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 October, 2022

CDC Officials Told They Spread Misinformation but Still Didn’t Issue Correction

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials were alerted that they spread misinformation about child COVID-19 deaths but still did not issue corrections, according to emails obtained by The Epoch Times.

Drs. Katherine Fleming-Dutra and Sara Oliver were told within days of presenting to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, in June that statistics from a preprint study they shared were wrong, the emails show. But after internal discussion about how to respond, neither the CDC nor the officials corrected the false information.

Fleming-Dutra and Oliver both referenced the study, which has not been peer reviewed, while the CDC’s advisers weighed whether to recommend the agency grant emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines for babies and toddlers.

The committee ultimately recommended the CDC authorize Pfizer and Moderna shots for children as young as 6 months of age and the CDC quickly accepted the recommendation.

A week later, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky appeared to cite the false statistics while urging parents to get their children vaccinated, despite no evidence the vaccines protect against severe illness and despite the clinical trials returning substandard or unreliable results for shielding against infection.

Kelley Krohnert, a citizen researcher and mother who flagged the preprint, triggered the internal discussions among CDC officials, according to the emails. When Krohnert pointed Fleming-Dutra to a blog post that detailed the issues with the study, Fleming-Dutra sent the email to others, including Oliver.

“I am not sure who this should go through. Let me know what I need to do,” Fleming-Dutra said.

Megan Freedman, a CDC health communications specialist, looped in a CDC spokeswoman, and they informed Fleming-Dutra that she and other subject matter experts “would need to determine if there’s any validity to the complaint.” If the complaint was deemed valid, possible next steps might include pulling the slide or adding a footnote, Freedman said.

Oliver jumped in, saying that Krohnert “appears [redacted], but there are my thoughts.” Her thoughts were redacted.

“I’m sure you guys can make it sound prettier, but something like this would be how I would respond,” Oliver said. “And the general sentiment that ‘even 1 death from COVID that’s preventable is too many, regardless of how you count them.'”

There’s no evidence any of the COVID-19 vaccines prevent death for small children.

“Love it – thank you for sending!!!” Freedman said.

A separate thread started after the Washington Post forwarded Krohnert’s email over a Post article that said COVID-19 is “a leading cause of death” among children. The article still links to Fleming-Dutra’s slide, which in turn referenced the preprint.

Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, sent the email to Fleming-Dutra, who forwarded it to Oliver.

“Kristen: [redacted]. Hope that helps?” Oliver replied.

“Thanks Sara! [redacted]. And really, I think the bottom line (which lots of ACIP members said today) is any death in a child (regardless of where it ranks on a list) is one too many,” Nordlund replied.

Dr. Jeffrey Duchin, health officer in Washington state’s Seattle and King counties, sent a link to Krohnert’s blog post to Oliver, Fleming-Dutra, and two CDC advisers, Drs. Matthew Daley—who also shared the misinformation—and Grace Lee.

“Great work today, as always. No doubt you’ve seen this and similar critiques of the mortality data presented. Will there be a response from CDC?” Duchin asked.


Seth Flaxman, a professor in Oxford University’s Department of Computer Science, and other researchers corrected the preprint after Krohnert flagged the issues to them. Their paper relied on death certificate statistics from the CDC. They initially said at least 1,433 deaths among people 19 and younger in the United States were attributed to COVID-19, but acknowledged in the updated version that the number was just 1,088.

The initial version “incorrectly used” the death certificate data, the authors said.

That sent the rank of COVID-19 among causes of death for children down. For infants under 1, for instance, it went from fifth to eighth.

Months later, Fleming-Dutra’s slide remains uncorrected, and nobody at the CDC has ever publicly acknowledged sharing the misinformation.

Fleming-Dutra, Oliver, Freedman, Nordlund, Daley, and the CDC did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for Duchin’s agency told The Epoch Times via email that the CDC replied to him in June.

The CDC “noted that the ACIP considers a multitude of data points in making their recommendations, so even if this specific pre-print paper was removed from consideration, the data overwhelmingly support COVID-19 as a cause of serious disease and death in young children, and COVID vaccines as an important way to prevent this,” the spokesperson said. “These ACIP decisions are made after reviewing the totality of the data and it is never one singular data point or analysis used.”

A spokesperson for the Stanford University School of Medicine, which employs Lee, declined to comment.

Lee promoted the false statistics during a meeting in September, and the official webpage for the committee she heads still lists the uncorrected figures. A spokesperson for the panel did not return an inquiry.

The Epoch Times obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request.

‘Very Strange’

The confirmation that the CDC officials were made aware of spreading misinformation but did nothing is “super frustrating,” Krohnert said.

“They had all this internal discussion about the criticism and still the CDC director gets on TV and spouts the same criticized data,” she told The Epoch Times. “And at that point, Flaxman even said he was going to be updating their report.”

None of the CDC officials have ever replied to Krohnert.

The analysis from the British researchers utilized CDC data. It took Krohnert under an hour to run the same numbers. The Epoch Times also examined the data on the CDC’s site, corroborating Krohnert’s analysis. It’s unclear why the CDC scientists didn’t do the same.

“I don’t understand why they don’t seem to know how to use their own resources,” Krohnert said. “It’s very strange.”


PARIS: A prominent French physician has won a stunning victory against charges that he denigrated official covid policies, with the French Order of Physicians holding that he was in fact obliged to speak out.

In its ruling, the French governing body for doctors found that Christian Perronne, 67, acted in the best interest of citizens and his profession in critiquing covid treatments and vaccines on social media, in national television interviews, and in a best-selling book.

“Dr. Perronne, an internationally recognized expert in the field of infectious diseases, was best placed to understand public health issues,” the translated decision stated. “If he spoke in the press about the action of the government and the pharmaceutical industry—as he was legitimate to do and even had the obligation to do so in this area which fell within his competence—he confined himself to publicly, but without invective, a discordant voice on a subject of general interest.”

In March 2020, as covid was exploding, Perronne emailed me a hugely encouraging study by Dr. Didier Raoult on successful treatment of covid with an old antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine. We both thought covid could quickly be tamed. But when President Trump “fast-tracked” the drug a day after my article on, the safe, generic treatment began a slow and tragic slide toward mainstream ridicule and rejection.

Perronne went on to sharply criticize the French government’s covid approach, including in a highly successful book entitled Is there a mistake THEY didn’t make?: COVID-19: the sacred union of incompetence and arrogance. The book, and statements Perronne made in a whirlwind of media interviews, soon got him into trouble with French medical authorities, which he believes was at the behest of French President Emmanuel Macron.

“At the beginning I understood things were going in the wrong way,” Perronne told me. Having served for a decade as overseer, variously, of the nation’s communicable disease, health security, and vaccine review commissions, “I think I knew how to manage such problems.”

Among Perronne’s other qualifications, he was vice president of the European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization for six years, which provides independent review and expertise on vaccines for the World Health Organization.

The Inquisition

Ten days before the ruling that absolved him, Perronne and I met for an interview in a Paris home, where my hostess, a retired physician, had read Perronne’s book, and a neighbor happily recognized him on the street as he was arriving. Perronne was facing the loss of his license to practice medicine based on complaints both by the Order of Physicians and an independent doctor who felt he had been attacked by Perronne.

Leading up to the charges, Perronne had found himself transformed. He had once been an esteemed public health expert, member of the infectious diseases faculty at the University of Versailles at Saint-Quentin, and one-time president of a professional society of infectious disease experts. But suddenly, he was a “charlatan,” he said.

“I was Galileo in front of the Inquisition tribunal,” he said of the September 13 hearing in the Disciplinary Chamber of the Order of Physicians. It nonetheless left him hopeful. In a huge show of support, an estimated 3,000 people had turned out in the streets outside the tribunal. “An extraordinary crowd was present,” the news outlet FranceSoir reported in a tweet with videos of cheering, sign-carrying admirers:

At the proceeding itself, Perronne sensed that his interrogators were going through the motions. “They were rather kind,” he said. “I think they were embarrassed with this affair.”

In an announcement of Perronne’s “complete victory,” his attorney, Thomas Benages, hailed the tribunal’s finding that doctors are entitled to debate and criticize health policies.

“By these fundamental decisions, the Disciplinary Chamber has reaffirmed the freedom of expression enjoyed by university doctors,” Benages wrote, “while highlighting the preponderant role played by Professor Perronne during the health crisis by bringing contradiction to the government and having”—as the decision stated—“‘a discordant voice on a subject of general interest.’ ”

The tribunal’s finding did not specifically endorse Perronne’s views, but rather his right to speak them. I asked him what he thought of the ruling.

“You can just say that I am very happy, since the Disciplinary chamber wrote that in view of my national and international expertise, I had not only the right to give a divergent opinion from the official policy, but it was an obligation for me to speak out, if I did not agree!

This statement is fantastic.”

As his lawyer wrote, “the Disciplinary Chamber simply came to reaffirm the values of our democracy.”


30 October, 2022

Italy Plans to Allow Unvaccinated Health Care Workers to Return to Work

Italian health care workers who have been suspended for rejecting COVID-19 vaccines will soon be able to return to work, the European country’s top health official said Friday.

Orazio Schillaci, who was appointed last week by Italy’s newly formed ruling coalition to lead the Ministry of Health, said his administration is working on a measure that would reinstate unvaccinated doctors and nurses before the end of the year.

“Six months after the suspension of the state of emergency and in consideration of the level of COVID-19 contagion, Health Minister Orazio Schillaci considers it necessary to initiate a progressive return to normality in activity and behavior, based on criteria of responsibility and respect for the laws in force,” a statement on the ministry’s website read.

Schillaci also announced that the ministry will no longer provide a daily bulletin with numbers of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Instead, that information will be updated on a weekly basis.

Friday’s announcement, at least in part, is tied to the “worrying shortage of medical personnel,” according to the ministry.

The changes mark a departure from the policies of Schillaci’s predecessor, Roberto Speranza, who allowed hospital employers to suspend without pay any employee who refused to get vaccinated.

Under Speranza and previous Prime Minister Mario Draghi, whose government imploded in the midst of an energy crisis and a worsening economic outlook, all public and private sector workers must get a COVID “green pass” before they go to work. Italians who ignore the order and go to work without proof of vaccination or a negative test or recovery from the virus are suspended on no pay and fined up to 1,500 euros (about $1,500).

The “green pass” policy was considered to be among the most restrictive in Europe. While some European countries have made COVID vaccines mandatory for their health workers, none have implemented a vaccine passport system for all employees.

“We are making these choices in order to restrict the unvaccinated as much as possible, as this is what is causing the burden on our hospital system,” Speranza told media outlets earlier this year.

The new prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has vowed to not inherit the Draghi administration’s pandemic response, saying that despite the harsh restrictions placed on millions of citizens, the country nevertheless suffered the highest COVID death and infection rates in Europe.

“Something clearly didn’t work there,” Meloni said Tuesday in her very first speech to parliament as prime minister. “That’s why I want to say that in no way will we imitate this model.”


Arizona’s Kari Lake makes midterm waves as Republican’s new star

Arizonans know that their state, which flipped to Joe Biden in the 2020 election by the narrowest of margins, marking the beginning of the end for Donald Trump’s presidency, has become the nation’s political bellwether.

A red wave here next month would spell doom for the Democrats, who are defending wafer-thin majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate in US midterm elections on November 8. Their loss would end the Biden administration’s ability to legislate without the agreement of Republicans.

No governor’s race this midterm election has attracted as much attention as Arizona’s. The US media has become obsessed with Lake – they appear to hate her – knowing full well her victory would usher in a new Trump-like political force.

“If she wins next month, she will immediately vault to the top of potential vice-presidential candidates in ’24,” says Barrett Marson, a veteran Republican political strategist based in Arizona. For what it’s worth, Lake, a married mother of two teenage children, could well run for president one day if she wins.

“She’s one of the most compelling figures in the world right now,” says Amy Foto, a supporter and public school teacher of 25 years, who was visiting Phoenix from Denver.

Lake, 53, has leveraged her fame as a 22-year Arizona nightly news anchor and former Democrat seemingly with no political inclinations, to transform into a high-profile political machine with national ambitions. That Youngkin, who has already won a powerful office, travelled five hours across the country to campaign with Lake points to her ascendancy within the Republican Party.

“I’m Republican, I’m hard-core, I love the new Republican Party,” says Lake, emerging in her trademark perfectly cropped hair and a one-piece yellow suit, and beaming to the crowd, liberally dotted with cowboy hats.

Last year she quit media, joined the Republican Party, and two months ago edged out the local establishment Republican candidate in a closely fought primary in August, winning Trump’s fawning approval.

Lake’s growing appeal might even pull the state’s Republican Senate candidate, 35-year-old Blake Masters, across the line against incumbent Democrat senator and “fundraising juggernaut”, former astronaut Mark Kelly, who has raised $US75m for his re-election campaign, more than five times as much as Masters.

“The adverts are just killers, and yet he’s within striking distance,” political strategist Marson says. For Democrats, Lake has become the dangerous face of the hard “MAGA right”, a Trump acolyte, a threat to democracy itself and the face of the new Republicans.

Lake, for her diehard and rapidly growing Republican fan base, personifies the future of the party along with Youngkin and Florida Governor Ron Desantis, and looks set to become governor of the 14th largest US state, succeeding well-liked incumbent Doug Ducey, who has reached the state’s eight-year term limit for governor.

Dismissed as “Trump in heels” by her critics, it’s hard not to be impressed with Lake, whatever you think of her politics: faultlessly articulate and immaculately turned-out, she commands attention.

“When Kari Lake walks into a room, all eyes turn to Kari Lake. She is one of those people,” The Washington Post recently conceded.

Lake is ahead of her Democrat rival, Katie Hobbs, 48.5 per cent to 45.7 per cent, according to the latest average of relevant state polls compiled by FiveThirtyEight, a gap that has been steadily growing.

PredictIt, an online betting agency, gives her an 84 per cent chance of winning, up from 50 per cent two months ago.

“I think we’ve done more events today than Katie Hobbs has done in the whole campaign,” says Lake, fresh from six events earlier that day, mocking her quietly spoken, reclusive opponent.

Hobbs, 52, the incumbent Arizona Secretary of State, has refused to debate Lake, saying she does not want to give her Republican opponent, who has refused to concede Trump lost the 2020 elections, a “platform”.

A more likely explanation is Hobbs fears being ripped to shreds.

“(Lake) believes in everything I believe in: securing our borders, secure elections, she cares about the immigration crisis and a better education for our kids,” supporter Rachel Truse told me, as the Rolling Stones’ Start Me Up and then Laura Branigan’s Gloria boomed in the background at the rally.

The half-dozen supporters I spoke to decried high inflation, the politicisation of the public school curriculum, excessive taxation and especially the scourge of fentanyl, a deadly narcotic streaming across the Mexican border into the US in ever larger quantities that has killed more than 71,000 Americans last year – up 25 per cent from the previous year.

“Maybe we can take that to the border on day one; I’m not a pilot but I’ll be happy to sit back,” Lake says, promising to “declare an invasion” if she wins.

Arizona, at the border with Mexico, has borne the brunt, along with Texas, of the extraordinary surge in illegal immigrants that has dominated US politics for more than a year.

US officials arrested 227,000 illegal migrants in September, a 11 per cent jump compared with August, bringing the annual total to 2.4 million, 37 per cent more than the year before.

“This is the best Republican midterm backdrop in decades,” Marson says. “Dems may have the money, but they don’t have the economy on their side,” he adds, referring to the Democrats’ traditional financial advantage. Inflation is Americans’ No.1 concern, according to polls leading into midterms. Phoenix, Arizona’s biggest city, with about 4.5 million people and geographically double the size of Greater Sydney, has endured 13 per cent inflation, the highest of any big American city.

It isn’t entirely a Republican love-in in the aircraft hangar. Software programmer Andy, 23, reluctant to share his full name, says he’s still on the fence about Lake. “We need lower taxes, and I like school choice, which is a big issue, but sowing distrust in the election is really dangerous,” he told me.

Lake’s refusal to concede Trump’s loss, and support for the former president whose future is under a cloud as multiple political and legal inquiries take their toll, has dogged her campaign, at least among mainstream media.

“She can’t; she’s stuck to him like glue, their brands are intertwined,” Marson says, dismissing my suggestion that Lake, who did not mention Trump once at the rally but name-checked Ronald Reagan twice, might be trying to pivot. “We’re the leading state in election deniers,” Marson says.

Lake has not conceded she will accept defeat, citing as evidence a plethora of unfounded claims the Arizona electoral system is not trustworthy. Indeed, only this week, Republicans claimed Democrats were intimidating voters.

To Lake’s credit, she does talk a lot about concrete policy proposals, even if most media only want her to deny, once again, over and over, the 2020 election result. Her platform includes abolishing the state’s rent and grocery taxes, which average 2.7 and 2.8 per cent, respectively.

“We’re funding students, not schools; you can pick their own school. If they teach garbage to our kids, we can take them out – that’s the fastest way to turn our schools around,” Lake says, referring to a revolutionary education policy just enacted in the state that has enraged public sector teachers unions.

Parents, even those who choose to homeschool their children, receive about $US7000 a year a child, which they can spend on whatever school or tutors they want. It could destroy, in time, the US public education system, which has come under repeated attack during the Covid-19 pandemic for keeping schools shut for more than a year.

National polls suggest Democrats’ key political messages – warnings about the risk to abortion rights and the spectre of “semi-fascism” if Trump-backed Republicans win – have not cut through to an electorate worried about bread-and-butter issues of inflation, crime and immigration.

“It’s all bullshit,” Bill Truse, Rachel Truse’s husband, tells me when I ask if he is worried about Lake’s refusal to concede that Trump lost the 2020 election.

“Dems have been denying elections for years; Hillary (Clinton) denied Trump beat her, that woman in Georgia, I don’t care about it,” he adds, referring to high-profile Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is running for governor in Georgia.

“What did Benjamin Franklin say at 81? You have a republic …” Lake says, as she wraps up her remarks, encouraging the crowd to finish the apparently famous quote. “If you can keep it,” the audience answers, suggesting her audience is more educated than it is typically given credit for.

Trump’s still extraordinary political power is in its winter. Lake, if she wins, will almost certainly supplant Trump in the Republican party: younger, more articulate, more compelling and more attractive. 

“It’s sad because Denver doesn’t have a chance, it’s hopeless in Colorado,” Foto tells me, walking back to her car after the rally, blaming migrating Californians for rendering the GOP irrelevant in her home state.

Maybe with Lake at the helm of the party, that might change.




28 October, 2022

New fast spreading Covid variant arrives in Australia

A rapidly-spreading new “nightmare” Covid variant has hit Australia’s shores but experts say we should not panic.

The XBB strain, which is resistant to vaccines and antibodies from previous infections, emerged in Singapore a few weeks ago. Within a week, it went from making up one fifth of the country’s Covid cases to more than a half.

In Australia, there were 31,636 new cases of Covid reported in the week to October 25 — an increase of 2.2 per cent.

In NSW, there were 10,050 cases of Covid reported in the week ending October 27 — an increase of 13.7 per cent. There were 820 people in hospital and 16 deaths.

NSW detected 21 cases of XBB variant in the week ending October 15 and it made up 6.4 per cent of PCR tests subject to genomic analysis, a tenfold increase since the first cases were found on October 1.

In Victoria, cases surged by 24.7 per cent to 8537 in the week ending October 28 and hospitalisation rose 20.3 per cent to 172 patients. Seven lives were lost on average each day to Covid.

“Surveillance shows the presence of multiple Omicron subvariants in Victoria including rapid growth of (the Omicron subvariant) BQ. 1 and XBB in the past month, with a combined prevalence of approximately 10 per cent in wastewater and clinical sample,” Victoria’s chief health officer Professor Brett Sutton said in his latest update.

“Continued growth at these rates would see these subvariants overtake BA. 5 as the dominant varian.”

In Queensland, there were 4447 cases of Covid reported in the week to October 25, with 105 people in hospital and 18 people dying.

These jurisdictions do not report Covid variants.

Australian National University infectious diseases expert Professor Peter Collignon said so far, there was no evidence XBB was “more virulent, as judged by hospitalisations and deaths”.

And Deakin University infectious diseases expert Professor Catherine Bennett stressed Australians would have a stronger hybrid immunity to new variants, unlike the lead up to last Christmas when the Omicron and Delta strains ran wild.

“More than half the population has been both vaccinated and had an infection, and that does put you in a more resilient position in when facing future waves,” Professor Bennett said.

Professor Collignon estimated “80 per cent of Australians have had Covid”.

“We won’t see the same high hospitalisation and high death numbers that we saw between December and July, because that’s when all the variants were circulating and people were basically getting infected for the first time,” Professor Collignon said.

Around 64 per cent of current Covid cases analysed in Australia are of the Omicron subvariant BA. 5 — down from 71 per cent of cases at the end of September.

Researchers in China found XBB can escape the antibodies generated by a BA. 5 infection.

This means it is also likely to outwit the latest bivalent vaccines which protect against Omicron, as well as the original Wuhan variant.

Infectious disease specialist Maria Van Kerkhove, who works on the Covid-19 response at the World Health Organisation, posted a video to Twitter last week raising concerns about the XBB variant.

“We do know that this recombinant has a significant growth advantage, all of the sub-variants of Omicron are showing increased transmissibility and properties of immune escape,” Dr Van Kerkhove said.

Another new variant, detected in NSW, was the BQ. 1.1, which made up 3.3 per cent of cases that were subjected to genomic testing. In the US, surveillance showed BQ. 1.1 was spreading, accounting for 11 per cent of recent cases.

All up, the World Health Organisation has detected more than 300 variants of Covid that are circulating.

Dr Van Kerkhove expressed concerns, shared by Professors Collignon and Bennett, that systematic surveillance of Covid was declining.

“Surveillance has declined, testing has declined, sequencing has declined and that in turn has limited our ability as an organisation with our expert networks around the world to assess these,” Dr Van Kerkhove said.

Professors Collignon and Bennett are calling for a co-ordinated national Covid surveillance program involving regular sewage testing and tracking of patients with upper respiratory conditions presenting to hospitals and GPs.

Older Australians and immunocompromised Australians are entering a period when their fourth Covid vaccine is beginning to wear off 3-4 months after they received it and are being urged to mask up.

Health Minister Mark Butler said last week the Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation – ATAGI – was not likely to provide advice on whether the elderly and immunocompromised should have a fifth Covid vaccine until next year.


CDC Pushed for COVID-19 Boosters Without Clinical Trials

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pressured U.S. regulators to clear COVID-19 boosters without clinical trial data, according to newly released emails.

CDC officials relayed to counterparts at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early August 2021 that they wanted authorization for Moderna and Pfizer boosters as data began showing that the vaccines weren’t working as well as initially promoted.

The conversation took place on a call that was described by Dr. Phil Krause, a top FDA official, to several other FDA workers.

“Take a deep breath before reading this next paragraph. On that call, the CDC evidently stated that they will assemble all the data they are aware of on third dosing in this setting and send it to us in the hope that we will (very soon) authorize the third dose for immunocompromised as part of the EUA,” Krause wrote in the Aug. 5, 2021, email (pdf).

EUA stands for emergency use authorization.

All of the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized under emergency conditions at that time.

No boosters had been authorized and no clinical data were available for the boosters.

The emails show that “the CDC wanted the booster approved without a trial,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote on Twitter.

The CDC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Krause was responding to Doran Fink, who also works for the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, charged with evaluating vaccines.

Fink sent along a post that had been made to an infectious diseases forum regarding whether doctors should be giving additional vaccine doses to patients with compromised immune systems despite the lack of authorization.

Dr. Richard Nathan of Idaho had written that other countries, including Israel, had cleared boosters.

“Pfizer recommends it and I trust their guidance over the turmoil at our federal agencies. With millions of doses of vaccine set to expire, you should do what you think is best for your patients. I can’t believe you would get pushback from anyone. Keep in mind, nearly everyone in this group is six to seven months out from the second dose of the vaccine and many have significant daily exposure to the virus,” Nathan wrote.

Fink said the post “accurately reflects more widespread thinking that I am hearing in other forums as well,” including among doctors who advise the CDC on vaccines.

“Providers are losing confidence in FDA/CDC to do the right thing for their patients,” Fink said.

Less than two weeks later, the FDA authorized boosters for certain people, including immunocompromised persons.

The agency said that “a thorough review of the available data” concluded the group “may benefit” from a third dose.

The only data cited on efficacy were from two studies, one conducted by French researchers and another by Canadian researchers. Pfizer and Moderna hadn’t completed trials.

“As we’ve previously stated, other individuals who are fully vaccinated are adequately protected and do not need an additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine at this time,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s top official said.

But just weeks later, Woodcock and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s top official, signed onto a joint statement saying that vaccine protection was waning and that boosters “will be needed to maximize vaccine-induced protection and prolong its durability.”

In September 2021, the FDA and CDC authorized Pfizer boosters for many other Americans. The authorization was expanded to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson shots, and virtually all other Americans, later in the year.

Krause and Dr. Marion Gruber resigned from their positions because of opposition to the booster strategy.

Judicial Watch obtained the newly published emails as part of ongoing litigation against the Biden administration for not properly responding to a Freedom of Information Act request.

An earlier tranche of emails showed that Gruber was “very concerned” in late August 2021 about pressure from companies such as Pfizer over vaccine authorization.

“We need to be given time to consider their data and cannot be pushed by these companies and, for that matter the Administration, who try to impose timeless [sic] that make no sense,” Gruber wrote to Dr. Peter Marks, a top FDA official.

“These FDA records further document top officials’ concerns about the controversial COVID-19 booster shots,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “That it has taken months and a federal lawsuit to uncover this critical material is a scandal.”


27 October, 2022

Looking back:


New York Supreme Court Reinstates Unvaccinated Employees With Back Pay

A New York judge ordered Monday that Department of Sanitation employees terminated for refusing to get vaccinated be reinstated to their full employment status, writing that the vaccination mandate for city employees was “not just about safety and public health; it was about compliance.”

Judge Ralph J. Porzio wrote in his ruling that if the vaccine mandate was about “safety and public health, unvaccinated workers would have been placed on leave the moment the order was issued.”

“If it was about safety and public health, the Health Commissioner would have issued city-wide mandates for vaccination for all residents,” he continued. “In a City with a nearly 80% vaccination rate, we shouldn’t be penalizing the people who showed up to work, at great risk to themselves and their families, while we were locked down.”

Porzio’s ruling states that the Oct. 20, 2021, and Dec. 13, 2021, rulings from the commissioner of health and mental hygiene ordering that all employees get vaccinated are “arbitrary and capricious,” ordering that the petitioners be reinstated to their full employment status, and entitled to back pay in salary from date of termination.

“Yesterday marked a historic victory for sanitation workers, all the brave NYC employees who serve the public and our representative democracy,” attorney Chad LaVeglia told The Daily Signal. “The court struck down NYC’s draconian, arbitrary, vaccine mandate on multiple constitutional and legal grounds. The thousands of city employees who were ignored now have a voice. And as the court recognized, they deserve better.”

“The court also recognized a commonsense principle that has somehow eluded politicians like Eric Adams: Forcing one—and only one—segment of the population to get vaccinated during a worldwide outbreak is unconstitutional and arbitrary,” he added. “Sixteen sanitation workers fought back against tyranny. And won. This is a historic victory for individual rights, and the system of government mandated by the Constitution.”


Judge Orders Fauci, Psaki, Top Officials Be Deposed in Big Tech Censorship Case

A federal court ordered on Oct. 21 that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top officials testify under oath at depositions in a case that has uncovered evidence of alleged federal government collusion with Big Tech companies to censor users.

The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri and other plaintiffs allege that Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, and other defendants colluded and coerced social media companies to “suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content” regarding COVID-19.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty went a step further than a previous ruling that forced written testimonies and ordered Fauci and other defendants to testify under oath at depositions.

“After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the Biden Administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement.

“It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that. We’ll keep pressing for the truth.”

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) joined the lawsuit in August, representing renowned epidemiologists Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines.

NCLA attorney Jenin Younes said she looks forward to learning just how far the accused government officials went to push their COVID-19 “perspective.”

“For the first time, Dr. Fauci and seven other federal officials responsible for running an unlawful censorship enterprise will have to answer questions under oath about the nature and extent of their communications with tech companies,” Younes said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

Doughty also ordered the depositions of former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly, and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan.

Fauci’s ‘Self-Serving Blanket Denials’

In his ruling, Doughty said he agreed with plaintiffs that Fauci’s previous “self-serving blanket denials” about his role in censoring views on social media couldn’t be taken at face value.

“Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci can prove he never communicated with social media platforms about censorship, there are compelling reasons that suggest Dr. Fauci has acted through intermediaries, and acted on behalf of others, in procuring the social-media censorship of credible scientific opinions,” Doughty said in his ruling (pdf). “Plaintiffs argue that even if Dr. Fauci acted indirectly or as an intermediary on behalf of others, it is still relevant to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. The Court agrees.

“Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Fauci’s credibility has been in question on matters related to supposed COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ since 2020. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that Dr. Fauci has made public statements on the efficacy of masks, the percentage of the population needed for herd immunity, NIAID’s funding of ‘gain-of-function’ virus research in Wuhan, the lab-leak theory, and more.

“Plaintiffs urge that his comments on these important issues are relevant to the matter at hand and are further reasons why Dr. Fauci should be deposed. Plaintiffs assert that they should not be required to simply accept Dr. Fauci’s ‘self-serving blanket denials’ that were issued from someone other than himself at face value. The Court agrees.”

The plaintiffs argued that Fauci allegedly insisted on the censorship of “speech backed by great scientific credibility and with enormous potential nationwide impact” that contradicted his views.

For example, he communicated in a long-shielded phone call with some scientists to discredit any theory that COVID-19 was the result of a “lab leak” in Wuhan, China. The scientists went on to write a paper severely reprimanding others who were open to the theory.

If the lab leak theory were true, in turn, it would mean that Fauci could be potentially implicated in funding the research on viruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic that killed millions of people worldwide, the plaintiffs argued. This is because he funded risky “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries such as EcoHealth Alliance.

In late January 2020 and early February 2020, Fauci was also in touch with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in oral communications about the government’s COVID-19 response. Facebook then allegedly went on censor the lab leak theory, according to the plaintiffs.

‘Overwhelming’ Need to Depose Officials

The court also found that Flaherty, Psaki, Andy Slavitt, and other officials also have personal knowledge about the alleged censorship issues and ordered them to be deposed.

Doughty said there’s an “overwhelming” need for Flaherty to be deposed to determine whether fundamental rights to free speech were “abridged” as a result of alleged collusion between senior Biden administration officials and Big Tech.

The plaintiffs argued that Flaherty had “extensive” oral meetings with Twitter, Meta, and YouTube on vaccine hesitancy and combatting misinformation related to COVID-19.

The judge said there’s a “substantive need” for the deposition of Slavitt, who served as the White House’s senior COVID-19 adviser. Doughty noted that Slavitt’s remarks on a podcast “showed he has specific knowledge as it relates” to the issues in the lawsuit.

The court order cited a series of public comments made by Psaki when she served as White House press secretary, including calling on social media platforms for consistency in banning disfavored speakers.

“Psaki has made a number of statements that are relevant to the Government’s involvement in a number of social-media platforms’ efforts to censor its users across the board for sharing information related to COVID-19,” Doughty said in his ruling.


26 October, 2022

Confidence through censorship: The (medical) Ministry of Truth

On Wednesday, October 12, the Queensland Labor government – with support from the LNP opposition – passed a dystopian and dangerous bill.

The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 refocuses the guiding principles of medicine to prioritise public confidence over public health and safety. It allows bureaucrats to name and shame doctors, a move which the AMA described as ‘incoherent zealotry’.

This bill, if passed by other jurisdictions in Australia, will essentially legislate national medical censorship as a means to ensure public confidence in government health services.

Adherence to the Good Medical Practice code of conduct means that advocating for patients (which is our primary concern) is being overridden by external demands to comply with public health messaging. Our code of conduct is predicated on The Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, and the International Code of Ethics which outlines our dedication to serving humanity: To first do no harm, making our patients our primary consideration.

Political-based medicine has now replaced evidence-based medicine.

History has proven that unquestioning compliance to government directives is dangerous. In 1947, the World Medical Association agreements were formed in the aftermath of the second world war due to the gross systematic human rights abuses which took place under enforced national laws. Tragically, the political currents in Australia appear to be heading towards bureaucratic medical compliance enforced through regulatory threats, soon to be legislative threats.

In 2015, the federal government passed The Australian Border Force Act 2015 which made doctors who advocated for their refugee patients liable to face up to two years imprisonment. Doctors for Refugees challenged this law in the High Court a year later. A major basis for their argument, according to their submission to the Medical Board’s 2018 Code of Conduct review, was that the Code doctors had sworn to uphold and advocate for the rights of their patients could not be overridden by the vagaries of domestic laws.

The government eventually backed down on this law and had that problematic section repealed.

Interestingly, their submission was in response to the Medical Board attempting to insert into the medical code the concerning phrase ‘doctors must comply with relevant laws’. The response to the word comply was fierce as the idea that the medical code of conduct could enforce compliance to political decree was antithetical to what doctors had sworn to uphold.

With the arrival of Covid came the bureaucratic decree through the March 9, 2021 joint statement by AHPRA and the National Boards that made undermining public confidence in the government’s Covid public health messaging equivalent to professional misconduct. Questioning ‘the message’ is now subject to investigation and disciplinary action, including immediate suspension of registration.

Letters received by practitioners who have questioned the government response to Covid are chilling in their implication. After being suspended by National Boards under the immediate action clauses for allegedly being a threat to public health and safety, they are accused of the crime of non-compliance. They are deemed a threat because they failed to comply with public health orders, undermined the Board’s position on the promotion of Covid vaccination, and undermined public confidence because their medical expert opinion contravened government health authorities.

In summary, health professionals are not permitted to question the ‘secret health advice’ without losing their registration to practise.

Consider that in response to Covid, our health bureaucracy overturned the medical industry’s well-researched 2019 pandemic preparedness plans – doing almost the total opposite of what was recommended by health professionals. Interestingly, Dr Rochelle Walensky, Director of the CDC, told employees recently: ‘To be frank, we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes from testing, to data, to communications.’

In December 2020, the FDA outlined, ‘At this time, data is not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.’ Our health bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, and politicians mandated provisionally approved vaccines by telling the population repeatedly that they stopped transmission and people were selfish granny killers if they didn’t get jabbed.

We, as health professionals, are not allowed to question government statements on transmission without losing our registration to practise.

On September 2021, a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Health rescheduled ivermectin, in effect banning it for use as an off-label treatment option for Covid stating ‘subsection 52E(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, in particular paragraph (f), which empowers the Secretary to act on any other matters that the Secretary considers necessary to protect public health’.

Ivermectin is one of the World Health Organisation’s list of essential medicines. It was fully approved by the TGA and found to be very safe according to their own 2013 Australian Public Assessment Report for Ivermectin. Two of the reasons the TGA gave for denying Australians access to a drug that showed great promise in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19 was that it was all of a sudden unsafe and its availability might dissuade people from getting vaccinated. Behaviour modification was undertaken, with the TGA appearing to act in partnership with other government nudge units to promote vaccination.

We as health professionals are not permitted to advocate for ivermectin without losing our registration to practice.

In July 2021, as Australians were being mandated through coercive techniques to get vaccinated with poorly tested provisionally approved gene-based vaccines that our Health bureaucrats and politicians repeatedly told us had been proven safe and effective, the TGA was amending the Therapeutic Goods Regulation Act to further reduce the safety and efficacy requirements for any medicine that is for the treatment or prevention of Covid. Not only do manufacturers have six years to provide the government with safety and efficacy data on these provisionally approved jabs, they also no longer have to demonstrate they could provide a greater benefit than other available medicines or that the medicine is likely to provide a major therapeutic advance.

We, as health professionals, are not allowed to question the safety and efficacy without losing our registration to practise.

Recently, the TGA has granted provisional approval to Moderna for the active immunisation and prevention of Covid in high-risk babies and young children. The report concluded the vaccinations had low levels of protective efficacy against infection, they didn’t know how long any efficacy lasted, and while the (Advisory Committee on Vaccines) recommended the provisional approval to children at high risk they noted high-risk children were excluded from the study. Across the world, pandemic policy and guidelines vary. Denmark is no longer recommending vaccination for people under 50, Norway no one under 65, but our regulatory body is expanding approvals to 6-month to 4-year-olds.

We, as health professionals, are not allowed to question this approval without losing our registration to practise.

Whenever governments want to enact laws to suppress free expression, censor and punish dissenters through threats to careers and livelihood, to control public perception as a means of creating confidence through enforced public ignorance, it is time to ask some serious questions.

If this bill passes nationally and the government becomes the single authority on all health advice, then unquestioning compliance becomes the new accepted standard of good medical practice. That is the end of medicine and the death of science. George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth has arrived. Public confidence in politicians and their bureaucrats should never come at the expense of people’s right to full, free, and unhindered access to scientific evidence and emerging data.

The Australian Medical Professionals Society is dedicated to fighting for medical free speech for the safety of those we swore to protect, our patients. Prioritising public confidence in government through censorship has led to what Professor Bhattacharya has said is the single biggest public health mistake in human history. With Dr Aseem Malhotra, a British Cardiologist, recently describing the mandates as ‘perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science we will witness in our lifetime’. We must stop medical censorship and allow doctors to be doctors. This bill is dangerous to the future of medicine and the health of our nation.


New Covid Boosters Aren’t Better Than Old Ones, Study Finds

Bivalent booster shots from Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. failed to raise levels of protective proteins called neutralizing antibodies against the dominant omicron strains any more than four doses of the original Covid vaccine, according to an early independent study on a small group of people.

Researchers at Columbia University and the University of Michigan compared levels of neutralizing antibodies in blood samples from 21 people who got a fourth shot of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech SE bivalent boosters against antibody levels in 19 people who got four shots of the original vaccines.

Three to five weeks after a fourth shot, those people who received the new boosters aimed at BA.4 and BA.5 variants “had similar neutralizing antibody titers as those receiving a fourth monovalent mRNA vaccine,” the authors conclude in a manuscript posted on the preprint server This held true for antibodies that protect against BA.4, BA.5 and older variants such as the original omicron strain, according to the study.

Moderna shares rose 2.7% to $136.57 at the close in New York trading. Pfizer stock was little changed.

The results don’t mean that getting a bivalent shot has no benefit, and it will need to be confirmed in much larger studies. However, they raise the question of whether the switch to a new version of the vaccine was necessary.

The results also contrast sharply with an Oct. 13 press release from Pfizer and BioNTech touting “positive early data” from a clinical trial suggesting that its bivalent vaccine “is anticipated to provide better protection.” The statement was based on data collected from subjects in the first seven days after immunization, and the company has not yet released details.

“So far we don’t see the benefit” of the bivalent shots over the old ones, said study senior author David Ho, a virologist who heads the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University. A clear difference between the boosters could emerge over longer periods of time, he said in a telephone interview. It could also turn out that a second booster shot with the bivalent vaccine may be needed, he said.

Ho said that the study has been submitted for publication in a scientific journal.

Slow Rollout

Rollout of the bivalent vaccines has been slow so far. Only about 20 million Americans have received the latest version of the vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The lackluster results for bivalent boosters could be due to a phenomenon called imprinting, Ho said. That means that the immune system most strongly remembers the first version of a virus it encounters. After it mutates, the response to a vaccine -- even one targeting newer strains -- may still be tilted toward fighting the original pathogen.

Ho said he personally has gotten four doses of the original generation of mRNA shots, and that he is waiting for more data to roll in to decide what to do about a fifth dose.

Pfizer declined to comment on outside research. A spokesperson said the company would reveal additional 30-day data on its bivalent shot in the coming weeks. Moderna didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In early October, Moderna researchers published data from the clinical trial of a different bivalent booster that is tailored to the original omicron strain. That study, in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that a fourth shot of that bivalent vaccine produced higher levels of antibodies compared to four shots of Moderna’s original vaccine. Moderna’s bivalent vaccine against the original omicron strain, called mRNA-1273.214, is not authorized in the U.S., but has been cleared for use in numerous countries including the UK and Canada.

Nonetheless, scientists have harbored doubts about the benefit of switching up the shots’ composition. Before the US began rolling out updated boosters in September, John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College said the new vaccines would be “little or no better” than earlier formulations.


25 October, 2022

Another dubious study of Ivermectin

This study concluded that ivermectin was no help for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. But like many previous studies, it appears to have ignored the time factor. Enrolment in the study appears to have been very relaxed, with no attention paid to how long the patient had had Covid symptoms. Since Ivermectim is one of the drugs that normally need to be taken very soon after symptoms become evident, this study tells us effectively nothing -- JR

Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19

Susanna Naggie et al


Importance: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 ?g/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US.

Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 ?g/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774).

Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28.

Results: Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years; 932 women [58.6%]; 753 [47.3%] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]).

Conclusions and Relevance" Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. ?


Children's Health Defense Demands Lawmakers Stop COVID Vaccine Mandates

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on Thursday voted that the agency should update its recommended immunization schedules to add the COVID-19 vaccine, including to the schedule for children.

Committee members said the vote doesn’t affect what vaccines are required for school attendance, the CDC is merely codifying its pre-existing recommendation. School mandate decisions are made at the state, county and municipal levels, the committee said. “This discussion doesn’t change that,” a committee member said.

But as Dr. Robert Malone pointed out, pediatricians and state public health officials use the CDC schedule.

Writing on Substack, Malone said:

“State public health systems use the schedule to determine which vaccines to require for children to enter schools. Yes, some states have more stringent requirements than others. Some states allow for ‘opt-outs,’ but in the end, most states follow the CDC guidelines. The ACIP functionally establishes ‘standard of care’ in this area.”

Commenting on the vote, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of the board and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said:

“This reckless action is final proof of the cynicism, corruption and capture of a once exemplary public health agency. ACIP members have again demonstrated that fealty to their pharma overlords eclipses any residual concerns they may harbor for child welfare or public health.”

This is an act of child abuse on a massive scale.

The regulatory agencies and their advisory committees have gone amok. It’s time for people to stop consenting and stop complying. To tell your state’s leaders “No COVID vaccine mandates for our state’s kids” click the link.

Despite immense blowback, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to add COVID-19 injections to its recommended schedule of vaccinations for infants, children and adolescents. The committee members’ votes solidify their steadfast loyalty to protecting pharma profits at the cost of children’s lives. This is the first step to granting permanent, blanket liability protection for all current and future COVID-19 injections.

This is a declaration of war on our children. The responsibility to be unrelenting as we defend the next generation from Big Pharma now falls on us. In the coming months, nearly every state in the nation will universally adopt the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule.

Fortunately, the CDC doesn’t have the authority to set school immunization requirements, and the vote doesn’t mandate the vaccine for schoolchildren. That’s a decision left to the states.


Persian Pilot Study: Atorvastatin Efficacious in Mild to Moderate Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Recently, investigators looked at the broadly used cholesterol-reducing generic atorvastatin (Lipitor®). Atorvastatin is a lipid-lowering drug included in the statin class of medications. By inhibiting the endogenous production of cholesterol in the liver, statins lower abnormal cholesterol and lipid levels and ultimately, reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Statins have been theorized to be potentially helpful against Covid-19 for quite a while now, as highlighted in this published mechanistic paper from April 2020. They have multiple mechanisms that might provide benefits, such as pleiotropic effects on inflammation and oxidative stress, which contribute to their beneficial impact on cardiovascular diseases. They modulate the immune response, restore the vascular redox balance by reducing reactive oxygen species and increasing antioxidants, and ameliorate nitric oxide bioavailability, endothelial function, and integrity.

The Persian research team was aware of the many clinical benefits of statins, along with their excellent safety profile, low cost, and their broad availability. As a result, they conducted a triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial evaluating atorvastatin in mild to moderate hospitalized Covid-19 patients. There were 52 patients who were randomized 1:1 into the treatment group to receive 40mg atorvastatin once daily for 14 days or the placebo group. They tracked patients' symptoms and laboratory markers at baseline and during the follow-up period. They also evaluated the duration of hospitalization and supplemental O2 therapy. The results were reported in Pubmed and Eureka Select.


After a 14-day of follow-up, the oxygen saturation (SaO2) was significantly higher, and the serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

The (hs-CRP) level was lower in the treatment group compared to the placebo group. Moreover, at the end of the follow-up in the treatment group, the lymphocyte count was higher, and the duration of symptom resolution was shorter but not significant. Also, in the treatment group, the length of supplemental oxygen therapy and hospitalization duration were meaningfully shorter. The investigators shared the study results reveal that the mortality rate was almost twice higher in the placebo group compared to the treatment group, without any significant adverse drug reaction.


Atorvastatin significantly reduces supplemental oxygen need, hospitalization duration, and serum hs-CRP level in mild to moderate hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

TrialSite contributor Paul Elkins tracked this study and reported on the potential cost of such a course of treatment of atorvastatin for a patient who doesn't have insurance. Checking, the retail price at Walmart Pharmacy is $15 for a 30-day supply of 40mg. That would treat two Covid-19 patients on the dosing regimen tested in this trial or $7.50 per patient. Of course, TrialSite isn't making medical recommendations, and this was a small study that would need further validation. The point: If we are moving to the endemic stage of COVID-19, consumers in America need low-cost, repurposed regimens that can help lower the cost of care. The NIH and academic health systems should be seriously investigating low-cost repurposed therapeutic regimens.


24 October, 2022

DeSantis Versus Lockdowns: What the Data Reveals About Florida’s COVID-19 Policies

While many states remained locked down during the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Ron DeSantis took a drastically different approach in Florida. The exclusive documentary “DeSantis: Florida vs. Lockdowns” follows the journey of one governor standing against the mainstream COVID narrative. Presented by EpochTV’s American Thought Leaders host Jan Jekielek, who traveled to Florida during the height of the pandemic to get the full story.

Florida Residents Love Freedom

DeSantis graduated from Yale before he attended Harvard law school. He served his country as a Seal Team legal adviser in Iraq and became the youngest governor of Florida in more than a century. Jekielek traveled across the diverse state to get a taste of the people and the current political sentiment. From the cities to the countryside, the film features Americans telling their immigration stories and sharing their love for America and freedom.

DeSantis describes himself as “knee-jerk anti-communist.” Jekielek, whose parents escaped communist Poland in the ’70s, is also deeply moved by people’s stories of escape from communism. DeSantis explained that to people in Florida, tyranny does not seem distant like it might to those in other states. He also spoke about how the founders of the American Constitution held a vision for state autonomy to counter overreach from the federal government.

DeSantis Vows to Never Do Lockdowns Again

DeSantis has been the target of a barrage of media attacks revolving around Florida’s COVID policies. Despite this, the governor has widespread support from diverse groups within his state. The lockdowns of Wuhan, China, in 2020 led governments worldwide to follow suit. While many states were still shut down, Florida was taking steps toward reopening, with DeSantis saying in a press conference, “we will never do any of these lockdowns again.” This came only one month after instituting the initial lockdown. DeSantis noted that the lockdowns were a panic-driven approach and a departure from what the scientific recommendations had traditionally been for pandemics.

Dr. Scott Atlas, a Public Health Policy Expert and Senior Fellow at Standford University’s Hoover Institute, served as a key COVID adviser to DeSantis. According to Atlas, it was appropriate to shut down initially, given the information they had at that time. He believes most people bought into the extreme measures out of fear and because it was supposed to be temporary. The initial understanding was to lock the state down for 15 days to get their bearings and prevent hospitals from becoming overcrowded while they determined how to proceed. But Atlas notes that there was a dramatic shift in the goal: from preventing overcrowding to stopping cases. He says health policy experts shouldn’t just look at the disease but must also look at the impact of what they do to mitigate the effects of the disease.

Protecting the Most Vulnerable Without Causing Harm to Others

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University and public health policy adviser. He is the co-author of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which recommended a focused protection approach. This strategy is based on the fact that COVID-19 poses significantly more harm to the older population than the younger population and that the effects of lockdowns are devastating to public health. For older populations, COVID poses more risk than lockdowns. For younger age groups, the lockdowns proved more harmful than the disease itself. Because of this, Bhattacharya considers it immoral to subject the younger population to lockdowns. Atlas said, “There’s a big reason why lockdowns were never recommended in prior pandemics. It is not true that people have the same risk for hospitalization.” He gives examples of the tens of thousands of cases on college campuses early on in the COVID-19 pandemic. These cases induced excessive panic in the media but no perspective. Atlas cites that of the first 50,000 cases on college campuses, there were zero hospitalizations. Nevertheless, as the news kept tallying the case numbers, college campuses began shutting down. He said they were highlighting exceptions and throwing reason out the window.

Lockdowns Failed to Save the High-Risk

One of the main reasons these experts opposed the lockdowns was because the data showed the policy failed to save the elderly. Atlas said the elderly “were destroyed and killed by the lack of enough prioritization and enough resources.” He explained how public health resources were misallocated during the pandemic and how the lockdowns failed to stop the spread among the most vulnerable populations. For example, nursing home deaths comprised forty to fifty percent of all deaths. According to Atlas, the data showed all the cases in nursing homes came in from the staff in nursing homes, yet the recommendation was to test once per week. He said they should have been testing three or five times per week to prioritize the protection of the most high-risk. Fifteen days to slow the spread did not work, and DeSantis claimed it caused significant damage to people.

What Did DeSantis Do Differently?

In place of extreme lockdown measures, what did DeSantis do in Florida? The answer is simple: he made educated decisions based on accurate data that aimed to protect the vulnerable without harming the rest of the population. This EpochTV documentary shows recorded meetings of the governor going over current COVID-19 data in great detail. Examining the statistics and data with his policy experts, they worked to make decisions that would effectively protect the population. “You don’t have to be a medical scientist to understand the data,” said Atlas. “You just have to be a critical thinker.” DeSantis was concerned about the harms of the virus and the lockdowns alike. Dr. Bhattacharya said when he spoke with DeSantis, he didn’t recall citing an article that the governor had not already seen. Bhattacharya felt that the governor was more educated on the facts than his Stanford colleagues.

Protecting the most at-risk demographic was the primary concern for DeSantis. His policies focused on preventing the discharging of COVID positive patients back into nursing homes. DeSantis listened to the personal insights of family members and nursing home residents, guiding state policies accordingly.

Lockdowns Caused Excess Deaths

Atlas argued that the lockdowns did not just fail to stop the spread of COVID, but they also killed people. According to a CDC report, almost half of the patients in the United States who received chemotherapy skipped treatment during the lockdowns. Forty percent of people with an acute stroke were too afraid to call an ambulance. Thirty to 50 percent of heart attack patients did not come into the hospital. Eighty-five percent of live organ transplants did not get done during the two months of lockdowns.

One in four young adults reported serious thoughts of suicide. Atlas cited that 50 percent of people ages 18 to 24 said they were fearful of any social interaction. Over 300,000 child abuse cases during the pandemic lockdowns went undetected. Atlas called it “an enormous tragedy,” citing emails from people pleading with him to keep speaking out against the harms of the lockdowns. Many had family members who had died of suicide or attempted suicide.

With all this data readily available, why did Florida’s policies differ so drastically from other states? Atlas points out that the burden of proof for the lockdowns should be on the states that implemented them. According to the data, Florida did the best regarding age-adjusted deaths for ages 65 and older. In addition, Florida performed better than over half the states on the total number of deaths from COVID. The economy also did better, with the unemployment rate two to three times higher in California than in Florida at the time of the documentary.

Censorship of Scientific Debate

Nevertheless, DeSantis bore the brunt of much hostility and criticism from the media. He has called out Big Tech for censoring round table discussions, pulling his videos off their platforms, and censoring scientists and doctors who deviated from the mainstream COVID narrative. Atlas spoke to the serious threat facing any who dared to speak the truth about the data. “It’s off the rails. This is not the way civilization should be.” Bhattacharya said one side simply pretended to be correct and called the other side dangerous. In reality, the scientific community had many different opinions on what measures were appropriate and effective. Sadly, people weren’t allowed to hear the different views.

Bhattacharya said, “if you are going to censor scientific debate, you might as well not do science at all,” calling the one-sided narrative “absolutely shocking.” DeSantis said censorship is a telltale sign that the narrative is about enforcing orthodoxy, not about the facts. Interestingly, Florida’s approach never centered around herd immunity but advocated for protecting those at risk without harming those not at risk.

Florida’s Pandemic Legacy: Common Sense, Traditional Values, and Freedom

How did Western governments go from an alleged commitment to fundamental liberties to draconian measures such as lockdowns, censorship, and medical mandates? DeSantis said many leaders made mistakes but will never admit they were wrong. In Florida, they combatted COVID to the degree they could without causing further damage. DeSantis says he doesn’t mind taking criticism for his policies because that’s what the role of a leader is. He said he would rather people swing at him than have the residents of his state suffer. The governor’s philosophy is that a leader’s job is not to impose mandates and lockdowns but to listen, collaborate, and protect.

As a result, Jekielek found the state of Florida to be a breath of fresh air during the COVID-19 pandemic. DeSantis’s deep respect for the American Constitution and those who have fought to preserve freedom made him willing to fight and protect it. While much of the world was afraid and shut down, the EpochTV documentary shows Florida’s businesses were open. Contrary to what the mainstream media predicted, Florida’s legacy in the aftermath of the pandemic appears to be common sense, traditional values, and the desire to live the American dream.


95 Percent of Corpses Had Received COVID Vaccination Within 2 Weeks of Death: Funeral Director

A funeral director from New Zealand says that 95 percent of the corpses he has been seeing had received a COVID-19 vaccine within two weeks of their passing away.

“Ninety-five percent of the people who have passed away through the work that I’ve done have been vaccinated within two weeks,” Brenton Faithfull said.

Faithfull has been working as a funeral director for the last 41 years and has been running his own mortuary business for the last 26 years. He recently spoke out about the apparent relationship between the COVID-19 vaccines and the deaths he has been observing.

“It’s very obvious, they die within two weeks of receiving the vaccination, a lot of them … almost appear to have died from anaphylaxis, almost a reaction straight away to the booster.”

Anaphylaxis is an acute reaction of the body to an antigen, such as that of a bee sting, or an injection.

“They die the same day, the following day after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. This isn’t a one-off case, this is the majority of cases that have come through our facility,” Faithfull said in an interview.

Similar data has been discussed by funeral director John O’Looney in the UK and Richard Hirschman from Alabama, previously reported by The Epoch Times.

“From the very moment these injections went into arms, the death rate soared beyond belief. They labeled them all as COVID deaths, but the reality is they were almost exclusively the people who were vaccinated,” O’Looney told The Epoch Times.

“We now see record numbers of deaths in the vaccinated and in record numbers of young people. They die from a mixture of sudden very aggressive cancers or blood clots, which cause heart attack and stroke,” he added.

Doctors Comment

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, who has been informing the public on the dangers of vaccines for over two decades, weighed in on Faithfull’s testimony:

“On Dec. 2, 2020, UK regulators granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot. Within a week, MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] Chief Executive Officer June Raine said in a statement that ‘Any person with a history of anaphylaxis to a vaccine, medicine or food should not receive the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine.’ She went on to say that ‘allergic reactions had not been a feature of Pfizer’s clinical trials,'” Dr. Tenpenny told The Epoch Times.

However, Tenpenny further noted that anaphylaxis was the “first identified risk.”

“Pfizer was forced to release their findings by a Texas federal judge in January 2022. Within that first tranche of documents, you will find Table 3–Safety Concerns–on page 10 of this document [pdf]. The first identified risk is anaphylaxis. In a risk survey … conducted between Dec. 1, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021, a mere three months, 1,833 cases of anaphylaxis had been observed and four individuals died from anaphylaxis on the same,” she said.

In certain cases, Faithfull and his staff try to get the coroner involved.

Faithfull shared one instance where a man insisted that his father should not get the vaccine, but his sister pressured their father. When the father conceded and took the shot, he died four days later.

“When I started counting in August of last year, it was one after the other, after the other, after the other, and when I got to 20, it was 19 who had died within two weeks [of getting the vaccine],” Faithfull said.

“So the first 20 days, I counted 19 of them—that’s 95 percent,” the funeral director explained. “The next number was 100 percent of the people who died had been vaccinated within two weeks.”


23 October, 2022

Republican governors pledge to fight children's COVID vaccine mandate, Dems largely silent

New guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urging children to be vaccinated against the coronavirus to attend school have sparked a polarized response from the nation's governors.

GOP chief executives have largely denounced the voluntary guidelines, pledging to block school districts from adopting a coronavirus vaccination as a prerequisite for attendance.

"Under my watch, there will be no COVID vaccine mandates for kids — period," said Gov. Kim Reynolds, R-Iowa. "In fact, we signed a law that prevents it. It’s the parent's decision, not the government’s."

Other Republican governors were similarly quick to denounce the idea. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is seen as a potential front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, even argued that, given the relatively new nature of the coronavirus vaccine, the shot might not be suitable for young children.

"I get a kick out of it when people kind of compare it to (measles, mumps and rubella shots) and things that have been around for decades and decades," said DeSantis. "These are new shots."

Earlier this week, the CDC voted to add coronavirus inoculation to the Vaccines for Children Program. The inclusion does not make the shots mandatory for children but places it on a list of recommended vaccinations the CDC provides to physicians.

GOP governors fear the guidelines will be adopted wholesale by school districts across the country.

"I will never mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for Idahoans of any age group, especially children," said Gov. Brad Little, R-Idaho. "As long as I am governor, that decision will be determined solely by parents, families and individual citizens."

Democratic chief executives have followed a different course. Many have remained largely silent about the new guidelines. Of the 22 Democratic governors contacted by Fox News Digital Friday about their position on the topic, only three returned requests for comment.

Some, like Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, said the new guidelines are voluntary and have no immediate impact on either children or parents.

"The main impact of the CDC recommendation is that health insurance companies will be required to cover the cost of the immunization and that the federal government can continue to provide it for free to low-income families," a spokesman for Newsom said. "It's interesting that Republican states are criticizing this as schools already require vaccinations for chickenpox, polio, measles and more."

Still, others took a more muted stand. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills of Maine said she would not ask the state legislature to adopt the vaccine requirement for children.

"Maine has one of the highest vaccination rates in the nation. Any COVID-19 vaccine requirement for Maine children would need the approval of the state legislature," a spokesman for Mills told Fox News Digital.

"The governor will continue to encourage Maine people to be vaccinated, but she has no plans to ask the legislature to require the COVID-19 vaccination for children."

Democratic Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado took a similar position, telling Fox News Digital there were no plans to require a coronavirus vaccination for school attendance.


There was no basis for Covid passports and Covid vaccine mandates -- Pfizer admission

The admission Dutch conservative member of the European Parliament, Rob Roos, dragged out of Pfizer representative Janine Small has thrown the vaccine passport and vaccine mandate narrative into disarray. It dismantled the lie that we should be taking – specifically – Covid vaccines to protect others.

Roos switched to English when asking his controversial question, which helped the answer turn viral on social media where it was viewed at least 20 million times in the days that followed.

‘…and I will speak in English so there are no misunderstandings. Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please, say it clearly. If ‘yes’ are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want straight answer, ‘yes or no’ and I’m looking forward to it.’

‘No,’ was Small’s reply, followed by a little laugh – as if it were some kind of joke. ‘We had to really move at the speed of science.’ A comment that was shortly followed by the statement, ‘We had to do everything “at risk”.’

‘The speed of science… Honestly,’ said Rowan Dean, on The World According to Rowan Dean, which airs Tuesday-Thursday at 9pm on Sky News Australia.

He spoke with Rob Roos last night.

‘I was thrilled when you asked that question in English. You knew how important that question was. I remember, you started in Dutch and then went, “Hang on, I’m going to ask this question in English…!” Well done, and thank you so much. What led you to asking that particular question?’

‘Since the implementation of the Covid vaccines I’ve been searching for the answer to this question,’ replied Rob Roos. ‘I also asked it of AstraZeneca and Moderna because it’s important. Millions of people were placed outside society because of Covid passports. People lost their jobs and it was all based on that the vaccine would stop transmission, otherwise there would be no point in excluding unvaccinated people from society. If the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission, then vaccinated people spread the virus too. So, I found this to be an incredibly important question.’

‘Rob, you’re right, it is the single most important question because certainly here in Australia we had some of the worst lockdowns, we had this vicious persecution of unvaccinated people, we had our state premiers going on television and saying they wouldn’t be in the same room as the unvaccinated. It was this endless repetition of “this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated”. We had health authorities – health bureaucrats – telling the public that they were going to make life incredibly difficult for you if you weren’t vaccinated. This was persecution, I don’t know if it was the same in Europe, but it certainly happened here in Australia. You got that critical answer that they hadn’t even tested if it would stop transmission. Were you surprised by the answer? What’s it been like since you exposed this scandal?’

‘Well, I wasn’t that surprised,’ admitted Roos, ‘because the answer was as I suspected. We have all seen the daily practice during the Omicron variant but our governments keep telling the story – the fiction – that vaccination was necessary to protect others. But I was surprised about the honesty with which the Pfizer representative responded because the implications are massive. This means that there was no basis for Covid passports and Covid vaccine mandates.’

‘What has been the result in the European Parliament? It was the executive [from Pfizer] who turned up and spoke but it was the CEO who was invited. The CEO declined to come on to your interrogation and questioning… Maybe the executive wasn’t even aware of what dynamite she was exposing by giving the answer she gave?’ added Dean. ‘Are we going to see governments backing down and apologising for these vaccine passports? What’s been the response?’

‘There has been a massive response to the video. Worldwide people are angry because their governments lied to them. Austrians were denied access to their dying parents, for example. People all over the world – not only Europe. I also think a lot of people are now starting to see the government’s response for what it was. They have abused their power, maybe [they were] even tyrannical. They only cared about pushing vaccinations. There was no respect for people’s body autonomy and integrity. So, on the one hand, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, massively so. At the same time, I have been attacked by establishment media who claimed I spread “fake news”. But, when they attack me they don’t attack my actual argument, they attack a strawman. I am not claiming Pfizer lied, I am claiming our governments lied because they based their narrative on the idea that you do this for others and that vaccination stops transmission for which there was no evidence. And all fact-checkers have to admit that the government messaging was plain wrong and government policies undermined fundamental rights in an unprecedented way – a way which we thought would never be possible in a liberal democracy. But it was. And that’s shocking, because it tells us a lot about the state of our fundamental rights.’

‘You’ve used a phrase that I’ve been using a lot over the past few months, the abuse of power,’ replied Rowan Dean. ‘And, for me, that is what the absolute pivot of this is all about. I agree with you. We’ve seen a lot of people coming out and saying, “Oh… well, they never claimed that they had tested for transmission therefore there’s nothing in this story.” It’s complete rubbish. As you have put your finger on, the point is that our politicians led us to believe, in fact, they insisted at every level. Whether it was Anthony Fauci in the States or our own politicians here in Australia – at every level our health bureaucrats insisted that the vaccines prevented transmission and this was the rationale for mandatory vaccination which, in this country – and in other places – many people lost their jobs. Many people are still out of work. Many people had their lives turned upside down and destroyed because they insisted to us that it did stop transmission. This isn’t a problem with Pfizer, as you say, Rob, this is absolutely about the abuse of power by politicians who are either too stupid, or too lazy, or too corrupt to actually check out the facts and were prepared to abuse their power. What happens next?’

‘That’s a very good question. What should happen, in my opinion, is that politicians are held accountable. The people who were responsible for these policies should resign if they are still in office. This has been the most damaging violation of fundamental rights in decades. Its impact is lasting. Small businesses are still going bankrupt because of high inflation after they were already weakened by Covid lockdowns. Young people are still more often depressed and lost out on valuable life experience – our society suffers from an obesity epidemic – and this was not because of some force of nature, it was because politicians decided to enact these policies. Those who did should resign and this violation of fundamental human rights should never happen again.’

As Rowan Dean says, Rob Roos belongs in the history books for what he has done exposing the lies of our government officials during the pandemic years.

The fact-checkers can complain all they like that Pfizer never said or implied that their tests would prevent transmission. This is the excuse official fact-checkers use to call ‘fake news’ on Rob Roos. Are outfits such as Politifact so dense (or disingenuous?) that they don’t realise they are debating the wrong fact? Let’s have a ‘fact-check’ on the claims of politicians, such as President Joe Biden. As Rob Roos correctly states, it was the lies of government and the lies of health officials drafting policy, that matter. And they certainly lied.


21 October, 2022

The truth about Australia's Covid lockdowns is FINALLY exposed: Damning report slams school closures and politically-driven decisions - 'it was WRONG'

An independent review into Australia's Covid response has slammed politically driven health orders and the excessive use of lockdowns - finding they ultimately failed to protect the nation's most vulnerable people,.

The 97-page review, led by former secretary to the prime minister's office Peter Shergold, urged federal and state governments to learn from their mistakes and overhaul their processes in order to restore trust.

The report, funded by the Paul Ramsay Foundation, John and Myriam Wylie Foundation and Andrew Forrest's Minderoo Foundation, found the country's school closures were also a failure.

'It was wrong to close entire school systems, particularly once new information indicated that schools were not high-transmission environments,' the review said.

'For children and parents [particularly women], we failed to get the balance right between protecting health and imposing long-term costs on education, mental health, the economy and workforce outcomes.

'Rules were too often formulated and enforced in ways that lacked fairness and compassion. Such overreach undermined public trust and confidence in the institutions that are vital to effective crisis response.'

The review carried out over a six month period involved more than 350 confidential submissions and consultations from health experts, economists, public servants, business and community groups.

It consisted of more than 160 submissions, 3,000 hours of research and policy and data analysis.

The review concluded various lockdowns and shutting of borders should have been used as a 'last resort'.

'Too many of Australia's lockdowns and border closures were the result of policy failures in quarantine, contact tracing, testing, disease surveillance and communicating effectively the need for preventive measures like mask wearing and social distancing,' the review stated.

'Lockdowns, especially when targeted at a particular location, brought a deep sense of inequity among those who were most restricted. Lockdowns, overall, created a universal feeling that the pandemic was being policed rather than managed.

'As with lockdowns, border closures – particularly between states and territories – should be used sparingly and only in extreme situations. They should be applied with greater empathy and flexibility.'

The review noted despite the pandemic affecting everyone, 'its burden was not shared equally'.


'It was wrong to close entire school systems, particularly once new information indicated that schools were not high-transmission environments.'

'Rules were too often formulated and enforced in ways that lacked fairness and compassion. Such overreach undermined public trust and confidence in the institutions that are vital to effective crisis response.'

'Lockdowns, especially when targeted at a particular location, brought a deep sense of inequity among those who were most restricted. Lockdowns, overall, created a universal feeling that the pandemic was being policed rather than managed.

It stated that the failure to plan adequately for the 'differing impact of Covid' meant the disease 'spread faster and more widely'.

The review also noted while Australia had early success in limiting infection rates and deaths, in comparison to other countries, this success 'started to falter in 2021'.

'Cases and deaths have risen even further during 2022, dramatically reversing our early competitive advantage,' the review notes.

'As of September 30, 2022, Australia has recorded 378,617 cases per million people in 2022. 'The latest available official data shows that by May 2022 excess deaths in Australia had spiked to almost 359 per million people in 2022.'

The document also said the 'absence of transparency' in the expert health advice 'helped mask political calculations'.

'Political calculation was never far from the surface of COVID-19 decisions,' the review stated.

'It is neither realistic nor desirable to remove politics from decision-making in an accountable democracy. 'But the absence of transparency in the expert advice going to leaders helped mask political calculations.

'It was difficult to gauge the trade-offs that were being considered between health and economic outcomes. It made it easier for leaders to be selective in the 'expert advice' they followed.'

The paper went on to explain the damning effect overreach had on the confidence of Australian citizens.

'Such overreach undermined public trust and confidence in the institutions that are vital to effective crisis response,' it read.

'Many Australians came to feel that they were being protected by being policed. These actions could have been avoided if we had built fairness into our planning decisions and introduced compassion into their implementation.'

The review recommended six measures to be implemented in order to avoid the same mistakes being repeated in another health crisis.

These included; establishing an independent, data-driven Australian Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, clearly defining national cabinet roles and responsibilities in a crisis, publicly releasing modelling used in government decision-making, regular pandemic scenario testing and the sharing and linking of data between jurisdictions.


Ivermectin Key for Early COVID-19 Treatment: Dr. Paul Marik

Ivermectin is a key drug for early COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Paul Marik says.

Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, has shown efficacy against COVID-19 in some studies as a prophylactic and treatment.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which Marik helped start, features ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in its early treatment protocol.

“Ivermectin is a remarkable drug,” Marik told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” during a recent conference.

“It’s antiviral, so it works against a whole host of RNA viruses. This is indisputable. It is anti-inflammatory. We know that there are multiple studies showing that ivermectin is a very powerful anti-inflammatory drug. We know that what it does is it stimulates a process called autophagy, which is very important in the process of healing. And it’s one of the main mechanisms that we use to help patients get rid of spike protein. And ivermectin, believe it or not, stimulates autophagy. The other thing it does, which is important, is it changes [and] improves the microbiome,” Marik added.

Ivermectin is used off-label to treat COVID-19 in the United States. It is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat conditions caused by parasites.

The FDA says ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID-19, pointing to studies that have found little or no benefit for the drug against the disease. Other research has found ivermectin can be effective as a preventative and a therapy, including one from FLCCC doctors that found the drug lowered mortality rates.


Health care providers can prescribe drugs “off-label.” That means a drug is used for a purpose other than that for which it is authorized or approved.

“From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient,” the FDA says on its website.

But a number of medical boards and other health bodies intervened during the pandemic, restricting or banning prescriptions for drugs used off-label for COVID-19, such as ivermectin.

Marik said he thinks many people misunderstand off-label, and aren’t aware that many hospitals use off-label drugs every single day.

“It’s common practice. And in fact, the FDA promotes—the FDA themselves, if you go to their website—promotes the use of off-label drugs. And what they say is that doctors are fully entitled to use FDA-approved off-label drugs at their own discretion at the discretion of the physician,” Marik said.

“But suddenly, with COVID, the rules changed. You couldn’t use an off-label drug. And you have to ask why. And obviously, they don’t want people to use off-label drugs, they want you to use, firstly, the expensive drugs and it obviously would compete with the mandate for the vaccine, because if there were cheap, effective drugs that could treat COVID, why would you want to be vaccinated with an experimental vaccine whose safety has never been established?”

Early treatment using off-label drugs, he added, was a “valid alternative for people who wanted a choice.”

Marik is one of the doctors who sued the FDA in June for allegedly violating the law by interfering with doctors who sought to treat patients with ivermectin. The case is still ongoing.

Marik and colleagues founded FLCCC after seeing U.S. authorities fail to provide or recommend COVID-19 treatments early in the pandemic.

Even after months into the pandemic, no treatments were advised for patients, even those admitted to hospitals. Remdesivir was authorized for hospitalized patients on May 1, 2020.

Further, when hospitalized patients’ conditions worsened, they were placed on ventilators. Many of the patients who ended up on ventilators died.

“It just goes against the basic foundation of medicine, that you would have a disease, which had a high fatality rate and you wouldn’t try something—something—just to treat these patients,” Marik said.

The doctors figured out that COVID-19 attacks the lungs, causing fatal lung failure, inflammation, and clotting.

They turned to known anti-inflammatories like methylprednisolone, a type of corticosteroid that also helps with the lung issues. Heparin, used to prevent blood clots, was also part of the inpatient protocol, which became known as MATH+.

“At that time, we were heavily criticized, for firstly, using corticosteroids and then Heparin,” Marik recounted. “People said, ‘You can’t do it, it’s a viral disease, you’re gonna kill people.’ They were outraged. But we saw it worked. We were at the bedside. There’s nothing like being a doctor at the bedside, seeing what happens. And then, of course, six months later, the RECOVERY trial came around and showed, believe it or not, corticosteroids save lives. So unfortunately, in that study, they use the wrong steroid and the wrong dose. But steroids are so potent that it actually was was able to reduce mortality. So we were vindicated.”

At the time, Marik was chair of the Eastern Virginia Medical School’s Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, and helping treat patients at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.

The protocol helped save lives, Marik said.

The group later developed a list of drugs effective for early, outpatient treatment for people who contracted COVID-19. The main goal was to prevent hospitalizations.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel says multiple trials indicate corticosteroids help people hospitalized with COVID-19. The panel also recommends against using ivermectin against COVID-19 except in clinical trials.

Other Drugs

Under “first line agents,” FLCCC lists hydroxychloroquine with ivermectin. Hydroxychloroquine is approved as an antimalarial, but it and a similar drug, chloroquine, are not recommended by U.S. authorities for treating COVID-19. Similar to ivermectin, some studies have shown efficacy while others have not, with debates raging regarding proper dosing and timing. And similar to ivermectin, the drug is cheap because generic versions are widely available.

Aspirin, another anti-coagulant, is also advised with vitamin D3 and melatonin. Zinc, vitamin C, and antiviral mouthwash are among the other aspects of the first phase.

The NIH panel does not advise for or against vitamins C, D, or zinc due to what it describes as insufficient evidence.

If symptoms persist for five or more days, FLCCC recommends a second set of treatments. They include sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody; fluvoxamine, an anti-depressant; and spironolactone, typically used to treat high blood pressure.

The panel has no guidance on spironolactone. It previously recommended sotrovimab but does not any longer because it says the monoclonal does not perform well against newer Omicron subvariants. The panel also says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against fluvoxamine. The FDA rejected a request from a doctor to authorize fluvoxamine for COVID-19.

Marik believes the emphasis always should have been on repurposed drugs, which have repeatedly been downplayed or ignored by U.S. authorities.

“If you kind of think about a pandemic, what you want to control it are repurposed drugs, because by their very nature these are cheap, inexpensive, easy to manufacture. And since this is a global issue, it then is very easy to distribute these drugs around the entire world and control the pandemic, which was the obvious answer, is the use of cheap, repurposed, effective, safe drugs,” he said. “Hydroxychloroquine is safe, if you use it in the right dose, which is really important.

And ivermectin is exceedingly safe, you could use 10 times the recommended dose and it’s safe. And vitamin D, vitamin C, nigella sativa, there’s a whole host of medications—melatonin—that are highly effective as a repurposed drug for controlling this disease. But it went against the narrative.”

Marik used the example of chloroquine, which was effective against SARS-CoV-1, and touted by the NIH as one of a number of drugs effective against MERS. But once COVID-19, or SARS-CoV-2, came around, “that didn’t apply anymore,” Marik said. “And clearly there were severe conflicts of interest. It was inconvenient. It was inconvenient for them.




20 October, 2022

COVID Vaccines Causing Death Can Be proven

There are various ways to show that COVID vaccines can kill people. Likely the best is conducting a very good autopsy.

A new medical article by a German researcher details the findings of an autopsy that proved death was caused by COVID vaccination. The title is “A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19.”

Here is the abstract:

“The current report presents the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination. The patient was first vaccinated in May 2021 with the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vector vaccine, followed by two doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in July and December 2021. The family of the deceased requested an autopsy due to ambiguous clinical signs before death. PD was confirmed by post-mortem examinations. Furthermore, signs of aspiration pneumonia and systemic arteriosclerosis were evident. However, histopathological analyses of the brain uncovered previously unsuspected findings, including acute vasculitis (predominantly lymphocytic) as well as multifocal necrotizing encephalitis of unknown etiology with pronounced inflammation including glial and lymphocytic reaction. In the heart, signs of chronic cardiomyopathy as well as mild acute lympho-histiocytic myocarditis and vasculitis were present. Although there was no history of COVID-19 for this patient, immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins) was performed. Surprisingly, only spike protein but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels. Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.”

And here are the conclusions:

”Numerous cases of encephalitis and encephalomyelitis have been reported in connection with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, with many being considered causally related to vaccination [31,38,39]. However, this is the first report to demonstrate the presence of the spike protein within the encephalitic lesions and to attribute it to vaccination rather than infection. These findings corroborate a causative role of the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, and this diagnostic approach is relevant to potentially vaccine-induced damage to other organs as well.”

Another recent study found the following:

“We report the autopsy results, including microscopic myocardial findings, of 2 teenage boys who died within the first week after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose. The microscopic findings are not the alterations seen with typical myocarditis. This suggest a role for cytokine storm, which may occur with an excessive inflammatory response, as there also is a feedback loop between catecholamines and cytokines.”

And yet another study found similar results;

“In these two adult cases of histologically confirmed, fulminant myocarditis that had developed within 2 weeks after Covid-19 vaccination, a direct causal relationship cannot be definitively established because we did not perform testing for viral genomes or autoantibodies in the tissue specimens. However, no other causes were identified by PCR assay or serologic examination.”

Unlike the German study these two US studies seemed reluctant to state the obvious causality between the COVID vaccine and death.

Here is part of a pertinent news story with this title: “FDA Withholding Autopsy Results on People Who Died After Getting COVID-19 Vaccines.”

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is refusing to release the results of autopsies conducted on people who died after getting COVID-19 vaccines.

The FDA says it is barred from releasing medical files, but a drug safety advocate says that it could release the autopsies with personal information redacted.”

Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who advises the FDA as part of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, said that the reports could be released with personal information blacked out.

“The personal information could easily be redacted without losing the potential learnings from [the] autopsy,” Witczak told The Epoch Times via email.

People make the choice to submit autopsy results to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, Witczak noted.

“If someone submits their experience to VAERS they want and expect to have it investigated by the FDA. This includes autopsy reports,” she said.

Autopsies are examinations of deceased persons performed to determine the cause of death.

“Autopsies can be an important part of postmortem analysis and should be done especially with increased deaths following COVID-19 vaccination,” Witczak said.the

A review of the scarcity of autopsies concluded:

“To ensure public safety, postmortem investigations on all fatalities associated with COVID-19 vaccination should be done. Autopsies should be publicly funded, carried out by independent pathologists, with results published free of authoritarian censorship that supports deceiving narratives. Pathologists must be protected against intimidation and retaliation if their reports differ from results desired by officialdom.”

Data analysis

Besides autopsies, a number of analysts have done data studies that lead to the conclusion that COVID vaccines explain many deaths. Here is a conclusion from one such analysis of Massachusetts data:

“It is apparent that as you move younger through the age groups that overall mortality and COVID-19 mortality gets relatively worse in 2021 than 2020. This is in stark contrast to the claims that the COVID-19 vaccine is both safe and effective.”

Another analysis, also of Massachusetts data, came to this cocnlusion:

“the official Massachusetts database of death certificates contains proof that C19 gene modification biological injectable products killed thousands of people in Massachusetts in 2021. There is not another dataset out there like that one that definitely proves prolonged excess death in causes specific to the circulatory system and in numbers in the thousands of lives and in younger people than expected. C19 was over in Massachusetts in June 2020. What has happened since then has been a hidden disaster of biological injectable product madness


Real-World Evidence in Hong Kong Evidence Material Benefits of COVID-19 Oral Antivirals

According to the results of a recent Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and University of Hong Kong (HKU) study, COVID-19 death rates plummet by 80% when inpatients are prescribed oral antiviral medication, and such a regimen also reduces the risk of hospital admission in outpatients by 90%. A prominent study team suggests the observational, real-world evidence investigation points to the need for a triage mechanism for an expeditious antiviral prescription for mild to moderate COVID-19 patients.

Before summarizing the Hong Kong-based observational study results, TrialSite takes a trip back in time to early in the pandemic when physicians such as Dr. Peter McCullough, a well-known, highly published cardiologist and clinical investigator created controversy for daring to take on the medical establishment regarding treatment approaches. His key points, “Four Pillars of COVID-19 Care,” emphasize the critical importance of treating COVID-19 patients early on with repurposed combinations of oral antivirals (and other known regimens), given the complete absence at the time of any approved pharmaceuticals or vaccines.

Early on American Doctors Called Out This Need

Early on during the pandemic, while shunned and even ridiculed by the mainstream, front-line physicians such as Dr. Peter McCullough of Dallas, Texas called out the need for combinations of repurposed, oral and other therapies based on the unfolding observations of the lifecycle disease states of COVID-19. McCullough shared his views on the various treatments associated with the “Four Pillars of COVID-19 Care,” which involved combinations of repurposed therapies, especially in the early stages of the infection.

McCullough’s Four Pillars included 1) contagion control or efforts to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, 2) Early ambulatory or home treatment of COVID-19 syndrome to reduce hospitalization and death, 3) late-stage hospitalization treatment or a “safety net for survival,” and 4) vaccination to “herd immunity.”

Although ignored by much of the medical establishment that opted for a government-directed, top-down approach centered on pharmaceutical company-driven studies, front-line providers early on emphasized the unfolding, real-world observations of the COVID-19 disease states, using their experience, expertise, and wisdom to pair various medications at various stages of the lifecycle of the disease. This critical contribution by McCullough, an advisor to TrialSite, in many ways becomes validated, as the Dallas-based doctor was always pro-pharmaceuticals. He just didn’t want to sit back and do nothing while society waited for novel therapeutics that underwent clinical trials.

Other doctors and pharmacists also reported success with repurposed drug regimens following McCullough’s thesis. Others followed their own paradigm, such as a pharmacist from Adventist Health, reported on by TrialSite, who developed the ICAM protocol that appeared to be saving hundreds of lives. It turns out that that particular health system had a contract with Pfizer that precluded such real-world tinkering while they served as a trial site for vaccine trials.

Another group was the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, and several independent groups and individuals, but the guidance from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and most of academic medicine was to do nothing despite a mounting death toll. They chose to wait for the vaccines that were authorized on an emergency basis in December 2020, and any novel, branded pharmaceuticals that ensued with provisional authorizations.

But what were front-line doctors to do with their patients? What about the Hippocratic Oath to do something? Was doing nothing better than doctors’ best efforts at something? The point here is that the lessons of COVID-19 must bring back together critically minded, independent front-line physicians and the healthcare systems. After all, the goal is the health of the patient above all.

Enter the Recent Hong Kong Real-World Evidence Study
Hong Kong-based researchers have verified that using the oral antiviral agent Paxlovid (Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir) may reduce the risk of death in hospitalized patients by as much as 78% along with a lowering the risk of hospital admission (among outpatients) by as much as 88%. These are impressive numbers that the Hong Kong researchers argue could save considerable money per patient when compared to usual methods of care.

Recently published in The Lancet Regional Health—Western Pacific, the study team, led by the Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care at CU Medicine and the Department of Emergency Medicine at HKU Med, report on the findings of their retrospective, cohort analysis involving 54,355 COVID-19 outpatients in designated clinics and inpatients in public hospitals in Hong Kong associated with the fifth COVID-19 wave between February and March 2022.

Both Pfizer’s Paxlovid (Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir) and Merck’s Molnupiravir (Lagevrio) were significantly associated with a reduced death rate among inpatients. What did the Hong Kong-based team find?

For inpatient scenarios, antivirals led to a reduction in all-cause mortality.


19 October, 2022

A cure for long COVID? Drug used to treat alcohol and opioid addiction is found to relieve persistent brain fog and fatigue

A drug used to treat addiction could be what millions of long Covid sufferers around the world need to finally address their symptoms.

Naltrexone is a generic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat both alcohol and opioid addicts.

But in small trials it has been able to relieve long Covid patients of lingering ailments like brain fog and fatigue that last months after the initial infection.

The drug - sold under the brand name Revia - is now being touted as a crucial piece of the puzzle of long Covid that has stumped experts for over two years.

Larger trials are underway and scientists are still searching for the mechanism as to why naltrexone seems to be so effective against chronic Covid.

Current treatments for long Covid include therapy targeted at the symptoms a person is feeling to manage the condition, though there are no universal treatments.

Treatments include physical therapy, and drug to manage symptoms like chronic pain, respiratory issues and others.

Lauren Nichols, a 34-year-old logistics expert for the US Department of Transportation in Boston, was a patient suffering from the condition.

She reported symptoms of impaired thinking and focus, fatigue, seizures, headache and pain since her COVID-19 infection in the spring of 2020.

In June, she was suggested the anti-addiction medication by the doctor. Within months, she could think clearly again and was pain-free.

The drug has previously shown promise against post-infection syndromes like chronic fatigue syndrome, suffered by people after a severe illness.

It works by blocking the euphoric and sedative effects of opioid drugs by blocking the brains receptors, and stopping cravings for the drug as a result. It is to be taken orally.

Common side-effects include nausea, headaches, dizziness, vomiting and other symptoms.

It also has anti-inflammatory properties and has been used in the past to treat conditions such as fibromyalgia, Crohn's disease and multiple sclerosis.

'It should be at the top of everyone's list for clinical trials,' said Dr Jarred Younger, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Testing of naltrexone was included in a $1billion initiative by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to discover the causes and treatments for long Covid.

At least four clinical trials testing a low-dose naltrexone's (LDN) effectiveness against long Covid are now underway.

The condition is made up of a collection of some 200 symptoms ranging from pain and heart palpitations to insomnia and cognitive impairment.

At 50 milligrams (mg) naltrexone is approved to treat opioid and alcohol addiction. But in long Covid studies it is being used in tiny doses up to 10 times lower than that.

Dr Jack Lambert, an infectious disease expert at University College Dublin School of Medicine, had used the drug to treat pain and fatigue associated with Lyme disease.

During the pandemic, Lambert recommended naltrexone to colleagues treating patients with lingering symptoms after bouts of Covid.

It worked so well that he ran a pilot study among 38 long Covid patients. They reported improvements in energy, pain, concentration, insomnia and overall recovery from COVID-19 after two months, according to findings published in July.

Lambert, who is planning a larger trial to confirm those results, said he believes it may repair damage of the disease rather than mask its symptoms.

Other planned trials include one by the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and a pilot study by Ann Arbor, Michigan-based startup AgelessRx. That study of 36 volunteers should have results by year-end, said company co-founder Sajad Zalzala.

Scientists are still working on explaining the mechanism for how the addiction drug might work.

Experiments by Dr Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik of the National Centre for Neuroimmunology and Emerging Diseases in Australia suggest long Covid symptoms arise from a significant reduction in function of natural killer cells in the immune system. In laboratory experiments, naltrexone has been shown to help restore their normal function.

Dr Hector Bonilla, co-director of the Stanford Post-Acute COVID-19 Clinic and a RECOVER adviser, has used naltrexone in 500 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, with half reporting feeling better.

He studied it in 18 long Covid patients, with 11 showing improvements, and said he believes larger, formal trials could determine whether it offers a true benefit.

There are also theories that long Covid is the product of the 'nocebo' affect, where a person's symptoms may be a result of a psychological effect, not physical illness.


Moderna's CEO admits only the vulnerable need a COVID booster and likens the virus to flu

Not everyone needs to get an annual Covid booster, according to the head of pharma giant Moderna who also likened the virus to seasonal flu. Stéphane Bancel said his company's shots should mainly be targeted at over-50s and people with underlying health conditions.

His comments seem to be at odds with the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) which is urging everyone over the age of five to get boosted.

Covid is now predominantly only killing the most vulnerable because the US has built up strong immunity through high infection rates and repeated vaccine rollouts.

There are currently around 300 deaths from the virus across the country every day, compared to more than 1,000 this time last year.

Mr Bancel told a finance conference on Monday: 'I think it's going to be like the flu. If you're a 25-year-old, do you need an annual booster every year if you're healthy?

‘You might want to... but I think it's going to be similar to flu where it's going to be people at high-risk, people above 50 years of age, people with comorbidities, people with cancer and other conditions, people with transplants.’

Mr Bancel's comments come amid a sluggish vaccine booster rollout that has seen just one in 20 eligible Americans taking up their Omicron-specific shot. Despite there being little appetite for the new vaccines, the CDC last week approved Moderna and Pfizer's shot for children as young as five.

Pfizer recently joined forces with Marvel for a PR campaign that appeared to target children.

But Mr Bancel said it was ‘very important to think about’ whether or not to get Covid boosters.

He said there are around ‘1.5billion people’ globally who would fall into the vulnerable category. But he emphasized that younger people ‘are going to have to decide for themselves what they want to do’.

Dr Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said the country was 'ripe' for a resurgence because it has low levels of immunity.

Influenza has been largely sidelined during the pandemic due to lockdowns and social restrictions, leaving Americans with little protection against the seasonal bug.

But there are signs the flu is making a comeback as latest data shows cases have quadrupled in recent weeks — months before the virus normally strikes.

Flu season typically runs from late October to May, picking up in December and peaking in February.

But the southern hemisphere - which is normally a precursor for the US - suffered an early and brutal wave during its winter earlier in the year.

There are also concerns about flu vaccine uptake, with just 12million Americans having received the shot so far.

Dr Walensky told NBC News: ‘We've noted that flu activity is starting to increase across much of the country.

‘Not everybody got flu vaccinated last year, and many people did not get the flu. So that makes us ripe to have potentially a severe flu season.’

Roughly 14.8million Americans have now received the updated bivalent booster, out of 215million eligible people.

Mr Bancel defended the sluggish Covid booster uptake, pointing out that it is stronger than seasonal flu uptake.

He noted that it is the first time people are getting the booster in more of an endemic than pandemic setting, meaning people are less anxious to get a new vaccine.

‘You might do it to protect other people or because you don’t want to get sick and miss work, or miss vacation.’

But he has been getting the annual flu shot since the age of 30, he said. ‘Is it because I was worried of being hospitalized? Of course not. I just didn’t want to be sick, I wanted to be able to work.’

Controversy was sparked over the Covid vaccine drive when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extended eligibility to children who are six months old earlier this year.

Many experts cautioned against the move at the time, saying children face a very low risk from the virus and warned it could interfere with other inoculations they need such as against polio or measles.

There is also now a prevailing sense that the Covid pandemic has come to an end, after President Joe Biden declared it was over on television last month.

He has since attempted to walk back from his words, but many are still under the impression that Covid no longer poses a threat.


18 October, 2022

Scientists Find Antibodies That Neutralize All COVID Strains

Previous monoclonal antibody treatments against COVID-19 have had mixed results against variants. However, new research uncovered two antibodies that work against all known strains of COVID-19.


Two antibodies have been uncovered that are so effective at neutralizing COVID-19 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines”

The antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — bind to a different area of the spike protein than other antibodies, one that doesn’t undergo many mutations

TAU-1109 is 92% effective at neutralizing the omicron strain and 90% effective at neutralizing the delta strain

TAU-2310 has an efficacy rate of 84% at neutralizing omicron and a 97% efficacy rate against the delta variant

The researchers believe that with effective antibody treatment, “we will not have to provide booster doses to the entire population every time there is a new variant”

Researchers at Tel Aviv University revealed two antibodies that are so effective at neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines.”1 One of the glaring failures surrounding COVID-19 shots is their lack of effectiveness against emerging COVID-19 strains.

By choosing the spike protein on which to base COVID-19 shots, scientists picked a protein that not only was known to be toxic to humans but was not the part of the virus that prompted the best immune response.

Spike protein mutates rapidly, which essentially destroys virtually any protection that the shot provides shortly after it’s given. The end result is a seemingly never-ending series of annual shots and boosters, which can only offer rapidly waning protection. If the Israeli researchers’ findings are verified and the antibodies turn out to be as effective as suspected, it could eliminate COVID-19 booster shots entirely.2

Previous Antibody Treatments Had Mixed Results
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized multiple monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktails for the treatment of COVID-19. However, as variants emerged, their effectiveness varied, with some becoming ineffective and others retaining their activity.

“This indicates that some antibodies elicited by infection are more variation-sensitive than others, and that antibody breadth of specificity, and not only potency, should be considered,” the researchers, from the department of clinical microbiology and immunology at Tel Aviv University’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine,3 wrote in the journal Communications Biology.4

For instance, in January 2022, the FDA limited the use of two monoclonal antibody treatments — bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which are administered together, and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) — to patients infected with a variant known to be susceptible to them.5 The two antibody treatments mentioned had lost much of their effectiveness against the omicron variant, leading to the usage restriction in people infected with omicron.

On the other hand, in February 2022, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a monoclonal antibody treatment known as bebtelovimab, which retained activity against the omicron variant.6 According to the FDA:7

“Bebtelovimab works by binding to the spike protein of the virus that causes COVID-19, similar to other monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized for the treatment of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and shown a benefit in reducing the risk of hospitalization or death.”

The way the antibodies bind to the spike protein may hold the key to their ultimate effectiveness against various strains. In previous research conducted in October 2020, lead study author Natalia Freund and colleagues isolated nine antibodies from people who recovered from the original COVID-19 strain in Israel. Freund stated in a news release:8


Informed consent and vaccine side-effects in Australia

Australia’s medical Code of Conduct, the statutory rules for medical practitioners, defines informed consent as ‘a person’s voluntary decision about medical care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved’.

In addition, the Australian Immunisation Handbook states: ‘For consent to be legally valid … it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion, or manipulation … and it can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person.’

Think back to the last time you gave consent for a medical procedure or, dare I say it, a vaccination. Were you taken through this process?

There’s more. What happens to consent if you’re involved in a clinical trial?

Former barrister, Julian Gillespie, explains:

‘There is a portion towards the end of the medical Code of Conduct, which … clearly addresses if you are a medical practitioner and you are involved in a clinical or experimental trial … then there’s all these further procedures and protocols that must be satisfied.’

Surely that would only apply in the circumstances of an experimental trial, wouldn’t it?

As it happens, that’s what we’ve been doing for the past couple of years. ‘We heard it out of former health minister, Greg Hunt’s lips, and several others,’ Gillespie says. ‘It’s well acknowledged that these Covid vaccines have only been provisionally approved and are still subject to clinical trials.’

Julian Gillespie LLB, BJuris, is co-author, with Peter Fam LLB, of a recently published bombshell legal opinion casting doubt on the legal basis of AHPRA’s March 9, 2021 ‘gag order’.

The opinion was issued with a letter stating:

‘Contingent to a joint statement received from AHPRA and the National Boards on 9 March 2021, Australian Health Professionals … were essentially forbidden from publicly questioning the science underlying the emerging Covid injectables, let alone questioning any government messaging urging Australians to be vaccinated, because these products were deemed “safe and effective”.

‘The effect of this unilateral action … inserted AHPRA and the National Boards between the Clinician and their Patient, which resulted in a serious failure of evidenced-based information being shared by Health Professionals with patients … for the purpose of their providing legally acceptable Informed Consent to receiving Covid injectables.

‘This failure in Informed Consent has likely resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Australians agreeing to the administration of Covid injectables, where they would not have so agreed or consented had they been provided with all the available evidenced-based information… including that they expose a recipient to a real and significant risk of death, injury, or illness.’

What does this mean?

Essentially, the legal opinion posits that it was illegal for AHPRA and the National Boards to even produce the position statement. Health Professionals were always required to first observe their Codes of Conduct irrespective of the various coercive and threatening statements made in the March statement.

But wait, there’s more.

It also appears the public officers responsible for that statement are now legally exposed:

‘As the harm to Covid vaccine victims was foreseeable, in terms of these still remaining experimental gene-based therapies, these vaccine victims … can sue the public offices of AHPRA and the National Boards in their personal capacity,’ says Gillespie.

It doesn’t stop there. There may be further liability available to health practitioners who administered the vaccines in breach of their Codes of Conduct. Gillespie adds, ‘Should those health practitioners subsequently be sued by their patients … then those health practitioners may, in turn, be able to sue the public officers of AHPRA and the National Boards for coercing and threatening them to ignore their Codes of Conduct. Such illegal action would be the tort of misfeasance in public office.’

I’ll just let that all sink in.

The legal opinion was sent to all medical associations and colleges, nearly 70 of them, all Australia’s politicians, state, federal, and territory, and medical professional insurers.

Oh, and it was also sent to over 300 of Australia’s top personal injury and medical negligence lawyers.

No one’s missing out on this one.

The legal opinion was helpfully accompanied by a 107-page report reviewing the evidence and adverse event data for Covid vaccines. It’s an alarming read.

But wait – there’s (even) more.

Proposed changes to Health Practitioner National Law, due to be debated in the Queensland Parliament on October 11, 2022, are set to give AHPRA even more power to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

These proposed amendments have medical organisations extremely concerned including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Medical Network (AMN), and the Australian Medical Professionals Society.

If passed, ‘Doctors will no longer be able to express their opinion or use their experience, training, and education if their opinion goes against what the health bureaucrats say is in the best interests of public confidence in safety,’ says AMN.

And the changes won’t stop in Queensland. The amended National Law will then be rolled out to other jurisdictions. All Australians should be concerned.

The Australian Medical Professional Society says, ‘Health regulation is not being used to protect the public from legitimate professional misconduct but is being used to silence Health Professionals from questioning government policy as a matter of routine.’

If the legislation comes to pass, it begs the question: when a patient goes to visit their doctor how will they know if they are receiving the doctor’s professional opinion or the government’s latest edict?

The March 9, 2021 joint position statement has given Australia a taste of what might come if we don’t stand up to this obscene imposition by regulators in the consultation room.

In the words of ‘Dr Frank Mercy’ – an Australian doctor who writes under a pseudonym for fear of reprisal – ‘This is our Stalingrad. Defeat here will open the field to unlimited human resources for oppressive forces that can never be turned back. We must oppose this with all our resolve.’


17 October, 2022

Menstrual Abnormalities Lasting for Months Following COVID-19 Shot ‘Very Concerning’: Doctor

The data collected from Israel’s adverse events reporting system showing that some women experienced menstrual disorders for more than 12 months after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine raises concerns, according to Dr. Shelly Cole, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Texas.

“Looking at the Israeli data is very concerning,” Cole told The Epoch Times.

Of the 282 Israeli women who reported menstrual abnormality following COVID-19 vaccination, 88 reports contained information on the duration of the condition. And of the 88 reports, 83 disclosed that the menstrual problems lasted over a week. Some of the women’s problems had still not resolved.

All but one of the reports were from adults. The single child report detailed a disorder lasting between one and six months.

Of the other 82 reports, 11 reported that their condition lasted between one week to one month, 42 that their condition lasted one to six months, 22 that they suffered for six to 12 months, and seven that their condition lasted for over 12 months.

The reports were from women who received a Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. The reports were submitted between December 2021 and May 2022. They were discussed during a secret meeting over the summer.

Health experts say the actual number of menstrual cases is much higher than what is being reported to the system and others like it. Many women may have thought that their condition was not vaccine-related, been unaware of the reporting system, or not been encouraged by their doctor to lodge a report.

Cole said that she wasn’t surprised that women were complaining of irregular menstruation, including abnormal bleeding following vaccination. She’s seen it “throughout the pandemic” in her clinic and discussed the matter with other doctors.

She was still shocked when she learned Israel’s Ministry of Health (MoH) presented a lower risk of menstrual abnormality than what the adverse event reports showed in a public report (pdf) published in August, two months after the closed-door meeting.

The MoH used the total vaccine doses administered since the shots were cleared—over 18 million—as a denominator to calculate the risk of adverse events. The shots were cleared in late 2020, but the new reporting system was not launched until December 2021.

“They took the 18 months of doses of the Pfizer vaccination and they only looked at the side effects for six months,” Cole said. “So how can this be even remotely valid?”

That minimized the calculated risks of the adverse events reported, including menstrual abnormalities. And they included doses given to males when calculating risks despite men not menstruating. “They minimized menstrual irregularity by implementing men in the data,” Cole said.

The MoH did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

“The reported phenomena are known phenomena in the professional literature and were also found in the previous reports of the Ministry of Health, and there was no observation of an increase in a new phenomenon (new signal),” the ministry said in the report. That statement was false, according to the presentation in the secret meeting.


The MoH commissioned a group of researchers to analyze reports of adverse events submitted to their new reporting system following vaccination from December 2021 to May 2022. The researchers found that the duration of some events, including menstrual disorders, were not short-lived or mild as health authorities claim.

The researchers also said that Pfizer officials informed them that the company was unaware of any long-term symptoms. Pfizer didn’t return multiple emails requesting comments.

Sasha Zhurat, the main presenter at that time, said that many of the complaints of menstrual abnormalities lasted for several months and not the couple of days that is mentioned in the brochure distributed to vaccine recipients.

“But compared to the leaflet where it says that the symptoms go away after a few days, we saw that there were many reports, and only 5 percent had symptoms that lasted between two weeks and a month, all the rest were much longer,” Zhurat said.

She added that “over 90 percent of the reports in which there appears some kind of topic of duration and long-term changes,” 60 percent reported a change lasting three months.

In 10 percent of these women, Zhurat said that they experienced the same menstrual issue following additional vaccine doses, a phenomenon known as rechallenge.

Rechallenge is one factor to establish causality between a vaccine and an adverse event when the re-administration of the same vaccine causes the reoccurrence of a side effect that had gone away.

Some side effects are officially recognized by vaccine makers and health authorities, such as heart inflammation. But the researchers discovered that some others were also caused by the shot.

The meeting was recorded without the participants’ knowledge and leaked to Israeli journalist Yaffa Shir-Raz, who broke the story in August. The Epoch Times has reviewed the full recording.

Some of the findings, including the finding of rechallenge, were omitted from the MoH’s report to the public


Israeli Ministry of Health Confirms Leaked Video Is Real, but downplays it

Israel’s Ministry of Health has confirmed that a leaked video showing an expert warning the agency about potentially facing lawsuits over COVID-19 vaccine side effects is real, but issued false statements about the discussion.

Video footage recorded during a meeting held behind closed doors over the summer showed that experts hired to analyze post-vaccination adverse event reports said the analysis proved a causal relationship between some of the events and the vaccines and warned about presenting the data in a certain way in order to avoid lawsuits.

In an official report authorities released about two months later, in August, they said, “The report presents all the cases that were reported in close proximity to the receipt of the coronavirus vaccine, and does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between receiving the vaccine and the reported phenomenon.”

The ministry, or MoH, repeatedly declined to comment to The Epoch Times about the video and also did not return queries from Yaffa Shir-Raz, a health journalist and professor who obtained the video from a source.

Officials present during the meeting also declined to comment or did not respond to comments and have not commented publicly on the situation.

An unnamed official at the MoH now says the video is legitimate. The remarks were made to Reuters, which posted a “fact check” on clips of the meeting that Shir-Raz has posted online and in social media posts sharing the clips.

The official did not address why key portions of the discussion were left out of the final report. The official asserted that all the data presented during the meeting appeared in the final report. The official also claimed that the clips were “taken out of context.”

“The meeting participants can confirm that the sections were taken out of context,” the official said. “The leaked clips were carefully selected and edited in a biased manner, so that their presentation deliberately omits the fact that this is a discussion about raw data that has not undergone any analysis or standardization, during an initial attempt by an assisting team to understand from epidemiological professionals how to proceed and analyze raw data correctly.”

Shir-Raz told The Epoch Times that she found it interesting that an anonymous MoH source responded to Reuters when the ministry would not respond to repeated requests from her.

“It is unfortunate that the Ministry of Health does not have enough courage to stand behind its response officially, and instead prefers to hide behind an anonymous responder,” she said in an email.


The MoH official offered several falsehoods in their comments to Reuters. The official falsely said, for instance, that the reports that were analyzed “cannot be verified,” when the reports were submitted to a new system that requires submitters to include information such as their name and a number from their citizenship certificate. The new system replaced an older system in December 2021 and the data was garnered through May 2022.

MoH also claimed that “there are no unknown side effects or new signals.”

But according to Sasha Zhurat, one of the presenters, that’s not true. She said during the meeting that the data “allowed us to really identify new phenomena like tinnitus, like hypoesthesia and paresthesia” and that “we actually identified new phenomena that do not appear in the consumer brochure such as dizziness, tinnitus, hypoesthesia, paresthesia.”

Zhurat also pointed out that the brochure, handed to prospective vaccine recipients, listed certain durations for possible side effects.

The leaflet says the problems are “supposed to pass within a few days and we saw that this was not the case,” Zhurat said. Some problems lasted for more than a year, including menstrual irregularities, with no end in sight.

Zhurat declined to comment on the discussion, telling The Epoch Times in a Facebook message that she’s no longer part of the team analyzing the data.

Shir-Raz had said on Twitter that one of the meeting portions showed that only one of the four health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in Israel provided adverse event reports. MoH said that reports were received from all of the HMOs, or organizations that provide citizens with healthcare.

The HMOs have not responded to requests for comment.

During the meeting, presenters said that many of the reports came from Meuhedet, one of the HMOs. Maccabi, another, “did not send that much because … they collected phenomena by themselves and not through your form,” Maya Berlin, another member of the team said.

Dr. Mati Berkovitch, the leader of the team, said the point was “super important.” “This means that there are HMOs that keep the information close to their chest,” he said.

Additionally, according to a draft copy of the report the MoH ultimately released, which Shir-Raz also obtained, a person on the team questions whether they should point out that “there are HMOs that did not send messages and therefore there is a bias in the reporting?”

The final report makes no mention of this point. “They could have reliably reported how many reports there were from each HMO. Why didn’t they do it?” Shir-Raz wondered.

Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an Israeli native who has been closely following the situation, says that the MoH “lost the trust of the public in Israel exactly because of behaviors like that.”

It would take a new leadership and different behavior to undo the tremendous damage that was caused,” he told The Epoch Times in an email.


16 October, 2022

Yes, they claimed the vaccines would prevent transmission

One of the most bizarre lies being told this week in response to Pfizer executive Janine Small’s testimony to EU Parliament is that, actually, the Covid vaccines were never supposed to stop the spread of the virus.

Asked by Dutch MEP Rob Roos whether the company had tested its vaccine on “stopping the transmission of the virus” before it rolled out globally, Ms Small said “no” because “we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market”.

“And from that point of view we had to do everything at risk,” she said.

In a viral Twitter video which has now been viewed more than 12 million times, Mr Roos described the response as “scandalous”, arguing “millions of people worldwide felt compelled to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others’”.

Mr Roos said the admission removed the entire basis for vaccine mandates and passports which “led to massive institutional discrimination as people lost access to essential parts of society”. “I find this to be shocking, even criminal,” he said.

Of course, fact checkers were not happy.

This is not the bombshell it is being presented as, they argue, because it was public knowledge that the primary outcome measured in Pfizer’s clinical trials was reducing risk of disease, but not transmission.

Moreover, as the Therapeutic Goods Administration stressed, “transmission effects” are “not an approved indication of any Covid-19 vaccine” currently available in Australia.

That might be technically true, but it feels like just that — a technicality.

And this is why Mr Roos’ video, while not strictly being new information, struck such a nerve.

Because setting aside what it says in the fine print, the public was told repeatedly, for months, both explicitly and implicitly, that the vaccines would prevent transmission.

They’re all on tape saying it.

US President Joe Biden, for example, said in July 2021 that “you’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations”.

White House chief medical adviser Dr Anthony Fauci said in May 2021 that vaccinated people become “dead ends” for the virus.

CDC director Rochelle Walensky said in March 2021 that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick”.

In Australia, politicians and health officials held millions of people hostage for months, lecturing and threatening them to get vaccinated to regain their “freedoms”.

The vaccines were the “way out” of the pandemic, they were not to just to protect ourselves but to “protect others”, they would “stop the spread”, and not getting vaccinated was “selfish”.

Vaccine passports, the “vaccinated economy”, were necessary so people who “did the right thing” would feel “safe” knowing they weren’t “mixing” with the unvaccinated, who were a “risk to the community”.

By late 2021 and early 2022, as Omicron became dominant and it was clear vaccinated people were still catching and spreading the virus, the messaging changed.

“Stopping the spread? What are you talking about? It’s about reducing hospitalisation and death. We have always been at war with hospitalisation and death.”

That’s all well and good — but it’s an entirely different moral calculation.

Vaccine mandates, like other Covid restrictions, were always a balancing act between personal choice and public health. But with the vaccine no longer stopping the spread of the virus, mandates are effectively like the police kicking down your door and forcing you to eat your vegetables at gunpoint.

Or like protecting immunocompromised people by simply welding them inside their homes.

This is not a new argument. In January this year, Nobel Prize-winning virologist Luc Montagnier and constitutional scholar Jed Rubenfeld argued in The Wall Street Journal that, in the face of the Omicron variant, the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates were obsolete.

“It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target,” they wrote.

“Mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalisation or death).”

Even the World Health Organisation, as far back as April 2021, cautioned that “if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission”.

At that time, evidence was still emerging about the vaccines’ ability to stop transmission of the original strain of the virus — and besides, as everyone now tells us, that was never the primary goal, but merely a nice added bonus.

And yet mandates were introduced anyway.

Yes, politicians and health officials have changed their tune and no longer talk about vaccines stopping transmission. Yes, newer strains of the virus changed the situation. But it’s insane to claim, as many now try to, that they never did in the first place.

A simple “sorry, we were wrong” would go a long way.


Australian Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly downplayed long COVID while justifying end of isolation requirements, medical specialist says

A leading medical specialist and long COVID patients say the chief medical officer (CMO) downplayed the state of long COVID in Australia while justifying the end of national isolation requirements.

Steven Faux, who heads up a long COVID clinic at a Sydney hospital, called the comments "unusual" and akin to "pulling the sheet over your head".

During a press conference last month, when the October 14 mandatory isolation end date was announced, Paul Kelly said health authorities were still assessing the extent of long COVID in Australia. "We're not seeing a major picture of long COVID," he said.

"For the majority of Australians, we were not exposed to COVID before we had at least two vaccines.

"We know that the major risk factors for long COVID are having had infection before vaccination, being unvaccinated, having severe illness and having other types of COVID that were not Omicron."

Professor Faux, who co-directs the long COVID clinic at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, said Professor Kelly's comments did not accurately represent the patients who were presenting at his practice.

"Mostly we're seeing people who got [COVID-19] in December and that's the Omicron wave … and the majority we are seeing are vaccinated," Professor Faux said.

Long COVID still a risk

The rehabilitation and pain physician pointed to international research that showed those who were triple vaccinated and infected with Omicron had a long COVID rate of 5 per cent.

"That's not a major problem, unless you consider that over 10 million Australians have had COVID," he said.

"That's not insubstantial when you consider that the public health services are at maximum capacity."

The St Vincent's clinic has been inundated with hundreds of people seeking help, with some specialists booked out until the middle of next year.

"We've been getting phone calls from Victoria, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland about people wanting to come down and we've been sending them back," Professor Faux said.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Aged Care told the ABC that Professor Kelly's comments were based on research conducted overseas and stressed that people who were vaccinated were less likely to develop symptoms of long COVID.

"In addition, studies have shown that infection with the Omicron variant is less likely to lead to symptoms of long COVID than infection with the Delta variant."

Comments not based on data, say advocates

The CMO's comments have been met with sadness and anger by long COVID advocates, who say patients like them are not being seen or heard. "He has no data on which to base those claims," academic Pippa Yeoman said.

"He's making a political statement about how clever they were to close the borders and get everybody vaccinated and saying that means we will be different [to other countries]. If you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up."

Dr Yeoman is a member of the Australia Long Covid Community Facebook group, which has about 2,600 members.

The group has been collecting survey data on its members in a bid to present the information to an approaching parliamentary Inquiry into Long COVID and Repeated COVID Infections.

Members said their preliminary data analysis of almost 300 survey respondents showed that the vast majority were double vaccinated before developing long COVID and were infected during the Omicron wave.

There is no official national data on the number of people with long COVID in Australia and not every state has a dedicated long COVID clinic, making it difficult to quantify the number of people with the condition or the impact it has on their lives.

The Department of Health and Aged Care said analysis of health data had begun in order to help develop a national response to long COVID.

"The Department is also working with states and territories to better understand the prevalence of long COVID in Australia," it said.


14 October, 2022

Not up to snuff: AstraZeneca's nasal spray Covid vaccine FAILS to protect against virus

AstraZeneca's leading Covid nasal spray vaccine does not protect well against the virus, a study has shown — dashing hopes it could replace traditional jabs.

The University of Oxford — which is developing and running trials of the vaccine — said only a minority of patients mounted an immune response.

Even those who did react to the jab had lower antibody levels than someone given a shot-in-the-arm vaccination.

It is another blow for AstraZeneca which has so far failed to break the US vaccine market — after concerns about its original jab's link to blood clots.

Researchers across the world have placed high hopes on nasal spray vaccines because they may have the potential to stop Covid infections entirely.

It was thought that prompting an immune response directly in the airways would be able to shut the virus down before it spreads to the rest of the body.

But Dr Sandy Douglas, who ran the UK-based AstraZeneca trial, said the spray did not perform 'as well as we had hoped'.

China and India have already approved nasal spray Covid jabs, although there is no public data on how well they work.

The US has spent billions purchasing more than 800million doses of Covid vaccines, but a third of Americans are still yet to get their first shots.

It was hoped that nasal vaccines could offer an alternative inoculation because they are easy to administer and don't cause pain. Scientists also believed they might 'enhance' protection because they target the lining of the nose, where the virus infects first.

But today's results — thought to be the first on a nasal spray for Covid — suggest more research is needed.

What is the advantage of nasal sprays for Covid vaccines?

Scientists have been chasing a nasal spray Covid vaccine as an alternative to the needle-based method. They hope that it could 'enhance' immune responses because it is administered to the lining of the nose, the first place the virus infects.

Experts also say it can help people with a fear of jabs get the vaccine. The fear — known as trypanophobia — affects about 10 per cent of adults.

There is still little evidence that they are as good as standard jabs, however. Oxford University found they only sparked immunity in a minority of participants.

The sprays have been approved for use in China and India. But studies on this are yet to be released.

In the Phase I clinical trial scientists recruited 30 healthy volunteers who had not previously been vaccinated. The purpose of the study was to perfect the dosage size and timing.

All received a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine as a nasal spray, and half also got a second dose. These were given as low, medium or high doses.

Blood tests and swabs showed 'little evidence' all those who got one dose had an immune response.

After the second spray just four participants — or 30 per cent of the total — had evidence of an immune response.

But this was much weaker than that triggered by standard vaccines.

In a second arm of the trial, 15 double-vaccinated people were given the nasal spray as a booster dose.

But again this did not appear to trigger an immune response — with antibody levels remaining 'indistinguishable' from the unvaccinated individuals.

No adverse safety effects were spotted during the trial.

The results were published today in the journal eBioMedicine.

Dr Douglas, from Oxford University's Jenner Institute, said: 'The nasal spray did not perform as well in this study as we had hoped.

'One possibility is simply that the majority of the nasal spray vaccine ends up being swallowed and destroyed in the stomach – delivery to the lungs could avoid that.

'A further challenge is that researchers don’t fully understand the relationships between the strength and types of immune responses within the airways and protection against infection.'

She called for more research into these vaccines, to determine whether another method could help develop a nasal version.

'[Our results] were quite different from recent data from China, which has suggested good results can be achieved by delivery of a similar vaccine,' she said.

'A nasal spray vaccine has recently been approved for intranasal use in India and we are looking forward to the peer-reviewed publication of the clinical trial data used to support that.'

China gave emergency approval for a nasal spray Covid vaccine — from CanSino Biologics Inc — last month.

CanSino said studies indicated that its vaccine induced a strong immune response, although trial data is yet to be released.

Unlike AstraZeneca's it is given via a nebuliser device, a machine that turns a liquid into a fine mist that is then breathed in.

India's health ministry also approved a nasal spray Covid vaccine last month by Bharat Biotech.


Dangerous vaccines

More on the great unravelling of the Covid vaccine story

It’s Dreamtime down under as Australian politicians and the media, led by their health authorities, sleepwalk through 2022.

Last Saturday, Florida’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, released analysis showing that Covid-19 mRNA vaccines increased the risk of cardiac-related death by a staggering 84 per cent among men aged 18 to 39 within 28 days of injection. Ladapo had already recommended against Covid vaccination in children aged 5 to 17 in March. Now he has added children aged less than five and men aged 18 to 39, tweeting, ‘Florida will not be silent on the truth’.

Ladapo is not alone. In mid-September Denmark recommended against Covid shots for any healthy person under 50 years. A fortnight later, Norway recommended against the jabs for healthy people aged under 65. In the UK healthy children who turned five on or after 1 September will not be vaccinated until they turn 12 unless they live with someone with a weakened immune system.

Esteemed UK cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, an erstwhile TV talking head in support of Covid vaccines has gone further. His peer-reviewed paper published a fortnight ago calls for their immediate suspension. ‘Until all the raw data on the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines have been independently analysed, any claims purporting that they confer a net benefit to humankind cannot be considered to be evidence based,’ he says.

On 16 September, an international group of scientists and doctors, led by French scientist Alexandra Henrion-Caude and American doctor Sally Priester issued a declaration of an international medical crisis due to diseases and death related to Covid vaccination. They pointed to high excess mortality in countries with high vaccination rates, ‘the large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people’, ‘the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths’, and the ‘large number of adverse side effects, including hospitalisations, permanent disabilitie, and deaths’.

Yet, it is as if none of this happened to the somnambulists running Australia. This week, Karen Andrews, the former minister for Home Affairs who cancelled Novak Djokovic’s visa twice ranted that he must not be allowed to compete in the next Australia Open just because ‘he’s a high-ranking tennis player with many millions of dollars’. ‘It shouldn’t be just one rule for (him) and a different rule for everyone else,’ she pontificated. Yet preventing Djokovic from entering applies a harsher rule to him than anyone else, since nobody has been required to be vaccinated to enter Australia since 6 July. And if Florida and the dissenting doctors are correct, Andrews should be apologising to Djokovic for trying to coerce him to get a vaccine that could have killed him.

Equally, if the dissenting doctors and scientists are right, it is also the ongoing mass Covid vaccination campaigns that underlie Australia’s shocking excess mortality which started rising in March 2021, just when the Covid vaccines started to be rolled out and is now running at 17 per cent. This year, there had been 13,524 excess deaths by 30 June of which less than 40 per cent (5,387) were due to Covid. What caused the deaths of the other 8,137 Australians? And why is it that Australian health officers who lamented every Covid death when there were only 905 in 2020 and 1,342 in 2021, have said nothing about excess mortality in 2022 which is ten times worse than Covid mortality in 2021?

Australian Medical Association president Professor Steve Robson described Australia’s excess mortality as a ‘worrying’ trend that mirrored countries such as the UK but said he couldn’t explain it adding, ‘there needs to be some research into why this is happening’. There has been none. Why not? Instead, Australia’s health authorities still recommend repeatedly jabbing everyone from the age of six months up intoning the mantra that the vaccines are ‘safe and effective’.

Yet that’s not what the NSW data, the most complete in Australia, shows. Vaccinated people in NSW are six times more likely to get Covid than the unvaccinated, 77 times more likely to be hospitalised, ten times more likely to end up in ICU, and 1.1 times more likely to die even though the people most likely to die of Covid – people in palliative care, severe illness, the frailest elderly – are often unvaccinated because they are so close to death.

NSW does not release the data it collects on the comorbidities of those who are hospitalised or die with or of Covid. If it did we could compare like with like and establish the risk of the virus to healthy or sick people in each age group, and the risks or benefits of vaccination to those same groups. Why don’t health authorities do this? Are they just woefully obtuse or do they fear that the results would reveal that the vaccine is neither safe nor effective?

Despite the incompleteness, the NSW statistics strongly suggest that the vaccine is increasing the risk of illness and death. This was a known danger. Are Australia’s health authorities actively monitoring for it? It seems not. Yet Dr. Fauci warned in May 2020 that there was a ‘possibility of negative consequences’ because ‘certain vaccines can actually enhance the negative effect of the infection’. This was true for a vaccine developed for respiratory syncytial virus which was never approved and a measles vaccine developed in the 1960s which was withdrawn.

Why are the Covid vaccines not being withdrawn, asks Dr Malhotra. He notes the swine flu vaccine developed in 1976 was withdrawn because of a 1 in 100,000 risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome and the rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn because of a 1 in 10,000 risk of bowel obstruction. He estimates the true prevalence of serious adverse events from Covid-19 mRNA vaccines is between 1 in 800 and 1 in 1,000.

What about excess mortality? The easiest way to establish whether vaccination is contributing would be to identify the vaccine status of all those who died since Covid immunisation commenced, together with their age and comorbidities. It’s not hard.

That’s what Florida, and presumably Denmark and Norway have done. But not Australia. Its leaders slumber on at the wheel as the nation careens towards a calamitous awakening.


13 October, 2022

Hypocrite doctors go maskless

An oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco has demanded the American Academy of Pediatrics be dissolved after its leaders were pictured unmasked at the org's first conference since 2019 - after having pushed face-coverings on kids as young as two during the pandemic.

Dr. Vinayak K. Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and health researcher at the college, pointed out the hypocrisy of the agency tasked with the health, safety and well-being of US infants, children, and adolescents, in a tweet published Monday.

It came on the third day of the agency's usually annual four-day conference in Anaheim, amid an air of excitement as participants attended in person for the first time in three years.

Hundreds of health officials descended on the Anaheim Convention Center over the weekend and on Monday to discuss matters involving the best interests of America's youth - with photos showing the vast majority of attendees elected to go maskless.

That fact was not lost on UC San Francisco's 40-year-old associate professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, who cited how the agency had pushed face-covering guidelines on almost all US youngsters this time last year.

The agency has since engaged in an abrupt about-face to those policies, photos and video from the event show, as an increasing amount of districts scrap mask mandates.

The agency, meanwhile, asserts that indoor masking, while no longer required, 'is still beneficial.'

The medical advice from the agency, which persisted until just last month, came in defiance of other agencies such as UNICEF and WHO, who earlier this year conceded that young children are not at serious risk from Covid-19.

Data collected by AAP, meanwhile, supported these assertions, with the agency finding in June that while children at the time accounted for 19 percent of all COVID cases, less than 0.26 percent of those infections resulted in death.

Prasad was quick to point this fact out in his post, in which he called for the country's premier pediatric agency to be dissolved permanently.

'Great to see so many unmasked faces at @AmerAcadPeds indoor gathering,' the doctor wrote, sharing images of maskless attendees at the event to his more than 213,000 followers while pointing out it was being held inside.

'Good to document their hypocrisy,' the cancer doctor sniped.

He added: 'This organization pushed masks on 2 year olds with no data, in defiance of UNICEF & WHO, while they were aware that masks impede interactions. Org should be dissolved.'

The accusations from Dr. Prasad come as the Bay Area-based medical practitioner for months has used his platform to accuse the AAP and other governing bodies on the federal and state levels of 'legitimizing' irrational concern over the virus.

He argues that medical practitioners should treat COVID like the flu - and in a recent paid Substack, accused physicians and scientists of manufacturing widespread anxiety through medical advice that 'interfere[s] with people’s lives.'

The latest barb by the oncologist at the AAP - whose guidelines are taken into account by millions of pediatricians across the country when dishing out medical advice - coincided with those claims.

It also echoed the findings of several studies, some conducted by the org themselves, that showed young children are not at serious risk from Covid-19 and that masks impede kids' development.


Lockdowns and mask mandates stunted babies' development: They weren't able to socialize or read facial expressions, study warns

Lockdowns and mask mandates have stunted babies' development, a study suggests. Youngsters born during the pandemic were less likely to have said their first words by their first birthday compared to babies born pre-Covid. They were also less likely to be able to wave 'bye' or point at objects, researchers in Ireland found.

The team say face masks limited children's ability to read facial expressions or see people's mouths move — a crucial part of learning to speak. Bans on visiting grandparents and relatives were also blamed for depriving them of vital socializing time.

It is just the latest piece of evidence to highlight the devastating toll of pandemic restrictions on the health of America's youth. More than 3.6million babies were born in America over the first year of the Covid pandemic alone.

Evidence has already emerged suggesting that they suffered weakened immune systems due to the isolation, putting them at greater risk of nasty colds.

And today's study is the latest to add to a growing body of evidence pointing to the measures as triggering delays in development for the youngest in society.

More children and young people are being hospitalized with colds and respiratory problems than ever after the Covid pandemic, official data suggests.

Experts have repeatedly warned lockdowns and measures used to contain Covid like face masks also suppressed the spread of germs which are crucial for building a strong immune system in children.

A retrospective report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today showed levels of common cold viruses hit their highest level ever among under-18s in August 2021.

The CDC samples random pediatric hospitals across the US and makes national estimates to gauge how prevalent viruses are.

There were nearly 700 children in hospital sick with a respiratory virus across the seven wards studied in August last year, of which just over half had tested positive for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) - which is normally benign.

This was the highest levels ever recorded in summer, and came off the back of a year and a half of brutal pandemic restrictions forcing many to stay indoors.

In the paper, led by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, researchers looked at 309 babies born between March and May 2020. Ireland was in lockdown for five months over that year, and spent many others under tight restrictions.

Parents were surveyed about 10 developmental milestones after their child turned one year old. These included: saying one definite word, finger pointing, waving bye, being able to stand, stepping sideways, crawling and stacking bricks.

The results were compared to 2,000 babies born between 2008 and 2011.

Lockdown babies were 14 per cent less likely to have said one definite word, results showed. They were also nine per cent less likely to have started pointing, and six per cent less likely to wave goodbye.

On the other hand, however, they were also significantly more likely to be crawling — at seven per cent.

Writing in the release, the College said: 'Lockdown measures may have reduced the repertoire of language heard and the sight of unmasked faces speaking to [infants].

'It may also have curtailed opportunities to encounter new items of interest, which might prompt pointing, and the frequency of social contacts to enable them to learn to wave bye-bye.

'[But] they were still more likely to be crawling... which might be because they were more likely to have spent more time at home on the ground rather than out of the home in cars and strollers.'

The study relied on parental recall in some cases beyond a month after the child's first birthday, which may affect the results.

It was also observational, meaning it could not confirm a definite link between lockdowns and delayed development.

Dr Lemmietta McNeilly, the chief of staff at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association who was not involved in the research, told babies may have lacked a first word because lockdowns meant they had 'fewer needs to communicate'.

She added: 'The need to follow the children who are in more naturalistic environments is necessary before determining if the [lockdown] children will have any lasting delays. 'It is also important to note that the parents were living in a highly stressful environment as they dealt with the pandemic.'

The pandemic babies were from the CORAL study, or Impact of CoronaVirus Pandemic on Allergic and Autoimmune Dysregulation in Infants Born During Lockdown. Those from before the pandemic were from the BASELINE study, or Babies after SCOPE, paper.

The study was published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood.


Pfizer's Covid drug Paxlovid - which was used to treat Biden - can cause deadly blood clots, study warns

Pfizer’s flagship Covid drug can have dangerous interactions with common medications, a review has found.

Paxlovid gained emergency use authorization in the US in December last year as an antiviral drug to treat mild to moderate Covid in high-risk patients.

It has been given to millions of vulnerable Americans with underlying health conditions — reducing their risk of death by up to 90 per cent.

But Paxlovid can cause serious health problems when coupled with common heart disease medication such as statins and blood thinners.

Researchers from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Harvard Medical School and other US institutions found the Covid drug can increase the risk of developing blood clots when taken with blood thinners.

It can also cause an irregular heartbeat when combined with drugs for heart pain and when taken alongside statins it can be toxic to the liver.

Dozens of medications such as aspirin are safe to take with Paxlovid, the researchers stress. But doctors need to be aware that other drugs can be dangerous and should be discontinued or adjusted while a patient is being treated for Covid.

When President Joe Biden, 79, tested positive for Covid and started Paxlovid in July, his physician Dr Kevin O’Connor temporarily stopped him from taking the statin Crestor and stroke prevention drug Eliquis.

Pfizer's CEO Dr Albert Bourla, 60, also took a course of Paxlovid when he caught the virus in August

Dr. Sarju Ganatra, director of the cardio-oncology program at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Massachusetts, said: 'Awareness of the presence of drug-drug interactions of Paxlovid with common cardiovascular drugs is key.

'System-level interventions by integrating drug-drug interactions into electronic medical records could help avoid related adverse events.

'The prescription of Paxlovid could be incorporated into an order set, which allows physicians, whether it be primary care physicians or cardiology providers, to consciously rule out any contraindications to the co-administration of Paxlovid.

'Consultation with other members of the health care team, particularly pharmacists, can prove to be extremely valuable.

'However, a health care provider’s fundamental understanding of the drug-drug interactions with cardiovascular medications is key.'

Paxlovid is made of two antivirals, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir.

Dr Dan Barouch, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, who was not involved in the new paper, told CNN: 'The second drug, ritonavir, is a nonspecific drug that inhibits metabolism and increases the dose of the other drug.

'But the ritonavir in Paxlovid also can inhibit the metabolism of other drugs. So you have to be really careful when you prescribe Paxlovid for people who are on certain blood thinners, cardiac medications, statins and other drugs,” Barouch said. “So it’s not just a free pass.'

Paxlovid is intended for use by patients who are considered likely to become seriously ill from the deadly virus, such as seniors and people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease.

Millions of doses have been prescribed to Americans since it was rolled out this year.


12 October, 2022

The Conspiracy To Hide The True Dangers Of The COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

On Friday, October 7, 2022, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo released a study on the dangers of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and recommended that adult men under 40 stay away from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

"The Florida Department of Health (Department) conducted an analysis through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety,” a news release from the Florida Department of Health states. “This analysis found that there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group.”

Newsweek reported the analysis clarified that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a "modestly increased risk for cardiac-related mortality" 28 days after receiving the vaccine.

The primary analysis was conducted on Floridians who were 18 years and older "who died within 25-weeks of COVID-19 vaccination" since the vaccines were first rolled out in December 2020.

However, noted Newsweek staff writer Fatma Khaled, the analysis excluded individuals who had a confirmed COVID-19 infection, received a booster or received their last COVID-19 vaccination after December 8, 2021. The study concluded on June 1.

"Individuals with preexisting cardiac conditions, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, should take particular caution when considering vaccination and discuss with their health care provider," the state's health department said in the statement.

"Based on currently available data, patients should be informed of the possible cardiac complications that can arise after receiving a mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac related death among men in this age group," it added as new guidelines.

The analysis said that men over 60 years old had a 10 percent increased risk of cardiac-related death within 28 days of receiving vaccines that contain mRNA. It also said that vaccines without mRNA didn't have these increased risks among any population.

No sooner had Dr. Ladapo released the study, than the tweet announcing the release of the study was taken down by Twitter for "disinformation." Twitter restored the post on Sunday morning after a firestorm of criticism.

Ladapo is an outspoken skeptic of COVID-19 vaccines who has questioned both the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine. Ladapo's concerns are shared by many who point out that, while the vaccines were originally sold as a traditional preventative vaccine, now the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine narrative has shifted to claim the vaccine may prevent the disease and may lessen its symptoms.

POLITICO reported that Dr. Ladapo has previously recommended that young children should not receive the Covid-19 vaccine. The Florida Department of Health over the summer did not pre-order vaccines for children aged 5 and under even though 49 other states did in the lead-up to the Food and Drug Administration issuing emergency authorization for young kids to receive the Pfizer and Moderna shots.

Bryan Griffin, press secretary for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, called Twitter’s actions “an unacceptable and Orwellian move for narrative over fact.”

Critics of the study and Dr. Ladapo’s conclusions from it have objected that it has yet to be peer reviewed and have questioned its methodology.

However, those same critics were nowhere to be found when flawed, and even fraudulent, studies and projections of COVID mortality were released at the beginning of the pandemic (or as we prefer to call it, the Chinese Communist biological weapons attack).

On Monday, Ladapo created a new thread on Twitter discussing the study’s results and process, saying he loved the “discussion that we’ve stimulated” and praising discussing science “transparently instead of trying to cancel one another.” In the thread, Ladapo responds to three critiques of the study.

The critiques, and responses:

image from,h_755,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/7d0df7_b82bd13170434cdc8d6e9378b2ba33ac~mv2.jpg

The coordination between Big Government, Big Tech and Big Pharma to suppress any scientific inquiry into the origin of the COVID virus, how it spread from Communist China to the rest of the world and the side effects and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines appears to us to be a conspiracy to enforce a political narrative, rather than what a democratically elected government should do – which is foster open and transparent scientific inquiry conducted in the public interest.

Our view is that studying the COVID virus and vaccines should proceed along the same scientific method path of inquiry that scientists and physicians have used since the Italian physicist Galileo Galilee began the modern age of scientific inquiry over 400-years ago. If the monumental work of Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein can be continually tested, questioned, and refined, surely the pronouncements of a second-rate bureaucrat like Anthony Fauci and the profit-driven results of companies like Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna can and should be subjected to continued scientific inquiry.


'Covid is NOT over': White House's top doctor undermines Biden and urges Americans to get their booster shot before Halloween

The White House's lead Covid chief said that the pandemic is not over, contradicting statements made by President Joe Biden last month. Dr Ashish Jha, the White House's COVID-19 response coordinator responded to faltering booster uptick rate by warning Americans that the pandemic is ongoing.

His words counter that of President Biden, who told 60 Minutes last month that it had ended - though he would walk back his comments in the following days.

This is not the first time leading US officials have flip-flopped on the pandemic. Earlier this year, Dr Anthony Fauci told PBS Newshour the pandemic was over before going back on his words days later.

The rollout of the bivalent booster shots has largely been a failure to this point.

Most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that only 11 million Americans have receive the jab so far.

The lack of booster uptake seems to have had little affect on the spread of cases, though. Covid cases have plummeted over the past two months - a period where the opposite trend would have been expected. On August 3, America was recording 118,000 cases per day. That figure has dropped to 40,000 as of October 11.

An expected BA.5-variant fueled surge over summer did not materialize either.

Despite this, Dr Jha is pushing for Americans to receive the new Covid jab before Halloween at the end of the month.

'The President was very clear. Covid is not over, there is a lot of work to do,' Dr Jha said at a White House press briefing Tuesday. 'We still have 300 to 400 Americans dying every day, tens of thousands of people getting infected every day, there is a lot of work to do.

'What we know is that if we want to keep people safe and protect them from serious illness, which is obviously priority number one, the number one thing that people need to do is get vaccinated.'

Jha urged Americans to get the additional shot before Halloween so it would be fully effective in their body for Thanksgiving gatherings.

This contradicts statements by President Biden last month, who told CBS' 60 minutes: 'The pandemic is over.

'We still have a problem with COVID. We're still doing a lot of work on it. But the pandemic is over. 'If you notice, no one's wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape, and so I think it's changing.'

Dr Jha used the briefing to urge Americans to receive the bivalent booster shot - which the White House touted throughout the summer.

Latest official data shows there were more than 1,000 patients with flu in the week ending October 1 — up 303 per cent compared to the first week of August. This is a vast underestimate because the US does not routinely test for influenza in the same way as Covid.

Test positivity — the share of swabs for the virus that are coming back positive — has risen from 0.49 per cent to 2.5 per cent in the same time.

Dr Fauci said Monday that the nation should keep its guard up in the coming months as cases of both the flu and Covid are expected to rise. Cases and hospitalization for the flu and related illnesses often surge in cold weather months were people spend more time indoors - which makes it easier for viruses to spread.

But Covid cases are currently plummeting in the US. The nation is averaging 42,000 daily cases, dropping more than 60 per cent from the 100,000 per day average in early August.

The flu largely vanished in recent years as viral interference from Covid and pandemic-related restrictions and mask orders stopped its spread.

America's overall vaccination rate is relatively high, with 80 per cent of the overall population and 90 per cent of adults having received at least one shot.

The additional booster doses have never proved to have appeal among the American population, though. The third doses were rolled out the public just over a year ago, yet still only 50 per cent of the population has gotten the shots.

A large portion of those who did receive the third jab did so not when they first were made available during fall either, instead waiting till the end-of-the-year Omicron surge where it appeared the shot was necessary.

Rollout of the the fourth doses, targeted towards Americans 50 and older, has been abysmal as well. The CDC reports that only 38 per cent of eligible Americans have received the second booster.

Despite this, the impact the virus has had on the life of Americans has faltered throughout the year. After the Omicron-fueled surge began to recede in March, case figures have steadied.

A high point was reached over summer at around 140,000 cases per day - a figure dwarfed by the over 800,000 case-per-day mark reached in January.

Deaths never reached the same devastating totals they had reached in previous surges as well, lingering between 300 to 500 cases per day throughout summer.

This spurred many to put the pandemic behind them - even some of the nation's leading health officials.

Dr Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, said in April to PBS Newshour that: We are certainly right now in this country out of the pandemic phase.

'Namely, we don't have 900,000 new infections a day and tens and tens and tens of thousands of hospitalizations and thousands of deaths. We are at a low level right now.

'So, if you're saying, are we out of the pandemic phase in this country, we are. What we hope to do, I don't believe — and I have spoken about this widely — we're not going to eradicate this virus.'

He would walk the comments back after backlash from others in the field.


11 October, 2022

Independent task-force releases new report into origins of COVID-19

A new report by a team of independent global scientists has found it “highly likely” the origins of Covid-19 was bats who passed the virus to animal hosts and then to people working in the wildlife trade at a seafood market in China.

The report, published Tuesday by the Independent Task Force on Covid-19 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) concluded that based on the available evidence it was highly unlikely the virus was created in or released from a laboratory.

The team of 12 internationally renowned experts from a diverse range of disciplines included Dr Danielle Anderson from Victoria.

The team found the evidence strongly indicated that Covid-19 originated via a pathway similar to SARS-CoV, involving a spillover from bats to animals to people leading to the first known cluster of Covid-19 at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan in China in December 2019.

Dr Anderson, from the Royal Melbourne Hospital and a research scientist at the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory (VIDRL) at the Doherty Institute, said the team looked at hundreds of research papers and preprints – papers yet to be peer-reviewed and published – and interviewed those who had an opinion on the pandemic.

Dr Anderson, an expert on bat-borne viruses who also worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak, said based on the evidence the team reviewed, there were no big surprises.

“We did this to understand some of the information people were referencing,” she said.


Are COVID Jabs Causing Leukemia? A Preliminary Analysis of Adverse Event Cases

On November 23, 2021, former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan died at the age of 90. According to South Korea’s JTBC TV, a former Cheong Wa Dae (South Korean presidential palace) secretary revealed that Chun had not eaten properly for 10 consecutive days since he received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. His health deteriorated rapidly and he lost 20 pounds. And he was diagnosed with leukemia and was hospitalized for 12 days. One of his former aides suspected that his leukemia was related to the side effects of the vaccine.

Moreover, an open letter from a group of Mainland Chinese leukemia patients was circulating on Chinese social media platforms in early May 2022, but it was quickly taken down. In the letter, the patients, aged 3 to 70 years old and from more than 30 provinces and central government directly controlled municipalities across China, stated that they had developed leukemia after receiving COVID-19 vaccines and suspected that their disease was a severe vaccination adverse event. And they hoped that the government would investigate the matter.

So, is it possible that vaccination can cause leukemia? What are the possible causes of the disease, and how can we prevent it?

Principles of Pharmacovigilance

Dr. Yuhong Dong, virologist and infectious disease doctor, has also worked in pharmacovigilance department for cancer drugs at a major international pharmaceutical company.

According to the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guideline E2A (Page 4): “An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment.” (pdf)

In the pharmacovigilance industry, there is a generally accepted principle: “It is better to make 3,000 misjudgments rather than to miss one case.”

Regardless of the source of the adverse event report and whether the report was made by a professional or not, every piece of information regarding a potential adverse experience of a new drug or vaccine must be properly taken as an AE. And it has to be included in the vaccine adverse event report database for medical analysis. The purpose is to collect as much information as possible to find patterns in these cases and monitor any potential serious adverse events proactively.

According to international good practice principles in the pharmaceutical industry in monitoring vaccine adverse events, an adverse drug or vaccine event is considered eligible to be reported if the piece of information meets the following four conditions:

There is an identifiable patient;

There is an identifiable reporter;

There is exposure to a drug or vaccine;

There is an adverse experience (symptoms or signs or lab test, etc), regardless of whether a causality relationship with the drug or vaccine has been established or not

The key rationale is that after the new vaccine or drug is applied in a large population, the top priority would be safety rather than efficacy. There are many examples of pharmaceuticals or vaccines that have been recalled or even withdrawn from the market due to safety issues. So if there is a safety concern, it must be addressed immediately and proper actions shall be taken in order to protect humanity’s safety.

Case Study: Almost 1,000 People Suspected of Developing Leukemia after Vaccination

A veteran journalist has provided Dr. Dong with two large excel sheets of adverse leukemia events made collectively by mainland Chinese-manufactured vaccine recipients. These data sheets contain adverse events reported by nearly 1,000 patients as of June 4, 2022, at 10 p.m. EST. The adverse events are mentioned in great detail, and the reports’ contents are alarming.

Due to time constraints, we have so far conducted a preliminary analysis of 235 valid cases, accounting for approximately 20 percent of the total.

What we presented here in this paper is the preliminary data analysis, but a more complete analysis will be performed during the coming weeks.

In terms of gender, the victims in 56 percent of these 235 cases were male; 2 percent were female; and 42 percent of the cases didn’t specify gender information. There is currently a lot of missing information, and the gender ratio is predicted to be around 1:1 in the complete data, with the number of men possibly slightly larger.

Their age range was 3 to 79 years old, with an average age of 30 years old.

Vaccines are mainly from Sinovac Life Sciences Co., Ltd, but some are produced by Beijing Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd., Wuhan Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd., and several others.

Among the vaccine related adverse events concerning leukemia, the most common is acute myeloid leukemia (49 percent of the cases). It is followed by acute lymphoblastic leukemia (34 percent), aplastic anemia (9 percent), and several other hematological malignancies such as lymphoma.

In 44 percent of the cases, symptoms or diagnoses of these adverse events were reported to occur on average 84 days after the second dose.

In 16 percent of the cases, these leukemia-like events were reported to occur on average 52 days after the third dose. This is a reasonable time frame, as leukemia involves genetic mutations, and there would be a pathological process, which is a chronic adverse reaction. It does not occur in a short period of one or two weeks like the acute side effects of myocarditis or blood clots.

In 16 percent of the patients, the symptoms appeared on average 40 days after the first dose of the vaccine. During this time period, many people might have already received a second dose. So it is likely that they are still classified as having received a second dose, as the patients’ reporting habits vary.

Most of these patients are currently undergoing treatment, with some requiring organ transplantation and/or chemotherapy, and there hasn’t been any case of recovery so far. ?


‘Not having a big impact’: COVID drug fails to beat placebo in major trial

A COVID-19 medication that was thought to strongly reduce the risk of the illness becoming life-threatening and was bought in bulk by the federal government works no better than a placebo, preliminary findings from a major new study suggest.

Molnupiravir, sold in Australia under the brand name Lagevrio, disrupts the coronavirus’ ability to copy itself and was the first COVID-19 antiviral to win government subsidy here.

The medication is intended for people at high risk of serious illness – those aged over 50 who have risk factors, and the immunocompromised – after they test positive to COVID-19 but before they are sick enough to need a hospital. Australia was one of the most aggressive movers in securing access to molnupiravir, buying 300,000 courses in late 2021, before it was approved by medical regulator the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

But some scientists have long been suspicious of strange results in the drug’s early trials. Data from the new trial has hardened their scepticism.

The University of Oxford’s PANORAMIC trial enrolled 25,783 people with COVID-19, half of whom got molnupiravir. After 28 days, 103 people given molnupiravir had died, compared with 96 in the second group.

“Clearly, it isn’t having a big impact,” said Professor Peter Wark, an expert on antivirals at the University of Newcastle. “I think we’d have to look very critically as to the cost-effectiveness of continuing in this sort of way.”

Governments keen to end COVID restrictions had leant on antivirals as a way out of the pandemic, Wark said. “A slower relaxation of restrictions probably would have had a bigger impact than relying heavily on these antivirals.”

Dr Kyle Sheldrick – a University of NSW researcher who co-authored a paper earlier this year on molnupiravir’s problems – is critical of the TGA’s approach. “I did not think it should have been approved before PANORAMIC,” he said “I certainly don’t think it should be now.”

The Health Department did not answer questions on how much it had spent on the drug, but the US paid about $US700 ($1099) a dose at the same time.

Australia’s National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce said it was reviewing the study and would probably soon update its recommendations, which endorse molnupiravir.

A spokesman for the drug’s sponsor Merck said PANORAMIC had focused on a low-risk group, and pointed to other studies showing the treatment was effective.

In April Merck predicted it would make $US5 billion to $US5.5 billion selling the drug this financial year.

In an effort to get more people using the drug, the Australian government widened eligibility in July and Merck launched an advertising campaign.

Due to uncertainties about the clinical trial evidence, molnupiravir remains unapproved by the European Union; France cancelled its order in December.

Merck’s spokesman argued the patients in PANORAMIC were relatively healthy, whereas in Australia, the drug is reserved for people with major risk factors. “Other recent real-world studies, including the Clalit study from Israel, have indicated that [molnupiravir] was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalisations and mortality due to COVID-19 in patients 65 years and above,” he said.

Initial uncertainties about molnupiravir stemmed from strange results in the original Merck trial that got the drug approved.

Merck’s trial recruited about 1500 patients and gave half the drug. Early results from the first half of patients tested were so positive – a halving of the chance of death – that the trial was stopped early so everyone could get the apparently life-saving treatment.

But when data from the remaining half of patients in the trial was published a month later, it told a different story. The second group had done far worse than the first. In fact, the data suggested molnupiravir did not improve their outcomes. Combined, the full trial suggested molnupiravir may not cut the risk of death.

“We think this is unprecedented. None of us had ever seen anything like this before,” said Sheldrick.

The strange results may have been caused by a new coronavirus variant emerging mid-trial, he said. Merck disputes that, and claims the early results were the key ones.

Wark said it was possible the drug was of less use in a highly vaccinated population faced with a milder variant such as Omicron.

Sheldrick said the PANORAMIC results suggested governments need to think differently about rushing to approve drugs with limited evidence – even in the middle of a pandemic.

A spokeswoman for the TGA said the drug remained provisionally approved for use. “It is noted that while, in the PANORAMIC trial, hospitalisation and death was not reduced by molnupiravir for adults under 65 years, the time to first self-reported recovery was six days shorter.”


10 October, 2022

Mother, 32, fears condition that almost killed her during pregnancy was sparked by COVID - after studies linked the virus with stillbirths and other dangerous complications

A Brooklyn mother has issued an alarming warning about the risk catching the coronavirus can have on giving birth. Lauren Phillips told how she suffered from preeclampsia after having her baby and linked it to going down with the virus earlier in her pregnancy.

The 32-year-old attorney said she was rushed back into hospital with dangerously high blood pressure just days after having her son.

She urged would-be parents to avoid coronavirus during pregnancy and seek immediate medical advice because she says it saved her life.

It comes as experts fear catching Covid could cause deadly complications with childbirth and even lead to stillbirths.

A swathe of studies during the pandemic found women had a 60 percent greater risk of having preeclampsia if they had suffered from the virus.

Phillips sailed through an easy pregnancy aside from becoming infected with COVID in her second trimester, which she described in her blog as a 'mild cold.'

But a few days after her baby son Arthur was born in April, the Brooklyn-based attorney was rushed to the emergency room as her blood pressure hit 160/116.

Phillips, who was up to date with her vaccinations and was careful with masking, found she had preeclampsia doctors believe was linked to a February Omicron infection.

She wrote: 'In the last hours of labor before the c section my blood pressure started to rise, but after delivery it came down enough that I was discharged on day 3 post delivery.

'On day 5, I experienced a severe dizzy spell. I was sitting down at the time. It felt like a sudden pulse or pressure wave, making the room spin. I'd never experienced anything like it, it felt bizarre, and it frightened me. 'I called my doctor and she told me to call back if it happened again. A few hours later, it did.

'My husband ran out to Rite Aid and bought a blood pressure cuff, which indicated my pressure was up to 140/90.

'I also noticed that my ankles were starting to swell and had become much more swollen than they had even been during pregnancy. I called the doctor and she had me come to the emergency room.

'I was brought back to the labor and delivery ward for observation, where over the course of a few hours my pressure spiked to 160/116. 'Once it hit that level, the medical team started me on a magnesium drip and admitted me for severe preeclampsia. 'I stayed in the hospital for two days before the doctors had me stable on blood pressure-reducing medication (nifidipene).

'Happily, my hospital allowed my spouse and son to stay in the hospital with me for those two days, so I could give him a steady supply of milk and hold or breastfeed him when I was stable enough to do so.'

She added: 'After discharge with instructions to take my pressure 4 times per day at home, my pressure spiked again less than 24 hours later, necessitating a return to the hospital. 'There they gave me a high dose of blood pressure medication (labetelol) intravenously.

'I was able to return home the same day on two drugs which kept my pressure out of the danger zone.

'About 5 weeks later, after steady drops in my pressure week by week, I was able to come off both drugs. 'Now 3 months postpartum, my blood pressure has returned to the healthy levels I had pre-labor.'

Preeclampsia is a complication of pregnancy that results in 70,000 maternal and 500,000 fetal deaths worldwide each year, the Seattle Times reported, and the number of cases jumped during the pandemic.

The illness is just one part of a slew of information scientists are studying to learn more about how Covid affects pregnancy.

Experts say women who contracted Covid-19 during their pregnancy also face an elevated risk of stillbirths.

But they believe vaccination can help prevent these cases, with statistics showing unvaccinated women at higher risk of complications.

Earlier on in the pandemic, many thought the coronavirus didn't affect unborn fetuses because few babies were born with the infection.

But in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology study published in September, it was revealed that the infection damages the placenta's immune response to further infections.

'What we're seeing now is that the placenta is vulnerable to COVID-19, and the infection changes the way the placenta works, and that in turn is likely to impact the development of the fetus,' Dr. Kristina Adams Waldorf said.

Scientists also believed Covid to be a virus that mainly affected the respiratory system - but it has now been proven to wreak havoc with the circulatory system too.

Doctors also fear a Covid infection may 'unmask' health conditions that a pregnant woman's immune system would otherwise be able to shield her from.

The placenta, an organ that attaches to the womb during pregnancy, connects with the umbilical cord and provides oxygen and nourishment from the mother's bloodstream to the baby.

In the fall and winter of 2021, Amy Heerema McKenney, a Cleveland Clinic pathologist whose job involves figuring out why some babies die, began receiving eerily similar reports of stillbirths, The Times reported. She recalled feeling 'pretty panicked' as she began to look into the cases, which happened in quick succession.

While a normal placenta is spongy and dark reddish hue, which shows the nourishing blood flowing through it, the ones she was studying from mothers who lost their babies were like nothing she'd ever seen.

They were firm, discolored, scarred, and more of a tan color. 'The degree of devastation was unique,' she said.


Florida warns young men on Covid boosters

Florida, the third most populous US state, has warned young men they face a greater risk of dying after receiving Covid-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna, as the US government forks out billions of dollars on a new (third) round of Covid-19 boosters.

The Florida health department on Friday (Saturday AEDT) specifically warned 18 to 39 year old men against seeking Covid-19 vaccinations that use mRNA technology, citing new research that found this group had an 84 per cent higher chance of cardiac-related death within 28 days of vaccination.

“With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group,” the state’s health department said in a statement.

However the baseline chance of a heart attack among young adults was miniscule according to a 2020 Norwegian study of around 33,000 people: 2.1 per 100,000 people for those aged 20-29 and 16.9 for those aged between 30 and 39.

The warning comes amid growing debate in the US over the wisdom of mandating Covid-19 vaccines — which critics say failed to prevent transmission, illness or death — and waning interest among parents in vaccinating their children.

“Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health,” said Florida’s Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo.

“Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed – these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”

Separate figures from the US Centre for Disease Control, released a day earlier, indicated 11.5m Americans had received one of the new ‘bivalent’ boosters so far, or around 5.3 per cent of the 212 million Americans who were eligible to receive the shots.

The US government in July contracted to pay Pfizer and Moderna around US$4.9bn for 171 million bivalent booster shots.

Jennifer Nuzzo, a professor of epidemiology at Brown University, said complaints that the new shots, which are meant to protect against all the Sars-Cov2 variants including Omicron, weren’t working were misleading.

“We‘ll likely see more of these. It doesn’t mean vaccines failed. The primary goal of vaccination – to reduce severity of illness – has not changed,” she said on social media on Friday.

Florida’s move to restrict Covid-19 vaccine coverage came after similar moves by jurisdictions in Europe, where Covid-19 boosters are no longer offered to healthy individuals under 65 and 50 in Norway and Denmark, respectively.

In the US, the CDC recommends a primary series of Covid-19 vaccination for everyone aged six months and up, boosters for those aged 12 and over.

Before the bivalent booster rollout began on 4th September, after the two shots received “emergency use authorisation” from the Food and Drug Administration, fewer than half of eligible Americans had received their first booster.

The Supreme Court in January overturned a Biden administration directive to compel all workers to receive the Covid-19 vaccines, reflecting efforts throughout the world to link Covid-19 vaccination to employment, education, in-person commerce, and freedom of movement.

Elite US universities, including Harvard and Stanford, and some healthcare settings have kept booster mandates for students, including the latest bivalent booster, a source of ongoing legal action and debate.

“Hey university presidents and trustees — how many cardiac deaths are acceptable as collateral damage?”, asked Todd Zywicki, as law professor at George Mason university, on social media soon after the Florida research was released.

Florida, which has a population around 21.5 million, stood out among US states in its response to Covid-19, ending lockdowns and mandates in early 2020, and last year banning ‘vaccine passports’, which were widely used across the US, throughout the state, to protect the unvaccinated against discrimination.

A federal appeals court upheld the state’s vaccine passport ban on Friday after a challenge by Norwegian cruise lines, based in Miami, which had sought to enforce vaccination among passengers.


9 October, 2022

The Right Response to Covid Mandates, Propaganda and Censorship

JOSEPH MERCOLA interviews Dr. Meryl Nass who shares astonishing figures on the blatant PCR testing and case count frauds that occurred during the pandemic.


Dr. Meryl Nass shares astonishing figures on the blatant PCR testing and case count frauds that occurred during the pandemic

The FDA has given emergency use authorization to 281 tests for COVID-19 but not one has received approval; this means their manufacturers have zero liability if the tests don’t work

The number of people who actually had and/or died from COVID in the beginning of the pandemic is unknown, because everybody who died “with COVID” was labeled a “COVID-caused” death

Hospitals were financially incentivized to increase the number of COVID cases because they got paid more if their patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis

Nass has created a pledge to provide a way to speak out against the injustice of vaccine mandates, propaganda and censorship that’s run rampant since March 2020

The manipulation of data and testing during the COVID-19 pandemic was done intentionally to create fear in the population, driving them to accept the experimental COVID-19 jabs that we’re now learning are both dangerous and ineffective at stopping transmission.

The platforms behind COVID-19 shots were already in the works well before the pandemic. They were just waiting for the opportunity to go mainstream. COVID provided that, Nass said:2

“The powers that be, and I can’t identify who they are, but powers in Washington — this is probably some combination of federal, regulatory and research agencies like Tony Fauci and Francis Collins and officials at the FDA and CDC — they have been looking for new, what they call, platforms of vaccines.

They don’t want to make vaccines with eggs; it takes a long time, it’s expensive, they want something faster, and messenger RNA or DNA vaccines is another platform …

For some reason the mRNA platform was extremely delicious for our regulators and for industry. So there were many startups, Moderna being one of them. Moderna’s whole reason for being is to develop messenger RNA gene therapy products either for cancer or for genetic diseases or, later, when those didn’t work out for them, they turned to vaccines.

And these companies — BioNTech is another one — have gotten huge grants from governments as well as entities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So the Gates Foundation in 2019, the year before the pandemic, invested $50 million in BioNTech. And Tony Fauci has been working with the Moderna company on messenger RNA vaccines for quite a while. So these were platforms waiting for an excuse to make a product.”

Moderna, together with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on December 12, 2019, before the pandemic — raising significant red flags.3

December 18, 2020 — about one year after the material transfer agreement was signed — the FDA issued emergency use authorization for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 18 years of age and older.4

The PCR Testing Fiasco

Problems with testing began almost immediately after the pandemic began. In the beginning, only tests from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were allowed, and the tests were virtually meaningless, as asymptomatic people were plagued by false positives. Host Dr. Paul Thomas described it as an epidemic of positive test results that got translated into an epidemic of the infection.5 According to Nass:6

“For the first two months of the pandemic, the CDC only offered its own test, and it knew very early on that its test didn’t work … so the SARS-CoV-2 infection spread throughout the U.S. during January, February and early March of 2020, when CDC only allowed a few hundred people, maybe 1,000 people during that period of time, to be tested with their tests. And they all had to have a clinical picture that almost proved they had COVID.

After the whole country was really frustrated with this, FDA did two remarkable things … in the beginning of March, Stephen Hahn, the [now former] FDA commissioner, said OK, we’re going to now allow other entities — universities, labs, anybody who has developed or can develop a test for COVID — to do so, and send us the paperwork and we’ll work really fast to get it done and allow your tests to get out there.”

The paperwork, however, was so complicated that it took companies a week to complete it. By then it was the middle of March 2020 and there were still only a few tests available in the entire U.S.

“So then Stephen Hahn did something else. He said, OK, anyone who has a test for COVID, you start using it, you put it out there. You can start testing people, you’re allowed … you send us the paperwork in a few weeks.”7 At this point, testing basically turned into a free for all, with tests from China, Germany and other countries overseas coming in.

Nearly 300 EUA PCR Tests — Not One Approved
As of Nass’ latest count, the FDA has given emergency use authorization to 281 different PCR tests for COVID-19. Not a single one has been approved or licensed.

“This means, under emergency use authorization, you can’t sue the manufacturer if your test is no good,” Nass said. “And that means FDA doesn’t have to stand by any of those authorizations … no one’s responsible. So that’s a disaster. They’ve also authorized about 50 antibody tests and other rapid tests. So we have a testing mess, and we’ve always had a testing mess.”8

The CDC also created an “odd” set of case definitions for COVID-19, basically turning “a positive test into a positive diagnosis even if you didn’t have symptoms.” The case definitions, Nass said, were so complicated they required reading through several pages of information and included whether or not the person was in an area were COVID-19 was present, whether the person had had an exposure to a known COVID case and a list of symptoms that helped formulate the definition.

She continued, “Despite all that, a positive PCR test was labeled a probable case. That’s all you really needed. And then the CDC relabeled probable cases as cases. So as everybody else has noticed, that meant we had a case-endemic. We didn’t exactly have an epidemic.”9

Hospitals Paid to Diagnose COVID Cases
The number of people who actually had and/or died from COVID in the beginning of the pandemic is unknown, because everybody who died “with COVID” was labeled a “COVID-caused” death. Health officials could count deaths from unrelated causes — even gunshots10 and motorcycle accidents11 — as COVID-19 deaths if the person had the virus within the last 30 days. According to Nass:12

“At the beginning, the number of cases, the number of people who died with COVID … everybody who died with COVID was called a COVID-caused death, and that was again due to the CDC playing with their definitions and hand coding all of their COVID deaths and requiring doctors, even if you went into the hospital with a heart attack and then they tested you in the hospital, you wound up being labeled a COVID death.”

Hospitals had every reason to go along with the questionable labels, as they earned more money if they diagnosed COVID-19 more often. They didn’t even need a positive test to do so. The end result is that the actual number of COVID-19 cases was heavily skewed and it may be impossible to sort out the real figures at this point:13

“Hospitals were financially incentivized to up the number of COVID cases because they got paid more if their patients had a COVID diagnosis. And they were told by the CDC that they didn’t even need a positive test. If it looked like a COVID case, you could call it a COVID case and then up your reimbursement. So we were all stuck with that kind of shenanigans, and it’s hard to know now who were the COVID cases and who were the COVID deaths.”

This means all the numbers of COVID deaths you hear being bandied about by mainstream are major misinformation. They are nothing more than cleverly inflated statistics based on the major incentive to identify virtually every death they could as due to SARS-CoV-2. Best estimates are the number of deaths authentically due to COVID are at least half what they say they are.

US Life Expectancy Drops

The CDC released its provisional life expectancy estimates for 2021,14 which reveals life expectancy dropped from 77 years in 2020 to 76.1 years in 2021. “It was the first time life expectancy dropped two years in a row in 100 years,” NPR noted.15 The media is, of course, blaming the drop in life expectancy primarily on COVID-19,16 largely ignoring the increasingly clear dangers of the COVID-19 shots that were forced on many in the U.S. and throughout the world.

As mentioned in the last section, the number of COVID deaths are likely half of what the inflated numbers the mainstream claims, which makes their contribution to the decrease in life expectancy essentially irrelevant. What mainstream fails to say in their misinformation coverage is that the average age of those dying of COVID were above the average life expectancy!

According to Nass, “mRNA COVID vaccines in the U.S., after you get a shot, for about two or three weeks, your immune system is not as strong as it was, and viruses that are in your body can come out, like the chicken pox virus … you’re also more susceptible to COVID for the first couple of weeks after a shot.”17

After about six months, most of the protection you may have gained from the shot wanes, and then, as time goes on, you get “negative immunity, which means you’re more susceptible to COVID,” she continued. “Unfortunately, now we’re seeing data … that you’re more susceptible to dying from any cause. Mortality goes up in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.”18

When it comes to products issued under emergency use authorization, like COVID-19 shots, there’s no liability for the manufacturers or the government officials who recommended them. “There hasn’t been a single claim that has been adjudicated regarding injuries from the COVID vaccines,” Nass said.19 This is all part of the scam they have created to protect themselves.

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),20 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. The maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person.

However, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.21 The CICP also has a one-year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly, which is also difficult since it’s unknown if long-term effects could occur more than a year later.


7 October, 2022

More Studies Confirm the COVID Jab Does More Harm Than Good

A peer-reviewed scientific review in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, written by cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, calls for the immediate suspension of all COVID shots as real-world data show they cause more harm than good

The COVID jabs are an absolute disaster, with injuries and deaths piling up by the day. Yet so-called health authorities, doctors, media, drug makers and many of the jabbed themselves claim there’s nothing to see here. Ever since their release, brave medical professionals have spoken out against them, calling for a more cautious approach.

Now, a peer-reviewed scientific review,1 2 3 published in two parts4 5 in the Journal of Insulin Resistance calls for the immediate suspension of all COVID shots as real-world data show they cause more harm than good.

According to this paper, “Curing the Pandemic of Misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Through Real Evidence-Based Medicine,” authored by cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra:

“In the non-elderly population the ‘number needed to treat’ to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomized controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalized from COVID-19.

Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety.

Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.”

COVID Jab Boomerang

In recent months, disability, excess mortality and live birth statistics all point in the same direction. Something horrific started happening around April 2021, and continues to get worse. Something is killing an extraordinary number of people in the prime of their life, who should have decades left to live. Something is causing people to file for permanent disability in numbers we’ve not seen before.

What changed in the world, in 2021? That is the question. The answer is ridiculously simple to answer, yet many choose to drive their heads deeper into the sand than face plain facts. The COVID shots, using mRNA technology to trigger antibody production in a way that had never been used before, were rolled out in 2021 under emergency use authorization. That’s what changed.

At the time of their rollout, human trials were far from finished, and much of their value had already been destroyed by unblinding the trials and offering the real injection to everyone in the placebo groups.6

This year, we’ve also come to realize that Pfizer, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all repeatedly lied about the safety and effectiveness of the shots, as Pfizer’s own trial data show they’re about as dangerous as they come.

The only reason we now know this is because the FDA was sued and forced by a judge to release the trial data they initially wanted to keep hidden for 75 years. Pfizer data is now being released at a pace of 55,000 pages per month,7 and these batches have proven to be a treasure trove of bad and worse news.

Pfizer hid serious injuries, falsely categorizing almost all of them as unrelated to the shot without investigation, and misrepresented data showing massive risks as being of no concern. Participants who suffered serious injuries were often simply withdrawn from the trial, and their data excluded from the results.8

Real-world data now conclusively show these risks are extremely real. For example, Pfizer’s Phase 3 clinical trial showed an increased risk for cardiac problems, and during 2021, U.K. ambulance services recorded an extra 27,800 cardiac arrest calls above the national average in previous years, or about 500 per day9 10 — and disproportionally among the young.11 Importantly, COVID-19 cannot account for this rise, as the relevant increase began in the spring of 2021.

A Change of Heart

In his paper, Malhotra details his personal journey from staunch COVID jab proponent to concerned questioner. He got Pfizer’s two-dose regimen at the end of January 2021.

A few months later, his father, who also got the shot, suffered cardiac arrest six months after his second dose. The post-mortem findings were “shocking and inexplicable,” Malhotra writes, and got him to take another look at the data.

“After six months of critically appraising the data myself, speaking to eminent scientists involved in COVID-19 research, vaccine safety and development, and two investigative medical journalists, I have slowly and reluctantly concluded that contrary to my own initial dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is far from being as safe and effective as we first thought,” Malhotra writes.12

He goes on to review how post-mortem examination revealed his father, who was extremely active and fit, had severe blockages in two of the three major arteries. His left anterior descending artery was 90% blocked and his right coronary was 75% blocked. The last scan, “a few years earlier,” according to Malhotra, had revealed perfect blood flow and no obstructions. He continues:13

“I couldn’t explain his post-mortem findings, especially as there was no evidence of an actual heart attack … This was precisely my own special area of research. That is, how to delay progression of heart disease and even potentially reverse it … Then, in November 2021, I was made aware of a peer-reviewed abstract published in Circulation, with concerning findings.

In over 500 middle-aged patients under regular follow up, using a predictive score model based on inflammatory markers that are strongly correlated with risk of heart attack, the mRNA vaccine was associated with significantly increasing the risk of a coronary event within five years from 11% pre-mRNA vaccine to 25% 2–10 weeks post mRNA vaccine.

An early and relevant criticism of the validity of the findings was that there was no control group, but nevertheless, even if partially correct, that would mean that there would be a large acceleration in progression of coronary artery disease, and more importantly heart attack risk, within months of taking the jab.

I wondered whether my father’s Pfizer vaccination, which he received six months earlier, could have contributed to his unexplained premature death and so I began to critically appraise the data.”

Data Points to Consider

Malhotra reviews a number of data points in the paper, including:14

Pfizer data showing there were four cardiac arrests in the injection group and only one in the placebo group.

The misleading use of relative risk reduction (95%) when speaking of effectiveness, rather than absolute risk reduction, which was only 0.84%.

119 people would have to be injected to prevent one positive test, which may or may not be indicative of infection.

Pfizer’s trial found no statistically significant reduction in serious illness or COVID mortality from the injection over the course of six months (the length of the trial). Moreover, the risk of serious COVID-19 infection in the placebo group was only 0.04%, showing just how low the risk of serious illness was in the first place, and this despite the fact that the regions chosen for the trial were chosen for their perceived high prevalence of infection.

While there were two deaths from COVID in the placebo group and only one COVID death in the injection group, all-cause mortality over a longer period revealed 19 deaths in the injection group and 17 deaths in the placebo group.

The pediatric trial used a surrogate measure of antibody levels rather than reduction in symptomatic infection, even though there was no known correlation between antibody levels and protection from infection. The FDA even warns that: “[R]esults from currently authorized SARS-COV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.”

Extrapolating Data to Determine Protection Against Death
Malhotra goes on to describe how he extrapolated data to determine the level of protection these mRNA shots provide against COVID-related death:15

“Now that we know what the published trial did and did not show in terms of the vaccine efficacy, we can attempt to extrapolate what the effect of the vaccine would be in reducing mortality or any other adverse outcome from the virus.

If there is a 1 in 119 chance the vaccine protects you from getting symptomatic infection from ancestral variants, then to find the protection against death, this figure (n = 119) must be multiplied by the number of infections that lead to a single death for each age group.

This would give (for up to two months after the inoculation) the absolute risk reduction (for death) from the vaccine. For example, if my risk at age 44 from dying from Delta (should I get infected with it) is 1 in 3,000, then the absolute risk reduction from the vaccine protecting me from death is 1 over 3,000 multiplied by 119, that is, 1 per 357,000 …

From observational data it is possible to calculate the number who would need to be vaccinated to prevent a COVID-19 death. For example, comparing the population death rates during the Delta wave gives 230 for people over 80s needing to be vaccinated to prevent a single death in that period with that number rising to 520 for people in their 70s and 10,000 for people in their 40s …

Depending on your age, several hundreds or thousands of people like you would need to be injected in order to prevent one person from dying from the Delta variant of COVID-19 over a period of around three months.

For the over 80s, this figure is at least 230, but it rises the younger you are, reaching at least 2,600 for people in their 50s, 10,000 for those in their 40s, and 93,000 for those between 18 and 29 years. For omicron, which has been shown to be 30% – 50% less lethal, meaning significantly more people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one death.”

What Are the Harms?

Next, Malhotra reviews the harms, noting that one of the most common side effects reported is myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, especially among young men. He rejects health authorities’ claim that myocarditis is far more prevalent in those who suffer serious COVID infection, stating:16

“Incidence of myocarditis rocketed from spring 2021 when vaccines were rolled out to the younger cohorts having remained within normal levels for the full year prior, despite COVID-19.

With the most up-to-date evidence, a paper from Israel found that the infection itself, prior to roll- out of the vaccine, conferred no increase in the risks of either myocarditis or pericarditis from COVID-19, strongly suggesting that the increases observed in earlier studies were because of the mRNA vaccines, with or without COVID-19 infections as an additional risk in the vaccinated …

Although vaccine-induced myocarditis is not often fatal in young adults, MRI scans reveal that, of the ones admitted to hospital, approximately 80% have some degree of myocardial damage. It is like suffering a small heart attack and sustaining some — likely permanent — heart muscle injury.”

Data from Israel shows myocarditis post-jab is occurring at a rate of 1 in 6,000. Hong Kong data from male children and teens found a rate of 1 in 2,700. Data from the British Yellow Card system shows 1 in 120 people who have received at least one mRNA injection suffer an adverse event “that is beyond mild.”

In Norway, Malhotra notes, the rate of serious adverse events post-jab is 1 in 1,000 after two doses of Pfizer. These are injuries that are life changing for the worse.

In all, nearly 500,000 adverse events had been reported to the Yellow Card system when Malhotra wrote this paper, which he points out is “unprecedented in the modern medical era and equals the total number of reports received in the first 40 years of the Yellow Card reporting system (for all medicines — not just vaccines) up to 2020.”

What VAERS Data Tell Us

The same trend is seen in the U.S., where the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received more adverse event reports for the COVID jabs than all other vaccines over the last 30 years combined. Malhotra writes:

“As with the UK’s system, the level of reports — including serious ones — associated with COVID-19 vaccines is completely unprecedented. For example, over 24,000 deaths have now been recorded in VAERS as of March 2, 2022; 29% of these occurred within 48 h of injection, and half within two weeks.

The average reporting rate prior to 2020 was less than 300 deaths per annum. One explanation often given for this is that the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out is unprecedented in scope; however, this is not valid, since (for the last decade at any rate) the United States has administered 150 million – 200 million vaccinations annually.”

Another criticism of VAERS is that ‘anyone can make an entry,’ yet, in fact, an analysis of a sample of 250 early deaths suggested that the vast majority are hospital or physician entries, and knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Given that VAERS was set up to generate early signals of potential harm for new vaccines, and was instrumental in doing so for several products, it seems perverse to only now criticize it as unreliable when there seem to have been no changes in the way it operates.”

It has been estimated that serious adverse effects that are officially reported are actually a gross underestimate, and this should be borne in mind … For example, a paper by David Kessler (a former FDA Commissioner) cites data suggesting that as few as 1% of serious adverse events are reported to the FDA. Similarly, in relation to the Yellow Card scheme in the United Kingdom, it has been estimated that only 10% of serious adverse effects are reported.”

1 in 800 Absolute Risk of Serious Side Effect

Malhotra also cites a recent study17 “coauthored by some of the most trusted medical scientists in the world in relation to data transparency,” which looked at data from the FDA, Health Canada and the Pfizer and Moderna trials.

Researchers looking at data from the FDA, Health Canada and the Pfizer and Moderna trials concluded the absolute risk of a serious adverse event from the mRNA shots was 1 in 800, which massively exceeds the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization found in randomized controlled trials.

They concluded the absolute risk of a serious adverse event from the mRNA shots was 1 in 800, which massively exceeds the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization found in randomized controlled trials.

“Given these observations, and reappraisal of the randomized controlled trial data of mRNA products, it seems difficult to argue that the vaccine roll-out has been net beneficial in all age groups … and when the possible short-, medium- and unknown longer-term harms are considered (especially for multiple injections, robust safety data for which simply does not exist), the roll-out into the entire population seems, at best, a reckless gamble,” Malhotra writes.18

“It’s important to acknowledge that the risks of adverse events from the vaccine remain constant, whereas the benefits reduce over time, as new variants are (1) less virulent and (2) not targeted by an outdated product.

Having appraised the data, it remains a real possibility that my father’s sudden cardiac death was related to the vaccine. A pause and reappraisal of vaccination Policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.”


6 October, 2022

Australian Vaccinologist Opens Up mRNA Vaccine Safety Record in Systematic Literature & Date Review

What’s the real track record of the mRNA-based vaccines developed at a historic rate during the Operation Warp Speed initiative set up by previous President Donald Trump during the first year of the pandemic?

Significant claims were made with a near-selling-like fervor emanating from key federal government agencies in the United States and most other developed nations. The mainstream media overwhelmingly touts only the positive attributes of these products, which are countermeasures to a national declared emergency, America.

As challenges were introduced, from vaccine durability issues to the ongoing mutations---predicted by plenty of scientists who understand RNA viruses such as influenza or HIV/AIDS--the media seemingly presented ready-made talking points that positioned the products overwhelmingly positive. Afterall, billions of taxpayer funds were allocated into not only the early research, clinical development, and manufacturing of the vaccines, but also the heretofore not seen federally sponsored vaccination campaign which served as a marketing support for the primary companies of both Pfizer and Moderna.

Certainly, the products have helped soften the deadly, sharp edge of the COVID-19 pandemic, but what were the cost externalities as measured in human safety, loss productivity, and other costs to society with centralized government overreach of medical activity? Was the safety record claimed what manifested in reality? While the whole world now knows the mRNA vaccines, just like the flu vaccines, couldn’t control the pathogen’s spread in totality (however, there are cases where the vaccine has served to help control the pandemic), how effective are the vaccine products in the real world at controlling the pandemic?

How about staving off more serious disease and death in high-risk populations—the groups that most benefit from such products? An Australian scientist that leads a national and international reference laboratory for respiratory bacterial pathogens involving the identification, serotyping, genotyping, sequencing, and antimicrobial sensitivity testing for both veterinary and pharmaceutical clients, along with a colleague released a sharp critique of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Dr. Conny Turni and colleague Astrid Lefringhausen explore the above topics in “COVID-19 Vaccines—An Australian Review” published in the Journal of Clinical & Experimental Immunology.

No Lightweight Prose

With expertise in vaccines and topics such as antibiotic sensitivity for determining optimal sample sites for collecting pathogens as well as understanding the connections of different pathogens with disease, the development of animal infection models, and classification of bacteria and epidemiology of pathogens, Dr. Turni is no lightweight.

Profound Questions

Why have hundreds of millions worldwide needed to be vaccinated as many as four times within a twelve-month period? What are the effects of this ongoing countermeasure-driven medical endeavor on the human body? The clinical trial basis of the authorization was based only on a primary series of mRNA-based vaccines (two doses). Taking an Australian perspective, which TrialSite has followed, this demonstrates that double the number of persons died Down Under in the first three months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 despite an already very high vaccination rate by the start of the year.

What were the promises and predictions from Australian authorities versus the actual facts on the ground? How about the safety and efficacy? Is there a substantial delta between what was promoted versus actuals? Just how safe, or unsafe are the countermeasures? What are the long-term side effects and how do these impact risk-benefit analyses?

Conducting a systematic literature and government data review, the authors establish the situation that merits investigation—the intensive push by the government for nearly everyone (including children as young as five and pregnant women) to get vaccinated. Yet, clinical research in all reality was ongoing. With a fourth booster dose administered in the elderly and other at-risk persons in just over a year from the first primary series, the long-term externalities as measured in human health cannot be known.

Crisis-driven Innovation

Vaccines often take many years to develop due to the difficulty associated with the development of this class of medical intervention—typically, a biological preparation that offers the human host active acquired immunity to a particular infectious pathogen. The vaccine usually contains an agent (like a weakened virus) that stimulates the human body’s immune system to not only recognize but also destroy the specific threat.

Vaccines are powerful medicinal interventions, and along with public health infrastructure breakthroughs over a century ago, helped transform developed economies. Some vaccines all but prevent the disease; they have served to control what were once horrific diseases such as polio. Others are used more as a therapeutic agent prophylactically to reduce the probability of the health threat such as with the influenza vaccine. While during the development and the authorization the COVID-19 vaccines were promoted like the former, in reality they perform like the latter scenario.

mRNA, developed over the last couple decades, introduced a new genetic way of inducing the human immune system’s ability to fight and overtake viruses. The onset of COVID-19 was the event fully exploited by the pharmaceutical industry and government research agencies to leverage public resources and assets to rapidly advance this promising technology. With COVID-19 came the intervention needed to achieve a faster, more economical, and adept way to produce vaccines. Done under national and global emergency, the countermeasures had to be safe and effective.

A Tenuous Foundation

First, in the “Initial Information” section of this literature review, Dr. Turni and Ms. Lefringhausen point out that the producers of the vaccines, government health agencies, and medical societies all declared that the “mRNA vaccines were supposed to remain at the injection site and be taken up by the lymphatic system.” This, and other basic premises represented a vital covenant with the public.

Yet according to the authors, “this assumption proved to be wrong.” They point to an autopsy of a person that unfortunately died as a result of the mRNA vaccination: “It was found that the vaccine disperses rapidly from the injection site and can be found in nearly all parts of the body.”

TrialSite has tracked numerous studies, mostly case series based on one death that evidence temporary wide distribution of the spike protein throughout the body for some short period of time.

The Australian literature review authors point out that although positioned to the contrary, the vaccine payload could cross both the blood-brain barrier and the blood-placenta barrier which is referenced in a European Medicines Agency assessment report targeting Moderna’s vaccine. They note, “mRNA could be detected in the brain following intramuscular administration at about 2% of the level found in plasma.” See the report on page 47: assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine [1]moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf (the EMA has taken the report down).

The authors also point to 2021, when Japanese researchers found “a disproportionately high mortality due to cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and intracranial hemorrhaging,” but this causal link couldn’t be proven. Yet authorities didn’t bother to do autopsies. Again, TrialSite has reported on many dozens of examples of post-vaccine injury studies mostly in the form of summaries of case series.

What about the claim “that the mRNA will degrade quickly?” While mRNA is supposed to break down within a few minutes to hours, writes the authors, the COVID-19 vaccines is “nucleoside-modified to reduce potential innate immune recognition, and it has been shown that production of the spike protein in some vaccines is kept up for an extraordinary long time.”

The Australians point to studies such as Röltgen et al, for examples showing that the mRNA vaccine may persist in the human body for up to 60 days. In fact, the 60 days was the endpoint so the duration could be longer. The authors declare, “It is thus unknown and impossible to define how much of the spike protein is actually produced in the vaccinated.” How about how much antigen is associated with each dose injection? Dr. Turni and Ms. Lefringhausen point out that:

“For a ‘so-called’ vaccine that is using the human body as the production facility, there is no possible quantification of antigen. This is highly variable and dependent on the amount and stability of nanoparticles in the injection, age, and fitness of the vaccinee, their immune status, and the injection technique—if a blood vessel is directly injected, the nanoparticles will travel in minutes to all major organs including the brain. It is therefore impossible to assess how much spike protein any individual vaccinee produces following an inoculation.”


COVID Mandates Are Being Lifted but Still Continue—End the "National Emergency"

In the last two years, many states in America experienced highly coercive and authoritarian enforcement of the COVID “vaccine,” “shot” or “jab,” particularly among the federal, military, corporate, medical and academic sectors.

It would be an understatement to suggest that many Americans thought their community had transformed into a police state. But there was pushback by those who championed personal liberty—to assert one’s right as a sovereign human being, as a member of “we, the people,” and not as a property of the state.

And here is an fascinating statistic: while 60 to 70 percent of people in Canada and many European nations have received an additional COVID shot following the two-dose protocol, only 33 percent of the U.S. population have received a booster dose as of September 20.

Now, a number of large corporations have dropped their mandate.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has reportedly lifted all COVID-related requirements. The global financial institution will no longer require its employees to be jabbed or tested and wear face masks to enter most offices. However, unjabbed workers in New York City (NYC) will still need an approved religious or medical exemption to enter office spaces.

Moreover, JPMorgan Chase & Co. also changed its policy in March, stating they will hire unjabbed individuals again.

According to an announcement on Cisco Systems, Inc.’s website in June, the worldwide leader in IT and networking has ceased to require inoculated employees for “office entry, travel, event attendance, or visiting customers, partners, and other third parties.”

The reasons behind these decisions are arguably multifactorial, perhaps in response to an updated “guidance” from federal health officials or a potential staff shortage.

Jeff Levin-Scherz, a population health leader & Assistant Professor at Harvard Chan School of Public Health, reasons these companies “decided that the rationale for [mandates] had become weak enough that they don’t want to continue.”

Erin Grau is the co-founder & COO of Charter, a media company focused on transforming every workplace to “catalyze a new era of dynamic organizations where all workers thrive.” According to Axios, she states there is an effort by executives to reduce any barriers to entry for new hires. Furthermore, the COVID-related requirements are reportedly expensive and time-consuming for employers. Frankly, it’s one big unnecessary hassle.

And to this end, here’s a shoutout to the folks in the Big Apple. In late September, it was reported that private businesses in NYC could stop demanding that their employees be jabbed, starting in early November. Instead, the private sector companies will be permitted to establish their own “vaccine” policies. However, this new rule doesn’t apply to city workers, who will still need to show evidence of inoculation to contribute to the economy.

Some clinics and airlines have (sort of) followed suit
As early as mid-December 2021, some of the largest U.S. hospital systems dropped employee COVID requirements. According to The Wall Street Journal, Tenet Healthcare and Cleveland Clinic were among the companies dropping the mandates.

Such a policy change occurred as several hospitals dealt with ongoing labor shortages and increased labor costs. For example, a Mercer Healthcare industry leader told CBS12 News, “Even a loss of a few people in healthcare today is much more problematic than it’s ever been. The industry is having a heck of a time dealing with turnover.” Indeed, for some, the COVID shots mandate could be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”

It’s a numbers game. The more people refuse to comply with such invasive rules, the less likely it’s possible for any federal-based or private-based company to enforce these coercive policies. Such institutions can keep terminating employment or push workers aside with unpaid leave—but practically speaking, for how many and for how long?


5 October, 2022

The Costs of Long COVID

More than 6 million people have died from COVID-19 worldwide, including nearly 1 million in the US.1 But mortality is not the only adverse consequence of COVID-19. Many survivors suffer long-term impairment, officially termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and commonly called long COVID.

Long COVID—typically defined as symptoms lasting more than 30 days after acute COVID infection—has received some public attention, but it is not nearly as intense as it is for acute COVID-19 infection. Support groups are devoted to the condition, and Congress has allocated more than $1 billion to the National Institutes of Health to study it. But the relatively meager attention that has been paid to long COVID is unfortunate because its health and economic consequences are likely to be every bit as substantial as those due to acute illness.

People who have more severe COVID-19 are more likely to experience long COVID, but severe acute disease is not a prerequisite. Long COVID has been found in people with only mild initial illness. The most common symptom of long COVID is fatigue.2 More severe cases involve damage to a variety of organ systems (the lungs, heart, nervous system, kidneys, and liver have all been implicated), along with mental health impairment. Researchers have hypothesized that physiological pathways may involve direct consequences of the viral infection along with inflammatory or autoimmune responses.

Because many prevalence estimates are based on convenience samples of members of COVID-19 support groups or people who had severe acute disease, the population prevalence of long COVID is not entirely known.3 British population data suggest that 22% to 38% of people with the infection will have at least 1 COVID-19 symptom 12 weeks after initial symptom onset, and 12% to 17% will have 3 or more symptoms.2

Rates this high translate to an enormous number of people with long COVID. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that as of May 5, 2022, the US has had roughly 81 million cases of COVID-19 and 994 187 COVID deaths. Even the lower-end estimate of 12% of people with 3 or more symptoms of long COVID implies that 9.6 million people in the US may have developed long COVID—roughly 10 times the number of COVID-19 deaths. It is not known how long people with long COVID will be symptomatic, but recovery in the first year of long COVID for affected individuals may be very slow.4

Reduced health is not the only consequence of long COVID. People with the condition work and earn less than they would have otherwise. One survey found that 44% of people with long COVID were out of the labor force and 51% worked fewer hours.5 In the economy as a whole, more than 1 million people may be out of the workforce at any given time because of long COVID.6

This reduction in labor supply is a direct earning loss. If 1 million people are out of the labor force because of long COVID, the lost income would be more than $50 billion annually. People out of the workforce because of long COVID disproportionately worked in service jobs, including health care, social care, and retail.7 The widely noted shortage of workers in these sectors is driving up both wages and prices. Part of the recent surge in inflation in the US may thus be related to long COVID.

People who are no longer able to work may also apply for Social Security Disability Insurance. To date, there has been no sustained increase in disability insurance applications since the onset of COVID-19. This is good news, though it bears watching as disability centers continue reopening from their COVID-19 shutdowns.

Increased medical spending is another consequence of long COVID. The medical costs for treating long COVID have not been estimated, but costs have been estimated for similar conditions. If treatment of long COVID is similar to treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis (chronic fatigue syndrome), these estimated costs could be about $9000 per person annually.8

In an October 2020 analysis, we estimated9 the then-nascent COVID-19 pandemic might result in $2.6 trillion of cost as a result of long COVID. Unfortunately, our estimate seems very much on target.

The massive cost of long COVID has several policy implications. Investing in treatments for long COVID is obviously a high priority. According to a recent report from the Rockefeller Foundation, progress to date has been “achingly slow” and that needs to change.10 Experimenting with ways to make employment easier for people with long-term complications is also a high priority. People with chronic fatigue may be better able to work at home or with frequent breaks than they can with a time-delimited office day and a long commute. By speeding up the transition to telework, enhanced employment opportunities for those with long COVID may be possible.

In addition, the economic cost of long COVID reinforces the value of comprehensive actions to prevent and treat new infections. Mask mandates are unpopular in many areas and a substantial share of the public resists being vaccinated—though each action should still be encouraged. But additional progress might also be made through expanding rapid COVID-19 test capability, global surveillance to detect new SARS-CoV-2 variants, and immediate action should any such variants be detected. Such measures have associated costs, but no matter how large these costs are, they pale compared with the potential benefits.


Newly Obtained Emails Shed More Light on CDC’s False Vaccine Safety Monitoring Statements

Newly obtained emails show the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made a false statement on COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring in 2021, months before agency officials gave false statements on the matter to The Epoch Times.

The emails also show top officials in the agency discussing performing safety monitoring on a key database for myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that has been linked to the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The CDC promised in 2021 in a set of operating procedures to perform a type of analysis called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) on reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. The reports are submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which officials have described as “the nation’s early warning system” for post-vaccination adverse events. The CDC also said in an updated set of operating procedures in 2022 that it would perform the analysis.

But the CDC has made false statements three times this year on PRRs, initially saying such analysis was outside the agency’s purview, then saying the analysis was performed starting in 2021, then saying the analysis did not begin until 2022. The newly obtained emails show that an official falsely said the CDC does not perform PRR analysis to an editor in 2021.

John Gregory, a health editor at NewsGuard, wrote to the CDC on Oct. 19, 2021, asking for a comment regarding a claim that the CDC’s PRR analysis cannot accurately identify when a vaccine causes adverse events, one of the emails shows. Martha Sharan, a CDC spokeswoman, sent the query to Dr. John Su, who leads the CDC’s VAERS team, and Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, who also works on vaccine safety.

Their responses were redacted apart from a comment on NewsGuard. Sharan then wrote that she’d spoken to Gregory.

“I spoke to the reporter and explained that CDC does not do PPR analysis. The reporter is not going to pursue this any further!” she wrote, adding later that she meant PRR.

That contradicts the operating procedures, which state that the CDC “will perform Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analysis” on VAERS reports.

“We let our published content speak for itself,” Gregory told The Epoch Times in an email when notified that the CDC does actually perform PRRs.

‘That’s a New One to Me’

In June 2022, the CDC falsely told Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit, that PRR analysis is “outside of th[e] agency’s purview.” An Associated Press reporter, Angelo Fichera, flagged a Children’s Health Defense article on the statement to the CDC, asking whether the CDC had ever performed the analysis, according to the newly obtained emails.

Kristen Nordlund, another CDC spokeswoman, forwarded the query to Sharan. “Martha—thoughts on this one?” she asked.

“That’s a new one on me—proportional reporting ratios’—I need to send this one to John,” Sharan responded.

Sharan later sent a statement about PRRs to The Associated Press and the Washington Examiner.

The Associated Press and NewsGuard never published stories on the topic. After The Epoch Times reported on contradictory statements from the CDC, the Examiner published an article about the developments.

Fichera, Sharan, and Su did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The emails were obtained by The Epoch Times and an independent researcher through FOIA requests.

“The CDC claims to be vigilantly and transparently monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, but when it comes to Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analysis, the CDC’s broken promises, inconsistent statements, stonewalling, and double standards tell a different story,” Mary Holland, president and general counsel of Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times via email.

“When asked about PRR analysis in connection with COVID vaccines—through FOIA, media, and congressional requests—CDC has made conflicting statements, some of them false. When confronted about the statements, the CDC claimed, essentially, that PRR analysis is not worth doing. And for the few months of PRR the CDC now says it has completed, the CDC has failed to make the results public, despite requests from multiple sources.”

“Children’s Health Defense calls on the CDC to do the right thing: do the analysis, and make the results available,” she added.

Timeline of CDC emails and statements. Some are being reported for the first time in this story

“I spoke to the reporter and explained that CDC does not do PPR analysis. The reporter is not going to pursue this any further!” – Martha Sharan to CDC colleagues, Oct. 19, 2021. (source: FOIA response to independent researcher)
“Correction – that should say PRR.” – Martha Sharan to CDC colleagues, Oct. 19, 2021. (FOIA response to independent researcher)

“[P]rogram staff within the Immunization and Safety Office inform me that no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of th[e] agency’s purview.” – Roger Andoh, June 16, 2022. (letter to Children’s Health Defense)

“That’s a new one on me – proportional reporting ratios’ – I need to send this one to John.” – Martha Sharan to CDC colleagues, June 22, 2022 (FOIA response to The Epoch Times)

“[P]rogram staff within the Immunization and Safety Office inform me that no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency’s purview.” – Bruno Viana to Roger Andoh, June 30, 2022 (FOIA response to The Epoch Times)

“CDC has been performing PRRs since Feb 2021, and continues to do so to date.” – Dr. John Su, July 18, 2022 (statement to The Epoch Times)

“CDC has revisited several FOIA requests and as a result of its review CDC is issuing corrections. … In reference to Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRRs) – CDC performed PRRs from March 25, 2022 through July 31, 2022.” – Martha Sharan, Aug. 8, 2022. (statement to The Epoch Times)

“CDC performed PRR analysis between March 25, 2022, through July 31, 2022. CDC also recently addressed a previous statement made to the Epoch Times to clarify PRR were not run between February 26, 2021, to September 30, 2021.” – Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Sept. 12, 2022 (letter to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.))

A member of the U.S. military receives the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at Camp Foster in Ginowan, Japan, on April 28, 2021. (Carl Court/Getty Images)


4 October, 2022

Prominent Physicians’ Bombshell: Does it Make Sense to Vaccinate Healthy Young People Against COVID-19 Anymore?

A Chief Scientific Officer with a biotech, a prominent physician-scientist from Case Western Reserve University, and a top Pulmonary physician at University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo recently bucked the universal COVID-19 vaccination narrative based on the results of an extensive literature review investigation, evaluating the pros and cons of COVID-19 vaccination of young adults.

Their findings go counter to the major narrative and need to be heard more loudly. Given the risk-benefit analyses, does mass vaccination of such young person’s make sense? Published in the journal European Society of Medicine, the authors acknowledge that while targeted vaccination of at-risk populations saved lives as the pandemic unfolded, they argue the ongoing mutation of the RNA-based virus continues to generate variants more capable of vaccine-induced antibody evasion. Given what amounts to a durability challenge with the vaccines in an ecosystem of mutation—which this media suggests started during the Delta surge during 2021—the research suggests the following

1) vaccination offers ever limiting protection even after booster from infection and spreading of SARS-CoV-2;

2) the vast majority of young healthy adults develop only mild to no symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection—especially with the latest mutation Omicron--

3) sequential vaccination and booster dose associates with incidence of autoimmune complications (they note complications not associated with natural infections) and

4) the trend toward immunity imprinted via natural infection as well as durable protection against COVID-19 arise from what the authors deem numerous assessments leading to the choice to natural infection for at least some cohorts.

The authors conclude that at least for the cohort including “young healthy adults, some of the risks and disadvantages afforded by vaccination prevail over the medical benefit” in what can only be labeled bombshell study output when reviewing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example.

Importantly, the authors represented by Dr. John Nemunaitis and colleagues are by no means anti- vaxxers. In fact, they are very adamant about vaccination of at-risk cohorts from the immunocompromised to the elderly to individuals with comorbidities.

Nemunaitis brings an impressive physician-scientists’ background to the literature search-based study--a Chief Scientific Officer with the biotech Gradalis, he has specialized in oncology and hematology and is board certified in internal medicine. With over three decades of experience, Dr. Nemunaitis who previously worked at University of Toledo Eleanor N. Dana Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the University of Washington School of Medicine, reports along with his colleagues that with the advent of the Omicron variant, the vast majority of COVID-19 cases observed include mild upper respiratory tract infection, appearing in the healthy young “as an ideal ‘natural vaccine’ to induce herd immunity.” Dr. Nemunaitis and colleagues suggest these infections are diminishing new variant development and may serve to “reduce duration of future pandemics in combination with vaccination of elderly and immunocompromised.”

In this study, the team first reviews the justifications for administering the supplemental booster vaccine during the pandemic. Thereafter, the authors drill into cardiac toxicity reports associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines linking both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to spikes in adverse events such as myocarditis and pericarditis, often urgent problems with long term health implications. The authors go even more granular, investigating the literature associated with spike-protein-related cardio toxicity while then turning their intellectual attention to the long-term risks associated with the spike protein booster vaccination. They then delve into the limiting factors associated with the COVID-19 vaccines involving both durability challenges and the ongoing mutations from the RNA-based SARS-CoV-2. They review natural immunity as well as inconsistent antibody response, while also reviewing literature measuring T cell memory response.


The authors share a conclusion that this media has suggested may get underreported, declaring:

Numerous toxic activities occasionally leading to hospitalization and prolonged debilitation or even death from multiple COVID-19 vaccination and boost-induced causes increased risk of breakthrough infection and shedding of virus to other vaccinated or unvaccinated subjects, but also raise doubts of what they deem the risk-benefit calculus at least for the young healthy cohort “where health risk from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection is minimal.”

Of course, this finding deviates markedly from CDC and other medical society guidelines which recommend a one-size-fits-all mass vaccination to eradicate the pathogen point of view. That mindset may have made sense assuming the pathogen’s risk to more in society was higher coupled with its ability to better control transmission, but this hasn’t been the case since the onset of Delta, accelerating with Omicron.


COVID Vaccine Does Mess With Women’s Health

Women of all ages, but particularly of childbearing years, are now being told that the COVID-19 vaccines have side effects that range from menstrual abnormalities to fetal health and development complications including miscarriage. Study after study is confirming these adverse side effects.

Yet people who had been reporting these adverse events were censored on social media and their stories were deemed “misinformation.” People lost their jobs for following their gut or their religious convictions and refusing to take the vaccines. Predictably, the truth is slowly trickling out about the COVID vaccines, and it isn’t all good.

In women, the most commonly reported side effect was the disruption of the menstrual cycle. Women were told that there was no link between the vaccine and their reproduction system. So-called “experts” laughed at them and told them that this was a rumor, a conspiracy theory. This past Tuesday, the National Institutes of Health confirmed that this symptom was not all in women’s heads, and no lesser a source than The Washington Post published a story on this. No apology, no acknowledgement that it had dismissed women’s experiences; the best the Post could offer was the changes in periods were “temporary” for “most people.”

This is the least of the revelations that have been disclosed about the effect of the COVID vaccines on women’s health.

Another study by researchers at New York University has found that trace amounts of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccinations were detected in 45% of nursing mothers. This is disturbing considering the number of study participants was 11. Five participants received Moderna and the other six received Pfizer.

This study did not make any assertions about what the consequences would be for those mothers who followed the “best guidance” and gave their babies tainted milk. It also notes that “caution is warranted about breastfeeding children younger than 6 months in the first 48 hours after maternal vaccination until more safety studies are conducted.” Why six months? Why does it suggest a breastfeeding mother not nurse her child for 48 hours? These are the types of questions concerned mothers are asking.

One study that isn’t peer-reviewed but had tens of thousands of participants worldwide compiled several other concerning trends associated with the COVID vaccine. The study’s conclusion is as follows: “Governments and public health agencies worldwide are stepping back from COVID-19 vaccine mandates and are beginning to recommend against or even prohibiting COVID-19 mandates and vaccinations for vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, and lactating women. Yet, the US continues promoting COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters in all groups, including pregnant women. This study supports the recommendations of the UK’s Medicines & Healthcare and The World Council of Health against COVID-19 vaccination and boosters for pregnant and lactating women.”

As a mother who was both pregnant and then nursing during the vaccine push, I can testify that the pressure to get a vaccine for the health of the baby was immense. It was peddled on the pregnancy apps. It was voiced by doctors and nurses at the hospital. Though it was never said out loud, the subtext was clear: If you don’t get the vaccine, you’re already a bad mother. For those mothers who did get the vaccine to make sure that they were doing the best for their young children, this is not on them. We can only hope and pray that this manipulation by all the institutions around us didn’t set up our very young children for health problems down the road such as myocarditis.

Though guidances by the CDC are being loosened, President Joe Biden and his team are still pushing the mRNA COVID vaccines. Perhaps doubling down isn’t in the best interest of the American people. It’s certainly proving to have side effects for women.


Hundreds of thousands of Americans sought medical care after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data released on Oct. 3.

Some 782,900 people reported seeking medical attention, emergency room care, and/or hospitalization following COVID-19 vaccination. Another 2.5 million people reported needing to miss school, work, or other normal activities as a result of a health event after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

The reports were made to the CDC’s V-safe program, a new vaccine safety monitoring system to which users can report issues through smartphones.

The CDC released the data to the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) after being sued over not producing the data when asked by the nonprofit. ICAN posted a dashboard summarizing the data.

“It took numerous legal demands, appeals, and two lawsuits, and over a year, but the CDC finally capitulated and agreed to a court order requiring them to do what they should have done from day one, release the V-safe data to the public,” Aaron Siri, a lawyer representing ICAN in the case, told The Epoch Times in an email.

About 10 million people utilized V-safe during the period of time the data covers: Dec. 14, 2020, to July 31, 2022. About 231 million Americans received at least one vaccine doses during that time.

The V-safe users reported about 71 million symptoms.

The most commonly reported symptoms were chills (3.5 million), swelling (3.6 million), joint pain (4 million), muscle or body aches (7.8 million), headache (9.7 million), fatigue (12.7 million), and general pain (19.5 million).

About 4.2 million of the symptoms were of severe severity.

Users of V-safe filled in data for about 13,000 infants younger than two, reporting over 33,000 symptoms, including pain, loss of appetite, and irritability.

The data produced so far by the CDC does not include free-text responses, according to ICAN. The data covered fields where users checked boxes.

ICAN, founded by film producer Del Bigtree, said that the newly revealed data “reveals shocking information that should have caused the CDC to immediately shut down its COVID-19 vaccine program,” citing the percentage of people who reported needing to get care or missing school, work, or other normal activities, as well as the reported adverse events.


3 October, 2022

Reserve Banks Have Destroyed the ‘Culture of Thrift’: Nigel Farage

British political leader Nigel Farage has warned that years of low interest rate lending has discouraged the younger generation from saving.

He told The Epoch Times it was “astonishing” central banks have failed to recognise that years of cheap lending—particularly during the COVID-19 era—would eventually lead to the current wave of inflation that has gripped developed countries around the world. In response, Reserve Bank chiefs have, in lockstep, raised interest rates to try and curb rising living costs.

The former Brexit Party leader, and a key architect behind Brexit, made the comments on Oct. 1 from Sydney, where conservatives had gathered for CPAC Australia—the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“It was just astonishing. Rates should have been raised a very long time ago,” Farage said. “I actually think having reasonable interest rates will be a healthier thing because we’ve just destroyed the culture of thrift, destroyed it, and made it very difficult for people.”

“We’ve had roaring house prices, and low income-to-savings. A lot of the younger generation are saying, ‘What’s the point of saving? I’ll just go and spend what I’ve got in my pocket,” he added.

“The misjudgments, frankly, have been absolutely enormous, and they blame it on [Vladimir] Putin’s actions. Well, there’s this thing called monetary inflation, and if you print billions and trillions of dollars and pounds, that’s what happens.”

Between 2020 to 2021, many governments adopted hard lockdowns to deal with the pandemic. However, such moves also required government subsidies to keep businesses and families afloat when the economy was largely forced to shut down.

This led to Reserve Banks the world over printing large volumes of cash to inject into the economy. Economists now attribute these actions to the high inflation families are experiencing today, which have been exacerbated by global events like supply chain shortages and the war in Ukraine.

Don’t Try to Out-Left the Left

Meanwhile, Farage also warned conservative-leaning political parties against copying progressive policy platforms, saying they may miss out capitalising on global trends sweeping the world.

“If you decide to tack towards either a Labour-lite or you try to ‘out-Green’ the Greens—you ain’t gonna win,” he said. “Because you’re not recognising the big shift happening in the [conservative movement] across the Western world in America and Britain.”

“The middle classes that used to be conservative voters now vote much more ‘social democrat.’ And the working-class voters—traditionally Labour or Democrat voters—are now more inclined to vote Republican or conservative,” he added. “That is a big social demographic trend that has been going on now for some years, and if you tap back towards the ‘teals,’ then I’m afraid you’re in the wrong place.”

Farage was referring to the teal movement in Australia that contributed to a change in federal government, after several inner-city seats, traditionally held by the centre-right Liberal Party, fell to independent MPs professing stronger action on climate change.

The Liberal Party is now in the process of soul-searching and identifying its policy platform going forward. Opposition leader Peter Dutton has hinted at targeting small business owners and working-class Australians.

A Message to Conservatives

During his address to the CPAC Australia conference, Farage said there was a yearning for strong conservative leadership in Australia.

“The single most important, interesting thing in this trip is that everywhere I’ve been … ordinary Australians are coming up to me and saying, ‘We’re worried about the future of our country, we’re worried about what Australia is becoming, and we cannot believe the lack of conservative courage and leadership.'”

He called on attendees to “use your power” and elect “better” conservative politicians who won’t be influenced by big business, mainstream media, social media, or being criticised.

Farage said it was important to take a “moral stand” and promote values such as freedom, tradition, and what was established by earlier generations.

“In Australia, America, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, right across the English-speaking world, we face exactly the same challenges.”


The Thinnest Veneer of Civilization

Civilization is fragile. It hinges on ensuring the stuff of life.

To be able to eat, to move about, to have shelter, to be free from state or tribal coercion, to be secure abroad, and safe at home—only that allows cultures to be freed from the daily drudgery of mere survival.

Civilization alone permits humans to pursue sophisticated scientific research, the arts, and the finer aspects of culture.

So, the great achievement of Western civilization—consensual government, individual freedom, rationalism in partnership with religious belief, free market economics, and constant self-critique and audit—was to liberate people from daily worry over state violence, random crime, famine, and an often-unforgiving nature.

But so often the resulting leisure and affluence instead deluded arrogant Western societies into thinking that modern man no longer needed to worry about the fruits of civilization he took to be his elemental birthright.

As a result, the once prosperous Greek city-state, Roman Empire, Renaissance republics, and European democracies of the 1930s imploded—as civilization went headlong in reverse.

We in the modern Western world are now facing just such a crisis.

We talk grandly about the globalized Great Reset. We blindly accept the faddish New Green Deal. We virtue signal about defunding the police. We merely shrug at open borders. And we brag about banning fertilizers and pesticides, outlawing the internal combustion engine, and discounting Armageddon in the nuclear age—as if on autopilot we have already reached utopia.

But meanwhile Westerners are systematically destroying the very elements of our civilization that permitted such fantasies in the first place.

Take fuel. Europeans arrogantly lectured the world that they no longer need traditional fuels. So, they shut down nuclear power plants. They stopped drilling for oil and gas. And they banned coal.

What followed was a dystopian nightmare. Europeans will burn dirty wood this winter as their civilization reverts from postmodern abundance to premodern survival.

The Biden administration ossified oil fields. It canceled new federal oil and gas leases. It stopped pipeline construction and hectored investors to shun fossil fuels.

When scarcity naturally followed, fuel prices soared.

The middle class has now mortgaged its upward mobility to ensure that they might afford gasoline, heating oil, and skyrocketing electricity.

The duty of the Pentagon is to keep America safe by deterring enemies, reassuring allies, and winning over neutrals. It is not to hector soldiers based on their race. It is not to indoctrinate recruits in the woke agenda. It is not to become a partisan political force.

The result of those suicidal Pentagon detours is the fiasco in Afghanistan, the aggression of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the new bellicosity of China, and the loud threats of rogue regimes like Iran.

At home, the Biden administration inexplicably destroyed the southern border, as if civilized nations of the past never needed such boundaries.

Utter chaos followed. Three million migrants have poured into the United States. While some cross over clandestinely, others clear border stations without an adequate audit, and largely without skills, high-school diplomas, or capital.

The streets of our cities are anarchical—and by intent.

Defunding the police, emptying the jails, and destroying the criminal justice system unleashed a wave of criminals. It is now open season on the weak and innocent.

America is racing backwards into the 19th-century Wild West. Predators maim, kill, and rob with impunity. Felons correctly conclude that bankrupt postmodern “critical legal theory” will ensure them exemption from punishment.

Few Americans know anything about agriculture, except to expect limitless supplies of inexpensive, safe, and nutritious food at their beck and call.

But that entitlement for 330 million hungry mouths requires massive water projects, and new dams and reservoirs. Farmers rely on steady supplies of fertilizer, fuels, and chemicals. Take away that support—as green nihilists are attempting—and millions will soon go hungry, as they have since the dawn of civilization.

Perhaps nearly a million homeless now live on the streets of America. Our major cities have turned medieval with their open sewers, garbage-strewn sidewalks, and violent vagrants.

So, we are in a great experiment in which regressive progressivism discounts all the institutions, and the methodologies of the past that have guaranteed a safe, affluent, well-fed, and sheltered America.

Instead, we arrogantly are reverting to a new feudalism as the wealthy elite—terrified of what they have wrought—selfishly retreat to their private keeps.

But the rest who suffer the consequences of elite flirtations with nihilism cannot even afford food, shelter, and fuel. And they now feel unsafe, both as individuals and as Americans.

As we suffer self-inflicted mass looting, random street violence, hyperinflation, a nonexistent border, unaffordable fuel, and a collapsing military, Americans will come to appreciate just how thin is the veneer of their civilization.

When stripped away, we are relearning that what lies just beneath is utterly terrifying.


2 October, 2022

FDA Withholding Autopsy Results on People Who Died After Getting COVID-19 Vaccines

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is refusing to release the results of autopsies conducted on people who died after getting COVID-19 vaccines.

The FDA says it is barred from releasing medical files, but a drug safety advocate says that it could release the autopsies with personal information redacted.

The refusal was issued to The Epoch Times, which submitted a Freedom of Information Act for all autopsy reports obtained by the FDA concerning any deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System following COVID-19 vaccination.

Reports are lodged with the system when a person experiences an adverse event, or a health issue, after receiving a vaccine. The FDA and other agencies are tasked with investigating the reports. Authorities request and review medical records to vet the reports, including autopsies.

The FDA declined to release any reports, even redacted copies.

The FDA cited federal law, which enables agencies to withhold information if the agency “reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption,” with the exemption being “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Federal regulations also bar the release of “personnel, medical and similar files the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The Epoch Times has appealed the denial, in addition to the recent denial of results of data analysis of VAERS reports.

‘Easily Be Redacted’

Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who advises the FDA as part of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, said that the reports could be released with personal information blacked out.

“The personal information could easily be redacted without losing the potential learnings from [the] autopsy,” Witczak told The Epoch Times via email.

People make the choice to submit autopsy results to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, Witczak noted.

“If someone submits their experience to VAERS they want and expect to have it investigated by the FDA. This includes autopsy reports,” she said.

Autopsies are examinations of deceased persons performed to determine the cause of death.

“Autopsies can be an important part of postmortem analysis and should be done especially with increased deaths following COVID-19 vaccination,” Witczak said.

FDA Responds

An FDA spokesperson noted that deaths following COVID-19 vaccination are rare, citing the number of reports made to VAERS.

As of Sept. 14, 16,516 reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported. Approximately 616 million doses have been administered in the United States through September.

The spokesperson declined to say whether the FDA would ever release the autopsy results, but pointed to a paper authored by researchers with the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The paper, which has not been peer reviewed, analyzed the approximately 9,800 reports of death to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccination lodged from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 17, 2021. Researchers found that reporting rates were lower than the expected all-cause mortality rates.

“Trends in reporting rates reflected known trends in background mortality rates. These findings do not suggest an association between vaccination and overall increased mortality,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that prior studies have found that adverse events reported to VAERS are an undercount of the true number of events.


Widowers Allege COVID-19 Treatment Protocols Led to Their Wives's Deaths

Between the induced labor and the COVID-19 treatment protocols that ultimately ended in her death on Dec. 1, 2021, 33-year-old Christy Cresto was only allowed by hospital staff to hold her baby for 10 minutes before he was taken to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

When she was admitted into a hospital in Pennsylvania on Oct. 9, 2021, she was 36 weeks pregnant and due Nov. 16; however, staff performed an ultrasound and decided she was at 38 weeks, with the baby at 9 pounds and 8 ounces.

“This would become the first of many lies from the hospital staff,” Matthew Cresto told The Epoch Times. “It became apparent to me that they purposely overestimated because he was born 6 pounds 5 ounces.”

Lie number two, Cresto said, was the assurance that they wouldn’t take the baby away from Christy since she contracted COVID while pregnant.

According to a January 2021 study in the Journal of American Medical Association, a baby in the womb of a mother who contracts COVID acquires natural immunity from the mother.

The study states in its abstract, “Maternally derived antibodies are a key element in neonatal immunity.”

With the assurance of the hospital that the baby wouldn’t be separated from them, they agreed to induce labor so that Christy could proceed with COVID treatment, Cresto said.

After he was born, they laid the baby in a bassinet, where Cresto said he stayed for two hours before a pediatrician entered to give him a newborn exam.

Lie number three, Cresto said, was hospital staff saying Christy could breastfeed if she wore a mask. But the baby never returned for feedings; instead, nurses brought Christy a breast pump, and she was given one dose of remdesivir, with discussion around putting her on a ventilator already having begun.

According to medical records, Cresto said, subsequent doses of remdesivir were marked “not appropriate at this time.”

Cresto continuously asked about the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance treatment protocols that included ivermectin, he said, to which staff responded by stating that they don’t work.

He asked about monoclonal antibody treatment, to which staff responded by telling him they didn’t have it.

What he later found, he said, was that—similar to others’ stories—the hospital did have monoclonal antibody treatment, but it wasn’t offered to the unvaccinated.

In many of these testimonies, some report that they were prohibited from visiting their loved ones, and others report they were permitted visits.

Cresto’s case was an exception, because after he protested he was allowed to stay.

Despite being told that he couldn’t see his son for 14 days, staff told him two days later that he was ready to be discharged from the NICU and that Cresto could take him home, he said.

“This, even though two days prior they said I couldn’t see him because I was exposed to my wife,” Cresto said. “There was absolutely no consistency in policies.”

Before Christy’s mother picked him up, Cresto was able to hold his son, he said.

“It’s important to point out here that I was able to go and hold him after leaving Christy’s ICU room,” Cresto said, where Christy had at that point been taken off high-flow oxygen and put on a BiPAP machine, which he called the “last step before the ventilator.”

At one point, Cresto received a photo from Christy he said she took of the call button in her room that was out of reach.

As described in a September lawsuit filed against three California hospitals for their use of remdesivir on patients allegedly without informed consent, call buttons are typically placed beyond the reach of patients who are going through these protocols.

Follow The Money

The TN Liberty Network (TLN), an independent think tank started by AJ DePriest and comprised of 28 Tennessee researchers, charted the financial incentives TLN said are driving the protocols.

In its Follow the Money Series, “Blood Money in U.S. Healthcare Financial Incentives: The Use of ‘Covered Countermeasures,’” TLN examines how the trillions that came from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act flowed into multiple three-letter agencies such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and—along with the perpetuation of the federal public health emergency—has created medical tyranny.

“Hospitals are incentivized to vaccinate, test, diagnose, and admit Covid patients and report COVID-related deaths using add-on bonuses to push treatments such as remdesivir, dialysis, ventilators, and new ‘covered countermeasures approved for Covid,” the report (pdf) states.

In addition to the incentives, a patient’s bill of rights is waived under the CMS COVID-19 Emergency Declaration Blanket Waivers for Health Care Providers.

This waiver allows healthcare workers to ignore a patient’s rights, such as the right to respect, the right to informed consent, and the right to refuse treatment, according to DePriest.

There is also a waiver that allows patients to be left alone for up to 48 hours without any care, DePriest reported.

The waivers state that because COVID is a drain on resources, the requirements to check on patients within the usual regulated standards are waived, DePriest explained.

NIH, the CDC, and CMS didn’t immediately respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

More here:





The notes and pix appearing in the sidebar of the blog that is reproduced above are not reproduced here. The sidebar for this blog can however be found in my archive of sidebars

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; Subject index to my short notes. My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;

Email me (John Ray) here.