," Psaki said at the time. "We're working with doctors and medical professionals to connect medical experts with people, who are popular with their audiences with accurate information and boost trusted content. So, we're helping get trusted content out there. We also created the COVID Community Corps to get factual information into the hands of local messengers."


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


22 March, 2022

The World Is Suffering From Mass Delusional Psychosis


* According to psychiatrist and medical legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald, the true public health crisis is not COVID-19 itself; rather, it’s the fear of the infection, which has “morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis”

* Many enter a state of hysteria when they see an unmasked person, even if they look perfectly healthy and clearly are not suffering from any kind of respiratory issue. This is a highly irrational state that has no basis in reality

* Delusion is defined as believing something that doesn’t conform with reality

*There are serious concerns about the lasting effects this widespread insanity will have on children as they grow up. One of the worst traumas children suffer as a result of all this fearmongering is the idea that they may kill their parents or grandparents simply by being around them

* Treating the children’s trauma in therapy is not going to be enough, as parents and other adults are the ones creating the trauma by their own exaggerated fear response. To heal a generation of traumatized children, we must first address the psychosis of the adult population

A number of mental health experts have expressed concern over the blatant fear and panic mongering during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning about potential — and let’s face it, likely — psychiatric effects. In a December 22, 2020, article in Evie Magazine, S.G. Cheah discusses what may in fact be the real problem at hand: mass insanity caused by “delusional fear of COVID-19.”

Cheah refers to lectures and articles by psychiatrist and medical legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald, who believes “the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis.”

“Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25), the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus,” Cheah writes.

Infectious Hysteria

Cheah goes on to review a number of irrational behaviors that have become all too commonplace, such as parents being kicked off planes because their young children refuse to wear a mask during the flight, or people having hysterical meltdowns when they see a person not wearing a mask.

The science is quite clear about the risk posed by asymptomatic individuals, meaning anyone who feels perfectly healthy yet may have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a PCR test set to an excessively high cycle threshold. They pose an exceptionally low risk to others, if any risk at all. Science is even clearer on healthy individuals who test negative for SARS-CoV-2. You simply cannot spread a virus you do not have.

The bulk of published science also shows that masks do not prevent the spread of viral infections, and this is particularly true if you’re wearing cloth masks, surgical masks or masks with vents.

Despite all of that, many still enter a state of hysteria when they see an unmasked person, even if they look perfectly healthy and clearly are not suffering from any kind of respiratory issue. This is a highly irrational state that has no basis in reality.

Indeed, according to McDonald, these people are suffering from delusional psychosis, and there are a lot of them. He goes so far as to refer to the outside of his home or office as the “outdoor insane asylum,” where he must assume “that any person that I run into is insane” unless they prove otherwise. As explained by Cheah:

“Instead of facing reality, the delusional person would rather live in their world of make-believe. But in order to keep faking reality, they’ll have to make sure that everyone else around them also pretends to live in their imaginary world.

In simpler words, the delusional person rejects reality. And in this rejection of reality, others have to play along with how they view the world, otherwise, their world will not make sense to them. It’s why the delusional person will get angry when they face someone who doesn’t conform to their world view 

It’s one of the reasons why you’re seeing so many people who’d happily approve the silencing of any medical experts whose views contradict the WHO or CDC guidelines. ‘Obey the rules!’ becomes more important than questioning if the rules were legitimate to begin with.”

In his interview with Jesse Lee Peterson, McDonald explains his diagnosis this way:

“There was never a medical crisis. There were always enough resources to deal with the people who were sick … Many resources were in fact turned away … The question then, for me, became, ‘What’s the real crisis? What are people really suffering from?’

It became clear to me, very quickly, within the first two or three weeks in March [2020], that it was fear. Since then … the fear … has morphed and evolved, not just into a ‘I’m worried, I’m scared so I need to stay home,’ but an actual belief that is against reality — because the definition of delusion is something you believe that doesn’t conform with reality.

They believe that they are going to die — no matter what age, no matter what state of health they’re in — if they don’t leave their house with a mask and gloves on every day and run from [other] human beings. That’s delusional psychosis. It’s false, it’s wrong, it’s not backed up by evidence. And many, many Americans are living that and believing that.”

While there’s no data to back this up, McDonald says it appears women tend to be more prone to delusional psychosis than men. Part of it, he suggests, may be because when women get scared, they tend to become more hyperprotective than men under the same circumstances, likely because women — speaking in pure generalizing terms, of course — tend to be more emotionally driven.

Mass Delusional Psychosis Traumatizes Children

McDonald is particularly concerned with the lasting effects this widespread insanity will have on children as they grow up. As a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of children and adolescents, he should know. Since the lockdowns began in the first quarter of 2020, he’s seen a massive increase in patients, and their mental states are far worse than what he’s used to seeing in these age groups.

One of the worst traumas children suffer as a result of all this fearmongering is the idea that they may kill their parents or grandparents simply by being around them. As noted by Cheah, they’re also being taught to feel guilty about behaviors that would normally be completely, well, normal.

Just one example is hysterical adults calling a toddler who refuses to wear a mask a “brat,” when in fact resisting having a restrictive mask put across your face is perfectly normal at that age.

“It’s not normal for children to grow up thinking that everyone is a danger to everyone else,” Cheah says, and rightly so. It’s not normal at all, and hysterical adults are mindlessly inflicting severe emotional trauma on an entire generation.

As noted by McDonald in his interview with Peterson above, a primary cause of depression, especially among youngsters, is disconnection from others. We need face-to-face contact, we need physical contact as well as emotional intimacy. We need these things to feel safe around others and within our own selves. Digital interactions simply cannot replace these most basic human needs, and are inherently separating rather than connective.

McDonald cites recent CDC statistics showing there’s been a 400% increase in adolescent depression compared to one year ago, and in 25% of cases, they’ve contemplated suicide. These are unheard of statistics, he says. Never before have so many teenagers considered committing suicide.

“This is a mass-casualty event,” McDonald says, and parents — adults — are to blame, because they are the ones scaring them to the point they don’t feel life is worth living anymore.

This is also why just treating the children is not going to be effective enough. We have to address the psychosis of the adult population. “It’s up to us adults to fix this,” McDonald says, “because children are not going to be able to fix this themselves.”

Delusional People Ultimately Require Controlled Environments
We must also address the mass delusion for another reason, and that is because it’s driving us all, sane and insane alike, toward a society devoid of all previous freedoms and civil liberties, and the corrupt individuals in charge will not voluntarily relinquish power once we’ve given it to them.

A totalitarian society, McDonald believes, is the ultimate end of this societal psychosis unless we do something about it and realize that “we’re fine, we’re perfectly safe.” Indeed, we’re in no more danger now than we were pre-COVID. We must not allow our freedoms to be taken from us due to delusional fears. As noted by Cheah in her article:

“It’s not unthinkable that the final outcome would be total societal control on every aspect of your life. Consider this — the endpoint of a mentally ill person is for them to be put under a controlled environment (institutionalized like an asylum) where all freedoms are restricted. And it’s looking more and more like that’s the endpoint of where this mass psychosis is heading.”


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


21 March, 2022

UK: People will riot if another full lockdown is enforced, top doctor warns - but admits some additional restrictions may be needed if hospitalisations and deaths continue to rise

Ministers risk sparking riots if they try to impose another lockdown, according to a leading doctor.

Professor Roger Kirby, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said the public would not tolerate being deprived of their liberty on such a scale again.

However, he conceded that some additional restrictions may be needed if hospitalisations and deaths rise significantly due to the current surge, warning: ‘We are not out of the pandemic yet and must not risk becoming complacent.’

In an interview to mark two years since the first lockdown began on March 23, 2020, Prof Kirby said he thought the UK had acquitted itself well during the crisis.

But he added: ‘Locking down people again, I don’t think people would tolerate it again. There would be riots like there were in Belgium if they tried to do that.’

Doctors are concerned about a new wave triggered by social mixing and the rise of a more transmissible variant of Omicron called BA.2.

Case rates among the elderly are at the highest level recorded during the pandemic, with one in 29 people over 70 in England infected.

Hospitalisation rates are also rising, with about 1,900 Covid admissions per day across the UK – 50 per cent higher than a month ago –although roughly half are incidental where a patient has been admitted for another condition.

To blunt any spike, health bosses will start rolling out the spring booster vaccination campaign this week. 

It will offer five million people, including all over-75s and those over 12 whose immune systems are weakened, the chance to receive a fourth dose. The first 600,000 invitations will go out in the coming days.

Addressing the Tory Spring conference in Blackpool yesterday, Boris Johnson urged people to take up the offer.

The Royal Society of Medicine will hold its 100th free webinar about Covid on March 31.


A Flu Bug’s Worst Enemy, It Chews Them Up and Spits Them Out

This is not well referenced so I am not sure how authoritative it is

Bump your levels of this to above 10% and you’ll make your body virtually flu-proof – causing these cells to basically chew up and spit out any infected cells it is in contact with. Here are 9 simple ways to ramp up your levels.

Story at-a-glance

Natural killer (NK) cells are a specific type of white blood cell. They’re an important component of your cell-mediated (innate) immune system and are involved in both viral diseases and cancer

NK cells are cytotoxic; they induce apoptosis (programmed cell death), which destroys the virus along with the infected cell
NK cells — which are not antigen-specific — contain the infection while your adaptive, humoral immune response generates T cells containing antigen-specific cytotoxins to clear the infection

KLRD1 is a receptor gene found on the surface of NK cells, and the level of KLRD1 found in a person’s blood prior to exposure to the influenza virus can predict whether that individual would contract the flu with 86% accuracy

People whose immune cells consisted of 10 to 13% NK cells remained disease free after exposure to the flu virus, whereas those below 10% became ill

Natural killer (NK) cells, a specific type of white blood cell, are an important component of your innate immune system. Your immune system consists of two different branches — cell-mediated immunity (innate) and humoral immunity (adaptive). When you contract a viral disease, the pathogen enters your body and infects your cells.

The subsequent disease process involves your cell-mediated immune response, which activates your NK cells, along with chemicals that attract them to the site of infection, where the white blood cells basically chew up and spit out the infected cells. This process clears the virus and rejuvenates the gel-like water inside your cells.

During recovery, your humoral immune system kicks in and starts generating antibodies against the virus to help prevent the same kind of disease process and symptoms from occurring again, should you be exposed to the same virus later on. As long as your cell-mediated immune system is activated first and the humoral immune system is activated second, you will have long-lasting immunity against that pathogen.

On a side note, naturally acquired herd immunity in a population comes into play when a very high percentage of individuals have gone through this sequence of cell-mediated and humoral immune response. This sequence is not followed during vaccination, which is why vaccine-induced “herd immunity” is a misnomer.

As explained in one 2008 paper on the functions of NK cells:

“NK cells are effector lymphocytes of the innate immune system that control several types of tumors and microbial infections by limiting their spread and subsequent tissue damage … NK cells are also regulatory cells engaged in reciprocal interactions with dendritic cells, macrophages, T cells and endothelial cells. NK cells can thus limit or exacerbate immune responses.

Although NK cells might appear to be redundant in several conditions of immune challenge in humans, NK cell manipulation seems to hold promise in efforts to improve hematopoietic and solid organ transplantation, promote antitumor immunotherapy and control inflammatory and autoimmune disorders.”

NK cells are cytotoxic, meaning they’re capable of killing cells. Tiny granules in the cytoplasm contain granzymes — special proteins such as perforin and proteases. Perforin, hinting at the functional basis of its name, perforates the cell membrane of the cell targeted for elimination, allowing the proteins and other chemicals to enter, thereby inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death) that destroys the virus along with the infected cell.

In this manner, NK cells — which are not antigen-specific — contain the infection while your adaptive, humoral immune response generates T cells containing antigen-specific cytotoxins to clear the infection. Put another way, the NK cells keep viral replication in check while the adaptive arm of your immune system “learns” the properties of the virus and creates antibodies to match.

Research confirms that when you are deficient in NK cells, you’re far more susceptible to viral infections, and likely tumor formation as well. NK cells also help regulate your immune system by producing cytokines, signaling molecules that stimulate and regulate other immune system cells.

Since NK cells have the ability to differentiate between normal, healthy cells and abnormal cells, such as those infected by a virus or that have turned cancerous, scientists are looking for ways to enhance NK cell function as a way to improve the effectiveness of cancer treatments. The good news is there are many ways to boost the number and function of your NK cells


New AstraZeneca drug that slashes Covid risk is approved

A drug that cuts the risk of developing Covid for the most vulnerable by 77 per cent after just two injections has been approved by the medicines regulator.

Evusheld, which is manufactured by AstraZeneca, has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) as a preventative treatment for the virus for those who are immunocompromised or unable to have a Covid vaccination.

Around 500,000 people in the UK are immunocompromised or suppressed, meaning they are less likely to mount a strong immune response to the vaccine.

One dose of Evusheld, which is given as two injections, has been found to reduce the risk of developing symptomatic Covid-19 by 77 per cent, according to clinical trials, and the protection lasts for at least six months.

It has been authorised for use before a patient is exposed to the risk of Covid in order to prevent disease, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis.

The drug is a combination of two long-acting antibodies which bind to the spike protein on the outside of the virus, preventing it from attaching to and entering human cells.

Dr June Raine, MHRA Chief Executive said after “careful review” of the data the drug has been approved “to help protect against the effects of Covid-19”.

She said: “While the Covid-19 vaccines continue to be the first-line defence against Covid-19, we know that some people may not respond adequately to these vaccines and for a small number of individuals Covid-19 vaccines may not be recommended for other reasons, such as a previous allergic reaction to one of the vaccine ingredients.

“For these people, Evusheld could provide effective protection against Covid-19.”

It is understood the UK currently does not have any doses of Evushelf on order, but the government’s Therapeutics Taskforce is actively engaging with AstraZeneca before making further decisions.

MHRA said there is not yet enough data to know if the drug is effective against Omicron and it will continue to work with the manufacturer to establish this.

In December Sir Mene Pangalos, head of research and development for AstraZeneca, suggested it would protect against the variant.

"Consistent data ... now provide confidence that Evusheld, a combination of two highly potent antibodies, retains neutralising activity against the omicron variant at a level that will continue to provide benefit to patients,” he said.

Professor Sir Munir Pirmohamed, the chairman of the Commission on Human Medicines, said the commission was “satisfied” that the medicine meets the “expected standards” for approval.

He added: “The recommended dosage is 300mg of Evusheld, but a higher dose of 600mg may be more appropriate for some Covid-19 variants. All this is outlined in the summary of product characteristics.

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis with Evusheld is not a substitute for vaccination in individuals for whom Covid-19 vaccination is recommended.”

Gemma Peters, the chief executive of Blood Cancer UK, welcomed the approval of the drug but said the Government is still yet to set out plans for how it would be used in the UK.

"For some time, we have been urging the Government to set out its approach to using preventative treatments for people who have not responded well to the vaccines, and it is disappointing that it has not yet done so," she said. 

"We hope the MHRA’s approval of Evusheld will prompt a sense of government urgency on this that has so far been lacking. Many people with blood cancer have now spent almost two years avoiding social interaction – the Government needs to do more to support them to be able to start getting back to normal."


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


20 March, 2022

10 biggest COVID mistakes – Americans deserve an apology from the medical experts

The medical establishment has marched in lockstep on COVID-19, presenting a consensus of expertise as they marginalized physicians who had different opinions. Two years into the pandemic, it’s fair to ask, how did public health officials do? 

Surface transmission 

Wash your hands like crazy (at least 20 seconds) and pour alcohol-based solutions on your grocery bags to stop COVID transmission, you were told for months. Despite being an expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci immediately applied the influenza surface transmission model to COVID. The logical starting hypothesis should have been that COVID was aerosolized. 

There are only three coronaviruses that cause serious illness in humans: SARS, MERS and COVID. SARS and MERS spread by air. Why did Dr. Fauci think COVID was so different? The NIH could have done the definitive experiment in one day to get the answer. It’s OK to be wrong in science, but not for months when the National Institutes of Health could have spent a fraction of its $42 billion budget to instantly establish how COVID spreads.  

No hospital visitation 

The barbaric policy of banning loved ones from holding the hand of their dying loved one and saying goodbye was a human rights violation that spanned much of the pandemic. All the so-called experts and the medical establishment were complicit, allowing this cruel policy to be instituted while abandoning their duty to respect the dignity of human life. As a physician, I can assure you there are things worse than dying. 

Closing schools 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention argued they were using science to close schools, but many private schools and most schools in Florida and other states remained open throughout (with no difference COVID outcomes). The CDC director initially said schools were safe but was swiftly corrected by the White House the following day. It later came out that the teachers’ unions had made edits to the draft school closure policy before it was issued (kids did not have a chance to make edits).

Now studies are revealing the catastrophic harm to a generation of children – significant motor and cognitive declines and a mental health crisis. In Baltimore, many kids never logged on to virtual learning and were never seen in class again. 

Analyzing the strength of natural immunityVideo
Ignoring natural immunity 

Ironically, when public health officials insisted that those who had natural immunity be fired for not being vaccinated, they fired those least likely to spread the infection in the workplace.  Drs. Fauci and Rochelle Walensky never talked about natural immunity and instead created the imprecise construct of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. In reality, most unvaccinated Americans have antibodies that neutralized the virus, but they are antibodies that the government did not recognize.

Eventually the data came in. Natural immunity was 2.8 times better in preventing hospitalization than vaccinated immunity and having both meant you had the same protection as natural immunity alone. 

The singular focus on vaccines meant that little attention was paid to lifesaving therapeutics.

Downplaying therapeutics 

The singular focus on vaccines meant that little attention was paid to lifesaving therapeutics. For example, Paxlovid is an antiviral medication that reduced COVID deaths to zero in the clinical trial, yet not enough has been produced. Fluvoxamine, an $10 anti-depressant medication that has been available for years, was found in two reputable studies to reduce COVID death, up to 91% in the latest study (no study suggests it’s not effective). Yet, few doctors are aware of these data because our public health officials have never talked about Fluvoxamine. 

Not spacing out vaccine doses 

Spacing out vaccine doses makes a vaccine more effective and lowers the side effect profile. It also would have allowed the U.S. to save more lives when we were rationing a scarce vaccine supply. Yet public health officials dismissed pleas to space out the doses as many of us called for. 

West Point cadet resigns over vaccine tyrannyVideo
Ironically, just three weeks ago, after 250 million Americans received the vaccine, the CDC finally changed their guidance to recommend longer intervals between doses. The CDC acknowledged it was to reduce serious adverse effects such as myocarditis. Myocarditis is now recognized to occur in 1 in 1,862 young males after the second vaccine dose. 

Cloth masks 

The U.S. remains an international outlier by masking toddlers. At this point the only people in America still forced to wear masks are children, waiters, servers and staff. The NIH could have funded researchers to properly study each mask type in the first 10 days of the pandemic, but they failed to pivot funding to do so. Current data suggests that covering the faces of children for two years with a cloth mask had zero benefit and some harm. 

Doctor explains why vaccine mandates are unnecessaryVideo
Promising no vaccines mandates, then breaking it 

This was a stated promise made by President Biden, Fauci and many others – a social contract. They then broke their promise insisting that any unvaccinated workers, regardless of their risk or natural immunity, be fired. They demanded that soldiers be dishonorably discharged and nurses be laid off in the middle of a staffing crisis. 

This policy ignited a debate over civil liberties, which ultimately divided the country and hardened many toward the idea of vaccination. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration has been delinquent in authorizing the Covaxin and Novavax vaccines, which use traditional vaccine technology. 

Downplaying a lab leak 

A bombshell investigation by "Special Report" host Bret Baier of Fox News revealed that prominent U.S. virologists told Drs. Fauci and Francis Collins of their concern that the virus may have been manipulated and originated in the lab, but then suddenly changed their tune in public comments days after meeting with the NIH officials. The virologists were later awarded nearly $9 million from Fauci’s agency. 

Boosters for young people 

Two top FDA officials quit in protest because of political pressure to approve boosters in young people. The FDA issued the authorization by not convening their Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – a highly unusual break from historic precedent.  A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the mortality risk of an un-boosted person under age 30 was zero. You can’t lower a risk of zero any further with a booster. 

Throughout the pandemic, all COVID decisions were made by a small group of like-minded government doctors who often replaced the scientific method with medical dogma. They had tremendous influence over medical universities, scientific journals and medical societies. In fact, nearly all of these entities received funding from Drs. Fauci and Collins and from Big Pharma. It’s no surprise, then, that with one united voice, the leaders of these organizations joined the groupthink bandwagon as the media parroted whatever they said.  

At this point, the everyday Americans who paid the price for the errors of the medical establishment can evaluate their performance.  This partial list of catastrophic errors begs for a complete overhaul of our health agencies. The American people, and children in particular, deserve an apology.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


19 March, 2022

A strange deletion

My site  has gone down -- apparently because my subscription has run out

The odd thing is that I did not receive the normal warning that my subscription was due.  Why?  I have no real idea but suspect that the "incorrectness" of many of my files may be involved. 

I no longer have details of how to contact them.  I relied on warning emails for that.  The upload address was but that no longer seems to lead anywhere.  They had something to do with Linux.  Help on tracing them would be appreciated.

All my files are duplicated on a mirror site: which is still running fine


18 March, 2022

9 in 10 COVID Deaths Are in Vaccinated People: Report

Joseph Mercola

A report released by the UK government has confirmed that 9 out of every 10 deaths related to COVID-19 are found in those who are fully vaccinated. Although the virus variant is the same and the UK approved only one different vaccine (AstraZeneca) from the United States, the data in the U.S. are different. This may be due in large part to the CDC definition used to identify who is “vaccinated.”

U.S. data are also likely to become even more sparse in the coming weeks and months. In addition to the CDC hiding data, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) quietly decided in early February to stop recording deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Data Is Essential

Yet, data is the foundation of scientific analysis. Without it, researchers are unable to analyze statistics and draw conclusions, which leaves public health experts unable to make accurate recommendations. Knowledge gives you the power to make informed decisions based on evidence.

Six months into the pandemic, a report revealed that most Americans had significant misconceptions of the COVID-19 risks. Months later, a second survey demonstrated that not much had changed. While analysts blamed “ignorance of fundamental, undisputed facts on who is at risk” for the so-called misconceptions, others said the politicization of the pandemic was also at fault. But there were other factors at play that skewed the data scientists thought they had.

According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID injection clinical trials, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections and follow up on reported side effects lagged way behind. Her testimony was published November 2, 2021, in the British Medical Journal by investigative journalist Paul Thacker.

This is yet another indication that the true number of adverse events and deaths from the shots currently identified as COVID vaccines may never be known. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the data don’t support the Warp Speed production and mass vaccination program initiated in early 2020.

In fact, the shot program not only is ineffective, but also has likely damaged and killed far more people than any health agency will ever publicly admit. It is essential to share this information to help prevent more deaths and damaged lives.

UK Government Report: 90 Percent of Deaths Are in Fully Vaccinated

A reporter from The Exposé points out that while the world has been distracted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK government quietly released a report that confirmed 9 in every 10 deaths from COVID-19 in England were in people who were fully vaccinated.

The February 2022 report was from the UK Health Security Agency, which publishes weekly surveillance. The report contains several tables of raw data showing that the vast majority of people who were infected, hospitalized or died from COVID-19 were fully vaccinated.

The Exposé, demonstrated step by step how the data, gathered from Jan. 24, 2022, through February 28, 2022, supported this assertion. In the UK, health authorities differentiate between those who have never received a shot and those who received one, two or three doses. All told, there were 1,086,434 cases of COVID in vaccinated individuals that accounted for 73 percent of all cases during that period.

When children were removed from the equation, vaccinated individuals accounted for 91 percent of all cases. The reporter also compared data taken in 2021 when Delta was the dominant variant against the current report when Omicron is the dominant variant in England. It showed a higher number of children hospitalized for Omicron than for Delta.

Since children have never been at high risk for severe disease from any COVID variant, it begs the question if the current number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 may be due to increased PCR testing—known to have a high false-positive rate—in children hospitalized for other reasons, such as a broken leg or appendicitis.

When children were included in the figures for hospitalization, the data showed 75 percent of those hospitalized with COVID in the current period were vaccinated. But, when children were removed from the equation, 85 percent of the hospitalized individuals were vaccinated. Similar results were found when the data were analyzed for COVID deaths.

During the four-week period in the current report, vaccinated individuals accounted for 89 percent of deaths. Most interestingly, not only are the deaths in vaccinated individuals rising precipitously, but the number of deaths in those who are not vaccinated is dropping.

Vaccinated Deaths Rising in California

Headlines in the March 7, 2022, Mercury News read, “COVID-19 Deaths in California Among Vaccinated Rose Sharply With Omicron.” The corresponding story added that 10 deaths recorded in Santa Cruz County, California, and nine of those were vaccinated. On the surface, this is similar to findings reported from the UK. Yet, the raw numbers in the United States are different.

This is likely because U.S. data do not differentiate between individuals who have had one, two or three shots. In fact, the U.S. CDC clearly states that you can only be considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the final dose in the primary two-shot series from Pfizer and Moderna or the one shot from Johnson & Johnson.

Therefore, as the UK analyzes data that identify individuals on the spectrum of having received one of three shots, the United States only counts vaccination if you’re two weeks after your last dose. Since not all patients who are fully vaccinated are identified on admission, analyzing U.S. numbers is difficult, if not impossible. You must ask yourself if this is intentional.

It probably is safe to assume that if a person in the United States is identified as being vaccinated, they are likely fully vaccinated by CDC standards. However, there are also likely individuals lumped into the unvaccinated group who have had one or two shots or may even be fully vaccinated by CDC standards but were not counted as such on admission.

The Mercury News justified the vaccinated deaths, writing: “Of the vaccinated patients who died, one was in his early 100s, three were in their 90s, two were in their 80s, three were in their 70s and most had underlying health problems. The unvaccinated man who died was in his 50s.”

While age is certainly a significant factor in any infectious disease including COVID, the article did not mention any of the other CDC-identified comorbidities that contribute to COVID deaths. To add to the misinformation, the article quoted Dr. Errol Ozdalga, a hospitalist at Stanford, who told the Mercury News that patients admitted during the Delta wave and earlier infections were otherwise healthy.

The implication is that those with comorbidities the CDC identified as increasing the risk of severe illness, such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease and immunocompromised, were not hospitalized with COVID before Omicron.

““That went away with Omicron,” Ozdalga said. The variant has afflicted those with weakened immune systems, those who were “predisposed in some way” to severe illness, he said.” Additionally, without supporting information, the news report included a simple statement:

“Dr. George Rutherford, an infectious disease expert at UC-San Francisco, said the raw numbers make the deaths among the vaccinated look worse than they are — their rates of dying remain far less than the unvaccinated.”

Economist Survey Reveals Significant Vaccine Injury Rate

Economist Mark Skidmore executed a critical online survey using the U.S. population to estimate damage from the COVID-19 shots. He presented the most recent and significant data20 from the ongoing study at the Doctors for COVID Ethics Symposium 3.

His paper seeks to understand the number of people who have died from the COVID shots that he estimates based on the survey. He used the survey to triangulate information from the general population and what they are experiencing.

The participants were asked to report on the adverse events of people they knew best in their social circle — in other words, good friends or family members. The surveys were close to representative of the general population in age, income and gender in December 2021.

Skidmore first presented a list of adverse events the FDA acknowledged could be possible and compared it against the documented data of injury and deaths from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) published in OpenVAERS.

Some of the most common events on the list were stroke, heart attack, myocarditis, death, thrombocytopenia and venous thromboembolism (blood clots). According to Skidmore, everyone agrees that adverse events can and do occur — the main difference in opinion is how often and how many.

Skidmore then looked at the ratio between COVID illness fatalities and COVID shot fatalities. The ratio in OpenVAERS is 2.6 percent and in VAERS (the number reported by the CDC that doesn’t contain all data originally substantiated) it’s 0.9 percent.

If these numbers reflect reality, the number of people who report injury or death in the survey should be close to zero since the cohort is small enough that it may not capture such a small percentage. Skidmore then asks, if we assume that the survey is a reflection of the true ratio in the population, what is the true population ratio for injury or death after receiving the COVID-19 shot?

From the data collected the ratio reveals there have been 307,997 deaths from the shot. The method used gives a 95 percent confidence interval between 215,018 and 391,410 deaths. Using the same mathematical approach to identify the number of severe adverse events to the general population, the data show there were roughly 1.1 million severe events and 2.3 million less severe events from the shot.

He acknowledges that much of what people see and report is through the lens of their biases. One of those is political affiliation. He showed that people who identified as Democrats reported far fewer shot-related deaths than did Republicans or independents. This likely also affects the number of deaths and adverse events reported to VAERS.

Using the fatality counts by party affiliation, he found that if the Democrat perception was correct, there were 119,000 fatalities compared to 487,000 fatalities if the Republican perception was correct. This gives a potential range of deaths and illustrates the differences in perceptions of people based on how they see the world. However, no matter which number is used, it is still far more than the number of fatalities reported in the VAERS system.

Unprecedented US Death Toll Keeps Rising

While the data from Skidmore and the UK reflect the death rate from COVID-19, it is also important to track the number of all-cause mortality as it’s one of the most reliable data points we have. This statistic is clear-cut. Either a person is dead or they’re not. It does not rely on the reason for death.

In early 2022, mutual insurance holding company OneAmerica announced an increase in the death rate of working Americans, aged 18 to 64, in the third quarter of 2021. Their data show it was 40 percent higher than prepandemic levels.

Other insurance companies have also cited higher mortality rates, including the Hartford Insurance Group that announced mortality increased 32 percent from 2019 and 20 percent from 2020 before the shots. Lincoln National reported death claims have increased 13.7 percent year over year and 54 percent in quarter four of 2021 compared to 2019.

Funeral homes are also posting an increase in burials and cremations in 2021 over 2020. One large German health insurance company reported their company data were nearly 14 times greater than the number of deaths reported by the German government. This data were gathered directly from doctors applying for payment from a sample of 10.9 million people.

The rising death toll that can be linked to the COVID shots is an inconvenient truth for the health agencies that have promoted mass vaccinations with a genetic therapy experiment. In what appears to be a response to this data, Health and Human Services (HHS) have decided to stop the reporting requirements for hospitals and acute care facilities on COVID-19 deaths.

Although the information is published on the HHS website, fact-checkers have claimed the viral social media posts are “false” by simply changing the headline.29 So, while the HHS publicly announced they would no longer require hospitals to report deaths from COVID-19, fact-checkers erroneously report the U.S. government is not ending daily COVID death reporting.

If it helps to sort all this out, an unnamed federal health official actually acknowledged the move to stop reporting COVID-19 hospital deaths when they spoke with a reporter from WSWS, calling the move “incomprehensible.” The official added, “It is the only consistent, reliable and actionable dataset at the federal level. Ninety-nine percent of hospitals report 100% of the data every day. I don’t know any scientists who want to have less data.”


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


17 March, 2022

Should I Vaccinate My Child Against Covid?

Yesterday, Florida followed Norway by not recommending the Covid vaccine for children. The CDC recommends them.

What does the data say? As public health scientists, we must be honest both with what we know and what we do not know.

The emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine for children was based on two randomized clinical trials for ages 5-11 and 12-15, respectively, with a total of 4,528 subjects. In both trials, there was a reduction in mild Covid infections during the two months following the second dose, with the vaccine efficacy in the 68% and 98% range for the younger children and somewhere between 75% and 100% for the 12-15-year-olds (95% confidence intervals).

What these numbers mean is that if the true value is, e.g., 90%, and if 100 children would have been infected without vaccination, then 90 of them will avoid the infection if vaccinated, while 10 children will still get infected despite being vaccinated.

A vaccine that only prevents mild disease is of little use, so what about serious disease, hospitalizations and deaths? There were zero such events among those who received the vaccine. There were also zero such events among those who received a placebo.

Hence, from the randomized trials we do not know if the Covid vaccines prevent hospitalizations and death among children. Neither do they tell us whether the protection against mild infection lasts longer than two months, or whether the vaccine reduces transmission.

With limited information from the randomized trials, we must turn to observational studies and we now have one. In New York State, 23% of children ages 5-11 and 62% of children ages 12-17 had been fully vaccinated by the end of January 2022.

These 1.2 million vaccinated children were studied from November 29 to January 30, comparing them to the unvaccinated children in the State. Here is what we learned from that study, with all risk estimates based on 95% confidence intervals.

The New York study confirms the results from the randomized trials. The vaccine reduces short-term infection risk. During the first two weeks after the second dose vaccine efficacy against infection is in the 62%-68% range for 5–11-year-olds and in the 71%-81% range for 12–17-year-old children.

The protection against infection wanes rapidly. In the fifth week after vaccination, the vaccine efficacy against infection is in the 8%-16% range for 5-11-year-old children and in the 48%-63% range for the older ones. In the seventh week after vaccination, vaccine efficacy dropped further, to the 18%-65% range for the 12-17-year-olds. 

This is consistent with the rapid waning in protection that we have seen among adults, although the decline seems more rapid for children.

For the 5-11-year-olds, vaccine efficacy is negative during the seventh week after the second dose, with the unvaccinated having a lower risk of infection in the 29% -56% range. How can this be? A likely explanation is that the unvaccinated children got infected earlier than the vaccinated ones, and once the protection has worn off, the vaccinated children are at higher risk than the unvaccinated ones who have now acquired natural immunity. 

That is, the vaccine simply postponed infections by a few weeks or months.

How about deaths from Covid? That is what really matters.

Unfortunately, the New York study does not present mortality data. Why? Over the two years of the pandemic, the survival rate for New Yorkers ages 0-19 is 99.999%. Despite over 3 million children, there may not have been enough Covid deaths during the two-month study period to determine vaccine efficacy against mortality. It would still have been useful to tally the numbers, but the study authors did not do so.

For hospitalization, the study reports that vaccine efficacy is higher than for infection, and while that protection also wanes over time, the decline is slower than for infections. The numbers reported mean that by vaccinating 365,502 children ages 5-11, an estimated 90 hospitalizations were prevented. This would mean that in order to prevent one hospitalization, one must vaccinate 4,047 children. The corresponding number is 1,235 for children ages 12-17.

These numbers are difficult to properly interpret for four reasons. (i) They are based on a two-month period, and the vaccines have additional benefits outside that time window. (ii) They compare vaccinated children with unvaccinated children with or without natural immunity from prior Covid infection. This will underestimate the vaccine benefits for children without a prior infection while overestimating the benefits for those with natural immunity. (iii) They include both hospitalizations that are due to Covid and hospitalizations for other causes with a concurrent unrelated mild Covid infection. 

Even if the vaccine had zero efficacy at preventing hospitalization due to Covid, the efficacy against mild Covid infection would ensure that the study reported good efficacy against hospitalization. That the reported vaccine efficacy is higher for hospitalization than for infections indicates that there is at least some efficacy for the former, but it is impossible to properly estimate the level of efficacy without data that distinguishes hospitalizations due to and with Covid. (iv) The study was conducted during a large wave of infections, which has since declined. The benefits are less during the lower transmission period that we have now entered.

When deciding whether to vaccinate a child, we must also consider known and potential adverse reactions. From the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink we know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines can cause myocarditis among adolescents and young adults. Current risk estimates are in the range of one myocarditis for every 3,000 or 8,000 vaccinated adolescents and young men. Women have lower risk. There may also be additional still unknown adverse reactions.

The Covid vaccine has been widely used for children without solid information about its efficacy on hospitalizations and deaths, and without the ability to conduct a proper benefit-risk evaluation. The recent observational study from New York State adds a few important pieces to the puzzle, but we still do not know whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

For older people who have not yet had Covid it makes sense to get vaccinated. While there may be unknown low-risk adverse reactions, the large reduction in mortality risk far outweighs any such risks. For children, the mortality risk is very small and the known and any still unknown risks from adverse reactions may outweigh the benefits at reducing hospitalizations and death from Covid, which are unfortunately still unknown.


What Covid health orders have done to the social lives of children

I was disturbed by what I saw happen to our children in late 2021 during lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Our kids have acted unselfishly despite being at little risk of Covid, accepting the mantra that they need to be restricted and not become ‘vectors of transmission’ passing this virus on to their elders.

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Professor of Psychiatry and Ethics, offers this in response, ‘Any society that uses children to shield adults from harm has entirely lost its moral bearings.’

I offer some observations.

A group of teenagers bounce through the local mall with a mixture of chat and laughter. They go in to browse the local merchandise when one of them stops. Most of the group proudly show a vaccine passport, enter the store, and continue shopping but one teenager notices that one of the other girls doesn’t. She knows the other girl is not vaccinated and decides to stay outside with her friend. She does not make a scene, but patiently waits for their friends to come back. They seem oblivious to what has happened, and why should they notice? They are doing what teenagers have always done. I am, however, uncomfortable at the ease at which children show private health information and cannot understand the justification for the risk of stress and social anxiety to kids in the prime of their life. 

Two younger teenagers enter a shop. They are below the age required by Health Orders for mandatory vaccination. They look around and are approached by a shop assistant who demands to see their proof of vaccination. One girl proudly displays her green tick while the other volunteers that she is under the age required and is not vaccinated. That girl is abruptly escorted from the premises as if she was a criminal. Under normal circumstances, this would result in a sternly worded complaint from the parent to the manager or police. It has never been considered reasonable to treat children in such a way. Disturbingly, the shop assistant is complying with the health order. The girl is not allowed in the store unless she is closely accompanied by a vaccinated parent. The parent was just outside looking at a lengthy list of things to do during a busy and stressful day. 

Fast forward to March 2022. I walked through our local shopping centre and observed that around 20 per cent of people were wearing masks. Individual choice is paramount and there can be a variety of reasons for this, but a little surprising was that young people comprised the highest number. Why were they masked? The fatality rate for those under 50 is around 0.0035 per cent, below the 0.0044 per cent risk of dying while on the road. Do the same people mitigate risk when driving by wearing helmets and fire suits? Or do they accept that there is risk in everything they do? If it is not for physical safety, then does it provide psychological safety? If so, why are the young fearful?

NSW Health Minister Hazzard recently rejected the Health Department’s demands to bring back mask mandates and other restrictions and deserves credit for demonstrating leadership. Some may be sceptical at this newfound courage, but I would like to propose a test. Now that the fatality rate is in line with that of Influenza why not simply repeal the Public Health Orders? At a stroke of a pen, it was enacted and at the stroke of a pen, it can be repealed, thus showing consistency with Premier Perrottet’s desire for ‘personal responsibility’ and the Prime Minister’s statement that the public have had a ‘gutful of governments telling them what to do’.

The last two years have demonstrated that the longer governments bypass the usual accountability measures the more the tendency will be to coerce and exhibit influence and power over people’s lives.

Paediatric Neurosurgeon turned politician Ben Carson notes, ‘We’ve been conditioned to think that only politicians can solve our problems. But at some point, maybe we will wake up and recognize that it was the politicians who created our problems.’

Clinical Psychologist and Spectator UK contributor Dr. Gary Sidley recently posed the question, ‘Should a civilised democratic society be deliberately inflicting emotional distress on its people?’

The child who asked his mother if he was going to die had just learned he had contracted Covid. He experienced symptoms one would expect from a seasonal flu and was back bouncing off the walls after a day. The induced fear, however, has had a lasting impact. The severity and duration of which we don’t yet know.

Is this what we really want for us and for our children?

We might do well to remember the words of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ‘The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.’


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


16 March, 2022

New Covid-19 variant is one of the most infectious diseases the earth has EVER seen - as renowned scientist warns EVERYONE is going to get it

A former World Health Organisation scientist says the new BA.2 Omicron subvariant sweeping the world is one of the most infectious diseases the Earth has seen - and almost everyone will be exposed to the virus.

While the now-dominant strain is not as deadly as previous ones, including Delta, it is up to six times more transmissible than the original strain of Covid-19, Professor Adrian Esterman told Daily Mail Australia.

Predictions of a big surge in cases became a reality in New South Wales on Wednesday with 30,402 positive tests returned in the previous 24 hours, almost triple the number reported on Tuesday.

The BA.2 variant is also up to 30 per cent more infectious than the initial BA.1 version of Omicron which forced the reinstitution of lockdowns at Christmas.

'We think [the first] Omicron is very similar to Delta and that BA.2 is then another 25-30 per cent more contagious,' James Wood, a public health mathematician at the University of NSW told Daily Mail Australia.

The higher risk of contagiousness comes from the variant's superior ability to 'evade' immunity - meaning even triple-vaccinated people are susceptible to catching the new strain.

The BA.2 version of Omicron has an ability to 'evade' immunity, which includes vaccination. While vaccination provides a high level of protection from severe disease, it is less effective against preventing someone from catching Omicron at all. That even applies to boosters. 

Generally vaccines were more effective at preventing symptomatic infection from Delta than Omicron. 

For example, someone who had two shots in 2021 and a booster at the start of January would now have a 50 per cent chance of catching BA.2 if exposed. 

 Professor Adrian Esterman, an epidemiologist and biostatistician, said it was very likely all Australians would be at risk of catching BA.2 this year - especially given the return of people to schools, offices and public transport.

'(At the moment) you are much more likely to get it; we're already seeing that with the case numbers going up,' he said. 

But it is almost impossible to get an accurate reflection of its spread because so many rapid tests are being done at home and are going unreported.

The only objective, verifiable figures are the numbers of people in hospital with Covid. On Tuesday, that figure was 1,801 Australia-wide; a total that has been relatively steady throughout March. On January 25, there were 5,390. 

While not everyone exposed to a virus is infected by it, BA.2's high 'basic reproduction number' or 'R0' of 12 - compared to 2.5 for the original Wuhan virus - could mean almost all Australians will come into contact with it in 2022.

The R0 is the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case; an R0 of 12 means up to 12 people could be infected by each case.

'Everyone's been exposed to Covid-19, full-stop, and unless you're very careful you will be exposed again this year,' Professor Esterman said. 'With face mask mandates being dropped, social distancing being removed, the chances are even higher.

'Those things are put in place to dampen down transmissibility, that's the whole point. When you remove them it's just increasing transmission. 'If you remove all of those protections, then your transmissibility almost gets back to the basic reduction number because we have very little immunity.'

While Omicron is generally less severe than the Delta strain, it is serious enough for some people that Professor Esterman likened wanting to catch Covid to gambling with your health.

'If you say "I don't mind getting infected" it's a bit like Russian roulette because you do have that chance of getting seriously ill or having long-term health problems.'

Mr Esterman, who is 73, admitted his own son argues 'it's no worse than the flu'.  'To a certain extent, he's right: the death rates not worse than seasonal flu,' he said. 

'The trouble is it causes more severe disease in vulnerable people than influenza, and it has the capacity to cause real damage to younger people too.

'There have been several cases of young, healthy and fit people dying from Covid. I cannot remember that ever happening with influenza.'

Professor Esterman said while death rates have dropped to now be comparable to the flu, Covid is far more infectious and the spectrum of long-term health impacts is much wider. 

'Covid-19 can attack every part of the body, from clotting to the heart and brain. There have even been cases of young children with multi-system inflammatory condition.'

Professor Esterman said it was 'very likely' people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome got it as an immune system response to a previous viral infection. 'These are the balance of risks individuals have to bear in mind.'

He pointed out that with six million reported deaths worldwide and 5,590 in Australia attributed to Covid-19, it was one of the deadliest pandemics in history. 

Professor Esterman also issued a warning that the pandemic is 'not over' and it's been 'sheer luck' that we are not in the middle of a wave that is both more infectious and deadlier.

'It is true that pandemics become less infectious over time, but that happens over 100 years, not one year,' he said.

He described it as 'the toss of a coin' as to whether the next variant causes more severe illness. 'While it's true to say it's the beginning of the end, it's not the end yet,' he said. 

Professor Esterman is an advocate of introducing a fourth dose for people at risk, who could include people with HIV/AIDs, kidney problems, diabetes, obesity and different cancers.


Top doctor has rubbished Pfizer's promotion of fourth Covid jab 

A leading Australian doctor has slammed Pfizer's call for a fourth Covid jab, saying the company should use its staggering profits to provide vaccines for developing countries. 

Dr Nick Coatsworth, who fronted the Government's vaccine rollout campaign, said Pfizer should 'stop doing press releases about how we need a fourth dose' and tackle other more pressing issues. 

'How about you really surprise us and provide pneumococcal vaccine at cost to low income nations. Be like Astra,' the former deputy chief medical officer tweeted on Tuesday. 

Pfizer raked in a record $US37billion in revenue from its Covid vaccine in 2021 making it one of the most lucrative products ever.

The United States based drug-maker's overall revenue doubled to $81.3billion and is forecasting a even bigger 2022, which will also see the release of its Covid pill Paxlovid. 

'The CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, has come out on two occasions talking about how we need a fourth dose of the Covid vaccine, the CEO of Moderna has done it as well,' he told Dr Coatsworth told

'It’s a problem because you don’t listen to the person who’s responsible for shareholder profits if they tell you to take a drug.'

In stark contrast, vaccine competitor AstraZeneca announced early on in 2020 it would not seek to profit from a Covid vaccine while the pandemic was in effect, only recently moving to a profit-based model. 

Covid vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and other manufacturers have saved millions of lives worldwide with Pfizer's CEO claiming the outlook of the company had shifted. 

'We are proud to say we have delivered both the first FDA-authorised vaccine against Covid-19 (with our partner, BioNTech) and the first FDA-authorised oral treatment for Covid-19,' Albert Boula said earlier this year.

'These successes have not only made a positive difference in the world, but I believe they have fundamentally changed Pfizer and its culture for ever.'

And yet the company has been criticised for keeping a tight grip on the recipe for its Covid vaccines and not supplying them at reduced cost to developing countries.

'Pfizer is now richer than most countries; it has made more than enough money from this crisis. It's time to suspend intellectual property and break vaccine monopolies,' Tim Bierley, from Global Justice Now told The Guardian last month. 

Dr Coatsworth said Covid vaccines weren't the only ones that the pharma giant  could provide to needy nations. 

'[Pfizer's CEO] has on two occasions talked about how we need a fourth dose, the CEO of Moderna has done it as well... You don't listen to the person who's responsible for shareholder profits if they tell you to take a drug,' Dr Coatsworth said.

He said given Pfizer's massive revenue it could be a 'good corporate citizen' and subsidised its vaccines for low income countries.

'They don't do that and haven't done it for 20 years... It would be a simple and effective action... Pneumococcal disease is a bigger problem than Covid,' he said.

Pneumococcal disease is caused by any infection from Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria, which can cause pneumonia, meningitis, and blood infection.

The World Health Organization estimates 300,000 children under five die from the infection each year - mostly in poor countries - despite a vaccine being developed 20 years ago.

Dr Coatsworth said Pfizer could easily save lives by using some of its Covid profits to subsidise the vaccine for this disease in those countries - where its cost of up to $21 a dose can make it unaffordable.  

Competitor Moderna said on Monday it would set up a manufacturing facility in Kenya, its first in Africa, to produce messenger mRNA vaccines.

The company said it expects to invest about $500million in the Kenyan facility and supply as many as 500 million doses to the continent each year.

Moderna's COVID vaccine brought in $17.7 billion in sales in 2021 and has been cleared for use in over 70 countries.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


15 March, 2022  

Another nation has suspended their covid vaccine mandate!

While the Biden regime is still on track with its authoritarian mandates. More and more countries around the world are beginning to ease or suspend the COVID-19 related mandates.

On Wednesday, the Austrian government announced that it will suspend its mandate for all adults to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

This is after new findings were published that the vaccines were not effective against the Omicron variant. Health Minister Johannes Rauch said the decision would be reviewed again in three months and could be reintroduced if a new variant made it necessary.

It was last month when this authoritarian legislation was introduced to the public and become in early February. Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen imposed new Covid restrictions that require all adults in the country to be fully vaccinated and boosted or risk being fined.

The said law will go into effect beginning March 15th which was initially planned to run through January 31st, 2024.

However, everything changed on Wednesday, Karoline Edtstadtler, Austria’s constitutional minister said, “we will suspend the vaccination mandate, in accordance with proportionality.”


While masks are off everywhere else, biden is forcing airplanes to keep them on!

The Biden regime will extend the federal mask mandate for all transportation networks through April 18, one month after it is set to expire.

Now, Joe Biden and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) faced criticism on Thursday for extending a mask mandate on public transpiration as COVID-19 cases continue to decline.

Florida Republican Representative Carlos A. Gimenez wrote on Twitter:

“What’s the science behind the FAA extending the mask mandate on planes? Biden keeps pushing the deadline over and over and over again. States and local communities have been rolling back these useless mandates for months. It’s time Biden do the same.”

More details of this report from CNN:

The Transportation Security Administration is set to extend the federal public transportation mask mandate for another 30 days, an administration official told CNN, pointing to guidance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The mandate is one of the last remaining broad requirements that Americans wear masks in public places. It applies to mass transportation including planes, trains, buses and hubs like airports.

The official’s comments came after CNN reported that federal officials began notifying stakeholders in the airline industry of the upcoming announcement. Three sources, including two industry officials and a government official, described the conversations to CNN on the condition of anonymity.

The requirement, which now extends to April 18, was previously set to expire a week from Friday, and the policy will be reviewed over the next month, the official said.


The BA.2 subvariant of Ómicron advances in the world

When it was identified, it was described as silent, but experts say that the concept is outdated. Concern over the spike in COVID cases in Asia and Europe
March 15, 2022

The increase in COVID-19 cases caused worldwide by the Ómicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 is decreasing, but researchers are keeping an eye on the highly transmissible subvariant known as BA.2.

And while the experts' consensus agrees that it does not seem to have the capacity to drive a large new wave of infections, the variant could potentially slow down the current decline in cases and make treatment more difficult.

In fact, as many countries relax their prevention measures against the disease based on the decline in cases, many believe that this can make it easier for BA.2 to drive a further increase in infections. A March 10 report by British researchers suggests that this may be happening in areas where a rise in new infections is beginning to be reported.

Simultaneously, records from several European countries and China show that infections of COVID-19 escalated again to become a new wave of concern to health authorities.

At first, BA.1 was a thousand times more common than BA.2, since the beginning of 2022, BA.2 began to be found in a greater proportion of new infections (Reuters)

The Ómicron variant and its BA-2 subvariant are responsible for mass contagion. For example, between March 2 and 10, daily coronavirus infections in Germany rose by 19%, in Italy by 17.7% and in Austria by 25.3%. The numbers have grown so much in Germany that they motivated that the country's Minister of Health, Karl Lauterbach, to openly describe the situation as “critical”.

The Ómicron variant was discovered in November, and it quickly became clear that the viral lineage already existed as three genetically distinct varieties. Each branch of Omicron had its own set of unique mutations. At that time, the most common was BA.1, which spread rapidly around the world. BA.1 was almost entirely responsible for the record increase in cases this winter.

And while BA.1 was initially a thousand times more common than BA.2, since the beginning of 2022, BA.2 began to be found in a greater proportion of new infections, according to The New York Times.

The increase in COVID-19 cases caused worldwide by the Ómicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 is decreasing, but researchers are keeping an eye on the highly transmissible subvariant known as BA.2 (3d render)

What is known so far

All versions of Ómicron are highly contagious, so the variant quickly displaced previous forms of the coronavirus, such as Delta. But several studies found that BA.2 is even more transmissible than BA.1.

In Denmark, for example, scientists examined the spread of both subvariants in households, and found that people infected with BA.2 were much more likely to infect people with whom they shared a house than those with BA.1. In England, researchers found that, on average, it took less time for someone with BA.2 to infect another person, which accelerated its spread in communities.

By the beginning of 2022, BA.2 was becoming more common in several countries. By February, it had become dominant worldwide, displacing the once-dominant BA.1. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that BA.2 jumped to 11% in early March from 1% in early February, indicating that it could soon become dominant in this country as well.

But that doesn't mean that Americans are at risk of a new wave of BA.2 that is infecting a lot of new people. As BA.2 became more common in the United States, the total number of new cases fell by approximately 95%. Worldwide, the number of new daily cases had dropped by half what it was at its peak at the end of January.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

<a href=""></a> (EDUCATION WATCH)

<a href=""></a> (GREENIE WATCH)


<a href=""></a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

<a href=""></a> (TONGUE-TIED)


Monday, March 14, 2022

Banned Film Exposes the Real Reason for the COVID Pandemic

Joseph Mercola

Prior to 2020, if you heard the term “lockdown” you might think of something that happens in a prison — not in a free society. This mechanism of control has since become commonplace — not among prisoners but among the free — with repercussions that are only beginning to be understood.

The film "Planet Lockdown" explores this unprecedented time in history, speaking with epidemiologists, scientists, doctors and other experts to uncover the real motives behind the increasing totalitarian control taking over the globe. Already banned by Facebook and YouTube,1 the film starts at the beginning of the pandemic, when we were told lockdowns were necessary to “flatten the curve.”

This was supposed to be a short-term, 15-day event in the U.S., but the narrative soon changed to ongoing restrictions. As Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, explained, people have historically quarantined the sick, but quarantining healthy people, as has occurred for the past two years, has no scientific backing or historic precedence.2

“Given this virus represents, at most, a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than seasonal influenza, and a less risk, a smaller risk, to almost everyone else who’s younger and fit,” Yeadon says, “it was never necessary for us to have done anything. We didn’t need to do anything — lockdowns, masks, testing, vaccines even.”3

The filmmakers of Planet Lockdown are allowing a free viewing of this film (for a limited time). CLICK HERE to learn more about their important mission and see how you can help!

Questionable Practices Urged for COVID-19 Diagnosis

Dr. Scott Jensen, a family doctor and former member of the Minnesota Senate, received an email from the Department of Health that seemed to be coaching him to use COVID-19 as a diagnosis in situations where he wouldn’t have previously used influenza or any other specific viral diagnosis without first testing for it. He said:4

“What struck me right away was I felt like I was being coached to go ahead and use COVID-19 without using the same standards of precision that I would for other things. If I’m going to make a diagnosis, I believe as a physician I have an obligation to use the tools available to me to nail it down with as much certainty as possible.

And it seemed to me that the Department of Health, and the link to this CDC document that said you could diagnose COVID-19 as a cause of death on a death certificate … those two documents, in tandem, went against everything that I had been taught or doing for the last 35 years.”

Even Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of the Illinois Department of Health, is featured in the film stating that even if you died of a clear alternate cause, if you had COVID-19 at the same time, it would still be listed as a COVID death. “Everyone who is listed as a COVID death, doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death,” she says.5

In January 2020, the PCR test for COVID-19 came out, which allowed health officials to define COVID-19 “cases.” If the test was positive, it counted as a case — it didn’t matter if you have symptoms or not. Reiner Fuellmich, global fraud attorney, founder of the Corona Investigative Committee, pointed out, “It’s never, in the history of mankind, in the history of medicine, there’s never been testing of healthy people.”6

Yeadon agrees that mass testing of people with no symptoms has no scientific basis. Rather, he says, “It’s just a way to frighten people.”7 The rising “cases,” based on PCR testing, is what built the crisis. But counting cases was only measuring the activity of testing; the more that testing occurred, the more cases that were found.

‘Fear Everyone’ Became the Message

June 8, 2020, WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced that asymptomatic people could transmit COVID-19. That same day, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms “rarely” transmit the disease to others. In a dramatic about-face, WHO then backtracked on the statement just one day later.

In the days that followed, media and health officials ramped up fear by claiming that you could be sickened by virtually anyone, even when they appeared to be healthy. “This idea that … you can be ill even though you have no symptoms and you can be a … virus threat to someone else even though you have no symptoms, that’s also invented in 2020,” Yeadon says.9

Alexandra Henrion-Caude, geneticist, former director of research with the French National Institute of Health, is among those who have noticed something off from the start. “I was very puzzled since the very beginning … I was alert to the fact that what we were living was not quite right.”10

She notes that the notion of asymptomatic spread is terrifying because it turns virtually anyone you meet or encounter on the street into the enemy, because they could be exposing you to SARS-CoV-2. “This is actually terrible because it denies the capacity of a person to be a healthy person. Because if asymptomatic [spread] exists, then who is healthy? No one.”

What’s more, the “proof” of asymptomatic spread is flawed and fraudulent. The New England Journal of Medicine published an article suggesting the transmission of COVID-19 is possible from an asymptomatic carrier in January 2020.11

It was based on a 33-year-old businessman who had met with his business partner from Shanghai, then developed a fever and productive cough. The next evening, he felt better and went back to work January 27.

The writers reported the partner had been “well with no signs or symptoms of infection, but had become ill on her flight back to China, where she tested positive for 2019-nCoV on January 26.” From this case study, they theorized the virus could be transmitted from asymptomatic carriers. An important point was left out, which is that the researchers did not speak with the partner from Shanghai before publication.

However, Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), did speak with the woman on the phone, and she reported she did have symptoms while in Germany.12 So she was not asymptomatic after all.

In a State of Incoherence, People Crave Normalcy

The pandemic has twisted reality, leaving the public in a mental fog. “You’re regularly pledging obedience to things which are not logical,” Catherine Austin-Fitts, assistant secretary, Bush Sr. administration and investment adviser with Solari, Inc., says.13 WHO has changed definitions of herd immunity and pandemic, literally altering reality, and this is just one example.

Censorship and campaigns to discredit those who speak out against the narrative are additional control mechanisms that distort the truth. Bishop Schneider of Kazakhstan says the pandemic measures are very similar to Soviet times where he lived, in that there was only one narrative, and if you said there was another meaning, you were declared an enemy.

“When you had another opinion, they said, ‘You are a conspiracy group. You have a conspiracy theory. You have hate speech. This expression, hate speech, came from the communists.”14 It’s psychological manipulation, based on fear, which makes people act totally irrational. The artificially imposed state of incoherence was even described by Austin-Fitts as a torture tactic, designed to get people to submit to vaccine passports and COVID-19 shots:15

“Human beings crave coherence. And so if you can put them in a state of incoherence they will literally do anything they can to get back to coherence. It’s a typical torture tactic. ‘If you just do what I want, I will allow you to go back to a state of coherence.’ So, if you just accept the [vaccine] passports, you’ll be free. Or if you get the vaccination, you’ll just be free.”

Further, by declaring small businesses as “nonessential” during lockdowns, they get shut down, while Amazon, Walmart and other big box stores can take over their market share. A major transfer of wealth occurred away from small family-owned businesses to very large, publicly owned businesses that benefited from the digital economy. In the meantime, Austin-Fitts explains:16

“The people on Main St. have to keep paying off their credit cards or their mortgage, so they’re in a debt trap and they’re desperate to get cashflow to cover their debts and expenses.

In the meantime, you have the Federal Reserve institute a form of quantitative easing where they’re buying corporate bonds, and the guys who are taking up the market share can basically finance — or their banks can — at 0% to 1%, when everyone on Main St. is paying 16% to 17% to their credit cards, without income.

So basically now you’ve got them over a barrel and you can take away their market share, and generally they can’t afford to do what they say because they’re too busy trying to find money to feed their kids.”

New Control Systems Are Being Engineered

If a few people want to control many, how can you get the sheep into the slaughterhouse without them realizing and resisting? “The perfect thing,” Austin-Fitts says, is invisible enemies, like viruses.17 This ramps up fear so the public believes they need the government to protect them. Another effective tactic is “divide and conquer,” and the media plays an important role in this, dividing people over shots and masks, for instance.

“What COVID-19 is,” Austin-Fitts explains, “is the institution of controls necessary to convert the planet from the democratic process to technocracy. So what we’re watching is a change in control and an engineering of new control systems. So think of this as a coup d’état. It’s much more like a coup d’état than a virus.”18

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former public health official and member of German parliament, agrees, stating that pandemic responses have “nothing to do with hygiene. It has to do with criminology.”19 The global injection campaign is another form of control, one that’s forcing the public to receive experimental shots.

Many of the experts in the film bring up the Nuremberg Code, which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

But in the current climate of extreme censorship, people are not being informed about the full risks of the shots — which are only beginning to be uncovered. People are being forced into the shots due to mandates and loss of jobs and personal freedoms, like the ability to travel freely and attend business and social events.

In the End, Truth Will Win

A revolution is occurring, and the experts are hopeful that people will awaken to common sense and resist the totalitarian control that is threatening to take over the globe. Instead, society can be regenerated if people come together and fight back against the encroachment on our liberties.

Civil disobedience, boycotting businesses that are requiring vaccine passports, participating in rallies and fighting illegal mandates in court are ways that everyone can get involved in protecting freedom. “If they want to make us a machine, if they want to make us slaves, we say no,” Wodarg says. “… We don’t need you anymore, we are many … we don’t have to be afraid of any pandemic.”20


Mask Mandates Not Linked to Lower COVID-19 Case Rate or Transmission

Children 6 and older in Catalonia, a region in Spain, were required to wear masks once school reopened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers compared the incidence of COVID-19 in older children to younger children to try to determine whether the mandates had been effective in the aim of reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in schools. The virus is also known as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

The retrospective study identified a much lower case rate in preschool, where there were no mandates when compared to older groups who were required to wear masks.

Five-year-olds, for instance, had an incidence of 3.1 percent, while 6-year-olds had an incidence of 3.5 percent.

Mask mandates in schools “were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission, suggesting that this intervention was not effective,” researchers wrote in the paper, which was published as a preprint.

“The study shows that there was not a significant decrease in transmission on the courses that were masked (6 to 11 y.o.) when comparing to those that were not (3 to 5),” Clara Prats, one of the authors, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The data analyzed came from Sept. 13, 2021, to Dec. 22, 2021.

Researchers believe that “age-dependency” was the most important factor for the risk of virus transmission in schools. In other words, the older a child gets, the more likely they are to have an adult-like immune response. Adults are more likely than children to contract symptomatic cases of COVID-19, according to previous research. The Spanish researchers also said that because young children are likely to get infected with other coronaviruses, they would have more cross-reactive T cells, a type of cell that protects against COVID-19.

“Age-gradient in SARS-CoV-2 transmission is the key to understanding these results, and this is mainly related to the strong/robust innate immune response at mucosa resp[iratory] cells that younger children have when compared to older kids or adults,” Antoni Soriano-Arandes, another of the authors, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The study adds to a body of research that shows mixed results for masks and mask mandates.

Limitations of the research, which was funded by the Spanish government and other institutions, include not being able to count all asymptomatic cases, which are more likely among younger children.

Dr. Quique Bassat, one of the authors, asserted that the age-gradient means the results showed masks worked well, but Dr. Jonathan Darrow, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who analyzed mask studies in 2021, disagreed.

“This is one more study that fails to provide good evidence that masks substantially reduce transmission, and that suggests that if they do reduce transmission, they don’t reduce it by very much,” Darrow told The Epoch Times in an email. “Of course, it is always possible that in some other context masks might work better (e.g., better masks, better compliance, less facial touching, more frequent replacement of masks, etc).”




Sunday, March 13, 2022

Two years later, coronavirus evolution still surprises experts. Here’s why

Scientists and physicians continue to be amazed by how quickly the virus evolves, what it does to the human body, and how it moves through species.

Raul Andino knows his pathogens. For more than 30 years the University of California, San Francisco researcher has studied RNA viruses, a group that includes the virus that causes COVID-19. And yet he never imagined he’d witness a pandemic of this scale in his lifetime.

“The magnitude of it and the implications of it are still hard to comprehend,” Andino says.

Although experts in his field suspected a pandemic would occur, “it’s hard to know when,” he says. “It’s similar to an earthquake—you know the earthquake will happen, but normally you don’t think about it.”

On March 11, 2020—exactly two years ago—the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. The disease has since infected nearly 500 million people in almost 200 countries and killed more than six million people worldwide, and it’s not over yet.

Along the way, this coronavirus has presented scientists with a bevy of surprises: Many experts are still amazed by how quickly the virus evolves, what it does to the human body, and how it moves in and out of other species.

The original SARS-CoV-2 virus rapidly evolved into a string of variants that have hindered a return to pre-pandemic normalcy. Even with the virus’s genetic blueprint in hand and the ability to decode the genomes of new variants within hours, virologists and healthcare professionals struggle to predict how its mutations will alter the virus’s transmissibility and severity.

Millions of people are grappling with symptoms that linger for weeks to several months after they’d been diagnosed with an infection. Scientists are racing to understand the biology of this new and perplexing syndrome called long COVID.

Two years in, there’s still a lot we don’t know about SARS-CoV-2, says David Wohl, an infectious disease specialist at the University of North Carolina. Here’s what scientists have uncovered so far—and the mysteries that continue to tantalize and frustrate coronavirus experts.

Worst-case scenario

Experts had been warning of some kind of looming pandemic for decades. As humans expand settlements into wild areas, they raise the odds of a new pathogen jumping from an animal to a person, giving rise to a deadly zoonotic disease. A study published in Nature showed that emerging infectious diseases originating in wildlife had increased significantly between 1940 and 2004.

But most experts were worried about influenza viruses and would not necessarily have expected a coronavirus to cause such havoc.

That changed with the 2002-04 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 29 countries and left 774 dead. Then the 2012 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak infected more than 2,000 people in 37 countries; that virus has so far killed nearly 900.

Still, people weren’t paying as much attention to coronaviruses compared to the “really bad guys” like influenza, HIV, dengue viruses, Andino says.

Then SARS-CoV-2 arrived with a bang. It was spreading faster than previous coronaviruses, and one reason, scientists suspect, is its ability to move efficiently from one cell to the next. SARS-CoV-2 is also harder to contain because it causes so many asymptomatic cases, people who can then unknowingly spread the virus. “In a way, SARS-CoV-2 has found a way in which it can [rapidly] spread and also cause disease,” Andino says. “It’s the worst-case scenario playing out.”

March of the variants

Adding to the oddities, the SARS-CoV-2 virus acquired genetic mutations much more rapidly than expected.

Coronaviruses usually mutate at lower rates than other RNA viruses, like influenza and HIV. Both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 accumulate approximately two mutations each month; half to one sixth the rate seen in influenza viruses. That’s because coronaviruses have proofreading proteins that correct errors introduced into the virus’ genetic material as it replicates.

“That’s why we thought [SARS-CoV-2] would not evolve very fast,” says Ravindra Gupta, a clinical microbiologist at the University of Cambridge.

But the virus quickly proved Gupta and his colleagues wrong. The emergence of Alpha—the first variant of concern identified in the United Kingdom in November 2020—stunned scientists. It had 23 mutations that set it apart from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, eight of which were in the spike protein, which is essential for anchoring to human cells and infecting them.

“It became clear that the virus could make these [surprising] evolutionary leaps,” says Stephen Goldstein, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Utah. With this set of mutations, Alpha was 50 percent more transmissible than the original virus.

The next version, Beta, was first identified in South Africa and was reported as a variant of concern just a month later. It carried eight mutations on the viral spike, some of which helped the virus escape the body’s immune defenses. And when the Gamma variant emerged in January 2021, it had 21 mutations, 10 of which were in the spike protein. Some of these mutations made Gamma highly transmissible and enabled it to reinfect patients who previously had COVID-19.

“It’s surprising to see these variants make pretty significant leaps in transmissibility,” Goldstein says. “I just don’t think we’ve observed a virus do that before, but of course, we have not actually observed any pandemics previously with the amount of genetic sequencing capacity we have now.”

Then came Delta, one of the most dangerous and contagious variants. It was first identified in India and designated a variant of concern in May 2021. By late 2021 this variant dominated in almost every country. Its unique constellation of mutations—13 overall and seven in the spike—made Delta twice as infectious as the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, led to longer lasting infections, and produced 1,000 times more virus in the bodies of infected people.

"It [SARS-CoV-2]’s ability to come up with new solutions and ways to adapt and spread with such ease—it’s incredibly surprising,” Andino says.

However, Omicron, which is two to four times more contagious than Delta, rapidly replaced that variant in many parts of the world. First identified in November 2021, it carries an unusually high number of mutations—more than 50 overall and at least 30 in the spike—some of which help it evade antibodies better than all the earlier virus versions.

“These huge jumps [in mutations] make the pandemic far less predictable,” says Francois Balloux, a computational biologist at the University College London Genetics Institute in the United Kingdom.

Chronic infections

One of the most compelling explanations for the huge leaps in the number of mutations is that that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was able to evolve for long periods of time in the bodies of immunocompromised people.

During the past year, scientists have identified cancer patients and people with advanced HIV disease who were unable to get rid of their COVID-19 infection for months to nearly a year. Their suppressed immune systems enabled the virus to persist, replicate, and mutate for months.

Gupta identified one such mutation (also seen in the Alpha variant) in a sample from a cancer patient who remained infected for 101 days. In an advanced HIV patient in South Africa who was infected for six months, scientists recorded a multitude of mutations that helped the virus escape the body’s immune defenses.

“That the virus is changing its biology this quickly in its evolutionary history is a huge find,” Gupta says. Other viruses like influenza and norovirus also undergo mutation in immunocompromised individuals, but “it is very rare,” Gupta says, and they “infect a narrow range of cells.”

By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 has proven capable of infecting many different areas of the body—creating yet more baffling effects for scientists to untangle.

Not just a respiratory virus

Early in the pandemic medical professionals noticed that the virus wasn’t just causing pneumonia-like illness. Some hospitalized patients also presented heart damage, blood clots, neurologic complications, and kidney and liver defects. Mounting studies within the first few months suggested one reason why.

SARS-CoV-2 uses proteins called ACE2 receptors on the surface of human cells to infect them. But because ACE2 is present in many organs and tissues, the virus was infecting more parts of the body than just the respiratory tract. There were also a few reports of the virus, or parts of it, in blood vessel cells, kidney cells, and small quantities in brain cells.

“I’ve studied a lot of pandemics, and in almost all of them, you look at the brain, you’ll find the virus there,” says Avindra Nath, a neuroimmunologist at the National Institutes of Health. For instance, brain autopsy tissues from 41 hospitalized and dead COVID-19 patients revealed low levels of the virus. But there were also clear signs of damage, including dead neurons and mangled blood vessels.

“That’s the biggest surprise,” Nath says.

It’s likely that the virus triggers the body’s immune system to go into a hyperactive mode called a cytokine storm, which causes inflammation and injury to different organs and tissues. An abnormal immune response can persist even after infection, resulting in lingering symptoms including chronic fatigue, heart palpitations, and brain fog.

“But there are virus reservoirs that can cause chronic inflammation,” says Sonia Villapol, a neuroscientist at the Houston Methodist Research Institute. A recent study that’s not yet been peer-reviewed showed that SARS-CoV-2 genetic material could persist for up to 230 days in the body and brains of COVID-19 patients, even in those who harbored only mild or asymptomatic infections.

Susan Levine is an infectious-disease doctor in New York who specializes in the treatment and diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome, which has parallels with long COVID. She now sees 200 patients every week, compared to 60 in pre-pandemic times. Unlike CFS, long COVID “hits you like a ton of bricks,” Levine says. “It’s like a tornado inside your body where you’re going from working 60 hours a week down to being in the bed all day within a week of getting the infection. The action is so compressed.”


COVID-19 Vaccines May Be Enhancing Disease: Malone

COVID-19 vaccines may be causing enhanced disease because they target an old version of the coronavirus, Dr. Robert Malone says.

“The data are showing that vaccination can actually increase the risk of being infected with the Omicron version of this virus,” Malone told The Epoch Times in a recent interview.

Malone was referring to how in some areas, including Scotland and New Zealand, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are more likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine than not.

A recent study, meanwhile, found that one dose of a vaccine boosted protection for people who recovered from COVID-19 but two or three doses seemed to lower protection; the authors said they weren’t sure why this was the case. Another study found higher protection among naturally immune who weren’t vaccinated versus those who were.

Vaccine-associated enhanced diseases (VAED) were identified (pdf) as an “important potential risk” of the COVID-19 vaccines by U.S. drug regulators, as was a similar event known as enhanced respiratory disease following COVID-19 vaccination. Some adverse events recorded following COVID-19 vaccination “could indicate” VAED (pdf), according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team.

VAED refers to disease “resulting from infection in individuals primed with non-protective immune responses against the respective wild-type viruses,” researchers said last year as they set a case definition for the term. “Given that these enhanced responses are triggered by failed attempts to control the infecting virus, VAED typically presents with symptoms related to the target organ of the infection pathogen,” they added.

“That’s what the data has been showing now for a few months,” Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA technology that two of the three COVID-19 vaccines cleared for use in the United States is built on, told The Epoch Times.

In a Pfizer document (pdf) released this month, the vaccine manufacturer said there were a potential 138 cases with 317 relevant events of VAED reported from December 2020 to February 2021. Of the 138 cases, 71 were medically significant, 16 required hospitalization, 13 were life-threatening, and there were 38 deaths.

The most frequently reported event out of the 317 potentially relevant events was drug ineffectiveness (135). Other events included COVID-19 pneumonia, diarrhea, respiratory failure, and seizure.

“VAED may present as severe or unusual clinical manifestations of COVID-19,” Pfizer concluded, adding that, “based on the current evidence, VAED/VAERD remains a theoretical risk for the vaccine” and that they will continue to monitor the syndrome.

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

A CDC spokesperson said that the agency, along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are monitoring vaccine safety through surveillance systems such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe.

Monitoring to date “has not established a causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-associated enhanced disease,” the spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.

The CDC says the vaccines are largely safe and effective but also encourages people who experience side effects after getting one of them to report the issues to one of the systems.

The FDA, meanwhile, has not at this time identified an association between enhanced respiratory disease with the three vaccines the agency has cleared, a spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.




Friday, March 11, 2022

Victims vs. Vectors? The Ethics of Giving COVID-19 Vaccines to Children

Alma Golden

Fifty years ago, I began medical school. Through this half-century, I have provided, prescribed, promoted, and supported vaccine use. As a physician in retirement, I am fully vaccinated and boosted for COVID-19, as are my grown sons and three of my young adult grandchildren.

Vaccine development has a proud history that has prevented millions of children and adults from becoming the victims of infectious diseases. But are children’s COVID-19 vaccines now being used to prevent serious illness in children or as a vector control mechanism to protect adults?

I rejoiced as the Hemophilus influenza type b vaccine saved thousands of infants and children from death or serious disease caused by meningitis and sepsis. I followed the public health science that tracked data and research on the risks, costs, and benefits of vaccines to prevent chickenpox, rotavirus, and many other—now preventable—diseases.

The Hemophilus influenza type b, or Hib, vaccine was a classic study in recognizing and responding to a health threat in children. Data were collected on the frequency of hospitalizations, permanent disabilities, sepsis, meningitis, and death associated with Hib infection in infants and toddlers. Risk, benefit, and cost analyses were developed. Immunized children were monitored for efficacy and adverse effects, both short-term and long-term. The success of that vaccine is a win for nations as well as families.

The ethics of child vaccines should reflect the high standards like this, which have been used since the enactment of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986.

I know this well, as I practiced pediatrics through the turbulent era of rare but serious side effects associated with the pertussis vaccine, which a National Institutes of Health study concluded caused severe reactions in children such as seizures, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, high fevers, and persistent crying.

This led to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps promote development of safe vaccines, addressed compensation for injured vaccine recipients, and simultaneously mandated tracking of vaccine distribution and adverse effects, leading to better vaccine programs and fewer preventable infectious diseases.

Twenty-four months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has demonstrated that few healthy children infected with the virus become victims of severe illness and that those most likely to need intensive care already have previously diagnosed significant health conditions. Most children and youth experience a relatively short duration of illness with low rates of hospitalizations and few deaths. Children are a magnificently resilient group. They appear to develop robust natural immunity.

Although children can be asymptomatic spreaders, some studies indicate that transmission rates between children and within families are lower than between adults. School environments, with some precautions and good ventilation, are surprisingly safe places.

Based on how rapidly the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates, it may be difficult to develop effective vaccines to keep pace with new mutations, such as the omicron variant. It is possible that youth have been blessed with the capacity to respond successfully, and much more rapidly, to these variants than the scientists who are manufacturing the vaccines.

Considering the above, what is the ethical framework for promoting widespread or mandated pediatric COVID-19 vaccination?

Recognizing that children make up a minuscule percentage of severe COVID-19 cases, why are so many health, education, pharmaceutical, and political leaders vigorously promoting pediatric vaccination? Where are the data-based risk-cost-benefit analyses to support their recommendations?

Local and systemic vaccine reactions occur in 30% to 60% of children 5 to 11 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, is rare in that age group but increases in teen and early adult years, especially for males, as noted in multiple countries. Only short-term observations inform our understanding of the vaccine in children and youth. Long-term efficacy and side effects need to be monitored.

In the setting of a highly infectious, highly prevalent virus that appears to be approaching an endemic state, much like colds or the flu, are children to assume the ethical burden of vaccination to protect the larger society when the resulting benefit to them may be minimal and the potential long-term risks and benefits are not fully understood?

If we are concerned that children would serve as the distributors of disease, much as a mosquito is for malaria, does that reduce the obligation of researchers, clinicians, and public health experts to analyze—both medically and ethically—the full spectrum of risks, benefits, and potential impacts of this vaccine on children? Are we fulfilling the medical, regulatory, and ethical standards that have developed since the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program?

Children with chronic or immunocompromised conditions and/or who are living with close family members with such conditions should be vaccinated, but one must ask whether the promotion of universal child vaccination for COVID-19 is driven by the evidence-based risk of severe disease, death, or disability in children, or by fear and expediency to benefit adults.

In another 50 years, I wonder if historians will observe that we treated children as disease vectors rather than potential victims of a viral illness.


Even Mild Cases of COVID-19 Can Lead to Brain Changes

Mild COVID-19 cases were linked to changes in the brain, in a newly published study.

Approximately 785 people underwent a brain scan and about half later tested positive for COVID-19. All the participants got a second brain scan, including those who had survived the disease.

Researchers from the Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging at the University of Oxford analyzed the scans and found the participants infected with COVID-19 had a reduction in the thickness of gray matter—which helps humans perform various functions such as making decisions—and other negative outcomes.

“Despite the infection being mild for 96% of our participants, we saw a greater loss of grey matter volume, and greater tissue damage in the infected participants, on average 4.5 months after infection,” professor Gwenaëlle Douaud, the study’s lead author, said in a statement.

“They also showed greater decline in their mental abilities to perform complex tasks, and this mental worsening was partly related to these brain abnormalities. All these negative effects were more marked at older ages.”

The paper was published in Nature following peer review.

The scans were taken from the UK Biobank, a large-scale medical database that contains information on approximately 500,000 UK residents.

Those whose scans were analyzed were aged 51 to 81. The reason the study did not include younger people is that all participants in the scanning were 40 or older, Douaud told The Epoch Times in an email.

The scans were taken on average 38 months apart.

Researchers said the two cohorts—people who ended up getting infected and people who did not—were similar in terms of age, sex, and many risk factors.

Participants also engaged in cognitive tests, and the infected group was more likely to experience cognitive decline by the time of the second test.

The brain changes ranged from 0.2 to 2 percent additional change in the infected group. ?


Researchers discover drug-resistant Covid in Australian patients

One of the main medicines used to combat severe cases of Covid-19 is causing the virus to mutate and there is a risk it could spread in the community.

If this happens, elderly and immunocompromised patients can’t be treated with the drug Sotrovimab.

Sydney University researcher Dr Rebecca Rockett studied 100 Covid patients in health care facilities in the Western Sydney Local Health District in New South Wales during the Delta outbreak between August and November 2021.

For four of the patients given the drug, the virus in their body mutated within six to 13 days and the treatment was no longer effective at containing the infection.

Samples of the mutated virus taken from these patients were able to be grown in a laboratory dish and this proved the new version of the virus was capable of spreading to others.

“The worrying thing is the fact that the virus was still viable and persisting in these patients after they develop the resistance,” Dr Rockett said.

“What we don’t want to see is that someone in the community develops resistance and they can pass that resistance to other people and that makes the drug ineffective, not just for that individual but for who they transmit the virus to,” she said.

Many of the patients in the study were severely immunocompromised and Dr Rockett said one theory about the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants of the virus was that they developed in such people.

“There are definitely cases in the literature where these patients with really immunocompromised conditions are given a lot of different therapies and could develop a number of mutations that can make the virus less more likely to evade current vaccines and treatment strategies,” she said.

This is a key reason this population of patients should be kept under surveillance, she said.

To keep control of the virus, doctors must undertake active surveillance of severely ill patients and identify treatment-resistant mutations earlier so they can be contained, she said.

The research team has not conducted experiments to determine whether current Covid-19 vaccines could combat the mutated virus that developed in these patients.

Sotrovimab is one of three key Covid-19 treatments called monoclonal antibodies that doctors were using to stop patients from becoming seriously ill.

These types of treatments are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off viruses.

In January, the US FDA revealed that two of these treatments no longer worked against Omicron leaving Sotrovimab as the only weapon in the arsenal.

In another worrying development last month a Colombia University study that is yet to be peer reviewed found the cousin of Omicron – BA. 2 – had developed resistance to Sotrovimab.

This leaves recently approved treatments paxlovid, molnupiravir which are in short supply as the mainstay of treatment.




Thursday, March 10, 2022

The Alarming Trends in COVID Vaccine Side Effects

In mid-February 2022, the U.K. started rolling out the COVID jab for children aged 5 to 11. In the U.S., the shot has been recommended for this age group since October 2021.

The question raised in a Nick De Bois interview with Jamie Jenkins, former head of health and labor market analysis at the British Office for National Statistics (above), is ‘Why bother injecting kids this young?’ The risk COVID-19 presents to children is minuscule.

What’s more, the British Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) estimates that by the end of January 2022, 85% of children aged 5 to 11 already had natural immunity. Add to that the fact that the prevailing variant, Omicron, is far milder than previous strains, causing only mild cold symptoms in most people, including children.

Together, these three facts ought to make it clear that children don’t need this jab. A cost-benefit analysis by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and researcher Kathy Dopp, also shows the COVID jab actually increases children’s risk of dying from COVID infection. Children under 18 are also 51 times more likely to die from the jab than they are to die from COVID if not vaccinated.

Four Million Doses Required to Prevent a Single ICU Admission
An astounding statistic Jenkins does bring up is that 4 million doses must be administered to children, 5 to 11 years of age, to prevent a single ICU admission in this age group. Assuming two doses per child, that means 2 million children must take their chances with serious and potentially lifelong side effects to prevent a single child from requiring intensive care due to COVID-19. How is this justified? As explained in Jenkins’ website:

“JCVI has said that vaccination of children aged 5 to 11 years who are not in a clinical risk group would prevent a relatively small number of hospitalizations or intensive care admissions. For a variant like Omicron, it would take around four million vaccine doses to two million children to prevent one admission to ICU.

For less severe illnesses, 58,000 child vaccinations would prevent one-child hospitalization. Children admitted recently to hospital with COVID had an average length of stay of 1-2 days. The Omicron wave saw no more children in hospital than before Omicron hit the UK.”

Pfizer Backs Off Shots for Children Under 5

While vaccine makers and health agencies have been pushing forward with COVID jabs for babies as young as 6 months, parents with children under 5 can, for now, draw a sigh of relief, as plans to roll out shots for the under-5 age group have been suspended, at least temporarily.

February 11, 2022, Pfizer withdrew its U.S. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application for children under 5. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer, they want to collect more data on the effects of a third dose, as two doses did not produce expected immunity in 2- to 5-year-olds.

Three days later, former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb told CNBC the EUA application was pulled because COVID cases are so low among young children that the shot couldn’t be shown to provide much of a benefit.

Considering you have to give the jab to some 2 million children to prevent a single ICU stay, it’s no wonder they can’t show effectiveness in studies that have just a few thousand children. Pfizer’s youth trial on 5- to 11-year-olds had just 2,268 participants, and only two-thirds of those received the real COVID jab.

However, the OpenVAERS team suspects there may be something far more problematic behind Pfizer’s withdrawal. In a February 21, 2022, email notice to subscribers, OpenVAERS stated:

“None of these explanations suffice because all of that information was known prior to Pfizer submitting this EUA to the FDA on February 1 [2022]. It makes one wonder whether adverse events in the treatment group might be the factor that neither Pfizer nor the FDA want to talk about?

So, we decided to look at reports of injury associated with COVID-19 vaccines in children 17 and younger. Remember, these shots have only been on the market for a short while and only children 5 to 17 are eligible. We created a separate page called Child Reports that will update automatically as new reports come in.

We were shocked by what we found — 34,223 VAERS reports in the U.S. in this age range, including infants harmed through transmission from the mother via breast milk, lots of reports of kids receiving shots who were too young (either the parents lied about their age or the doctor/pharmacy made a mistake with screening or dosing), and heartbreaking reports of myocarditis and death.”

Shocking Data From Israel Show Extent of Side Effects

While health agencies and mainstream media still insist that side effects from the COVID jab are “rare,” real-world data show a different story. An English translation of the report can be downloaded from Galileo Is Back on Substack. As noted in the report:

“On December 20, 2020, a vaccination program was launched in Israel using Pfizer’s vaccine for COVID-19. By the end of March 2021, more than half of the population had been vaccinated with two vaccine doses.

The decrease in immunity over time and emergence of new variants led to a renewed increase in morbidity in Israel in the summer of 2021. By the end of July 2021, a third shot of the vaccine (booster shot) was authorized for everyone who had received two shots and at least five months had passed from the second shot.

From data collection by medical teams or self-reporting by the public of side-effects in temporal proximity (passive monitoring), it appears that there is underreporting; therefore, it is important to identify side-effects in temporal proximity to vaccination with the booster in an active manner via a dedicated survey.

General goals: To determine the frequency of side-effects which appeared within 21-30 days from vaccination with the third Pfizer shot (booster) against COVID-19 among citizens above 18 years of age.

Specific goals: Examine the prevalence of side-effects in temporal proximity to the third shot grouped according to age and gender. Examine the time of onset relative to administration of the vaccine and the duration thereof, and to compare it with the side-effects of previous vaccines.”

In all, 2,894 people were contacted and 2,068 agreed to be interviewed (response rate: 71.4%). Of those 2,068 boosted individuals:

0.3% required hospitalization for an adverse event

4.5% experienced one or more neurological problems (2.1% of men and 6.9% of women), such as tingling or itching sensation, Bell’s palsy, vision damage, memory deterioration, hearing damage, convulsions, loss of consciousness and more

9.6% of women under the age of 54 experienced menstrual irregularities. Of those, “39% suffered from similar side-effects after prior COVID-19 vaccinations; however most (67%) indicated that the side-effects waned prior to the third vaccination and returned after receiving it”

26.4% of those with preexisting anxiety disorder or depression experienced a worsening of their symptoms

24.2% of those with preexisting autoimmune disorders experienced exacerbation of disease

Between 6.3% and 9.3% of those with preexisting high blood pressure, lung disease, diabetes and heart disease also reported that their condition was exacerbated after the third booster. A small number of women, but no men, also reported herpes infections (0.4% for herpes simplex infections and 0.3% for herpes zoster). Other key take-home’s from this Israeli report are that:

Side-effects are more common among women and younger people
1 in 10 women suffer menstrual irregularities

Neurological side effects typically don’t appear until about a month after the jab

In the majority of cases, the occurrence of a given side effect was not more severe after the third shot compared to the two previous doses. Put another way, the severity of side effects tends to be the same, regardless of the number of doses, so these finding can perhaps be applied to doses 1 and 2 as well

German Health Insurance Data Show Alarming Side Effect Rates
German health insurance data are also triggering alarms. Andreas Schöfbeck, a board member of a large insurance company called BKK ProVita, shared the data with Die Welt.

They analyzed the medical data of 10.9 million insured individuals, looking for potential COVID jab side effects. To their horror, they found 400,000 doctors’ visits could be realistically attributed to the jab. According to Schöfbeck, extrapolated to the total population of Germany, the total number of doctors’ visits attributable to jab side effects would be 3 million.

“The number that resulted from our analysis are very far away from the publicly announced numbers [by the Ministry of Health]. It would be unethical not to talk about it,” Schöfbeck told Die Welt, adding that the data are “an alarming signal.” As reported by Die Welt (translated from German):

“From January to August 2021 … around 217,000 of just under 11 million BBK policyholders had to be treated for vaccination side effects — while the Paul Ehrlich Institute keeps only 244,576 side effect reports based on 61.4 million vaccinated …

Thus, the number of vaccine side effects would be more than 1,000 percent higher than the PEI reports … With his analysis, Schöfbeck turned to a wide range of institutions — from the German Medical Association and the StiKo to the Paul Ehrlich Institute itself.

He said the figures were a ‘strong alarm signal’ that ‘absolutely must be taken into account in the further use of vaccines.’ His figures could be validated by the same data analyses of other health insurance companies, he says …

Since ‘danger to human life cannot be ruled out,’ he set a deadline of 6 p.m. Tuesday [February 22, 2022] to respond to his letter. As this passed, they turned to the public.”

Getting back to the issue of children and the danger we’re putting them in by giving them this shot, two autopsies of teenage boys who died within days of their COVID jabs revealed the shot caused their deaths. As reported by The Defender:

“The three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners, published their findings Feb. 14 in an early online release article, ‘Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose,’ in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.

The authors’ findings were conclusive. Two teenage boys were pronounced dead in their homes three and four days after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose. There was no evidence of active or previous COVID-19 infection. The teens had negative toxicology screens (i.e., no drugs or poisons were present in their bodies). These boys died from the vaccine.”

Histopathological examination revealed that neither of the boys’ hearts had signs of typical myocarditis. Instead, what they found were changes consistent with catecholamine-mediated stress cardiomyopathy, also known as toxic cardiomyopathy.

This is a temporary kind of heart injury that can develop in response to extreme physical, chemical or emotional stressors. Another common term for this kind of injury is “broken heart syndrome.” Hyperinflammatory states such as severe COVID-19 infection can also cause this kind of injury to the heart.

More details about the medical history of each of the boys and their autopsy findings are reviewed by Pam Popper of Wellness Forum Health in the video above. Curiously, neither of the boys had any symptoms of myocarditis before they died. One had complained of a headache and upset stomach. The other had not mentioned any symptoms. As noted by The Defender:

“This is extremely concerning. These boys had smoldering, catastrophic heart injuries with no symptoms. How many others have insidious cardiac involvement from vaccination that won’t manifest until they get a serious case of COVID-19 or the flu? Or perhaps when they subject themselves to the physical stress of competitive sports?

These findings suggest a significant subset of COVID-19 deaths in the vaccinated could be due to the vaccines themselves. Furthermore, it raises this question: How often does this condition exist in a latent form in vaccinated individuals?”

Myocarditis Risk in Young Men Is Not Rare

U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data also raise questions about the risk of potentially lethal myocarditis, especially in boys. The following slide was presented during a June 23, 2021, meeting convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), to discuss the risk of myopericarditis.

As you can see, the observed rates of myocarditis and/or pericarditis for several age groups, and especially among males, are significantly higher than the expected background rate.

This is a loud and clear safety signal, yet the ACIP proceeded to recommend the shot to preteens and teens anyway, and in a public statement insisted that myopericarditis is “an extremely rare side effect” that “only an exceedingly small number of people will experience after vaccination.” How can they say that with data like this right in front of their noses?

Based on this VAERS data, the rate of myocarditis is about 6.5 per 100,000 doses in 12- to 17-year-olds. Going back to where we started, 4 million doses are required to prevent a single child, 5 to 11 years of age, from being admitted to the ICU for COVID.

Assuming the rate of myocarditis in 5- to 11-year-olds is identical to that of 12- to 17-year-olds, we could potentially be looking at 260 cases of myocarditis for every ICU admission for COVID that we prevent. On the whole, the COVID jab provides only risk for children under 18, so there’s absolutely no justification for it.




Wednesday, March 09, 2022

How Vaccine Fanatics Fueled Vaccine Skepticism

The development of COVID-19 vaccines is one of the few successes during a pandemic that saw major failures in public health strategy and treatments. While the vaccines can’t prevent transmission, they have reduced mortality. Before the pandemic, there was almost universal trust in vaccines, and vaccine skeptics were a small but vocal minority.

With a life-saving vaccine during a major pandemic, one would expect more vaccine enthusiasm, but instead, it collapsed. What happened?

Ironically, the problem is vaccine fanaticism, which has caused vaccine skepticism, with problematic consequences extending beyond COVID-19 to trust in other vaccines. Vaccine fanaticism comes in many forms.

In their drive to increase uptake, the vaccine fanatics denied basic scientific facts, such as immunity provided by COVID recovery. This, despite numerous careful studies that showed that COVID-recovery provides better protection versus both infection and severe disease than the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccine fanatics insisted that natural immunity shouldn’t “count” in the vaccine mandate schemes. By denying science, the vaccine fanatics created further public skepticism about the vaccines.

“If they’re lying about natural immunity, maybe they’re lying about vaccine efficacy,” many may have reasoned.

Despite lack of evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines could prevent transmission and mounting evidence in spring and summer 2021 that they couldn’t stop the spread of the disease, Dr. Anthony Fauci and others convinced themselves that COVID-19 could be conquered only if 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent, or more of the population was vaccinated. And when the vaccines didn’t live up to scientifically unproven promises, people’s trust in those who over-promised naturally collapsed.

In its pursuit of the impossible goal of COVID suppression by vaccines alone, public health vaccine fanatics induced many people to become skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine’s benefits.

Public authorities espoused psychological manipulation to induce vaccine uptake. For example, in its April 2021 guidance on mask-wearing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gave permission only to the vaccinated to doff the mask. Their reasoning was based on a mistaken belief that vaccinated individuals can’t spread the disease, but also as an inducement to get people vaccinated since mask-wearing is unpleasant.

Encouraged by public health officials, Krispy Kreme offered free donuts to the vaccinated. Some people may have wondered: “If they understood public health, they wouldn’t try to fatten people with donuts. Maybe vaccines are also bad for my health?”

When these tactics failed, the public health establishment embraced vaccine coercion. They instituted vaccine passports to exclude the unvaccinated from participation in civil life, including access to libraries, museums, and restaurants. The federal government went further, using its vast regulatory powers to mandate vaccines as a condition of employment. These coercive actions effectively cast the unvaccinated into second-class citizenship. As they watched the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike contract COVID-19, they undoubtedly began to wonder whether public health truly had their best interests at heart.

Some vaccine fanatics have adopted the repellant tactic of falsely labeling people they disagree with as anti-vaccine. For instance, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a tabloid-style slander that epidemiologists and vaccine experts at Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford are opposed to “mass vaccination.” How might readers interpret that statement? “Well, if Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford professors are against the vaccines, maybe I should be too.”

Such false claims fuel vaccine hesitancy by putting the BMJ imprimatur on the lie that medicine and epidemiology professors are anti-vaxxers, when they aren’t. This damages vaccine confidence.

Vaccine fanatics have politicized the vaccine, using it to paint political opponents as science-denying troglodytes by falsely claiming that they’re against vaccines. If a person trusts a particular politician that’s falsely accused of being against vaccines, that person may only hear the false accusation and therefore reject the vaccine. In a public health crisis, such political gameplay has devastating consequences. What should have been a bipartisan achievement of a vaccine being developed and deployed in record time during a pandemic turned into just another tool for a political food fight, fueling vaccine skepticism.

Like all medical interventions, vaccines have some risks, which must be acknowledged in risk-benefit analyses for different population groups. For example, when there were reports of an increased risk of blood clots in young women receiving the J&J vaccine, it made sense to give them a different vaccine while the reports were investigated. Instead, the CDC “paused” J&J vaccinations in all age groups, including older people, for whom it was clear that there was no excess risk and for whom the benefit of the vaccine was the largest. (The CDC fired one of us for opposing that pause in older people.)

Though the CDC later cleared the vaccine, the J&J vaccine uptake never recovered in the United States, with detrimental effects on less affluent, more rural, and other hard-to-reach populations for whom this one-dose vaccine was ideal and life-saving.

In their bid to boost COVID-19 vaccine uptake, the vaccine fanatics have created a widespread movement of vaccine skepticism that didn’t previously exist. The consequences are dire not just for the COVID-19 vaccine but also for vital childhood vaccines. It may be too late for COVID-19, but regaining public trust is crucial to ensure the public’s confidence in other vaccines that are critical to the well-being of children everywhere.

In public health, it isn’t enough to be trusted by only half the population. Since widespread trust is essential, the only solution is for public health to eschew coercion and embrace its traditional principles. Public health should never again manipulate or deny authentic scientific results to manipulate the public’s behavior. It should dismiss practitioners who use public health as a weapon in a cultural or political war. It should reject slander, censoring, and ad hominem attacks.

Trust in vaccines can only be regained through honest, open dialogue, science-based policies, public education, long-term thinking, a strengthened vaccine safety monitoring system, and voluntary vaccinations. That is, it should return to the traditional principles of public health.


Alarming Warning About COVID Tests

The National Capital Poison Center reports on its website that many quick home COVID-19 antigen tests included a harmful chemical compound that may be dangerous to your children as well as you.

The chemical sodium azide is reportedly a preservative agent in fast antigen sets, consisting of BinaxNow, BD Veritor, Flowflex, as well as Celltrion DiaTrust.

Sodium azide, if ingested, can cause low blood pressure, dizziness, migraine, and heart palpitations.

Now, Ohio, as well as Texas, issued a warning after seeing a rise in records related to sodium azide poisoning, in the very same 500 million Covid test sets that Biden sent to the American public.

An “increase in accidental exposures to a substance in these kits,” was reported by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. reported:

The substance is sodium azide, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center’s Drug and Poison Information Center has seen a surge in calls about exposures to the chemical since more people started self-testing for COVID-19 at home.

“We started getting our first exposures to these test kits around early November,” said Sheila Goertemoeller, pharmacist and clinical toxicologist for the center. “It was, really, all ages.” The calls to the local center mirror what’s been happening nationally.

Sodium azide, often used as a preservative, is a liquid reagent in several of the COVID-19 test kits, she said. Ingesting it can cause low blood pressure, which can result in dizziness, headaches or palpitations. Exposure to it can also cause skin, eye or nostril irritation.

The Cincinnati Children’s based Drug and Poison Information Center has logged 38 cases of sodium azide exposure, with cases peaking in January. Adults exposed generally have experienced mild skin irritation, which can get worse if the area isn’t washed thoroughly, she said.

Nationwide Children’s Central Ohio Poison Center in Columbus also reported seeing an “uptick” in cases, as well, a spokeswoman said. The center did not immediately have a number of cases.

Last week, a cautionary notice was released by the West Texas Poisonous substance Center advising the citizens to read the directions prior to using any kind of at-home COVID-19 testing kits.

Local 12 additionally reported:

Sarah Watkins, medical director, for West Texas Region Poison Center, an Emergency Medicine Physician and medical toxicologist reported an increase of reports related to sodium azide poisoning.

“It has a chemical in it called sodium azide, which in large amounts can be really dangerous and even life-threatening,” Watkins said.

She said the majority of the calls made are from people who are not reading the instructions.

“We have gotten some calls here in the state of Texas about this,” Watkins said.

She said some people are putting the test swab in the solution and sticking it up their nose.

She said people are also confusing the substance for eyedrops.

“In-home covid tests, there is a dropper that comes in the test, and it looks a lot like eyedrops so it’s really easy to confuse with things that you’re supposed to put into your body,” Watkins said.

Watkins said sodium azide reacts on the body the same way cyanide does.




Tuesday, March 08, 2022

SARS-COV-2 Vaccines and Neurodegenerative Disease

Since December 2020, when several novel unprecedented vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 began to be approved for emergency use, there has been a worldwide effort to get these vaccines into the arms of as many people as possible as fast as possible. These vaccines have been developed “at warp speed,” given the urgency of the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. Most governments have embraced the notion that these vaccines are the only path towards resolution of this pandemic, which is crippling the economies of many countries.

Thus far, there are four different vaccines that have been approved for emergency use for protection against COVID-19 in the US and/or Europe. Two (the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine) are based on mRNA technology, whereas the other two (produced by Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) are based on a double-stranded DNA recombinant viral vector. The mRNA vaccines contain only the code for the SARS-CoV-2 envelope spike protein, whereas the DNA-based vaccines both contain an adenovirus viral vector that has been augmented with DNA that codes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The DNA-based vaccines have a certain advantage over the RNA-based vaccines in that they do not have to be stored at deep-freeze temperatures, because double-stranded DNA is much more stable than single-stranded RNA. But a disadvantage is that those who have been exposed to natural forms of the adenovirus have antibodies to the virus that will likely block the synthesis of the spike protein, and therefore not afford protection against SARS-CoV-2.

In this regard, the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine has a slight advantage over the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine because the virus normally infects chimpanzees rather than humans, so fewer people are likely to have been exposed to it. On the other hand, several studies have shown that viruses that normally infect one species can cause tumors if they are injected into a different species. For example, a human adenovirus injected into baboons caused retinoblastoma (cancer of the eye) in the baboons . So, it can’t be ruled out that the AZ vaccine could lead to cancer.

People don’t realize that these vaccines are vastly different from the many childhood vaccines we are now used to getting early in life. I find it shocking that the vaccine developers and the government officials across the globe are wrecklessly pushing these vaccines on an unsuspecting population. Together with Dr. Greg Nigh, I recently published a peer-reviewed paper on the technology behind the mRNA vaccines and the many potentially unknown consequences to health . Such unprecedented vaccines normally take twelve years to develop, with only a 2% success rate, but these vaccines were developed and brought to market in less than a year. As a consequence, we have no direct knowledge of any effects that the vaccines might have on our health over the long term. However, knowledge about how these vaccines work, how the immune system works and how neurodegenerative diseases come about can be brought to bear on the problem in order to predict potential devastating future consequences of the vaccines.

The mRNA in these vaccines codes for the spike protein normally synthesized by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, both the mRNA and the protein it produces have been changed from the original version in the virus with the intent to increase rate of production of the protein in an infected cell and the durability of both the mRNA and the spike protein it codes for. Additional ingredients like cationic lipids and polyethylene glycol are also toxic with unknown consequences. The vaccines were approved for emergency use based on grossly inadequate studies to evaluate safety and effectiveness.

Our paper showed that there are several mechanisms by which these vaccines could lead to severe disease, including autoimmune disease, neurodegenerative diseases, vascular disorders (hemorrhaging and blood clots) and possibly reproductive issues. There is also the risk that the vaccines will accelerate the emergence of new strains of the virus that are no longer sensitive to the antibodies produced by the vaccines. When people are immune compromised (e.g., taking chemotherapy for cancer), the antibodies they produce may not be able to keep the virus in check because the immune system is too impaired. Just as in the case of antibiotic resistance, new strains evolve within an infected immune-compromised person’s body that produce a version of the spike protein that no longer binds with the acquired antibodies. These new strains quickly come to dominate over the original strain, especially when the general population is heavily vaccinated with a vaccine that is specific to the original strain. This problem is likely going to necessitate the repeated rollout of new versions of the vaccine at periodic intervals that people will have to receive to induce yet another round of antibody production in an endless game of cat and mouse.

Like the mRNA vaccines, the DNA vaccines are based on novel biotech gene editing techniques that are brand new, so they too are a massive experiment unleashed on a huge unsuspecting population, with unknown consequences. Both DNA vector vaccines have been associated with a very rare condition called thrombocytopenia, in which platelet counts drop precipitously, resulting in system-wide blood clots and a high risk of cerebral hemorrhaging [5]. This is likely due to an autoimmune reaction to the platelets, and it comes with a high risk of mortality. In the case of the AZ vaccine, this has caused over 20 European countries to temporarily pause their vaccination programs [6]. And the United States called a temporary halt on the J&J vaccine.......


There are many reasons to be wary of the COVID-19 vaccines, which have been rushed to market with grossly inadequate evaluation and aggressively promoted to an uninformed public, with the potential for huge, irreversible, negative consequences. One potential consequence is to exhaust the finite supply of progenitor B cells in the bone marrow early in life, causing an inability to mount new antibodies to infectious agents. An even more worrisome possibility is that these vaccines, both the mRNA vaccines and the DNA vector vaccines, may be a pathway to crippling disease sometime in the future. Through the prion-like action of the spike protein, we will likely see an alarming increase in several major neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, CKD, ALS and Alzheimer’s, and these diseases will show up with increasing prevalence among younger and younger populations, in years to come. Unfortunately, we won’t know whether the vaccines caused this increase, because there will usually be a long time separation between the vaccination event and the disease diagnosis. Very convenient for the vaccine manufacturers, who stand to make huge profits off of our misfortunes — both from the sale of the vaccines themselves and from the large medical cost of treating all these debilitating diseases.

Much more here:


More inaction needed in dealing with Covid

Despite concerns about the damaging side-effects of restrictions, the public outcry for action in many countries exemplified the urge to act. We acted under the precautionary principle, that the disease was uncharacterised, and it was better to act rather than not, even though we were unsure of the efficacy of such policies. To a certain extent it’s something we are still doing now.

Our hospital and city are experiencing their first real wave of Covid cases, and therefore all staff are required to wear N95 masks, visors, and other PPE. This intervention has gone a long way to immiserating the workforce, many of whom are less than happy at the prospect. Yet despite this, many staff are sick with Covid. This is not a call to stop wearing PPE, but rather a reflection of the fact that there are limitations to our interventions, and regardless of our best intent and fastidious care, people still get sick. This is mirrored around the world where divisions of ‘Covid’ and ‘non-Covid’ areas of facilities have been shown to be arbitrary as infections spread, and, despite the best PPE, staff in these hospitals are still contracting the disease.

Similarly on the issue of vaccination, many of us had hoped this would be a sterilising vaccine, where receiving it reduces an individual’s ability to transmit the virus in a meaningful way. Sadly, this doesn’t appear to be the case. Although the vaccines go a long way to reducing morbidity and mortality in certain populations, they achieve less than we had hoped. With this in mind, the value of denying individuals entry to the public realm on the basis of vaccination status seems less pragmatic, and more moralistic. Similarly for healthcare professionals.

On issues such as border closures, Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that it is possible to keep a pandemic from the shores for a period of time, but at escalating costs. We must ask ourselves if this is worth the price. Those who are foreign-born feel this most acutely – being unable to see friends and family, including unwell relatives and attending important life events. A great deal of suffering has been caused and now we open our borders millions will catch Covid anyway, and many will die. In defence of the government measures, hopefully many fewer than would have without the vaccines. Ultimately, border closures are not a sustainable policy, and do not allow us to avoid a pandemic.

Of all these interventions, some have more merit than others, indeed, some are more justifiable than others. However, we should be honest about their limitations.

One casualty of the pandemic has been our attitude towards science and the interrogation of ideas. Sadly, it may be that the medical profession has done this to itself. By our compulsion to act, and our hubristic attitude to what we can achieve, we have perhaps been blind to our limitations. Indeed, the fact we have acted to dismiss and belittle people with concerns (some valid, some less so) about our interventions, makes us even less able to impartially appraise our recommendations.

The lack of humility not only fails to reflect our limitations, but undermines the basis upon which we practice. I fear this has only been exacerbated by making certain interventions mandatory, as it will be much harder to admit to ourselves either their limitations or side-effects, if they emerge. This will have damaging consequences to the enquiring scepticism necessary for scientific improvement.

Ultimately, after two years of aggressive interventions, it does not appear that we have a clear panacea. There has been no way to avert mass infections, no way to categorically protect ourselves, and, except for vaccinations, very few interventions with clear-cut efficacy. As health professionals, none of us truly believe that wearing masks and visors will prevent us getting Covid, and experiences from the rest of the world corroborate this.

The Covid virus is here to stay. We do not know how it will affect us in the long-run, but we should perhaps have the humility to appreciate that some of our interventions do not work as well as we would like.




Monday, March 07, 2022

Fauci’s New Actions Revealed After Seemingly Disappearing as COVID Narrative Disintegrates

The left’s favorite COVID scold, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has been conspicuously absent from the national media for the last few weeks, and the outlets he has been relegated to seem to underscore the Democrats’ new strategy on COVID.

Deservedly or not, Fauci has been the face of the Democrat response to the coronavirus, scolding Americans to give away their freedoms for “safety” from the “pandemic,” demanding that we all must be masked — with two masks, even — advocating for our jobs to be shut down and citizens to be locked in their homes and screeching for our schools to be closed. But since early in February, Fauci has gone from appearing on multiple news outlets per day to being nearly invisible to the news-viewing public.

His sudden disappearance, though, seems to coincide with the emerging realization among Democrats that their constant stream of fear porn over the coronavirus is hurting them politically, and their newly inculcated fear that their laser-like focus on draconian COVID mitigation is going to cost them during the 2022 midterm elections.

Radio host Chris Stigall, for instance, recently noted that election consultants are advising the Democrats to “declare victory over COVID and move on,” and quickly usher in a return to normalcy — and conveniently just before the 2022 elections, too.

Democrats are suddenly warning each other in private to drop further COVID restrictions, to open schools and to end mask mandates.

In light of that bubbling undercurrent in Democrat electoral plotting, Anthony Fauci has suddenly been removed from the powerhouse news outlets and has been relegated to lesser-known blogs, publications and the odd Youtube channel.

Indeed, as The Post Millennial noted, Fauci’s news section of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases website shows only one appearance in March (by March 5), and a scant 14 appearances in all of February. That is a heavy contrast to previous months. In January, for instance, the NIAID news tracker shows that Fauci made 17 appearances and he clocked a whopping 41 in December!

It certainly appears that the Democrat powers that be have decided that the celebrated doc is now a has-been that they don’t want seen by the American people.

Meanwhile, mask mandates are being dropped even by deep blue states. At the end of February, California, Oregon and Washington state all announced pullbacks on masking to various degrees, according to the Wall Street Journal. And by the beginning of February, even Biden’s homes state of Delaware told citizens that masks were no longer necessary.

The Centers for Disease Control also made an about-face and said that most people can doff the masks and added that masks in schools are not necessary.

The CDC’s new guidelines even prompted a group of researchers to urge schools to dump mask mandates for kids altogether.

The end of masking is also amusing. After all, mask zealots claim without evidence that masks “prevent” people from getting COVID, but now these same people are saying that the numbers are down, so we can throw away our masks. But if masks work, shouldn’t they want to stick with them until the numbers approach zero? Why the sudden decision to dump the masks? “Election Day” seems to be the answer to that question.

With all this just coincidentally occurring in time for the 2022 elections, the timing is suspicious, indeed.

Meanwhile, the vaunted Dr. Fauci’s star is dimming, as he appears on obscure YouTube-style channels in a desperate bid to stay relevant. One would think that appearing with an unknown left-winger on the obscure vlog called “WokeAF” is not the optimal exposure he has become used to.

In case you don’t get that title, “Woke” is clear enough, certainly, but the “AF” stands for “as f*ck.” So, now Fauci has been relegated to appearing on video channels with curse words in their title!

That is quite a fall from grace.


Time to put the Covid pandemic behind us

Comment from Australia

While we can safely rule out Vladimir Putin as a contender for this year’s Nobel peace prize, he may not yet be out of the running for the Nobel prize in medicine. After all, the invasion of Ukraine has put a stop to Covid-19, or at least the interminable conversations about a waning pandemic.

Omicron may be ripping through Australia and New Zealand somewhat faster than a fleet of Russian tanks but it presents less danger to human life and limb. Putin has presented the world with something far more frightening than a coronavirus mutation: a hostile invasion of a sovereign neighbour that may yet trigger a wider conflict.

The rains saturating the east coast have provided further distraction from the Covid dark opera. And when even The New York Times runs the headline, “Get Out of Your Pyjamas, the Pandemic is Over”, it should be time to call it quits.

International data should give us the confidence to declare that Covid-19 is in its death throes, having accomplished its mission of infecting every community on Earth, even NZ, where daily case numbers per 100,000 people last week were higher than the peaks in either Britain or the US. Thankfully, however, just like everywhere else, almost nobody is dying. The number of active cases across the world has been steadily declining since its Omicron peak in late January. The stockmarket saw it coming. Shares in Moderna and BioNTech are a quarter of the price they were in August and Pfizer has lost around 20 per cent of its value since December.

Last week, the US Senate narrowly passed a resolution to end the state of emergency. Republican senator Ron Marshall from Kansas, who introduced the measure, described it as “a symbolic victory to our citizens that normalcy is around the corner”. Mopping up the executive overreach, however, may be easier said than done.

Few in positions of authority have mustered the courage to declare the pandemic over. The deadly Wuhan virus, which prompted the World Health Organisation to declare a pandemic, is extinct. Omicron is far less deadly. Yet there appears little appetite to review the pandemic status, suggesting there are those who prefer to keep it in place. The people resisting a return to normality are generally in positions of power and influence. They have profited from the pandemic either financially or through a rise in the sense of their importance.

They include many in the mainstream media who, with some honourable exceptions, have kept their fingers on the panic button, even as the risk to public health has declined.

Two weeks ago, former deputy chief health officer Nick Coatsworth told Chris Kenny on Sky News that the Omicron variant was “clearly not” as dangerous to healthy adults and children as influenza. “If you had to give me a choice between which one I would vaccinate (my children) against, every time I would be choosing influenza over a Covid-19 vaccine,” he said. “That’s how I feel about the difference in severity between the two.”

Coatsworth’s advice was based on clinical experience and data. Yet, as Kenny reflected in The Weekend Australian the following Saturday, most of the rest of the media ignored the story. Taking away our liberties came much easier to the elite than handing them back.

Countless rules, regulations and protocols that were put in place when the risk was perceived to be rising remain in place with no prospect of any immediate review. Worse still, many of the measures were put in place without an expiry date, even though the pandemic was bound to pass.

We should have known after 9/11 that rushed measures to deal with a perceived emergency are hard to remove.

The security guards who were put in place to patrol the walkway on the Sydney Harbour Bridge have been strolling pointlessly up and down 24 hours a day for more than 20 years. No one can remember why they were put there, let alone who has the authority to stand them down, but perhaps someone should find out.

Hopefully, the mask “protocol” (not a rule or regulation) in airports and on domestic flights will be scrapped some time before 2040, but you wouldn’t put your money on it. The measure was agreed by national cabinet in January 2021 and updated in October. Transmission of the virus aboard an aircraft is far rarer than most would imagine, thanks to high-back, forward-facing seats and constant fresh air pumped through highly efficient filters. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that a scrappy mask, carelessly worn, is any more capable of stopping the Omicron variant than a hapless security guard could stop a low-flying 737. Yet the rule remains in place, serving as yet another barrier to civilised human interaction and a burden on those required to enforce it.

The absence of open debate is perhaps the most troubling restriction of all. Coatsworth is not the only person to harbour doubts about booster shots for children or whether universal booster shots, not just for the elderly or others at high risk, is a sensible or proportionate policy.

Questioning whether we really need to ostracise the unvaccinated remains a taboo even as state authorities are considering when dismissed workers could be invited back into their jobs to fill the vacancies for skilled staff in health and education.

Last week, the NZ High Court recognised the new reality by upholding an appeal by unvaccinated police and members of the NZ defence force, declaring their dismissal to be unlawful.

The court found their dismissal was not “a reasonable limit on the applicants’ rights that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. The expert advice before the court did not show that the dismissal of unvaccinated workers made “a material difference” to health outcomes in the era of Omicron.

In other words, the only justifiable redundancies are the dispensing of superfluous rules.




Sunday, March 06, 2022

Dodgy science behind British lockdown

Scientists did not have accurate Covid data when they predicted that 500,000 people could die if the UK took no action during the first wave of the pandemic.

Modelling from Professor Neil Ferguson and colleagues at Imperial College London published on March 16, 2020, predicted the NHS would be overwhelmed within weeks and a terrible death toll would arise if nothing was done to stop the spread of the disease.

Prior to the 'Report 9' paper, the Government's initial Covid strategy had been to 'mitigate' the spread and build up 'herd immunity' rather than suppress the first wave.

However, sticking to these plans – allowing the spread to continue but slowing it down with limited measures such as home isolation - would still have resulted in 250,000 deaths, according to Imperial’s mathematical model.

The stark modelling is understood to have single-handedly led to the decision to move away from herd immunity to a national lockdown on March 23.

But minutes from a SPI-M (Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling) meeting released to The Telegraph following a Freedom of Information request have shown that, a week earlier, the modellers remained 'uncertain' of case numbers 'due to data limitations'.

Modellers were still waiting for more comprehensive data on mortality from Public Health England and then best estimates on infection fatality rate, hospitalisation rates and the number of patients requiring ICU care were still uncertain.

The team is also understood to have believed that the modelling only showed 'proof of concept' that lockdowns could help deal with Covid, before warning that 'further work would be required'.

Following the release of its model, Imperial College held a press conference, followed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordering the public to avoid pubs, restaurants and non-essential social gatherings later the same day.

At the briefing, Prof Ferguson said new conclusions had been drawn as 'the last few days' had provided 'refinements' in estimates of intensive care and hospital demand.

Minutes now show, though, that SPI-M did not believe the data was complete.

The scientific paper published by Professor Ferguson and his colleagues on the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team was credited for persuading Boris Johnson's Government to ramp up their response to the coronavirus.

The paper, released on March 17, and titled Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand, predicted that the Government's original plan to 'mitigate' the outbreak instead of trying to stop it could have led to a quarter of a million people dying.

Using data from Italy and China, the scientists predicted how different Government measures would have different impacts on the outbreaks.

If no action at all had been taken against the coronavirus it would have claimed 510,000 lives, the team's report said. Had the Government stuck with their strategy of trying to 'mitigate' the spread – allowing it to continue but attempting to slow it down – with limited measures such as home isolation for those with symptoms this number would be roughly halved to 260,000.

If the strictest possible measures are introduced, the number of deaths over a two-year period will fall below 20,000, the scientists said.

Other points in the Imperial College report, titled Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand, included:

Lockdown measures could be brought back if the virus resurfaces after this epidemic is over

The coronavirus outbreak is worse than anything the world has seen since the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic

Dramatic measures to suppress an outbreak carry 'enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being'

Virus transmission happens evenly – one third of cases are caught in the home, one third at work or school, and one third elsewhere in the community

People are thought to be infectious from 12 hours before symptoms start, or from four days after catching the infection if someone doesn't get symptoms

Patients who do get symptoms are thought to be 50 per cent more infectious than those who don't

People are thought to develop at least short-term immunity after catching the virus, meaning they can't catch it again

Approximately 4.4 per cent of patients need hospital care. 30 per cent of those need intensive care, and 50 per cent of intensive care patients can be expected to die, according to data from China

The average length of a hospital stay for a coronavirus patient is 10 days – eight days for those who recover quickly; 16 days for those who need intensive care

It comes after critics earlier described the coding used by Imperial as 'totally unreliable'.

John Carmack, an American developer who helped refine the code before the paper was published online two years ago, said some parts of the code looked like they were machine translated from Fortran', an old coding language.

After growing pressure, the Imperial team released their code, which simulates homes, offices, schools and people movement, and sceptics were quick to point out it was 13 years old.

Bob Seely, MP for the Isle of Wight, today described the the modelling as 'a national scandal'

On March 17, minutes show that the Department of Health wanted to ascertain whether Prof Ferguson had referenced other papers in the Imperial model.

The following day, both Imperial and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) were asked to renew their models ahead of a Sage meeting scheduled later the same day in which the idea of London-only lockdown would be reviewed due to rising cases.

Data continued to be uncertain throughout the remainder of the year, the minutes show, and on September 23 members said 'operational issues' with NHS Test and Trace had caused further problems and made it 'difficult to interpret trends in the data, and added further uncertainty to the modelling'.

They also show that NHS England was 'unwilling' to share timelines for the vaccine rollout, resulting in difficulty modelling the impact of the jab, while the following week modellers raised concerns over how different data streams were 'presenting conflicting messages' on how Covid was changing.

And models used by the Government for Covid Freedom Day on June 21 last year did not include the most recent figures on vaccine efficacy or Public Health England's weekly vaccine surveillance report.

Prof Ferguson described in December how he had become 'something of a marmite figure' as he admitted he 'made mistakes' and 'oversimplified things' during the pandemic.

The epidemiologist said while it had been challenging for most Western governments to act in a timely manner the science throughout the crisis 'had basically been right'.

However, he admitted he had 'made mistakes for which he apologised for'.

Prof Ferguson resigned from the government's scientific advisory group (SAGE) last year after claims emerged that Antonia Staats visited him at home - in breach of lockdown rules.

Imperial College said its team was 'always open about the uncertainty' of its modelling - especially during the early stages of Covid.

The modellers had been quick to raise concern about outbreaks in care homes and hospitals, while members agreed that 'transmission in healthcare is a significant contributor to cases in hospitals' and required further attention.

And speaking on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Prof Ferguson said: ''I think the science we have done throughout this pandemic has basically been right, not absolutely every aspect but basically most of it.

'I suppose I didn't anticipate becoming the public figure I suppose I now am, something of a marmite figure if you put it like that.

He added: 'Half a million was if we did nothing at all which was never going to happen but quarter of a million was if we did plan B, if we just tried to flatten the curve.

'There, the point is, to give the population an assessment of the potential level of threat and in some sense the reason for doing that is to explain the need for certain measures.'




Friday, March 04, 2022

Scientists seek to solve mystery of why some people do not catch Covid

Despite quite a bit of exposure, I have had no Covid symptoms, so I may be one of those mentioned below. I do generally have a very good immune system. With a bit of a nudge it even wiped out some stomach cancer. I have had two AstraZenica shots but we know that vaccines are all but useless against Omicron

Phoebe Garrett has attended university lectures without catching Covid; she even hosted a party where everyone subsequently tested positive except her. “I think I’ve knowingly been exposed about four times,” the 22-year-old from High Wycombe said.

In March 2021, she participated in the world’s first Covid-19 challenge trial, which involved dripping live virus into her nose and pegging her nostrils shut for several hours, in a deliberate effort to infect her. Still her body resisted.

“We had multiple rounds of tests, and different methods of testing: throat swabs, nose swabs, other types of swabs that I’d never done before like nasal wicks – where you hold a swab in your nose for a minute – as well as blood tests, but I never developed symptoms, never tested positive,” Garrett said. “My mum has always said that our family never gets flu, and I’ve wondered if there’s maybe something behind that.”

Most people know someone who has stubbornly resisted catching Covid, despite everyone around them falling sick. Precisely how they do this remains a mystery, but scientists are beginning to find some clues.

The hope is that identifying these mechanisms could lead to the development of drugs that not only protect people from catching Covid, but also prevent them from passing it on.

Garrett is not the only challenge trial participant to have avoided becoming infected. Of the 34 who were exposed to the virus, 16 failed to develop an infection (defined as two consecutive positive PCR tests) – although around half of them transiently tested positive for low levels of the virus, often several days after exposure.

Possibly, this was a reflection of the immune system rapidly shutting down an embryonic infection. “In our previous studies with other viruses, we have seen early immune responses in the nose that are associated with resisting infection,” said Prof Christopher Chiu at Imperial College London, who led the study. “Together, these findings imply that there is a struggle between the virus and host, which in our ‘uninfected’ participants results in prevention of infection taking off.”

Some of them also reported some mild symptoms, such as a stuffy nose, sore throat, tiredness, or headache – although, since these commonly occur in everyday life, they may have been unrelated to virus exposure.

“Either way, levels of the virus didn’t climb high enough to trigger detectable levels of antibodies, T cells or inflammatory factors in the blood that are usually associated with symptoms,” Chiu said.

Other studies also suggest it is possible to shake off Covid during the earliest stages of infection, before it establishes a proper foothold. For instance, during the first wave of the pandemic, Dr Leo Swadling at University College London and colleagues intensively monitored a group of healthcare workers who were regularly exposed to infected patients, but who never tested positive or developed antibodies themselves. Blood tests revealed that around 15% of them had T cells reactive against Sars-CoV-2, plus other markers of viral infection.

Possibly, memory T-cells from previous coronavirus infections – ie those responsible for common colds – cross-reacted with the new coronavirus and protected them from Covid.

Understanding how frequently people abort nascent Covid infections in the era of Omicron is complicated because it requires intensive testing – for the virus, antibodies, T cells and other markers of infection – and because so many people have been vaccinated.

“It is likely vaccinated individuals are exposed to the virus, and block viral replication and detectable infection more commonly,” Swadling said.

There is also no commercially available test that can distinguish between immunity triggered by vaccination and the different variants – so unless a person has recently tested positive, it is almost impossible to know if they have been exposed to Omicron or not.

Seasonal coronaviruses may not be the only source of cross-protective immune responses. Prof Cecilia Söderberg-Nauclér, an immunologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, began investigating this possibility, after Sweden avoided being overwhelmed by cases during the pandemic’s first wave, despite its light-touch approach to restrictions. Mathematical modelling by her colleague, Marcus Carlsson at Lund University, suggested this pattern of infections could only be explained if a large proportion of people had some kind of protective immunity.

Her team scoured databases of protein sequences from existing viruses, hunting for small segments (peptides) resembling those from the new coronavirus, to which antibodies were likely to bind. When they identified a six-amino acid peptide in a protein from H1N1 influenza that matched a crucial part of the coronavirus spike protein, “I almost fell out of my chair,” Söderberg-Nauclér said.

They have since discovered antibodies to this peptide in up to 68% of blood donors from Stockholm. The research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, could suggest that immune responses triggered by H1N1 influenza – which was responsible for the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic – and possibly related subsequent strains, may equip people with partial, though not complete, protection against Covid-19. “It provides a cushion, but it won’t protect you if an infected person coughs in your face,” Söderberg-Nauclér said.

A small proportion of people may even be genetically resistant to Covid-19. In October, an international consortium of researchers launched a global hunt to find some of them, in the hope of identifying protective genes.

“We are not looking for common gene variants that provide modest protection against infection, what we are looking for is potentially very rare gene variants that completely protect someone against infection,” said Prof András Spaan at the Rockefeller University in New York, who is leading the research.

They are particularly interested in people who shared a home and bed with an infected person, and avoided infection themselves. “For instance, the other day I was talking to an elderly lady from the Netherlands, who took care of her husband during the first wave. The husband was eventually admitted to the ICU, but she spent the week before taking care of him, sharing the same room, and without access to face masks,” said Spaan. “We cannot explain why she did not get infected.”

Such resistance is known to exist for other diseases, including HIV, malaria, and norovirus. In these cases, a genetic defect means some people lack a receptor used by the pathogen to enter cells, so they cannot be infected. “It could well be that, in some individuals, there is such a defect in a receptor used by Sars-CoV-2,” Spaan said.

Identifying such genes could lead to the development of new treatments for Covid-19, in the same way that the identification of CCR5 receptor defects in HIV-resistant people has led to new ways of treating HIV.

Spaan thinks it is unlikely that the majority of those who have avoided Covid are genetically resistant, even if they have some partial immune protection. This means there is no guarantee they will not eventually become infected – as Garrett found out in late January. Having dodged the virus for almost two years, she was shocked when a routine lateral flow test produced an ominous second red line. Shortly afterwards, she developed mild Covid symptoms, but has since recovered.

The irony is that, having avoided catching Covid from close family, friends and in a specialist medical laboratory, it was probably a relative stranger who infected her. “I have no idea where I got it from; it could have been someone in my local choir, or maybe from the gym,” she said.


Time to Defund Vaccine and Mask Mandates

President Biden has declared victory over COVID. Congress should take him at his word and defund all of the vaccine and mask mandates now.

Just two weeks ago, Congress received 25 million emails urging them to defund the vaccine mandates in the Continuing Resolution to fund the government. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to do the job by voting 46-47 against a Senator Mike Lee vaccine mandate defund amendment and 44–49 against a separate amendment to defund mask requirements by Senator Ted Cruz.

The vaccine mandate defund amendment lost because four GOP Senators, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, James Inhofe and Richard Burr chose to miss the vote.

Now, with every member of Congress able to be in the Capitol mask free as Democratic pollsters cry to their clients that they need to get beyond COVID for their political survival in November, defunding the enforcement of President Biden’s vaccine mandates in the upcoming Omnibus funding bill must be a Congressional priority.

Even the far left Fairfax County School District, where many federal bureaucrats send their children, have ended their mask requirements. The Washington, D.C. government, a vanguard of wokeness, has ended their draconian vaccine passport policy that prevented the unvaccinated from eating in restaurants or going into hotels, even as they were allowed to work in those same establishments.

But unless Congress defunds the enforcement of the regulations and Executive Orders mandating vaccinations, these onerous restrictions will linger in our health care systems, military, federal civil service and defense contractors like the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of employees.

The enforcement of many of these edicts remains unresolved in the federal Courts but the threat to people’s livelihoods will remain so long as the regulations and Executive Orders remain on the books unless Congress defangs them through refusing to provide funding for their enforcement.

This should not be controversial. With Democrats desperate to move on from COVID, there should not be a single vote in the House or Senate against Congress asserting their rightful power of the purse by ending funding for the enforcement of these mandates. Not one.

As rare as it might be, this is one time when both those who supported and opposed the mandates should be able to agree that they should be ripped out by the roots rather than being left on the books like dangling live electrical wires waiting to shock unsuspecting passersby who inadvertently brush up against them.

At this time in history, we need every health care worker working. We need every member of our armed services ready to jump into action. We need our federal contractors planning to potentially ramp up production of military equipment and materiel. What we don’t need is for leaders in these areas to worry about the application of arbitrary and out-of-date health rules. We don’t need those who work in these fields looking over their shoulders out of concern for their livelihood due to their religious or health-related choice to not get vaccinated.




Thursday, March 03, 2022

Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Goes Into Liver Cells and Is Converted to DNA: Study

Confession: I scoffed when I heard early claims that Covid vaccine alters your DNA. It seems that reality beats the improbable as far as the Pfizer vaccine is concerned. I am glad I had the more conventional AstraZenica shot, not available in the USA due to pressure from America's Big Pharma.

The academic journal article is here. The study was of "in vitro" liver cells but cells elsewhere would presumably be similarly affected. The big question is how extensive such effects are

The messenger RNA (mRNA) from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA, according to Swedish researchers at Lund University.

The researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA.

The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA.

Reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus.

“In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro,” the researchers wrote in the study, published in Current Issues of Molecular Biology. “BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 [hours] after BNT162b2 exposure.”

BNT162b2 is another name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that is marketed under the brand name Comirnaty.

The whole process occurred rapidly within six hours. The vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen.

“The genetic material delivered by mRNA vaccines never enters the nucleus of your cells,” the CDC said on its web page titled “Myths and Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines.”

This is the first time that researchers have shown in vitro or inside a petri dish how an mRNA vaccine is converted into DNA on a human liver cell line, and is what health experts and fact-checkers said for over a year couldn’t occur.

The CDC says that the “COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way,” claiming that all of the ingredients in both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (administered in the United States) are discarded from the body once antibodies are produced. These vaccines deliver genetic material that instructs cells to begin making spike proteins found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 to produce an immune response.

Pfizer didn’t comment on the findings of the Swedish study and said only that its mRNA vaccine does not alter the human genome.

“Our COVID-19 vaccine does not alter the DNA sequence of a human cell,” a Pfizer spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “It only presents the body with the instructions to build immunity.”

More than 215 million or 64.9 percent of Americans are fully vaccinated as of Feb. 28, with 94 million having received a booster dose.

The Swedish study also found spike proteins expressed on the surface of the liver cells that researchers say may be targeted by the immune system and possibly cause autoimmune hepatitis, as “there [have] been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis after BNT162b2 vaccination.”

The authors of the first reported case of a healthy 35-year-old female who developed autoimmune hepatitis a week after her first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine said that there is a possibility that “spike-directed antibodies induced by vaccination may also trigger autoimmune conditions in predisposed individuals” as it has been shown that “severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection are characterized by an autoinflammatory dysregulation that contributes to tissue damage,” which the virus’s spike protein appears to be responsible for.

Spike proteins may circulate in the body after an infection or injection with a COVID-19 vaccine. It was assumed that the vaccine’s spike protein would remain mostly at the injection site and last up to several weeks like other proteins produced in the body. But studies are showing that is not the case.

The Japanese regulatory agency’s biodistribution study (pdf) of the Pfizer vaccine showed that some of the mRNAs moved from the injection site and through the bloodstream, and were found in various organs such as the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries of rats 48 hours following injection.

In a different study, the spike proteins made in the body after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot have been found on tiny membrane vesicles called exosomes—that mediate cell-to-cell communication by transferring genetic materials to other cells—for at least four months after the second vaccine dose.

The persistence of the spike protein in the body “raises the prospect of sustained inflammation within and damage to organs which express the spike protein,” according to experts at Doctors for COVID Ethics, an organization consisting of physicians and scientists “seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety, and human rights in response to COVID-19.”

“As long as the spike protein can be detected on cell-derived membrane vesicles, the immune system will be attacking the cells that release these vesicles,” they said.

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, wrote on Twitter that the Swedish study’s findings have “enormous implications of permanent chromosomal change and long-term constitutive spike synthesis driving the pathogenesis of a whole new genre of chronic disease.”

Whether the findings of the study will occur in living organisms or if the DNA converted from the vaccine’s mRNA will integrate with the cell’s genome is unknown. The authors said more investigations are needed, including in whole living organisms such as animals, to better understand the potential effects of the mRNA vaccine.

“At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination,” the authors said.


Explaining vaccine rejection

The 2020–2022 pandemic split parties and ideologues, separated friend from friend and family members from family members. Neighbors were dangerous, and strangers even more so: the invisible enemy stalking our lands overturned every other concern in life: The conflicts it spurred replaced bonds of affection with fear and hatred.

More than ever, we need calm and level-headed thinkers, honest and willing to admit past errors, with eyes wide open for the corruption of industry or government itself. In other words, we need as little politics as humanly possible. As I wrote in a previous piece: we need “people without a clear ideological position, and who can thus appeal to audiences across the political spectrum.”

Two sane figures recently attempted the impossible: to speak calmly to the other side, trying earnestly to explain what happened—Konstantin Kisin, of the popular show Triggernometry, and Columbia sociology professor Musa al-Gharbi.

Kisin begins his monologue with “You’re struggling to understand why some people are vaccine hesitant. Let me help you.”

He uses no study result, no appeal to the biological effect of the drug that has become the main symbol of the Covid conflict; no death rates or R0; no projection of spread or what number of lives lockdowns may or may not have saved. Instead Kisin, for 13 spellbinding minutes, walks us through the many good reasons that people had—before and during Covid—to distrust the elites in politics, business, and media. If this is a question of (dis)trusting the establishment (including “the” Science), you must ask what the establishment did to no longer deserve that trust.

The tale begins years ago, with the Brexit vote and with the election of Donald Trump. Those events shocked the pompous leaders of the universities, the pollsters who confidently said it wouldn’t happen, the media pundits who so convincingly described to us the madness of such prospects.

For a brief moment after the unthinkable had happened, if you recall, there was an earnest desire for inclusivity—for inviting in the views that had gone overlooked in the other half of these countries. Outlets like the New York Times made an effort to portray conservative views and show the kinds of people who had long felt alienated and ostracized from civilized society. As despicable and difficult it was for their core audience to see, revealing perspectives and objections is better than silencing and hiding them.

The efforts didn’t last long and in 2019 and 2020, the monolithic thoughts that dominate these institutions willingly put their blinders on—tighter and more aggressively than before.

Kisin’s final minute is the most powerful thing in these disease-ridden past two years:

“The same people who told you Brexit would never happen; Trump would never win, and that when he did win, it was because of Russian collusion, then because of racism; that you must follow lockdown rules while they don’t; that masks don’t work and then that they do; that protests during lockdowns are a health intervention; that ransacking black communities in the name of fighting racism is mostly peaceful justice; that Jussie Smollett was the victim of a hate crime; that men are toxic; that there’s an infinite number of genders; that Covid didn’t come from a lab, and then that it probably did; that closing borders is racist, and then that it’s the most important thing to do; that the Hunter Biden story is Russian disinformation, and then that it’s not; that they would not take Trump’s vaccine, and then that you must take the vaccine; that Governor Cuomo is a great Covid leader, and then that he’s a granny killer and a sex pest; that the number of Covid deaths is one thing and then another; that hospitals are filled with Covid patients, and then that many of them caught Covid in hospital.

These are the same people now telling you that the vaccines are safe, you must take it, and if you don’t you will be a second-class citizen.

Understand vaccine hesitancy now?”




Wednesday, March 02, 2022

Russian Invasion Turns to Terrorism as Civilians and Landmarks Targeted

I am very pro-Russian. I am as pro-Russian as I once was anti-Soviet. I have several Russian-speaking friends. But it is clear that the invasion of Ukraine has no moral justification.

But it does have a pragmatic justifiation. Adding Ukraine's great natural resources to those of Russia itself would make Russia an economic world power as well as a military one. It would give Russia power over Europe and many other places as well. Supplying or witholding things like coal, gas and aluminium would become conditional on Russia's approval and would make a strong lever to force policies that Russia wants.

But in this day and age moral consciousness is at a high level and without that the consent of the governed will be absent. And it seems clear that Ukrainians as a whole will not bow to Russia. That intransigence exists despite the great similarities between the two countries. Even the Ukrainian language is just a dialect of Russian.

Ukrainians have always been disapproving of Russia for little reason. They resemble the attitudes of Canadians to the USA and New Zealanders to Australia. Or Scots to England. Big brother is resented

Such attiudes normally matter little but in the Ukrainian case they have come to the fore during the invasion and have energized resistance to any attempt at conquest by Russia. Russia cannot now succeed in gaining control.

Putin is being made to look a fool, and he’s taking his frustration out on the innocent people of Ukraine.

As the Russian military continues to flounder in their pursuit of toppling the democratic nation of Ukraine, it appears as though they are also turning far more desperate as well.

First and foremost, a vast number of Russian troops appear to have been tricked by the Kremlin into even participating in the invasion in the first place, with a great number of captured soldiers being extremely young and also of the belief that they were simply heading to Belarus for training. This has led to mass desertions in the ranks, and has snarled the Russian military’s supply chain logistics.

And then there are the harrowing tales of Ukrainian bravery, in which the once-feared Russian army has been made to look soft and weak.

Vladimir Putin, a man who despises being considered soft or weak has now commenced a campaign of terror in Ukraine, bombing landmarks and targeting civilians.

Russian missiles and rockets have hit the cultural heart of Ukraine’s second largest city in what officials said was a deadly and “cruel” attack.

An opera house, concert hall and government offices were hit in Freedom Square, in the centre of the north-eastern city Kharkiv.

At least 10 people were killed and 35 more were injured, local authorities have said.

Leaders in the region were quick to condemn Putin’s horrific tactics.

The attack came as Ukraine’s president said Russia was committing war crimes.

“This is the price of freedom,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said. “This is terror against Ukraine. There were no military targets in the square – nor are they in those residential districts of Kharkiv which come under rocket artillery fire,” he added.

And, even more condemnable were reports of the bombing of Babyn Yar – the site of a horrific massacre of Jews by the Nazis in World War II, which has since been turned into a memorial site in Ukraine.


Covid vaccines offer almost NO protection against infection for young children just weeks after their second dose, top Australian expert warns

An Australian Covid expert has warned new data shows the Pfizer vaccine offers very little protection against infection for young children.

New York Health Department researchers found the two-dose Pfizer shot was only 12 percent effective at preventing Omicron infection in children aged five to 11 after only a month.

Protection against catching the virus was about 67 per cent after the second jab, but dropped rapidly by 28 to 34 days.

Australian National University professor Peter Collignon discussed the results on his social media, noting the vaccine's ineffectiveness against the dominant strain.

'While protection against hospitalisation is still strong, the vaccine offered almost no protection against infection, even just a month after full vaccination,' he wrote.

ATAGI recommends everyone five or older get a Covid vaccine - with only Pfizer available for those under five, and both Moderna and Pfizer for six to 11.

New York researchers gathered data 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 and 365,502 aged five to 11 for the study.

The study, which is pre-print and pending peer-review, gathered data from the Omicron period of the pandemic, from December 2021 and January 2022.

Participants in the study were followed up with and compared to general figures from unvaccinated populations.

Pfizer's effectiveness at preventing infection dropped from 66 per cent to 51 per cent in older children when up against the Omicron variant - and in younger children dropped from 67 per cent to just 12 per cent.

The most dramatic difference in numbers was noted between 11 and 12-year-olds in the week leading up to January 30 where those aged 12 had 67 per cent protection and those aged 11 had just 11 per cent protection.

'The difference between the two age groups is striking,' Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, said.

One major difference between the study groups is the dosage of the vaccine. Children aged 12 and older receive a 30 microgram shot, but only 10 micrograms for the five to 11 age group.

'This is super interesting because it would almost suggest that it's the dose that makes the difference. The question is how to fix that,' Dr Krammer said.

The findings have far reaching implications on the use of the vaccines, and whether parents will want to get their children jabbed.

Children do not suffer much of a risk from the virus, with hospitalizations and deaths being especially rare.

The main argument in favor of vaccinating them is to prevent them from spreading the virus, though these findings imply that the vaccine does little to prevent that.

The Omicron variant, though causing less severe symptoms, is far more contagious and more children were hospitalised during this wave than at any other point in the pandemic.

As well as illness directly from Covid, there is growing evidence of associated conditions that can appear weeks after infection.

A study from Italy showed a link to severe gastrointestinal illness in children 4-6 weeks after infection, while in the US more than 7,000 children have been diagnosed with multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a rare but serious condition.

While the Omicron wave has largely subsided, experts agree more Covid variants will appear.

Pfizer and BioNTech are testing a third vaccine dose in children aged 5 to 11 based on a third dose significantly improving immune system response in adults against Omicron.

Several labs around the world are also working on a pan-sarbecovirus vaccine - a single dose vaccine to protect against all future variants of Covid.




Tuesday, March 01, 2022

The CDC — which is withholding information — has a hidden agenda

By Marty Makary, MD, MPH (a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine)

People say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a messaging problem. But the CDC’s problem is not messaging — it’s issuing flawed guidance while covering up the data.

Case in point: pushing boosters for young people.

After the Food and Drug Administration inexplicably bypassed its expert advisory committee to authorize boosters for all young people, the CDC director overruled her own experts’ down vote of the boosters-for-all proposal. That’s the magic of a call from the White House. Two top FDA officials, including the agency’s vaccine center head, quit over White House pressure to authorize boosters for the young.

But after the FDA and CDC rammed through the recommendation, they made sure the public wouldn’t see the real-world data. Despite repeated pleas to release all its data, the CDC only posted stats on boosters in people over age 50.

What have they been hiding? As a proxy, let’s take a look at what the CDC just published on people 50 to 65: For the fully vaccinated, the booster reduces the risk of COVID death from 4 per million to 1 per million. Who are those three helped by a booster? They’re not healthy people. One study of breakthrough hospitalizations found 75% had at least four comorbidities.

So the three people age 50 to 65 per million saved by a booster are almost certainly immunosuppressed individuals, a subgroup for whom boosters have long been recommended. Of course, the CDC doesn’t disclose what medical conditions those few who died had — it only has 21,000 employees to collect that information.

We once again have to look overseas for reliable data. An Israeli population study in the New England Journal of Medicine compared boosted vs. nonboosted people with the primary vaccine series. The risk of COVID death among nonboosted people under age 30 was zero — the same as it was among boosted.

A note for college administrators enforcing booster mandates: You can’t reduce a mortality risk of zero any lower with a booster.

The CDC claims it didn’t release booster data because it feared the information would be misinterpreted. No, it’s because the stats don’t support its agenda. Yet public health officials continue to beclown themselves by demanding all Americans over age 12 get boosted.

Most of the media have fallen for it. Throughout the pandemic, the New York Times and other outlets have only sourced doctors on the establishment groupthink bandwagon, dangled fear to young people and blindly amplified every edict government doctors fed without asking questions, just as the press did with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

We’ve seen medical bandwagon thinking hurt us before. The dogma that COVID spreads by surface transmission, children must be shut out of school and the barbaric separation of Americans from their dying loved ones. Our public health leaders continue to make critical mistakes and affirm each other with groupthink while journalists give them a megaphone to broadcast their agenda, unchecked, failing to ask basic questions, like: Where’s the supporting data? What’s the incidence of myocarditis after a booster in young people?

This week, one Times reporter finally picked up on what many of us have been saying about the CDC’s deception.

Similarly, the CDC put out two highly flawed studies to promote mask mandates. Now the last people in America required to cover their faces are children, waiters, waitresses, servers, and staff — people who are powerless.

The American people are hungry for honesty. They see the inequity of COVID policies and want the data straight, not politically curated by a small group of like-minded scientists.

If I were advising President Biden, I would tell him the CDC needs to restore public trust by making all its data available to researchers in real time. It’s time we end secret data laboratories in government.

The American people realize public health officials have been lying to them. A response to a national health emergency should warrant more data transparency, not less.


Natural Immunity Denialism Responsible for Needless COVID-19 Discrimination, Job Losses

In a superb opinion piece in The Hill on Feb. 3, Drs. Jeffrey Klausner and Noah Kojima lauded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for finally recognizing that naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19 is superior to that induced through vaccination.

That was the undeniable conclusion of a study conducted in California and New York.

Understandably, as medical professionals, the authors did not take the extra step of blaming the CDC for nearly two years of botched policy.

Instead, they explained that the new report “finally acknowledges what many have suspected for a long time—that surviving COVID-19 provides excellent natural immunity not only [to] repeat infection, but also to hospitalization and death for the delta variant of COVID-19.”

Klausner and Kojima are too generous. The scientific fact of naturally acquired immunity has not merely been “suspected” for some time. It was well-established through numerous rigorous, large-scale studies, including—but not limited to—one from the Cleveland Clinic (last June), another from Israel (last August), and a third from Qatar (last December), all of which confirm what humans have known for centuries; namely, recovering from a viral infection confers (often long-lasting) immunity.

Instead of incorporating this incontrovertible evidence into its COVID-19 vaccination guidance and recommending that recovered individuals should be exempt from mandates, for months the CDC doubled down on its false mantra that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to that following recovery from the virus, so everyone should get the vaccine.

It has done this through sleight of hand. Because vaccination may slightly elevate the levels of antibodies in COVID-19-recovered individuals for a brief period, the agency has run misleading headlines, claiming that certain studies prove even the naturally immune should get the vaccine.

But as many scientists have noted, this transient antibody boosting does not necessarily equate to a clinical benefit. In other words, it may not result in more robust immunity, and regardless, any increase is negligible.

Furthermore, the insistence upon recommending vaccination in this context does not account for potential adverse side effects.

Many naturally immune individuals—especially younger people—may reasonably conclude that the risk of, for example, myocarditis outweighs any marginal benefit for them.

The CDC’s refusal to change its stance despite voluminous evidence has led to real-world harm.

First, it has negatively impacted millions of naturally immune people in the United States because employers and governments enforcing mandates have refused to exempt them from vaccine requirements.

Many individuals with naturally acquired immunity lost their jobs, suffered discrimination, or suffered mental distress as a result of being coerced into receiving an unnecessary medical procedure.

These ill-conceived policies have, in a sick irony, led some states to permit health care workers currently infected with COVID-19 to treat patients, due to employee shortages resulting from termination of workers who declined the vaccine—many of whom possess natural immunity and thus were safer employees to have around.

Second, the CDC’s inexplicable natural immunity denialism has sown distrust in public health.

Americans caught on to the deceptive tactics that the agency was wielding in its push to vaccinate everyone.

As a lawyer challenging vaccine mandates in court, I speak to many individuals who have naturally acquired immunity and legitimate concerns about receiving the vaccine unnecessarily.

For instance, one young man about 30 years of age, who had been vaccinated in the spring, then caught COVID-19 in December. His employer, New York University, insisted that he get the booster.

Given his age and the potential myocarditis risk, along with his recent recovery, he determined that a booster was not in his interests. He faces loss of a job he worked hard for years to obtain.

Just days ago, Paul Offit, one of the country’s most zealous vaccine advocates, described the CDC’s meeting in which the decision was made to recommend that natural immunity not be recognized as equivalent to that attained through vaccination.

Offit explained that this approach, at odds with the science, was advocated for by Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins and was “bureaucratic more than anything else.”

Perhaps Fauci and Collins did not foresee the social and economic upheaval that would result from their natural immunity denialism.

Regardless, their refusal to follow the science and the elevation of bureaucratic concerns above all else have greatly diminished the public’s trust.

If the CDC is to have any chance of recovering its reputation and credibility, it must acknowledge its error immediately, recommend that anyone who has COVID-19 antibodies be exempt from any vaccine mandates, apologize to the American people (especially those who have lost their jobs) for what it has done to them, and encourage employers to hire back employees (and schools to reenroll students) with natural immunity.

Employers and others must stop treating nonbinding guidance as gospel. As the CDC has proven, agencies are fallible.




For the notes and pix appearing in the sidebar of the original blog see HERE

Most pictures that I use in the body of the blog should stay up throughout the year. But how long they stay up after that is uncertain. At the end of every year therefore I intend to put up a collection of all pictures used my blogs in that year. That should enable missing pictures to be replaced. The archive of last year's pictures on this blog is therefore now up. Note that the filename of the picture is clickable and clicking will bring the picture up. See here (2021). See also here (2020)

My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal); My Home page supplement; My Alternative Wikipedia; My Blogroll; Menu of my longer writings; My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;

Email me (John Ray) here.