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

September 30, 2022

Does Vitamin D help with Covid?

YOU CAN’T LIVE without vitamins; that’s an absolute no. These macronutrients are the grease to our gears, making sure all our bodily systems are running and operating in mint condition. A deficiency in any one of the essential 13 vitamins can lead to a whole host of health problems, sickness, and possibly death.

During the pandemic, there was one vitamin in particular — vitamin D — that received quite a hullabaloo as a potential therapeutic agent against Covid-19. This was in due part to vitamin D’s influence on the immune system and being potentially protective against respiratory infections based on past research. Notably, when then-President Donald Trump got the coronavirus, his physician revealed that along with a course of the antiviral drug remdesivir and antibody cocktail Regeneron, Trump’s treatment regimen included a vitamin D supplement.

But there’s been a lot of back and forth over whether supplementing with vitamin D actually helps make Covid-19 less severe or even prevents the disease to begin with. And according to two studies published this month in the British Medical Journal, it might not. The two papers, one conducted in the U.K. and the other in Norway, found that vitamin D supplements did not appear to protect against catching Covid-19 or other respiratory tract infections. These findings aren’t a definitive answer to the vitamin D-coronavirus question — both studies have limitations which we’ll get into. But they do raise the importance of continuing research into finding easy-to-implement solutions to keep the spiky virus at bay.

HERE’S THE BACKGROUND — Vitamin D belongs to a group of fat-soluble vitamins, meaning these nutrients are better absorbed when you eat high-fat foods and are stored in adipose tissue, the liver, and skeletal muscles. Because fat-soluble vitamins stay in the body much longer than water-soluble vitamins that need regular replacement, for the most part, you can have too much of a good thing (aka toxicity) when these vitamins are consumed in excessive amounts.

The human body naturally produces vitamin D (which comes in many forms) after we’re hit with some feel-good sunbeams. The exact mechanism involves ultraviolet B (UVB) energy converting cholesterol, which is abundant in the skin, into an active form of the vitamin called vitamin D2. Dietary supplements come in vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. The latter is slightly more active, therefore more effective, and what most clinicians recommend.

Vitamin D is best known for its role in keeping bones healthy by helping us absorb calcium and phosphate during digestion (thereby preventing osteoporosis). As for its role in immune health, which is where its influence on Covid-19 infection comes in, some studies have shown taking a supplement regularly may prevent autoimmune diseases and metastatic or fatal cancers. Other studies have found that vitamin D may quell inflammation, which may be the link between the vitamin and Covid-19. Additionally, this association appeared to carry some weight as scientists observed high rates of vitamin D deficiency running in tandem with severe Covid-19, especially in Black and Hispanic communities where such a deficiency is highest.

WHAT THEY DID — In the U.K. and Norwegian study, the aim was straightforward: To see if vitamin D, whether as a vitamin D3 supplement or fortified in a teaspoon of cod liver, could prevent Covid-19 infection.

Researchers led by the University of London conducted a phase three randomized, controlled trial enrolling 6,200 volunteers ages 16 years and older from a much larger research cohort called COVIDENCE UK and tested their vitamin D levels. Anyone who had insufficient concentrations of the vitamin in their blood, determined through a finger prick test and defined as less than 75 nanograms per deciliter, was given either a high (3,200 international units per day) or low (800 international units per day) dose of vitamin D3. These individuals, who were mostly women in their 60s, were followed for six months from December 2020 to June 2021.

Up north in Scandinavia, researchers led by a team at Oslo University gave over 34,000 Norwegians aged 18 to 75 years five milliliters of cod liver oil daily (containing 10 micrograms of vitamin D) or a placebo in the form of corn oil. The participants, also mostly women but trending younger (around 45 years old) were followed up for six months as well from November 2020 to June 2021.

WHAT THEY FOUND — Neither study found vitamin D made a dramatic difference in the number of Covid-19 infections, serious illness (including hospitalizations and any deaths), or other respiratory tract infections between the controls and those taking the vitamin in whichever form.

"Among people aged 16 years and older with a high baseline prevalence of suboptimal vitamin D status, implementation of a population level test-and-treat approach to vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a reduction in risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection or Covid-19," authors of the UK study wrote.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for six months during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among Norwegian adults, did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious Covid-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the Norwegian researchers wrote in their study.

DIGGING INTO THE DETAILS — Before you go off and chuck your bottle of Nature Made’s D3 in the nearest trash, these two studies do have a number of limitations, the most glaring being vaccination.

In an accompanying editorial, Peter Bergman, a physician and clinical researcher in Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet, who was not involved in either study, said having a sizable number of people already vaccinated (over 35 percent in the Norway study) or undergoing vaccination (from one percent to 89 percent in the U.K. study) may have masked any protective effects of vitamin D.

There’s also the issue of representation in either study. In the UK study, “men, people from ethnic minorities, and those with lower educational attainment were relatively under-represented compared with the general population,” the study authors wrote, thereby affecting the generalizability of their findings.

While the Norwegian study was quite large with over 34,000 participants, most were women, “relatively young and healthy, and 86.3 percent had adequate vitamin D levels… at baseline,” said Bergman. And the fact that cod liver was used, which contains large amounts of vitamin A, also means vitamin D’s ability to regulate the immune system could have been interfered with.

WHAT’S NEXT — While these two studies don’t suggest you forgo vitamin D outright (because you definitely need it for your health and well-being), it’s no substitute for Covid-19 vaccination, at least in individuals with normal levels of the vitamin.

“Importantly, these new trials remain compatible with the two large meta-analyses suggesting that vitamin D supplementation may be beneficial for vitamin D deficient individuals,” wrote Bergman, who also recommended certain groups at risk for low vitamin D, such as those with darker skin, pregnant women, and the elderly with chronic disease consult their physician before supplementing.


Pfizer Covid vaccine caused 'debilitating' lesions om her tongue that left 60-year-old woman unable to eat for months

A 60-year-old woman suffered 'debilitating' lesions on her tongue after receiving Pfizer's Covid vaccine – with each shot making her symptoms worse.

Her side effects, which also included a dry mouth and inflammation, were so painful she was left unable to eat.

Doctors struggled to find the culprit for nine months, during which she lost 17 pounds (8kg).

By the time she was finally diagnosed, her swollen tongue had began to split open leaving deep, agonizing sores.

She was diagnosed with Sjögren's syndrome, a condition that sees the immune system go haywire and damage healthy parts of the body. Her symptoms were finally cured with a six-week course of topical steroids.

Doctors chronicled the rare side effect in a report published last month in the American Journal of Case Reports.

The unidentified patient, from Australia, received three vaccine doses in total – two of which formed the initial course, as well as a single booster.

Similar symptoms were also documented in patients infected with coronavirus, which led to the condition being dubbed 'Covid tongue'.

Oral sores are not a new phenomenon after a vaccine and have been spotted in people following flu, hepatitis B and papillomavirus jabs.

But only a handful of cases have been reported after Covid vaccines, despite billions of doses being administered worldwide.

The unnamed patient developed sores in her mouth about three days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Her symptoms had partially abated before she received the second dose, after which the symptoms returned still more severely.

She underwent a cadre of blood tests to rule out other diagnoses such as HPV and other infections.

She was referred to an outpatient rheumatology clinic with suspected Sjogren syndrome, an autoimmune disease which causes the immune system to attack glands that produce moisture in the eyes, mouth, and other parts of the body.

Doctors first prescribed a topical version of clonazepam, a benzodiazepine that when ingested orally, can treat burning mouth syndrome.

When that did little to alleviate her symptoms, doctors prescribed an oral steroid which caused symptoms to improve 60 per cent, but treatment stopped because it was causing the woman abdominal pain.

Doctors finally settled on a lower dose topical iteration of the steroids dissolved in water and taken consistently for about six weeks until symptoms abated.

The condition was not easily diagnosed and doctors were puzzled at first. While oral symptoms can be associated with the Pfizer vaccine, they are uncommon and likely under recognized by providers who do not specialize in oral healthcare.

Writing in the journal, the doctors said: 'A subsequent review of the timeline of history and medications, including vaccinations, identified a clear relationship between the exacerbation of oral symptoms after each [Pfizer-BioNTech] vaccination.'

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) database for Covid vaccine side effects does not include oral symptoms.

A major caveat is that reporting the adverse effects is voluntary and therefore cases may be underreported.

'This case demonstrates that oral symptoms can be associated with BNT162b2 vaccination, which is likely under-recognized by practitioners outside the field of oral health,' the doctors said in the case study.


September 29, 2022

We need to talk about "excess deaths"

Have both the vaccines and the lockdowns done long-term harm?

The Scottish Covid Recovery Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the cause of excess deaths. Data shows that the number of deaths in Scotland have been well above the 5-year average for most of the time since the pandemic began. Curiously, excess death figures far exceed those accounted for by Covid.

This long spate of unexpected deaths is highlighted by the recent passing of a notable Scottish athlete, 37-year-old Rab Wardell. He died from an apparent cardiac arrest while lying in bed next to his partner, Olympic champion Katie Archibald, two days after winning a Scottish mountain bike title.

Excess deaths are not only limited to Scotland – they have been noted around the globe.

While the death toll from Covid reached 5.94 million at the end of 2021, the WHO estimate excess deaths within the same time frame at around 15 million. A systematic analysis in The Lancet of deaths from around the world during 2020-21 put the figure of excess deaths at 18.2 million. This matches the model built by The Economist, which also suggests that the total excess deaths are over three times that accounted for by Covid. But most countries are (inconceivably) not actively investigating the causes of this mysterious mass death event.

What’s alarming is that excess deaths are increasing, even as Covid wanes.

If normal patterns were followed, the large number of excess deaths among the elderly, who are by far the most vulnerable to Covid, would have peaked in the first two years of the pandemic and then fallen to below-average levels in 2022 to compensate (as happens in bad flu seasons). However, excess deaths remain statistically higher than average for the elderly.

Excess deaths are also increasing in the young, again strongly suggesting that this is occurring for reasons other than Covid given the extremely low mortality rate for those under 40. The Telegraph reported on August 18 that, for the past 14 out of 15 weeks in England and Wales, there have been an average of 1,000 excess deaths each week, none of which were due to Covid.

There are various hypotheses to explain excess deaths.

From the early days of lockdowns, many warned of the negative consequences of such a blunt, draconian, and myopic strategy including the scientists from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford universities who drafted the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration and the tens of thousands of medical scientists and practitioners who have signed it.

Their concerns have sadly materialised. In America, deaths from drug overdose broke records in 2020 and 2021. They will likely do so again in 2022. In the UK and America, deaths from alcohol abuse increased by almost 19 per cent and 25.5 per cent, respectively. Youth suicide noticeably increased during the pandemic in the America, while a survey in Victoria found that nearly 10 per cent of Victorians, or some 600,000 people, seriously considered suicide during the height of the extended 2020 lockdown.

Furthermore, as I have written previously, the pandemic response has resulted in dramatic reductions in people seeking medical care for other deadly illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, leading to predictably protracted and elevated deaths from chronic illnesses that went undiagnosed and untreated, the debt of which will continue to manifest for years. Ironically, multiple studies have found no evidence that lockdowns reduced Covid deaths.

Another factor that has been little spoken about is mass vaccinations. This, dare we say it, unprecedented event needs to be considered in order to explain excess youth deaths.

A JAMA study that examined the data of over 192 million people in America who took the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) found that the risk of myocarditis after receiving these vaccines was increased, especially in adolescent males.

An earlier JAMA study found that among the more than 2 million people in America who took mRNA vaccines, cases of pericarditis were even more numerous after vaccination than myocarditis.

A JAMA Cardiology study, examining more than 23 million people in four Nordic countries, also found increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccines, particularly in young males and especially after the second dose.

A recent paper in Circulation that examined more than 42 million people in England found that for men under the age of 40, the second dose of Moderna vaccine was associated with much higher incidents of myocarditis than SARS-CoV-2 infection itself.

Although the mechanism of how vaccines may be causing myocarditis remains unclear, a similar phenomenon had been described following smallpox vaccination in young people.

While the absolute numbers are fairly small, this phenomenon might well contribute to the sharp rise in the number of unexplained deaths among young athletes, which is a pattern seen globally across multiple sporting industries.

The negative effects of vaccines are not limited to inflammation of the heart. A thorough 2021 analysis of the Phase III trial data from Pfizer, Moderna, and Jansen vaccines concluded that they may have caused more negative side effects than having done good. The German Ministry of Health recently released a statement that the reporting rate of severe adverse reactions after a Covid vaccination in Germany was one in every 5,000 doses. Given most people have had at least two doses, the risk of severe adverse reaction is conceivably higher than one in every 2,000 vaccinated people.

Even for Covid itself, the vaccines may have negative effects. A September New England Journal of Medicine study found that in children between 5-11 years of age, the vaccines gave only temporary protection which then became negative within months (meaning that the vaccinated become more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated), whereas natural immunity from previous infection still offered around 50 per cent protection after a year. This begs the question, is the haphazard vaccination of children increasing their vulnerability to Covid?

The cultural tide regarding transparent analysis and public debate about vaccine adverse effects seems to be turning, while adult-like discussion has only recently become possible.

The former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson, who questioned the glowing vaccine PR in the early days of mass vaccine rollout, was banned from Twitter. He sued and won, as many of his criticisms and doubts have been shown to be accurate. What is most concerning is that the lawsuit revealed that the White House had pressured Twitter into banning Berenson, effectively curtailing journalistic inquiry into an issue affecting the entire human species. And Bereson is by no means the only one that had faced censorship.

If leaders around the world were willing to unscrupulously and severely disrupt the lives and livelihoods of billions of people for a virus that has killed 6.5 million people over two and a half years (for context, over 60 million people die each year), they are morally and ethically bound to at least investigate the causes of excess deaths that are three times as numerous, especially if some of the causes are likely the results of Covid policies. By the same token, those in leadership positions who had censored free inquiry, discussion, and debate during the pandemic should face serious scrutiny and consequences.


California surgeon slams state's 'destructive' bill that would punish doctors for COVID 'misinformation'

A California surgeon spoke out Tuesday against a state bill that would punish doctors for spreading COVID-19 "misinformation" on key issues, including vaccinations and medications.

Dr. Peter Mazolewski, a board-certified general surgeon, ripped the proposal that now sits on Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk after legislative approval, telling host Dana Perino that the policy could be "destructive" and "dangerous."

"It'll be dangerous to patient care, it'll be destructive in the sense that there will be no scientific progression," he said on "America's Newsroom" Tuesday.

Mazolewski warned that the bill could also establish a "dangerous" precedent for similar bills to come, particularly for those concerning other medical conditions.

He added that the repercussions of restrictive medical information laws could be disastrous, creating a mass exodus from the industry across the state.

"We all know that there's been contemporary scientific consensus regarding COVID that has been wrong. It has actually been refuted partially and fully," he said.

"We can go back to many issues: One percent mortality, closing schools is healthy for our children, wearing masks helps prevent the dissemination, [if you get] vaccines you won't get ill at all, vaccines won't allow for transmission of disease. We know all of these have been refuted," he added.

Mazolewski said California medical boards would be empowered to determine appropriate punishments for doctors who commit relevant offenses.

In a joint Fox News op-ed, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Dr. Pierre Kory urged Newsom to "kill this terrible bill and prevent a hostile takeover of medicine by oppressive government censors."


Record Deaths in Australia from COVID-19 Despite 96.4% of 16+ Fully Vaxxed

Despite the fact that the population of Australia is nearly universally vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, TrialSite has reported that record numbers of deaths accumulated at the beginning of 2022. This is despite the universal protection of the vaccine. Yet breakthrough infections led to growing numbers of deaths in the most at-risk cohorts such as the elderly.

Now, mainstream media starts to acknowledge the trend. Recently, the Sydney Morning Herald reports in “COVID complications Push Australian deaths to highest number in 40 years,” that based on an analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics population data that total deaths nationwide are 18% higher in the quarter when compared to the prior year, rising from 36,100 to 46,200 deaths.

Labeled as “COVID-19’s hidden impact,” more people have died in Australia in the March quarter than any time in the last 41 years. Half the deaths in this period were from COVID despite an overwhelming vaccination rate.

Australia is one of the most vaccinated populations in the world against COVID-19 yet as TrialSite reported earlier this year has experienced unprecedented pandemic related deaths. Does this trend evidence a failure of the COVID-19 vaccines?


September 28, 2022

Personality Typology in the Health Field

The article excerpted below is "deja vu all over again" for me. It starts out with a respecful mention of the old "type A" hypothesis about what personality type is most associated with heart disease. That shows how slow people are to learn from the evidence. The association between Type A personality and heart disease is simply not usually found. The hypothesis is a failed one. The measure used to detect a Type A was the JAS, which is psychometrically ludicrous, so its repeated failure to give the expected prediction is no surprise.

I did rather a lot of original research on the topic in the '80s, which you can find here

Bsically, all the "types" associated with cancer and heart disease suffered from over-inclusiveness. They combined into one several different personality traits. And if you de-confounded the set of traits you got better results.

I found, for instance, in my research that if you took just one of the components of Type A, which I called "freneticsm" you got both a more unidimensional trait and one which DID predict heart disease to some degree. The items of the new Freneticism scale are here

I am not aware of any follow-up on that by other authors but that is typical of the field. Nobody ever seems to learn anything from the overall body of research. Exciting bits are all that get attention

The most persuasive paper on personality and heart disease is probably the one by Eysenck, wherein he summarises the results of his collaboration with Grossarth-Maticek. At least some of Grossarth-Maticek's measures were however also rather poor psychometrically so some reservations about the results have to be held.

Temoshok and her colleagues expanded on Friedman and Rosenman’s idea of a “Type C” behavior pattern. Whereas Type B is the absence of Type A characteristics, they proposed that the Type C behavior pattern was constructed to be the polar opposite of Type A. These were hypothesized to exist on a spectrum, with Type A on one end, and Type C on the other.

According to Temsok and her colleagues, people conforming to a Type C behavior pattern are characterized as cooperative, patient, and unassertive. They suppress negative emotions, including anger, and comply with authorities. They may also feel helpless, hopeless, and with tendencies toward depression.

People with Type C personalities have a number of strengths. They are typically calm with a consistent and controlled demeanor. They tend to be creative and cooperate easily with others. They can be dedicated to their projects, helpful, and thoughtful about planning for the future.

However, they can also be resistant to conflict, which can sometimes turn into emotional repression. They can also be prone to perfectionism, anxiety, pessimism, or even depression. They have a tendency to defer their own needs to the needs of others.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with having a Type C personality, it may come with an increased risk of some health issues.

And one of them could be cancer.

Repressed Emotions and Cancer

In a study in the European Journal of Personality, Hans Eysenck and colleagues sought to determine whether personality types might predict deaths from heart disease and cancer. They gave 3,235 European subjects interviews and personality assessments to determine various personality traits. Then they tracked these subjects over the course of 10 years.

At the end of the 10-year period, the subjects were contacted again. If they had died, the researchers reviewed the cause of their death from their death certificates. In that way, the research team was able to connect personality traits with the ultimate cause of death.

At the 10-year follow-up, they found that 1,341 individuals from their original sample had died. These they categorized into different personality types based on their earlier personality assessments.

They found that 45 percent of those with what these researchers called “Type I” personality traits (similar to Temshok’s Type C behavior pattern in that they inhibit emotions) died of cancer. This group was much less likely to die of other causes, like heart disease.

Similarly, people that Eysenck categorized as “Type II” (which is similar to Temshok’s Type A behavior pattern of people with high stress) were much more likely to die of cardiovascular diseases like heart attacks and strokes. They also found that people with other patterns of personality were less likely to die from either cancer or cardiovascular diseases.

Eysenck’s study suggests that the only relevant personality characteristics for cancer risk are repressing feelings or inhibiting closeness with loved ones.

Other research suggests it’s a tendency towards depressive symptoms that matter most.

For example, one systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 studies that together included over 1.4 million participants found a significant association between depression and overall cancer risk. Tendencies toward depression make up an important part of what we call the Type C personality.

Similarly, another review of 70 longitudinal prospective studies on personality research found that helplessness and repression of emotions are perhaps the most promising in explaining a potential contribution of personality on cancer prognosis.

People with Type C personalities also tend to be cooperative. Social support—having a strong network of family and close friends—was found to be a protective factor against this type of Cancer. Some aspects of Type C personality may actually foster health.

So rather than it being a Type C behavior pattern that’s associated with cancer, it may actually be a few traits within that pattern that matter most.

Does Personality Influence Cancer Risk?

If there really is an influence of personality on cancer risk, how would that work? What’s the physical mechanism?

One explanation is that people who often feel depressed have decreased lymphocyte proliferation and an overall decreased function in the body’s anti-cancer and anti-viral immunity. This may create greater susceptibility to cancer.

Indeed, in one prospective case-control study out of Finland, researchers found that patients with breast cancer were significantly more likely to have a high commitment—a feature of Type C personalities.

They suggest that it could be that the Type C pattern “could contribute to cancer risk through immune and hormonal pathways.” In other words, it may not be the personality traits themselves that affect cancer risk, but that patterns of thinking and behavior could impact the body’s immune system and hormones, and those changes may influence cancer risk.


Doctor Turns Against Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines, Calls for Global Pause

A doctor who promoted COVID-19 vaccines is now calling for health authorities around the world to pause the administration of two of the most-widely utilized COVID-19 vaccines, saying that the benefits from the vaccines may not outweigh the risks.

“There is more than enough evidence—I would say the evidence is overwhelming—to pause the rollout of the vaccine,” Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist and evidence-based medicine expert, told The Epoch Times.

A paper from Malhotra detailing the evidence was published on Sept. 26.

Among the citations is a recent reanalysis of the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials that concluded that vaccinated trial participants were at higher risk of serious adverse events. He called the study a “smoking gun.”

Malhotra also pointed to the lack of reduction in mortality or severe disease in the trials, which were completed in 2020.

Taking into account death rates and other figures since then, the number of people who need to be vaccinated to prevent a single COVID-19 death ranges from 93,000 for people aged 18–29 to 230 for people aged 80 and older, according to an analysis of UK safety and effectiveness data by the Health Advisory & Recovery Team.

The author also noted that serious side effects have been detected after the trials, such as myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation.

Overall, looking at the absolute benefits and drawbacks of the vaccines, it’s time to halt their usage and allow authorities and other experts to closely examine the data to see if the vaccines should be used again down the road, according to Malhotra.

The paper was published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in two parts following peer review.

Pfizer and Moderna didn’t return requests for comment.

Reversal of Opinion

Malhotra received the Pfizer primary series in January 2021. He became a promoter of the vaccine, even appearing on “Good Morning Britain” to advise Indian film director Gurinder Chadha to get the vaccine. Chadha did so shortly after.

Malhotra said he began digging into vaccine data after his father, Dr. Kailash Chand, suffered a cardiac arrest at home approximately six months after receiving Pfizer’s vaccine.

The post-mortem showed two of Chand’s major arteries were severely blocked, even though Malhotra described his father as a fit person who didn’t have any significant heart problems.

Malhotra began reading about post-vaccination issues, including a study abstract in the journal Circulation that identified a higher risk of a heart attack following vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and a study from Nordic countries that identified a higher risk of myocarditis.

While authorities have claimed that myocarditis is more common after COVID-19 than vaccination, many studies have found otherwise, at least for certain age groups. Some papers have found no increased incidence of heart inflammation for COVID-19 patients.

Malhotra has come to believe that his father’s death was linked to the vaccine.

“I’ve always approached medicine and science with uncertainties because things constantly evolve. And the information I had at the time is completely different to the information I have now,” Malhotra told The Epoch Times. “And in fact, it is my duty and responsibility as the information has changed to act on that information. And that’s what I’m doing.”

Response to Criticism

After the new paper was published, critics noted that Malhotra is a board member of the Journal of Insulin Resistance.

He acknowledged the position but said the article went through an independent peer review process and that he has no financial links to the journal.

The doctor encouraged people to view his publication history, which includes articles in the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

He said he chose to submit the paper to the insulin journal for several reasons, including it being “one of the few journals that doesn’t take money from the pharmaceutical industry.”

“I don’t think that there’s any validity to question the integrity of the piece,” he said. “People can argue I’ve got an intellectual bias. We all have intellectual biases, but there’s certainly no financial bias for me.”

Paper Gains Support

Leading scientists say the new paper is important. “We fully believe that vaccines are one of the great discoveries in medicine that has improved life expectancy dramatically, however, mRNA genetic vaccines are different, as long-term safety evaluation is lacking but mandatory to ensure public safety,” Sherif Sultan, president of the International Society of Vascular Surgery, said in a statement.

Sultan also noted that the findings “raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side effects and underscore the established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Stanford, said that Malhotra “makes a good case that there is considerable heterogeneity across age groups and other comorbid conditions in the expected benefits and expected side effect profiles of the vaccine” and “finds that while there may be a case for older people to take the vaccine because the benefits may outweigh expected harm that may not be the case for younger people.”

Dr. Campbell Murdoch, who advises the Royal College of General Practitioners, said the study “describes multiple systemic failures in the provision of safe and effective evidence-based medicine” and the situation has made it “impossible for patients and the public to make an informed choice about what is best for their health and life.”


September 27, 2022

Did the COVID Unvaccinated Fare Better or Worse Than the Vaccinated? The Results suggest no advantage from vaccination

After the fast spread of the pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from China to the Western world, several large pharmaceutical companies quickly invented and manufactured COVID-19 vaccines, which were then made available to the public through emergency use authorization (EUA). And in late 2020, people around the world started to receive these vaccines.

According to Our World in Data, to date, 67.9 percent of the world population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. While only 22.5 percent of people in low-income countries have received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccination rates of developed countries are generally high—typically around 80 percent. For instance, the COVID-19 vaccination rates of the G7 countries are: 79.19 percent in the United States, 86.96 percent in Canada, 80.92 percent in France, 77.66 percent in Germany, 85.82 percent in Italy, 83.60 percent in Japan, and 79.97 percent in the UK.

However, in all countries and regions around the world, there are people who elect not to receive the COVID-19 vaccines for various reasons. They are a naturally occurring control group, as opposed to the vaccinated population (i.e. the experimental group). Indeed, the whole COVID-19 vaccine campaigns can be regarded as the unprecedented largest human clinical trials on vaccine safety, by design or not, as the vaccines’ long term safety data was not available when they were provided to people under EUA. Then, the unvaccinated population in different parts of the world are very unique large control groups in such a global clinical trial.

Due to the highly valuable health data of this unvaccinated population, between October 2021 and February 2022, a UK-based organization called Control Group Cooperative (CGC) independently collected their self-reported data on their health status, reasons for declining to receive the COVID-19 vaccines, whether they have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the severity of their symptoms for the ones that did get infected, and whether they’ve been subject to discrimination or victimization.

These data have then been analyzed by a team of researchers, who are entirely independent of the CGC and have received no funding for interpreting the findings of the CGC survey. Their recent report on their findings has been published on the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, which is a peer-reviewed scholarly open access journal.

What Is the Control Group Cooperative?

The Control Group Cooperative was founded in July 2021 to defend people’s inalienable rights to freedom of choice and bodily integrity. Actually, one of the core principles in public health is the respect of autonomy. The group is particularly concerned with the marginalization and stigmatization of COVID-19 unvaccinated communities around the world. The stakeholders of the cooperative believe that they are making a positive contribution to society by collecting health data from both the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated and the unvaccinated to facilitate a truly comparative analysis.

Their rationale is that there is no existing official control group designated by the governments or health authorities. However, since all the existing COVID-19 vaccines are experimental, and a true scientific experiment (i.e. a controlled experiment) requires at least one group (i.e. the control group) that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment, then the COVID-19 vaccine treatments must have a control group as well in order to properly evaluate their long-term efficacy and safety.

As of now, over 305,000 participants who have voluntarily elected to not be inoculated with COVID-19 vaccines, from over 175 countries have signed up to become part of the control group.

By joining the control group, the participants receive an ID card, which indicates that they “must not be vaccinated” due to their participation. The CGC stated on its website that this ID card is “not an official or legal exemption in any country.” Although these ID cards aren’t recognized by any authorities, many participants have reported that they had helped them avoid vaccination without informed consent, supported their position, and facilitated discussion with others.

Some governments and media personnel have tried to discredit the CGC by calling it a “potential scam.” For instance, upon discovering several ID cards issued by the CGC, the provincial government of Manitoba in Canada posted on its Twitter account that “data collected through the platform could not be used in an official trial to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people,” as per a UK health body. However, the UK’s Medicines and Health Care products Regulatory Agency stated that the collection of health data from the public does not need its approval.

To be fair, it is very hard to evaluate the accuracy of the survey results from such a large scale global survey. It is also very challenging to evaluate whether the volunteers in this study are heavily biased or not. But, there is no clinical trial that could be designed at such a global scale, and the world needs the health data regarding this population. Therefore, even though the results from this study cannot be as well-designed as a regular clinical trial, the merit of this study cannot be simply denied for providing such valuable data from unique angles.

Findings of an Independent Analysis of the CGC Survey
When joining the CGC’s control group, the participants agree to fill out a monthly survey about their health status.

The aforementioned analysis was performed by a multinational team of independent researchers on the data collected from a cohort over a five month period from October 2021 to February 2022.

This cohort of 18,497 people is a sub-group of all participants (297,618 people as of late February 2022), and they had been carefully selected to be representative of the full dataset.

In the cohort, the largest unvaccinated populations are from Europe (40 percent), Oceania (Australia and New Zealand; 27 percent), and North America (United States and Canada; 25 percent). The respondents are from a total of 68 countries and six continents.

Among the 96.3 percent of the survey participants who disclosed their gender, 57 percent were female, and 43 percent were male. The largest numbers of respondents were found in the 50 to 69 age group, who are considered by the health authorities as at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and severe illness/death after infection than the general public. The number of participants between the ages of 40 and 49 was also relatively large.

According to the survey, the five leading reasons behind the cohort’s decision to not receive COVID-19 vaccines include preference for natural medicine interventions, distrust of pharmaceutical interventions, distrust of government information on the vaccines, poor or limited trial study data, and fear of long-term side effects. They were of nearly equal importance. Each respondent could select more than one reason that he/she considered equally important.

From the results, we can see that the participants were not refusing medical treatment, nor were they not caring of their own health, as sometimes portrayed by the media and/or authorities. To these unvaccinated people, they just did not think that there is only one way (the vaccine way) to help them medically, and they have been reasonably conservative in taking new vaccine products. No scientist in the world can claim that we understand every aspect of the new vaccine products.

Furthermore, since vaccine development in the past took 10 to 15 years on average to complete, many people are skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccines, which were invented so quickly by several major pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson) after receiving hefty funding from the U.S., German, and other governments. Moreover, the messenger RNA (mRNA) platform, based on which the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were invented, is a new technology, which hadn’t been used to produce vaccines previously.

Even before the vaccines were implemented, people knew that RNA molecules were unstable in the human body. However, the mRNA generated in the new vaccines have been modified to keep them more stable. Therefore, we don’t know whether any side effects from these modified mRNA molecules would be immediate, delayed, transient, or long term. Therefore, it’s reasonable for some people to want to wait and see the long-term effects of these new mRNA vaccines and to not trust their limited trial data.

Physical and Mental Health Status of the Unvaccinated Cohort

1) COVID-19 infection before survey

Prior to taking the survey, less than 20 percent of the participants had been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with the majority of the people aging from 20 to 69 years old.

2) COVID-19 infection during five month period

During the five month period from October 2021 through February 2022, in most parts of the world, the highly transmissible Omicron variant became the most prevalent strain, replacing the previously dominant Delta variant. As a result, many people became infected.

Most respondents reporting suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection on the survey questionnaire were between 20 to 69 years old, which is consistent with the infection situation prior to the survey. Specifically, the age group from 20 to 49 years old accounted for 10.7 percent of the respondents; and the age group from 50 to 69 years old accounted for 12.3 percent.

3) Severe illness situation of the infected respondents

Given that society had found no way to stop the spread of the Omicron variant, many were infected during this time period—this included many asymptomatic infections. Therefore, our main concern is with the respondents of the cohort who were seriously ill and/or hospitalized.

Fortunately, in the vast majority of the cases, the patients’ symptoms were mild and moderate. The rate of severe illness appeared to be very low (around 2 percent of all respondents). Only 74 individuals among the 5,196 (1.4 percent) confirmed or suspected infected respondents reported that they were hospitalized. This percentage might not be very accurate, as people who are very sick or hospitalized might not be healthy enough or willing to participate in this kind of survey. So, objectively, this kind of survey will have data skewing towards more healthy targets.

Nevertheless, the data here still indicates that this group of unvaccinated people were not more prone to the infection by Omicron, even though they were not protected by the vaccines. Otherwise, the percentage of infection and hospitalization rates among this group of people would be much higher. Therefore, this is a very important piece of data, as well as the core observation in this study.


September 26, 2022

Potential Temporal Association Found Between Guillain-Barré Syndrome and COVID-19 Vaccination in Pediatrics

How do you like that heading? It's a typical academic heading that seems designed to make your brain freeze, is it not? But there is a serious issue involved and I think I can explain it simply.

The underlying issue is a serious one: What should we make of rare side-effects after any medical treatment? Conventionally they are a big deal. Whole medications -- such as Vioxx -- have been withdrawn when only a few serious side effects out of millions of doses have been reported. Millions had a good result from taking the medication but they were ignored. The tiny number who reported bad side-effects ruled the day. A helpful medication was withdrawn because it MIGHT kill you.

Is that rational? I don't think so. All medical and surgical procedures involve some risk. And we tolerate rather large risks sometimes. Paracetamol (Tylenol) kills thousands every year by destroying their livers yet it is regarded as a "safe" drug. Aspirin is actually safer

Much as I hate using a favorite Leftist phrase, I think we just have to tolerate rare events "for the good of the many". And I am strongly reinforced in that view by the fact that we can never be sure what the cause of the rare event was. The rare event may have immediately followed the medical intervention but that is no proof that the medication CAUSED the rare event. Side-effects can be important but rare side effects should be ignored in my view.

So we now come to Covid and the horrible Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Do 11 cases out of millions matter? If your kid got a horrible illness after receiving a Covid vaccine, would that matter? Every parent concerned would say it does

Fortunately or not, this is an even less clear-cut finding than usual. The incidence of GBS among kids who got the vaccine was not different from the normal incidence. What WAS of concern, however is that the onset of GBS among vaccine recipients FOLLOWED CLOSELY on receiving the vaccine -- creating the impressoion that it was the vaccine which caused the problem. And, as the philosopher David Hume contended a couple of centuries ago, conjunction in time is the WHOLE of causation. Hume however spoke of CONSTANT conjunction and the conjunction here was anything but constant.

So the jury is still out. There are some elements in the medical comnmunity who would see the findings below as troubling but I do not

My own account of causation is here

From the pre-COVID period to 6 weeks after vaccination, the reporting rate of GBS was significantly different, regardless of whether Brighton criteria was applied to the analysis. The authors noted that passive surveillance limitations warrant further analysis.

Findings from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database showed that although the prevalence of Guillain-Barré (GBS) syndrome following COVID-19 vaccination was not different in pediatrics compared with the general population, there was an increased prevalence within the first 6 weeks following vaccination, suggesting a potential temporal associaiton.1 The investigators noted that these findings warrant caution, as they were based off passive surveillance.

The study, presented at the 2022 American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) annual meeting, September 21-24, in Nashville, Tennessee, compared the rate of pediatric GBS following COVID-19 vaccination to the rate after influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), and meningococcal vaccinations. Investigators used a pre-COVID period (October 2018-August 2019), prevaccine period (January 2020-November 2020), and vaccine period (December 2020-October 2021), as well as a risk period of probably cause-effect relationship, defined as 6 weeks post vaccination.

Led by Nizar Souayah, MD, Department of Neurology, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, the findings showed that the rates for GBS after COVID-19 vaccination were within the incidence rate of GBS typically reported in children. In total, there were 31, 3, 1, and 1 cases of GBS reported after COVID-19, influenza, HPV, and meningococcal vaccinations, respectively. Between vaccinations, the reporting rate of GBS after COVID-19 vaccination was significantly higher than the others, at 12.45 per 10 million (P <.005), followed by influenza (1.63), meningococcal (1.19), and HPV vaccinations (1.07).

High Proportion of Zilucoplan Responders Identified in Secondary Analysis of RAISE Trial
After 12 weeks of treatment with zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg, almost three-fourths of patients demonstrated at least a 3-point reduction in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living scores.

Using self-controlled and case centered analysis, the reported rate of GBS after COVID-19 vaccination between the risk and control periods was significantly different (90.32% vs 9.7%, respectively; P <.0001). The findings remained similar when all patients, regardless of Brighton criteria, were included.

COVID-19 has been shown to be associated with several of neurological complications, including GBS, which has been more prominently throughout the pandemic. Recent work by Kayla E. Hanson, MPH, et al further suggested an increased risk of GBS following COVID-19 vaccination with Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen). The analysis comprised of 15,120,073 doses of COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 to November 2021, including 483,053 Ad.26.COV2.S doses; 8,806,595 BNY162b2 doses; and 5,830,425 mRNA-1273 doses.

In total, 11 cases of GBS were reported in those vaccinated with Ad.26.COV2.S, resulting in an unadjusted incidence rate of 32.4 (95% CI, 14.8-61.5) per 100,000 person-years in the 1 to 21 days following vaccination that was significantly higher than the background rate. Overall, the adjusted risk ratio (RR) in the 1 to 21 vs 22 to 42 days following Ad.26.COV2.S vaccination was 6.03 (95% CI, 0.79-147.79). The unadjusted incidence rate of GBS after mRNA vaccines was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4), and when compared with Ad.26.COV2.S vaccines, the adjusted RR was 20.56 (95% CI, 6.94-64.66).2


FDA vaccine adviser warns healthy young people should NOT get new COVID booster: Says it's 'unfair to make them take a risk' after data suggested shot was not as effective as first batch

A top vaccine expert and pediatric doctor is cautioning parents of healthy young people to hold off getting the new COVID booster shot, saying it can carry risks and its efficacy hasn't yet been proven.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine Advisory Committee, said he's not fully sold on the benefits of a third shot outweighing the harm.

'Who really benefits from another dose?' Offit said on CNN.

He did acknowledge that studies have shown people who are over 65, immuno-compromised or have a chronic ailments are less likely to be hospitalized with the virus if they've had a third or even fourth shot.

The newly developed dose, called a bivalent vaccine, is a cocktail of the original coronavirus strain combined with parts of the omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants. The hope being that people would be able to fight a broader range of more highly contagious virus mutations.

But writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, Offitt said preliminary data suggested the new bivalent vaccines were actually worse at warding off COVID infections than the first generation of shots.

He highlighted data comparing Moderna's original COVID vaccine and its new bivalent update. Of a test group given both shots, 11 people who'd received bivalent vaccines contracted the virus, while just five people who received the original 'monovalent' shot caught COVID.

Offit warned that the Biden administration that 'overselling' the new bivalent vaccines without more data could 'erode the public's trust' in them.

He explained that the FDA's recent approval of a the new vaccine cooked up by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech comes with little assurances and some risks.

'A healthy young person is unlikely to benefit from the extra dose,' he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that vaccine side-effects, like myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, an inflammation of the heart's outer lining, are rare, but they most often occur in adolescents and young men.

Myocarditis can even be fatal, with young people far less likely to suffer a severe COVID infection than older people.

'When you are asking people to get a vaccine, I think there has to be clear evidence of benefit,' he said, adding that it's unrealistic to have clinical trials of the latest dose. 'You'd like to have, at least, human data,' he said. So far, the only tests on the new shots have been done on lab mice.

'Right now they're saying we should trust mouse data,' he said, 'and I don't think that should ever be true.'

Offit voted against approval of the new vaccine.

'If there's not clear evidence of benefit, then it's not fair, I think, to ask people to take a risk no matter how small,' Offit said.

The doctor recently cautioned that pushing the new shot without the supporting evidence risks 'eroding the public's trust.'

He said the studies regarding the bivalent vaccine so far were 'underwhelming.'

The increased emphasis on boosters is at odds with President Joe Biden's recent announcement that 'the pandemic is over.'

'The pandemic is over,' Biden told 60 Minutes. '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.'

The president's declaration runs counter with what his administration's health officials have been saying.

'We have a virus out there that's still circulating, still killing hundreds of Americans every day,' White House COVID-19 response coordinator, Ashish Jha, said at a September 9 press briefing.

'I think we all as Americans have to pull together to try to protect Americans … and do what we can to get our health-care system through what might be a difficult fall and winter ahead.'

He also may have submarined his own $22.4 billion request to Congress to continue the fight against the virus.

There have been about 54,000 new cases of the virus on average over the last two weeks, according to Johns Hopkins University, with about 400 Americans succumbing to the virus every day.


September 25, 2022

BBC Collaborates with Facebook to Purge Vaccine-Injured Groups Online

A major media member of the [Leftist] Trusted News Initiative (TNI) has warned a primary tech member about vaccine injury groups gaming the system to avoid algorithm detection and thus scrutiny.

In what could be described as a dangerous move, the BBC collaborates with Facebook to shut down vaccine injury support groups by universally referring to them as “anti-vaccine” or “anti-vaxxers” and calling out the ways that they use carrot emojis to hide from Facebook their true identity. Members of the TNI are collaborating to purge social media participants that are part of vaccine-injured groups. Even if some of them, or even many of them, are in fact vaccine injured, the policies of the BBC and Facebook, as well as other media and social tech companies assume that there are absolutely no vaccine-injured persons and that such persons have no rights whatsoever to share their stories.

The BBC reports that “several groups, one with hundreds of thousands of members, in which the emoji appears in place of the word ‘vaccine.’” The BBC’s Zoe Kleinman wrote that Facebook parent company Meta was alerted, and the groups were removed.

According to a statement from Facebook:

“We have removed this group for violating our harmful misinformation policies and will review any other similar content in line with this policy. We continue to work closely with public health experts and the UK government to further tackle Covid vaccine misinformation.”

Yet the BBC’s Kleinman reports that the groups are back even though they were taken down from Facebook. According to Kleinman, the groups the BBC and Facebook label as anti-vax groups sought to rebrand themselves as places where people can share vaccine stories, for example sharing “banter, bets and funny video.”

But behind the scenes, the groups were using code words for communication purposes. For example, “Do not use the c word, v word or b word ever” (covid, vaccine booster). The particular group has 250,000 members.

Marc Owen-Jones, a misinformation specialist at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, shared that instead of using words such as “Covid-19” or “Vaccine,” the group was instructed to use emojis of carrots as an example apparently to evade the fake news detection algorithms reports Ms. Kleinman.

In the BBC piece, it’s identified that an Online Safety Bill could come into law which would lead to “steep penalties for failing to identify removing harmful material on their platforms.”

What if there are actually vaccine-injured persons? Currently, the BBC doesn’t recognize that there are actually adverse events and some deaths, albeit rare, that occur with the COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, even at a rare rate of one-tenth of one percent hundreds, this would translate into hundreds of thousands of vaccines injured in the United States alone.

TrialSite has been chronicling dozens of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines involving governments making compensatory payouts. Is it not allowed by the Trusted News Initiative to speak the truth about this situation? In the United States, over 224 million people have received at least a primary series vaccine in the USA. Estimates of vaccine injury in the USA vary from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands and possibly even over one million.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) 2022, 16,336 preliminary death reports have been recorded although just because such an incident is reported in VAERS doesn’t mean that the event is correlated to the vaccination.

TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor went on the record, “Do individuals that are actually injured by COVID-19 vaccines have a right to share their situation, their stories on any social media? Of course, they should. There is something terribly off if such a reality is constantly being covered up.”

Of course, this kind of group is quite different from a truly anti-vaccine-focused activist group that stands opposed to all modern vaccines. TrialSite recently launched a suite of social features including authoring, Q&As, and groups. Separate from its media platform—which focuses on objective, unbiased news which includes articles that report on the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines as well as challenges that may surface—features such as TrialSite Groups exist to allow people to communicate and engage on topics involving medical research, less the fear of censorship.

TrialSite’s O’Connor shared, “There are legitimate vaccine injured groups such as React19. They have lots of members that are really suffering and it's not fair that these groups are censored. That is why we have partnered with groups such as this one to ensure they receive objective, unbiased coverage from media and that alternatives to Facebook are in place—social tech platforms that won’t profile and censor people just because they represent an inconvenient truth for certain centers of power and authority.”

TrialSite connected with React19 Brianne Dressen who informed the media that in their support groups with “well over 20 thousand Covid vaccine injuries have been systematically shut down leaving us no choice but to reboot and hope people find us. These groups are an essential source of support and for many they are a lifeline. These people are disabled and are not allowed to talk about what happened to them. If they do talk about it, they are punished. If they persist, they will be isolated from their community and eventually shut down all-together.”

But why would someone legitimately injured not be able to talk about their actual health condition or situation. TrialSite’s Daniel O’Connor shared “that’s because this pandemic has been thoroughly politicized. The confluence of government health and media industry powers have driven a paradigm for combatting Covid-19 which includes a universal vaccination scheme as a means of controlling the virus, however imperfect the strategy.

It’s like a war—in fact legally it is a sort of war given the contracts government established with industry fall under establish defense-like countermeasures against an invisible enemy—in this case an RNA virus.” So how the government has set up and executed this pandemic response has left little to no means for people injured by the vaccine—and there are recognized side effects, adverse events and actual injuries albeit rare, even deaths.” Like in any war the TrialSite founder continued “there will be innocent casualties.” He continued “and hence the unprecedented coordination between government, corporate media and big tech to systematically censor countervailing discussions that are quickly identified and labeled as misinformation.”

React19’s Dressen further pointed out the growing plight of the vaccine injured “Cutting off a sick person’s connection to others and not allowing them to talk about their disease, the outcome is catastrophic. This has led to permanent disability and in some cases death. It is truly barbaric that this has been done so deliberately on such a large scale with cooperation of governments, tech companies and the media. Not only is this permitted but it is encouraged and celebrated. This censorship is abuse and discrimination against the disabled. Until this changes, good people will remain sick, many will decline, and some will die. I wish that was an exaggeration, but that is the facts.”


Australia’s disastrous ‘Zero Covid’ experiment

What if I told you that lockdowns and zero-Covid mania did far more harm than good to human life?

Unlike sharp lockdowns in Europe and the Americas, Australia’s early lockdown in March 2020 did reduce Covid cases to zero for a time. Flush with this success, Australia imposed sharp travel restrictions on Covid-ravaged countries around the world. Australian ex-pat citizens were barred from coming home, even if their visit was to care for elderly parents suffering from isolation.

Despite this extraordinary policy, Covid kept coming back to Australia. Over and over again, entire regions were locked down whenever a few cases were found. Through October of 2021, Melbourne’s residents had suffered through nearly 270 days of lockdown – the most in the world.

Schools closed and children suffered. Vital medical treatments were delayed or cancelled, including for cancer patients. The initial purpose of the lockdowns was to protect the Australian healthcare system, but even in 2021, when there was almost no Covid circulating, queues for care lengthened. Depression and anxiety levels skyrocketed, especially among young people. Thousands of small businesses shut down forever.

Australia’s initial zero-Covid ‘success’ created a trap. Official public health exaggerated the risk of death from Covid. This, despite the fact that studies found that Covid infection primarily poses a high 5 per cent+ mortality risk for unvaccinated elderly people. For the young, survival rates exceeded 99.9 per cent. For young and old Australians alike, the lockdowns imposed far more harm than Covid.

Public support for lockdown stayed high in Australia on the heels of public health propaganda that Covid infection posed a high risk of death for all, regardless of age or underlying health condition. And the government obliged, implicitly promising a zero-Covid future that it knew it would never be able to deliver.

The advent of a vaccine in December 2020 should have provided a way out of the zero-Covid trap. At great cost, the lockdown policy had ‘worked’, but there was no endpoint to it that did not involve isolation from the international community forever.

Perhaps complacent because of its zero-Covid ‘success’, the government delayed securing contracts with vaccine manufacturers. Since lockdown was popular, It did not feel the urgency to vaccinate that the rest of the world felt. At the beginning of August 2021, only 16 per cent of Australians were fully vaccinated.

And the public health officials used the vaccination campaign to chase an impossible goal – herd immunity through universal vaccination. Covid spread in many countries with high levels of vaccination, infecting vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike. The vaccine, effective in reducing mortality risk from Covid infection for the elderly, is ineffective at stopping disease spread. Nevertheless, government and public health officials demonised the unvaccinated, often rendering them second-class citizens.

When the Omicron wave arrived, the inevitable happened in Australia. Zero-Covid and lockdowns failed, and the disease spread everywhere. By May 2022, Australia passed America in total Covid cases per capita, and by August 2022, Australia passed the European Union. If Australian policy aimed to keep Australia free of Covid, it failed.

With two and a half years of hindsight, an evaluation of Australia’s lockdown-focused zero-Covid strategy is possible. On the plus side, Australia delayed the inevitable spread of Covid throughout the population to a time after the development, testing, and deployment of a vaccine. Despite having experienced more Covid cases per capita than the US, it has a fraction of the number of Covid-attributable deaths per capita.

On the negative side is the tremendous burden on the Australian population that has come from being isolated from the rest of the world for such a long time and from the intermittent lockdowns the government imposed on the people. All-cause excess deaths – below baseline levels in 2020 – were 3 per cent above baseline in 2021, despite zero-Covid, and are far above baseline thus far in 2022. Among the causes of this spike in excess deaths are the lockdowns themselves.

After the vaccine arrived, Australia’s decision to use it to free itself from its zero-Covid trap was smart. However, Australia failed to vaccinate its population with urgency, exposing its people to a full year of zero-Covid harms. If the government had adopted the strategy of vaccinating for focused protection of older and high-risk populations, Australia could have opened much earlier.

So, the best case for Australia’s Covid strategy is that it delayed the entry of Covid in-country until the development of effective vaccines. However, it’s not even clear whether the strategy saved lives, with cumulative all-cause excess mortality on par with Sweden’s focused protection strategy. And the harm done by disconnecting Australia and other developed economies from the rest of the world included millions of poor people thrown into poverty. Ultimately, Australia’s zero-Covid strategy was a grand, immoral, and incoherent failure.


September 23, 2022

FBI hero paying the price for exposing unjust ‘persecution’ of conservative Americans

Bombshell allegations by FBI Special Agent Steve Friend contained in a whistleblower complaint filed late Wednesday with the Department of Justice inspector general reveal a politicized Washington, DC, FBI field office cooking the books to exaggerate the threat of domestic terrorism, and ­using an “overzealous” January 6 ­investigation to harass conservative Americans and violate their constitutional rights.

Friend, 37, a respected 12-year veteran of the FBI and a SWAT team member, was suspended Monday, stripped of his gun and badge, and escorted out of the FBI field office in Daytona Beach, Fla., after complaining to his supervisors about the violations.

He was declared absent without leave last month for refusing to participate in SWAT raids that he believed violated FBI policy and were a use of excessive force against Jan. 6 ­subjects accused of misdemeanor ­offenses.

This American hero, the father of two small children, has blown up his “dream career” because he could not live with his conscience if he continued to be part of what he sees as the unjust persecution of conservative Americans.

“I have an oath to uphold the Constitution,” he told supervisors when he asserted his conscientious objection to joining an Aug. 24 raid on a J6 subject in the Jacksonville, Fla., area. “I have a moral objection and want to be considered a conscientious objector.”

Friend, who did not vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 election, said he told his immediate boss twice that he believed the raid, and the investigative process leading up to it, violated FBI policy and the subject’s right under the Sixth Amendment to a fair trial and Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Multiple violations

In his whistleblower complaint to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, obtained by The Post, Friend lays out multiple violations of FBI policy involving J6 investigations in which he was involved.

He says he was removed from active investigations into child sexual exploitation and human trafficking to work on J6 cases sent from DC. He was told “domestic terrorism was a higher priority” than child pornography. As a result, he believes his child exploitation investigations were harmed.

He also has reported his concerns about a politicized FBI to Republican members of Congress, among 20 whistleblowers from the bureau who have come forward with similar complaints.

Among Friend’s allegations:

The Washington, DC, field office is “manipulating” FBI case management protocol and farming out J6 cases to field offices across the country to create the false impression that right-wing domestic violence is a widespread national problem that goes far beyond the “black swan” event of Jan. 6, 2021.

As a result, he was listed as lead agent in cases he had not investigated and which his supervisor had not signed off on, in violation of FBI policy.

?FBI domestic terrorism cases are being opened on innocent American citizens who were nowhere near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, based on anonymous tips to an FBI hotline or from Facebook spying on their messages. These tips are turned into investigative tools called “guardians,” after the FBI software that collates them.

?The FBI has post-facto designated a grassy area outside the Capitol as a restricted zone, when it was not restricted on Jan. 6, 2021, in order to widen the net of prosecutions.

?The FBI intends to prosecute everyone even peripherally associated with J6 and another wave of J6 subjects are about to be referred to the FBI’s Daytona Beach resident agency “for investigation and arrest.”

?The Jacksonville area was “inundated” with “guardian” notifications and FBI agents were dispatched to conduct surveillance and knock on people’s doors, including people who had not been in Washington, DC, on Jan. 6, 2021, or who had been to the Trump rally that day but did not go ­inside the Capitol.

Friend says he was punished after complaining to his bosses about being dragged into J6 investigations that were “violating citizens’ Sixth Amendment rights due to overzealous charging by the DOJ and biased jury pools in Washington, DC.”

His top-secret security clearance was suspended last week because he “entered FBI space [his office] and downloaded documents from FBI computer systems [an employee handbook and guidelines for employee disciplinary procedures] to an unauthorized removable flash drive.”

In a Sept. 16 letter from the head of FBI human resources, he was told he was losing his security clearance also because he “espoused beliefs which demonstrate questionable judgment [and demonstrated] an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.”

Reprisals from bosses

In his whistleblower complaint, Friend describes “reprisals” from his supervisors after he voiced his conscientious objections.

He says they ignored his complaint about “manipulative casefile practice [which] creates false and misleading crime statistics, constituting false official federal statements.

The hypocrisy and disconnect of the partisan Jan. 6 probe
“Instead of hundreds of investigations stemming from an isolated incident at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, FBI and DOJ officials point to significant increases in domestic violent extremism and terrorism around the United States.

“At no point was I advised or counseled on where to take my disclosure beyond the reprising officials above; the threatened reprisal constituted a de facto gag on my whistleblowing.”

On Aug. 19, he first told his immediate boss, Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Greg Federico, that he believed “it was inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses and opined that the subject would likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington, DC.

“I suggested alternatives such as the issuance of a court summons or utilizing surveillance groups to determine an optimal, safe time for a local sheriff deputy to contact the subjects and advise them about the existence of the arrest warrant.”

Federico told him it would have been better to just “call in sick” rather than voice his objection and “threatened reprisal indirectly by asking how long I saw myself continuing to work for the FBI.”

Four days later, Friend was summoned to Jacksonville to meet his next-level bosses, Assistant Special Agents in Charge Coult Markovsky and Sean Ryan, about his refusal to join the SWAT raid.

He told them about his concerns over “irregular” case handling of J6 matters that he believed were in violation of a legal rule known as “Brady” that requires prosecutors to disclose evidence that would exonerate a defendant.

They asked if he believed any J6 rioters committed crimes and he replied: “Some of the people who entered the Capitol committed crimes, but others were innocent. I elaborated that I believed some innocent individuals had been unjustly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.”

Markovsky then asked Friend if J6 rioters who “killed police officers” should be prosecuted, even though no such thing happened. When Friend pointed out that “there were no police officers killed on January 6, 2021,” Markovsky told him he was being a “bad teammate.”

Both agents “threatened reprisal again by warning that my refusal [to go on the SWAT raid] could amount to insubordination. References were made to my ­future career prospects with the FBI.”

Friend was labeled AWOL the day the raid took place and stripped of his pay.

A week later, he was told to meet the top agent in Jacksonville, Special Agent in Charge Sherri Onks, who told him he needed to do some “soul searching” and decide if he wanted to work for the FBI.

When he told her “many of my colleagues expressed similar concerns to me but had not vocalized their objections to FBI executive management,” she told him his “views represented an extremely small minority of the FBI workforce.”

She then shared the emotional experience of fearing for her own life on Jan. 6, 2021, when she was sitting on the seventh floor of the secure J. Edgar Hoover Building, FBI headquarters, after protesters one mile away “seized the Capitol and threatened the United States’ democracy.”

Agents used as ‘pawns’

Friend says his concerns are shared by large numbers of rank-and-file FBI agents across the country who believe they are being used as pawns to pursue the political agenda of the bosses in Washington, DC.

These kinds of abuses of the law are a “morale killer” for field agents, he says.

Many agents, who joined the FBI in the wake of 9/11, are keeping their heads down because they are close to their 20-year retirement with full pension. But he says they are equally disgusted at being forced to take part in the politicization of federal law ­enforcement.

Other whistleblowers say that disquiet grew after the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Aug. 8.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is working with these heroic FBI agents, has been trying to introduce legislation to strengthen the bureau’s woefully inadequate whistleblower protections. Friend’s complaint will be a test case.

In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Aug. 11, Grassley alleged that a committee of FBI field agents had been to see Wray to express the concerns of agents in all 56 field offices across the country that “the FBI has become too politicized in its decision-making.” Grassley further alleges “those concerns were removed from this year’s final report” of the FBI’s Special Agents Advisory Committee.

Wray ignored Grassley’s letter along with a dozen other letters from the dogged Iowa senator alleging gross malfeasance at the bureau.

But unrest is growing among field agents about the weaponization of the FBI against the Biden administration’s political opponents under Wray. He can’t ­ignore it for long.


September 22, 2022

A Covid stocktake: Where are we up to on lockdowns, mandates and vaccines?

In an article in the Epoch Times on 9 September, Julie Ponesse tells Canada’s students that Covid control measures by university administrations ‘will stop as soon as you say “no”’. Moments we should all have said no were when our communities were put under house arrest, citizens were banned from the bedside of dying family members and the healing rituals of funerals (remember a masked Queen sitting all alone at her husband’s service?), police prevented us enjoying health-sustaining access to beaches and parks and governments and corporations mandated facemasks, QR codes and digital vaccine certificates: all self-harms done supposedly for the greater good.

The lockdown and vaccine narratives are falling apart at the seams. Canada’s new opposition leader Pierre Poilievre is staunchly libertarian, anti-lockdown and anti-vaccination mandates who supported the truckers’ Freedom Convoy. My jaw is still on the floor after hearing Jacinda Ardern say ‘we all just need to respect people’s individual decisions’. In the UK, former chancellor Rishi Sunak’s break from official policy led Liz Truss to rule out future lockdowns. On 11 August, the CDC’s revised guidance returned much of the responsibility for risk reduction from institutions to individuals and shifted from sweeping population-wide precautions to targeted advice for vulnerable groups. ‘The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid’, says the UK Telegraph, including a rise in the rate of prostate cancer deaths from 7 to 26 per cent. The mainstream Financial Times reports the US decision to roll out new booster shots without clinical testing on humans – already dubbed the mouse vaccine by some – could undermine public trust and deepen vaccine hesitancy.

In Australia the push to end all special Covid measures is led by NSW Premier Dominic Perrotet against stiff resistance from some states and experts who insist there’s ‘no scientific basis’ to end them. What scientific basis was there to introduce them, pray tell? Last year, UK ‘experts’ warned Boris Johnson of catastrophe unless he cancelled his planned ending of restrictions and Anthony Fauci warned of disasters in states that rejected his recommended restrictions. Both were proven dead wrong.

In a press briefing on 6 September, White House Covid response coordinator Dr Ashish Jha explained people can get their flu and Covid booster vaccines in one visit: ‘I really believe this is why God gave us two arms – one for the flu shot and the other one for the Covid shot’. Was this a Freudian slip revealing the religious dogma that lies behind Covid policy? Used in ancient and medieval times, mass closures were discredited in Western epidemiology in the last century and replaced by the concept of herd immunity built through naturally-acquired and vaccine-induced infections. An analysis by Michael Senger concludes that, based on bioterrorism fears in the national security community after 9/11, the CDC had insinuated China’s lockdown measures during the Sars epidemic as US federal policy by January 2004. They called it ‘social distancing’ to disguise its origins.

Debbie Lerman has distilled a lockdown blueprint centred on a relentless fear campaign reinforced by stressing uniqueness, worst-case scenarios, not knowing what to expect and ‘we’re all equally at risk’, on the one hand; and the abandonment of all previous policies in favour of universal mandates to isolate, test, trace, mask up, vaccinate and so on on the other. Based mostly in junk science, they terrified the people into demanding draconian ‘health’ measures whose primary, intended purpose was to cynically exploit emotional distress to ensure compliance with unprecedented, untested, ineffective and destructive policy interventions. They succeeded.

Covid poses such miniscule risk to children that vaccinating them is ‘all risk, no benefit’. Denmark banned vaccines for healthy under-18s from 1 July. Yet on 19 July, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) granted provisional approval for administering Spikevax vaccines to children aged 0.5–5 years. NSW Health data show 99.9 per cent of Covid-related deaths in the last six months were among adults despite over 95 per cent being vaccinated and 68 per cent being boosted.

An article in the British Medical Journal shows 12 to 15-year-old healthy boys are four times more at risk of myocarditis after a second Pfizer vaccine than of hospital admission for Covid. A new study in preprint estimates that to prevent just one Covid hospitalisation in 18-29 year olds (university age), 22,000-30,00 previously uninfected must be boosted. But for every one hospitalisation prevented, there are 18 to 98 serious adverse events. A complementary peer-reviewed article in Vaccine seems to suggest, albeit tentatively, that added risks of serious adverse events are 2.4 and 4.4 times higher than the reduced risk of hospitalisation for Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Some experts point to a worrying trend of rising excess mortality among under-14s in 28 European countries. A study of almost 900,000 5 to 11-year-old children in North Carolina (New England Journal of Medicine) adds to concerns that vaccines don’t just lose their effectiveness within months; they also destroy natural immunity.

The global drug industry has a particularly scandal-ridden history. In an Australian class action case in 2009, court documents revealed Merck had prepared a ‘hit list’ of doctors who criticised Vioxx for its deadly cardiovascular side-effects. On 4 February, 2021, Merck – which makes patent-free low profit ivermectin and has been selling it for years – publicly questioned its safety. How often does a drug company badmouth its own product? The British Medical Journal documented a compromising 96 per cent of the TGA’s 2020–21 budget came from industry sources, raising serious questions about regulatory capture. Last year the TGA banned the use of ivermectin for Covid treatment.

A month later Merck announced the development of a new antiviral drug for which it sought emergency use authorisation from the Federal Drug Administration. This cannot be granted if an existing treatment is available. Banning ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine was essential to grant emergency use authorisation for high-profit Covid vaccines and drugs. Yet a major large-scale study from Brazil published on 31 August found that, compared to regular users, non-use of ivermectin increased the risk of Covid-related mortality by 12.5 times and dying from Covid by seven times.

The Therapeutic Goods Regulation (1990) restricts provisional approvals to medicines for ‘the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition’. This would appear to rule out provisional vaccine approval for children below five. On this basis, a group of lawyers is aiming to file a crowd-funded case in the High Court against the TGA’s decision. On past form, don’t hold your breath for the courts to uphold citizens’ autonomy over the health bureaucracy’s infinite if inscrutable wisdom.


Simple steps to treat that distressing loss of smell

As many as 1.2 million people in the UK are estimated to have persistent smell disorders due to infection with Covid-19.

The problem typically lasts at least six months and, for some, their sense of smell will never fully return, according to a report in the BMJ in July.

Initially, it may be due to the infection causing inflammation in nasal tissue. But chronic cases may arise from nerve damage.

Covid can interfere with the sensitivity of our olfactory receptors, proteins on the surface of nerve cells in our noses that detect molecules associated with odours, reported researchers at Columbia University in the U.S. in the journal Cell in February.

The problems Covid can cause range from smelling things that are not there (phantosmia) to a complete loss of smell (anosmia).

Our sense of smell often diminishes naturally with age, with an estimated third of over-80s affected, but thanks to Covid there is an impetus to find ways to cure it.

Scientists are vying to produce the first ‘robot nose’ — an implant that picks up smell signals and transmits them into the brain.

As many as 1.2 million people in the UK are estimated to have persistent smell disorders due to infection with Covid-19
View gallery
As many as 1.2 million people in the UK are estimated to have persistent smell disorders due to infection with Covid-19

At Virginia Commonwealth University in the U.S., surgeon Daniel Coelho is developing a device to bypass our normal smell system, in which sensory nerve cells at the top of our nose detect odour molecules and send signals via the olfactory nerve to the olfactory bulb, the area in the brain that processes smell.

The new device aims to detect chemical odours from the air via a sensor that’s worn on spectacles and sends the information to the olfactory bulb (at the bottom of the brain, near the back of the nose).

Carl Philpott, a professor of rhinology and olfactology at the University of East Anglia, is working on a simpler approach, involving vitamin A (retinoic acid) nose drops.

The hope is the vitamin will encourage natural repair in the smelling cells in the lining of the nose.

A study of 170 patients suffering loss of smell, published in the journal European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology in 2017, showed that 37 per cent treated with the vitamin drops could identify more smells correctly, compared with 23 per cent of patients given a placebo. For his new study, 38 patients will receive a 12-week course of daily nasal vitamin A drops. He hopes to have results early next year.

Meanwhile, stem cells are being suggested as a future therapy, says Graham Wynne, a chemist who is on the scientific advisory board of Fifth Sense, a charity dedicated to smell and taste disorders.

‘A healthy human olfactory system has an efficient and well-known repair system, where the tissues lining the nose replace themselves every few weeks,’ he says.

The repair mechanism can break down, however, due to viral attack or age-related wear and tear. It’s hoped that stem cells may kickstart the repair mechanism.

Marianna Obrist, a professor of multisensory interfaces at University College London, is the co-founder of a company pioneering a high-tech smell-training therapy.

Smell training involves sniffing and identifying four scents — usually rose, eucalyptus, lemon, and clove — for 15 seconds, twice a day, over several months. This trains people to use their remaining smell sense more accurately and hopefully strengthen it.

You can do smell training at home, by spending 20 seconds sniffing four strong scents.

Professor Obrist’s OWidgets system, currently being trialled, consists of a computer-controlled smell-delivery box (which can emit up to six scents) and a smartphone app that controls the device and reminds you to do the next session.


September 21, 2022

Scientists on alert as new Covid strain tears through ’multiple countries’

A new Covid variant is ripping through “multiple countries”, with experts fearing it could be even more transmissible than the BA. 5 Omicron strain.

Named BF. 7 – short for BA. – the new variant is spreading faster than most other variants of interest that scientists are currently tracking in the US.

While it accounted for 1.7 per cent of sequenced infections in America last week, it now represents 25 per cent of cases in Belgium, while Denmark, Germany and France have each recorded 10 per cent of the world’s identified cases, Fortune reports.

Dr Stuart Ray, vice chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics at Johns Hopkins’ Department of Medicine, told the publication the US Centres of Disease Control (CDC) recently named it as a separate strain after cases hit one per cent, with that figure expected to grow.

“The same growth advantage in multiple countries makes it reasonable to think that BF. 7 is gaining a foothold,” Dr Ray said, adding that it could prove to be more transmissible than parent strain BA.5.

The rise of the new variant is of particular concern as it’s growing steadily compared to other Omicron subvariants, and because the northern hemisphere is heading towards winter, when Covid is most worrying.

And Dr Ray said there was also a chance an entirely new variant could soon emerge. “It’s been a while since we went from Alpha to Beta to Gamma to Delta, then to Omicron,” he said. “We may be complacent. This may be feeding into the notion that this is behind us.”

The news is all the more concerning given US President Joe Biden this week stated that the “pandemic is over” – despite a daily death toll in the hundreds in America. He told CBS’s 60 Minutes on Sunday US time that while Covid was still a concern, the worst had passed.

“We still have a problem with Covid. We’re still doing a lotta work on it. But the pandemic is over,” he said. “If you notice, no one’s wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it’s changing.”

Mr Biden’s surprising comments came after the World Health Organisation declared the end of the pandemic was “in sight” last week, after announcing weekly deaths had dropped to the lowest level since March 2020.

“We have never been in a better position to end the pandemic,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters. “We are not there yet, but the end is in sight.”

But the world needed to step up to “seize this opportunity”, he added. “If we don’t take this opportunity now, we run the risk of more variants, more deaths, more disruption, and more uncertainty.”

However, that message did not go down well in China, where an aggressive Zero Covid category is still being pursued via mass testing and brutal lockdowns months after the rest of the world moved on.

The WHO announcement was originally reported by some local news outlets and shared on social media, but was then quickly censored, given Covid Zero is inextricably bound to President Xi Jinping’s Covid strategy.

Xi is widely expected to secure a historic third term in power in October, with some speculating the country’s Covid rules might potentially be relaxed after that point.

According to WHO’s latest epidemiological report on Covid-19, the number of reported cases fell 28 per cent to 3.1 million during the week ending September 11, following a 12 per cent drop a week earlier.


Drug Companies Test New Booster on Eight Mice and Zero Humans, FDA Approves It Anyway. With no efficacy or safety data, the agency is enthusiastically promoting a fifth COVID shot

On Aug. 31, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration authorized bivalent boosters reformulated to target the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants. At the authorization meeting, FDA officials announced the approval of these new boosters for emergency use based on data from eight mice in a Pfizer study. At the same time, the FDA revoked authorization for the original monovalent boosters—meaning anyone subject to a booster or “up-to-date” mandate will have to take the bivalent booster, which has no proven safety or efficacy data in human beings.

While the flu vaccine is also approved on a yearly basis without full trials, the mRNA COVID vaccines do not share the flu shot’s decadeslong track record of observed safety. The population most likely to be mandated to take a bivalent booster consists largely of college students. The young men in this population are the exact demographic that face heightened safety concerns, specifically around myocarditis, as documented in multiple peer-reviewed studies. In fact, during a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to recommend the bivalent boosters, the agency presented updated myocarditis data that confirmed the rates of myocarditis in young men were about 2-to-3.5 times higher (slide 35) than the agency had claimed last year (slide 13). Nevertheless, the FDA and CDC moved to recommend the bivalent boosters for anyone over the age of 12 without human clinical trials.

This is just the latest episode in the FDA’s less-than-thorough approach to new COVID vaccine approvals. For example, in May 2022, the FDA authorized monovalent Pfizer boosters for children ages 5-11 based on laboratory data that showed heightened antibody response levels in just 67 children.

During the opioid crisis, the FDA famously failed to demand adequate research, disregarded safety concerns, and allowed Purdue Pharma to promote oxycodone for uses that were never borne out by testing. Later, it was revealed that the agency had been plagued by ethical issues: When the FDA convened advisers to address mounting oxycodone safety concerns, for instance, five out of 10 of these advisers had received payments from Purdue, and another three had received payments from other opioid manufacturers.

The continuation of unchecked conflicts of interest, and several recent authorizations for uses of new medical products that are in many ways unproven, demonstrate that the FDA is essentially unresponsive to public outrage, culminating in the bizarre spectacle of the agency promoting bivalent boosters on social media through unsubstantiated claims of efficacy, acting not as a neutral regulator but actively advertising on behalf of pharmaceutical companies with government purchase contracts. The FDA’s disregard for its congressional mandate is not unique to this moment—it is a symptom of its decadeslong transformation into an agency captured by the corporations it is tasked with regulating.

When Kelley Krohnert, a mother and career IT expert from Georgia, watched the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting held on June 17, 2022, she noted a slide that listed COVID as the fourth-leading cause of death for children under 1 and the fifth-leading cause for children aged 1-4 in the United States. This same slide was originally used at the FDA’s June 15 Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, when FDA advisers voted to authorize vaccines for children under 5. Krohnert immediately recognized that the slide was citing a preprint by researchers in the United Kingdom. This preprint not only used death statistics that included deaths where COVID was not an underlying cause—it also compared a 26-month cumulative total for COVID deaths to a 12-month total for other deaths. In Krohnert’s analysis, COVID fell to ninth place for children under 1 and into a four-way tie for eighth place for children aged 1-4. When the researchers corrected their preprint to adjust for some of the errors Krohnert found, COVID fell below influenza and pneumonia as a cause of death for children under 5.

“I didn’t have to do a complex statistical analysis to find these errors,” Krohnert told me. “If this is the standard for what goes into these presentations, what kind of vetting is going into that data?”

This lack of vetting is a central issue in the FDA’s approval process. The key question for any drug authorization is, “Do the benefits outweigh the risks?” When a disease’s risks are exaggerated, one side of this equation is skewed, and the equation is also affected by exaggerating the benefits of a treatment or ignoring the potential risks of that treatment. The data presented in recent FDA meetings has been consistently nonobjective and skewed to favor drug approval.

For the authorization of vaccines for children under 5, boosters for children 5-11, and the new bivalent boosters, the FDA has relied heavily on measures of antibody levels as the main “benefit” side of the equation. This is despite the fact that Pfizer has admitted that there is “no established correlate of protection” between antibody levels and immunity. Both the CDC and the FDA already advise against the use of antibody testing to determine levels of immunity. Essentially, this metric has been deemed inadequate by the very regulatory agency that is now consistently accepting it as a substitute for clinical trials.

This lack of real efficacy data has been accompanied by a disregard for potential safety issues. European Union regulators have already warned that frequent boosters can weaken the immune system; the FDA is apparently unconcerned. The FDA also disregarded the fact that for pediatric vaccines, Pfizer observed a higher rate of severe COVID in its vaccine group (table 5). Furthermore, the FDA allowed the company to ignore 365 symptomatic cases in its trial, and to use only the last 10 symptomatic cases after the third dose to claim 80% efficacy (tables 19 and 20). This is significant because Pfizer saw negative efficacy between doses 1 and 2. In a vaccine meant to prevent illness for an age group that is already at extremely low risk, this data should have been a red flag for the FDA. Why, then, has the body charged with protecting Americans from inadequately tested products been so eager not just to authorize these products for emergency use, but to enthusiastically recommend them?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, was one of only two advisers who voted against VRBPAC’s recommendation for reformulated boosters in June. I asked him about his vote as an FDA vaccine adviser and longtime advocate for vaccination. He told me he believed the thinking behind the bivalent boosters was sound. “The problem for me,” he said, “was I just didn’t think the data that were presented on June 28th to our committee made that case compellingly.”

I asked Offit if he felt there was political pressure to vote a certain way. “I never feel pressure when I cast my vote,” he answered. “I voted no.” However, he said, “I think the way that they were presented, I think it was clear that the FDA and the World Health Organization wanted to go in this direction.” It was notable that the day after the FDA’s vote, the White House announced its purchase of 171 million bivalent booster doses from Pfizer and Moderna for $4.9 billion. “You felt that the train sort of had left the station,” Offit said.

In 2020, the Trump administration was widely criticized for rushing vaccines and pressuring the FDA. Although the Biden administration has exerted similar, if not more pressure, it has enjoyed a conspicuous absence of criticism. Before the FDA’s expert panel could even meet to discuss vaccines for children under 5, for example, the White House’s COVID czar, Ashish Jha, publicly announced a precise date for when they would become available. In other words, Jha appeared to know the FDA’s decision before it had allegedly made one.

Notably, President Joe Biden’s election campaign reversed a long-standing trend of Republican candidates receiving far more campaign donations from the pharmaceutical industry: In 2020, Biden outraised Trump from Big Pharma by a margin of 2 to 1. Several political appointees in the Biden administration, moreover, have ties to vaccine manufacturers, including the president’s chief campaign strategist, Anita Dunn, who worked for Pfizer before joining his team. Biden also ran his election campaign on the promise to “shut down the virus”; it turned out that there were more U.S. COVID deaths in 2021, when vaccines were widely available, than in 2020, when they were not. Rather than reckon with this fact and readjust its strategy, the administration has doubled down by putting increased political pressure on an already compromised FDA.

If your primary job occupation is to work for the firm across the table, how can you be an effective regulator?


September 20, 2022

Why even mild Covid is now being linked to long-term heart trouble

Two weeks after falling ill with Covid TV doctor Xand van Tulleken thought he was on the mend, when he suddenly took a turn for the worse.

‘I woke at 3am with my heart rate rushing at 170 beats per minute [it should have been about 60] and in a chaotic rhythm. I felt bad: faint, sweaty, breathless, panicky,’ he says.

This was March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, when little was known about the typical course of the infection.

But Xand’s training as a public health doctor left him in little doubt that he had developed atrial fibrillation, a dangerous heart rhythm disorder where abnormal electrical impulses cause an irregular and often racing heartbeat. It can lead to stroke and, in extreme cases, heart failure.

‘I believed that my heart-rhythm problem arose most likely as a result of the virus inflaming my heart,’ he says. Realising the seriousness of the situation he raced by taxi to University College Hospital in London.

‘The emergency doctors shocked my heart to stop it temporarily, allowing it to restart in a normal rhythm, a process called cardioversion,’ he adds.

With his heart beating more normally, Xand was prescribed bisoprolol, a type of beta-blocker — medication that alters the heart’s response to nerve impulses, slowing its rate to reduce the risk of further heart-rhythm problems. But it didn’t.

‘My heart went into atrial fibrillation several times after that, meaning I had to go through the cardioversion process repeatedly,’ he says.

A year after his original infection, in 2021 Xand had to return to hospital for an ablation, a procedure that uses freezing liquid nitrogen to ‘burn’ heart tissue, creating scarring that disrupts the electrical signals that cause irregular heartbeats.

‘Surgery took about 90 minutes and I was awake throughout,’ he recalls. ‘It wasn’t painful but it definitely wasn’t enjoyable. When it got to the bit where they froze the heart tissue with liquid nitrogen in a balloon threaded through my artery, I was gripped by a sense of impending doom.’

Xand now feels recovered, mercifully. But millions of fellow Britons have been left facing similarly dangerous and debilitating heart problems in the wake of Covid.

Some 23 million Covid infections have been recorded in the UK, although it’s estimated that many more cases have gone unrecorded because those affected weren’t tested.

Two million people in the UK are living with long Covid, data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed in June. It classified long Covid as experiencing symptoms more than four weeks after a coronavirus infection.

Fatigue is the most common, followed by shortness of breath, loss of sense of smell and difficulty concentrating, according to the ONS, but more worryingly there are also significant reports of long-term heart-related problems.

In March, the potential scale of such problems was revealed by a paper in the BMJ. The study of more than 47,000 people who’d been hospitalised with Covid-19 showed that they were about three times more likely than uninfected people to face major cardiovascular problems within eight months of being taken to hospital.

It’s not only people who were hospitalised who have been affected. A study in March of 150,000 Americans found serious heart complications can occur in people who seem to have recovered from a mild infection. The report in the journal Nature Medicine, led by Dr Ziyad Al-Aly, an epidemiologist at Washington University, St Louis, in the U.S., found that people who’d had Covid faced substantially increased risks for 20 conditions, including heart attacks and strokes, in the following 12 months.

In patients who’d been admitted to intensive care the risk of conditions, such as myocarditis (inflammation of the heart that reduces its pumping ability) and blood clots in the lungs, was at least 20 times higher than in uninfected people. But even those who had not been hospitalised had increased risks of many conditions, ranging from an 8 per cent increase in heart attacks to a 247 per cent increase in myocarditis.

Scientists have long known that respiratory infections such as flu can trigger heart disease. This is because they cause inflammation, which plays a major role in cardiovascular illnesses.

However, a Covid infection seems to cause a much higher incidence of problems, and following much milder levels of initial illness.

‘It is not only surprising but also profoundly consequential that the risk is evident even in those [who had mild infections],’ says Dr Al-Aly. ‘That’s what makes this likely a serious public health problem.’

But why? One possibility is that the virus’s spike protein — which it uses to invade human cells — can cause an outbreak of localised inflammation in heart tissue that is so intense that it damages the muscle. Dr Zhiqiang Lin, an assistant professor of cardiology at the Masonic Medical Research Institute in New York, exposed human heart tissue in the lab to spike proteins from Covid-19 and HCoV-NL63, a coronavirus that infects the respiratory system without harming hearts.

He found Covid-19 sparks an immune response in heart cells whereas the other coronavirus did not. He believes that causes excessive inflammation which damages heart cells and causes myocarditis.

But Covid may also harm cardiovascular health in another way, according to a study by Houston Methodist Academic Medical Centre, Texas, published in August. This found that patients with long Covid heart symptoms may have double the normal risk of having unhealthy endothelial cells, which line the inside of the heart and blood vessels.

Endothelial cells play a key role in dilating the arteries and helping to get blood to the heart when we do physically strenuous activities. Patients with unhealthy endothelial cells, a condition known as microvascular dysfunction, are at higher risk of heart failure and death.

Dr Mouaz Al-Mallah, a cardiologist who co-authored the paper, explains in the journal JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging: ‘When a patient exercises they need more blood delivered to the heart to be able to provide blood to the entire body ... But in some patients with Covid, we noted it’s not increasing to the degree it should be.’

Dr Al-Mallah’s team scanned the hearts of nearly 400 patients with long Covid. The scans showed they were twice as likely to have unhealthy endothelial cells inside the heart and blood vessels. ‘This may potentially explain why some patients are having chest pain and shortness of breath because their heart is not getting that extra blood,’ Dr Al-Mallah wrote.

Not everyone is convinced that the dangers are widespread, however. In a small study of 52 people, Professor Gerry McCann, a cardiac-imaging specialist at the University of Leicester, found that people who had recovered after being hospitalised with Covid-19 had no greater rate of heart disease than people who had similar underlying cardiovascular conditions such as high blood pressure, but who had remained uninfected by the virus.

He is working on a larger study with around 1,200 participants. ‘The more data we’re acquiring, the less impressed we are with the degree of myocardial injury,’ he told Good Health.

‘There is no doubt Covid is associated with heart problems in hospitalised patients, although it is relatively uncommon. Those who are hospitalised tend to have other risk factors such as older age, obesity and pre-existing cardiovascular disease.’

He adds: ‘There are mixed reports on the extent of heart problems from researchers using imaging techniques. Some of the abnormal findings are of uncertain clinical significance and we are not sure how much of the changes are related to pre-existing conditions.’

Other British researchers disagree that the extent of cardiovascular dangers are exaggerated.

Colin Berry, a professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow, said: ‘Professor McCann’s study has serious limitations because it only studied 52 patients. I would concentrate on much larger studies that have greater statistical power such as the American ones, which do show widescale problems.’

Professor’s Berry’s own study, published in Nature Medicine in May, covered 1,306 former Covid patients. It found that one in eight people who had been hospitalised with the virus between May 2020 and March 2021 were later diagnosed with myocarditis.

‘Prior to Covid they had been fit and healthy,’ he says. ‘I think that the damage is more than just to these patients’ hearts but to their wider cardiovascular systems.

‘It may also involve their blood vessels, which helps to explain why such long Covid patients are showing physical problems and loss of quality of life.’

Dr David Strain, a senior clinical lecturer at the University of Exeter who specialises in viral infections, also believes Professor McCann’s results may not represent the whole picture.

‘The patients he studied are generally being followed up after they have left hospital, when the main danger period has passed,’ he says. ‘Beyond three months there seems to be a negligible risk of bad cardiovascular things happening.’

Dr Strain argues instead that the majority of heart problems emerge in a period that lasts from six to eight weeks after Covid infection. ‘This is the period when we see rates of heart attacks, strokes and blood clots going up,’ he says. ‘During this post-infection danger period, Covid picks on your weakest parts, such as your heart and arteries.’ Over the longer term Dr Strain says worrying evidence is mounting to suggest that the virus can hide dormant in our bodies for months or even years.

‘If the virus can hide in the body then anything that weakens a person’s immune defences — such as physical stress, infection or reinfection with another strain of Covid — may allow the virus to re-emerge,’ he says. ‘There is evidence to suggest long Covid can be caused by the virus persisting, and having surges subsequently may cause cardiovascular disease.’

This, Dr Strain says, is why it is crucial people getting over Covid take things very easy when recuperating from the virus. ‘From what we see, people who return to work early are more likely to get post-Covid problems,’ he warns.

Professor Berry agrees. ‘I advise long Covid patients to keep active, but to stay within their own limit,’ he explains. ‘Go for short leisurely walks and if you can do that well, try brisk walks — but don’t overdo it.’

Xand van Tulleken wishes he had taken things more slowly two years ago in the wake of his Covid infection. ‘I did not try to take it easy,’ he says. ‘Even on the day I suffered the first bout of atrial fibrillation, I went straight into work.’

As a result, ‘I went into a downward spiral. Being post-Covid and with heart worries, I felt depressive, miserable,’ he says.

‘Lots of people have gone through this stuff. Fortunately I had the support of my parents, who encouraged me to exercise gently and cooked for me. My twin brother Chris has been hugely helpful with recovering my health by getting me to eat well, not eating junk food and ultraprocessed foods to aid my general health.’

He adds: ‘Professor Toby Hillman was my doctor at the clinic for people with Covid complications. He said his best advice for anyone with long Covid is to rest.’

Thanks to a combination of Xand taking this on board, and having the successful cardioversion op, he says: ‘I now feel amazing. ‘I can go for a run every morning and feel healthy.

‘Convalescence is what we all need after Covid. It sounds such an old-fashioned word, but as a nation we have lost the concept of convalescence. We need to get it back.’


September 19, 2022

Scurrilous journalism award in Australia

At least it cost the lying media a bundle. Dr Laming has an account here telling how grievously the media lie hurt him. He shares there what it's like be the centre of a media stitch-up. Australia's defamation laws have their problems, but in Laming's case they ensured that some justice has been done him.

Had the journalists concerned just checked with Laming before rushing into print the story would never have been published -- as it was an easily refuted story.

But the opportunity of sliming a prominent conservativre was just too juicy to miss. Leftists hate those dreadful conservatives who keep puncturing their balloons so horror stories about conservatives seem obviously correct to them

The contentious entry criteria for the Walkley Awards could be overhauled as part of the independent review into a reporting prize given to a since-discredited story about former federal MP Andrew Laming.

Last Wednesday, Dr Laming won a defamation case against Nine in relation to one key element of its award-winning report, after the network accepted that it was untrue.

On Friday evening, the foundation directors announced a review into the Walkley Award won earlier this year by Nine journalists Peter Fegan and Rebeka Powell for their March 2021 reports about Dr Laming, one of which falsely claimed the then politician had committed the criminal act of “upskirting” – taking a sexually intrusive photograph of someone without their permission.

In one of three reports about Dr Laming’s alleged misconduct in March last year, Nine quoted a witness who said he’d seen the MP take an inappropriate “upskirting” photo of a female staff member while she was stacking a bar fridge at her Brisbane workplace.

The woman was wearing shorts, not a skirt, at the time. The photo was deleted before anyone from Nine could view it. Dr Laming was questioned by police about the alleged incident, but was never charged.

Dr Laming has always strenuously denied any wrongdoing in relation to the matter.

Fegan and Powell won the 2021 Walkley Award in the television/video news reporting category for their report on Dr Laming’s alleged misconduct; the pair also won a Clarion (at the Queensland media awards) for their investigation into the MP.

In its statement on Friday, the Walkley Foundation said it would commission an independent review of the “particular award” given to Fegan and Powell, but it is widely expected that the review will also scrutinise the wider issue of whether journalism that is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings should have caveats attached as part of its conditions of entry.

Currently, entries for major journalism awards in Australia, such as the Walkleys, require a disclosure if the reporting is the subject of ongoing legal action.

But there are no rules governing the overturning of awards if subsequent legal action finds the story to be untrue, as was the case with the Laming “upskirting” claim.

Dr Laming has claimed that Walkley organisers had known for “nearly a year” of his complaint that a story submitted for the awards had made “baseless” upskirting claims against him.

Dr Laming told The Australian on Sunday that he wants to play a key role in the review. “Through my lawyers I have notified the Walkley Foundation that I wish to submit materials to it for their consideration,” he said.

Dr Laming is unhappy that the Walkleys – which he describes as “Australian journalism’s highest honour” – lent weight to the Nine story by publicising comments that lauded the story when it won the prize.

“The comments made by the judges at that time lauding the network and journalists for their work in the face of ‘legal pushback’ is hard to reconcile with the complete abandonment of Nine’s defences and its subsequent unconditional public retraction and apology to me,” he said.

“Despite being on notice at the time of a legal dispute and the waves of retractions, apologies by others over republications of Nine’s story, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (which oversees both the Walkleys and the Clarion Awards) persisted with both a state and a federal award – and as of right now, even despite announcing a review, they continue to refuse to rescind what is now an award for effectively a story that been withdrawn, deleted and has been accepted by all as a work of fiction.”

Dr Laming said that he initially made allegations to the MEAA in October last year.

“We first notified the MEAA of baseless allegations in the Nine TV news story in October 2021, so they have been made aware of our complaint for nearly a year,” he said. “The MEAA would know that Nine publicly abandoned its unmeritorious truth and honest opinion defences last month, and in my view, from that moment the awards … became completely untenable.”

Dr Laming says he has so far received no response to a letter he addressed to Walkley Foundation chief executive Shona Martyn last week. He asserted in the letter that the Walkleys needed to do more than simply leave it in the hands of award recipients to return them.

“There is already sufficient evidence at hand to rescind the award, and leaving it in the hands of recipients to return awards is weak,” he wrote. “By continuing to promote these awards, the Walkley Committee further harms my reputation through imputation that the stories were true. Nine now admits they were not, and these court documents are public.”

He concluded his letter to the Walkleys: “I reserve my rights in this regard.”

Dr Laming’s former LNP colleague James McGrath has also written to the Walkley Foundation, calling for Nine’s award to be withdrawn.

“The broadcaster has admitted the allegations against Dr Laming were untrue,” Senator McGrath wrote.

“Why haven’t you withdrawn the Walkley Award from Ch9? In light of the above admission from Ch9 I ask you to withdraw the associated Walkley Award.

“If you are not prepared to withdraw I would ask you justify your reasoning.”

Despite repeated requests from The Australian for further clarification around the parameters of the independent review, the Walkley Foundation declined to comment.

Nine also declined to comment.

The terms of Dr Laming’s settlement with Nine, which included an apology, were confidential but the network is understood to be liable for more than $1m in damages and legal costs.

In its apology, which was read to the court, Nine said: “9News unreservedly withdraws those allegations about Dr Laming and apologises to him and his family for the hurt and harm caused by the report.”


Pervasive media censorship of Covid skepticism

Facebook groups that criticise any aspect of the official response to the pandemic have their own history of sudden death. On 26 April 2021, for example, Facebook deleted a group with 120,000 members who posted accounts of adverse vaccine reactions.

In May, Republican attorneys general Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeffrey Landry of Louisiana brought a suit against the Biden administration for alleged violations of the First Amendment. They accuse top officials of using social media giants Meta (publisher of Facebook and Instagram), Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google) and LinkedIn, of using the tech titans to censor critics of government policy. Instead of Russian collusion, the lie Democrats threw at Trump for most of his term, Schmitt and Landry accuse Dr Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and former Disinformation Governance Board executive Nina Jankowicz amongst others, of Big Tech collusion.

In July, US District Judge Terry Doughty ordered various federal agencies to produce records requested by the plaintiffs which resulted in a trove of damning documents exposing an army of at least 50 administration officials and 12 agencies engaged in either censorship as Landry and Schmitt put it or ensuring that the American people have access to ‘factual, accurate, science-based information’ as the Administration claims. The government says it supports freedom of speech but claims it is important to ‘combat misinformation and disinformation that can cost lives’. Fauci and Jean-Pierre refused to provide their communications with the social media companies claiming they were protected by executive privilege, but Judge Doughty was not persuaded and has given them 21 days to hand over the records by 27 September.

Examples of the cosy relationship between the administration and the social media giants are evident in the documents provided so far. CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg gave Fauci his personal phone number, and a parody Fauci account was pulled down within minutes of Facebook receiving a request from Clarke Humphrey, the White House digital director of the Covid response team.

A Facebook official emailed White House officials on 23 July 2021 reporting that Facebook had removed 39 profiles, pages, groups, and Instagram accounts tied to the ‘Disinformation Dozen’ – a group that was targeted by the government which includes Robert F Kennedy junior, founder of Children’s Health Defence, and son of former US attorney general Senator Bobby Kennedy. Kennedy junior said he was ‘astonished that any elected Democrat would be so estranged from our nation’s history and values as to consider it acceptable for a president to pressure publishers to censor his critics’.

The picture of Democrat-friendly censorship fits with other recent revelations. On 25 August Zuckerberg revealed to podcaster Joe Rogan that his employees had been told by the FBI to be wary of Russian disinformation, so they suppressed the New York Post’s scoop on Hunter Biden’s laptop which showed how Hunter leveraged his father’s position as vice president to make lucrative business deals. Republicans will use subpoena powers to further investigate what happened if they win a majority in the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections in November. Others who have joined the lawsuit include epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard University and Jay Bhattacharya, Professor at Stanford Medical School, two of the three original authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which they launched on 4 October 2020 opposing lockdowns and calling for a standard scientific response to the pandemic, protecting the vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function as normal.

Emails obtained in January via a Freedom of Information request revealed that Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes for Health emailed Fauci in horror when he read the declaration, describing the authors as ‘fringe epidemiologists’ and fretting that their proposal was ‘getting a lot of attention’. ‘There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises,’ he schemed. When Bhattacharya read the emails he tweeted, ‘Now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.’

How the case launched by Schmitt and Landry is decided we will know in due course, what seems ominously prescient is the quote from George Washington with which they opened their complaint in which Washington warned, in 1783, if ‘the Freedom of Speech may be taken away’ then ‘dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter’.


September 18, 2022

The Ivermectin saga

Its big fault: It was too cheap. I pointed out some months ago that the big study which purported to discredit Ivermectin was not a true test of it

The story of Ivermectin is a story of the pandemic that might have been.

There are doctors around the world, including Australia, who believe that, far from Covid being an unusual disease for which expensive new therapies had to be found, there were existing medicines, which could markedly reduce the chance of ending up in hospital or dying from the infection.

They say one of these is Ivermectin and another is Hydroxychloroquine. These are tried-and-tested drugs that have been used to treat illnesses like scabies and rheumatoid arthritis, respectively, for decades. Their safety profiles are well known because millions, or even billions, of people worldwide, have taken them.

It’s important to note that we know a lot more about the safety profiles of these two drugs than we do about the new Covid antivirals, simply because these established drugs have been used in so many people for such a long time.

And what’s more, they are cheap! They have been ‘off patent’ for decades and so can be made by any reputable pharmaceutical company, with competition keeping prices low.

You would think the government would jump at such saviour drugs. But the TGA banned GPs from prescribing these medicines for Covid.

I’m a medical journalist trained in science with over a decade of experience trawling medical literature and writing up important studies for busy doctors and the public.

Ivermectin was first championed by Dr Pierre Kory, a US specialist critical care physician treating Covid patients.

In December 2020, Dr Kory testified to the US senate on behalf of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), advocating for Ivermectin to be made available for prevention and early treatment of Covid. He showed graphs demonstrating the effect of the use of the drug in eight states in Peru.

In January 2021, Dr Tess Lawrie, an independent medical research consultant in the UK, who counts the World Health Organisation (WHO) among her clients, independently reviewed the studies gathered by the FLCCC. She sent a video message to the then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, telling him the good news that Ivermectin was effective in treating Covid.

Both Dr Kory and Dr Lawrie thought their message of a solution to the pandemic would be welcomed. They were wrong.

Instead, there were a lot of stories in the media last year, telling us that Ivermectin was something that should not be used for early treatment of Covid.

In February 2021, I edited a piece that drew on a Reuters news story which was in turn based on a press release from the pharmaceutical company, Merck, the original developer of Ivermectin.

Merck said it had concerns about the safety of the use of its drug, Ivermectin, for Covid, and that there was ‘no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy’ in Covid patients.

As I edited the story, I remember saying to myself: ‘Good heavens, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a press release from a drug company rubbishing its own drug!’ I put it in the ‘surprised’ bucket and thought about it no more.

Merck made another press release in March 2021. Good news! They were re-purposing an antiviral they had been developing and it was doing well in phase 2 trials as an early treatment for Covid. The drug’s name – Molnupiravir.

Merck, and other companies, were hurrying to develop new, patented therapies for early treatment of Covid. They were aiming to get an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) that would make their path to regulatory approval faster, easier and cheaper.

But a condition of the US Food and Drug Administration’s EUA is that ‘there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives’.

I was astounded when, on September 10, 2021, the TGA banned GPs from prescribing Ivermectin for Covid, though perhaps I shouldn’t have been, since similar restrictions on the use of Hydroxychloroquine had been put in place in March 2020.

The ban attacked something doctors and patients hold dear – the doctor-patient relationship.

It is a long-held tradition that a doctor can use their judgment to prescribe a medication for a condition other than the one it has been approved for, as long the doctor believes it to be in the best interests of the patient. This is called prescribing ‘off-label’.

By that stage, the media worldwide were disparaging Ivermectin as a Covid therapy, including in a tweet from the US Food and Drug Administration emphasising its use as a dewormer in horses and cows. Some Australian journalists were busy running an Ivermectin witch hunt, exposing GPs who were breaking the TGA’s ban.

Let’s examine the statement the TGA wrote when they banned our GPs from prescribing Ivermectin for Covid.

They gave three reasons.

First, they were worried that people might choose to use Ivermectin rather than be vaccinated. ‘Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking Ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms. Doing so has the potential to spread the risk of Covid infection throughout the community,’ they said.

How laughable this seems, especially in the light of what has happened: multiply-vaccinated people everywhere are catching and spreading Covid!

‘Secondly, the doses of Ivermectin that are being advocated for use in unreliable social media posts and other sources for Covid are significantly higher than those approved and found safe for scabies or parasite treatment.’ But remember, Ivermectin was going to be prescribed by qualified GPs, not Facebook!

Finally, they said that the increased use of Ivermectin for Covid might lead to shortages for its TGA-approved uses such as for scabies. ‘Such shortages can disproportionately impact vulnerable people, including those in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.’

What a lack of faith this shows in the free market, particularly considering that the drug is off-patent and can be made by many pharmaceutical companies! If demand were to increase, so would production.

Back in September 2021, how could the TGA, have responded rationally and scientifically to the reports of Ivermectin’s effectiveness for Covid? Let’s consider the evidence.

First, the drug had an exemplary safety record. Dr Kory says 3.7 billion doses have been distributed over its 35 years of use. The WHO has Ivermectin on its list of essential medicines and its discoverer, Japanese scientist Dr Satoshi Omura, received the Nobel prize in 2015 for the drug, which has dramatically reduced river blindness and other diseases caused by roundworms.

There was never a question about safety – providing a doctor prescribed the drug properly – there was only a question about whether it worked.

Furthermore, there was no body of evidence showing Ivermectin made Covid worse – instead there were numerous randomised controlled trials showing it made it better. Physicians like Dr Kory were saying it had turned patients around and there were reports that some states in Mexico, Peru, and India had found it to be very effective.

One has to ask – what was to be lost by trying it? And what was to be gained – if it really worked as Drs Kory and Lawrie suggested – was a markedly reduced number of people getting seriously ill and dying from Covid.

Here’s a possible alternative approach. Instead of banning Ivermectin, the TGA could have allowed GPs to prescribe Ivermectin for Covid but require them to report on the outcome. In other words, proactively collect data on its effectiveness.

One year on, we may reflect on what the outcome of such a decision might have been.

And if you are wondering what happened about Mulnupiravir, Merck got its EUA and reports sales of USD 4.4 billion for the first half of 2022. Molnupiravir (sold as Lagevrio) is now being used to treat early Covid in Australia. The other new antiviral being used in Australia, Paxlovid, which also got its EUA last year, has been forecast by its developer, Pfizer, to bring in USD 22 billion in sales in 2022.


Adverse Effects of mRNA Vaccines Were Known Before COVID-19: Medical Doctor

Complications and adverse reactions occurring after administering mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been anticipated by doctors based on data and studies going back 15 years, said Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet.

When the COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, it was already known that the toxicity of the spike protein and the toxicity of another component of the vaccine could cause complications such as inflammation, blood clots, and disruption of the immune system, Vliet said in a recent interview for EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.

“Over the first six months after the rollout of COVID-19 shots, I had a whole gamut of patients with all kinds of problems they had not had before,” she said, adding that the only common denominator of these cases was that they all had the COVID-19 vaccines.

Vliet runs an independent medical practice.

“Most of these people are people that have been my patients for 20 or 25 years. I even have some that I’ve seen for 30 years. And I knew their medical history,” she said.

Among disorders that Vliet observed in her patients were cognitive issues, memory loss, brain fog, mini strokes, dizziness, vertigo, tinnitus, and falling episodes.

The doctor mentioned two of her patients, a couple in their 70s who were healthy and fit and exercised regularly, walking 7 miles a day. They got the COVID-19 shot so they could travel to see their children and grandchildren.

Since then, the woman’s heart arrhythmia has been out of control and the man began having falling episodes that resulted in a broken hip, Vliet said.

Vliet said that in her medical practice, she abides by a basic principle she learned in medical school: If what you’re doing is working, keep doing it. If what you’re doing isn’t working, stop doing it.

“And if the patient has new health problems, right after you’ve given them a treatment or a medicine or a shot, then consider that as the connecting link,” she said.

“Those principles are common sense. It’s basic medicine 101 … and it’s been true my whole career.”

Doctors generally stop administering a medicine when a patient shows side effects that they didn’t have before, to see if those reactions resolve, Vliet said. “The same is true with any vaccine.”

“I’ve seen patients over my career who’ve had adverse reactions to all the different vaccines,” Vliet said, adding that she herself has had vaccines in the past and has not experienced any adverse reactions.

“I’ve recommended them appropriately for patients over my career. But there are also times when vaccines simply aren’t needed. COVID was one of those.”

COVID-19 was not a lethal illness for those under 50 with no medical comorbidities, Vliet said. And for those over 50 or with medical comorbidities, Vliet used early treatment, and the disease “was very treatable,” she said.

Vliet said she used a combination of older, safer medicines recommended by Drs. Vladimir Zelenko and Peter McCullough beginning in March 2020.

“I didn’t have any of my patients go in the hospital. I didn’t have anyone die,” she said. She did have some older patients with diabetes, obesity, and other medical conditions who were pretty sick with COVID-19, but she kept them out of the hospital with an aggressive combination of drug therapies recommended by McCullough.

“So vaccines are not always the answer to every problem,” she said, adding that for COVID-19, the best answer was early treatment.


September 17, 2022

Why shut-down advocates in the US are blaming the Republicans

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre made the most incredible comment early this month during a press briefing, after a US government report found American primary school students’ test scores had dropped dramatically since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020, wiping out, in effect, more than 20 years of steady improvement in reading and maths.

Jean-Pierre blamed Republicans for keeping schools closed too long – a policy followed around the world, including Australia, where schools remained shut for at least a year in some states.

Opening schools, she said, “was the work of Democrats, despite Republicans”, as if determined to win the prize for the greatest furphy in the history of the briefing room.

As a quick internet search shows, some Republicans, sane people, and Donald Trump in particular, who as president had no power over schools, were castigated by Democrats and so-called public health experts as akin to murderers for arguing as early as July 2020 that all schools should open immediately.

Jean-Pierre’s comment came a week after Democrat New York Governor Kathy Hochul conceded shutting schools, something her Democrat predecessor Andrew Cuomo did repeatedly throughout 2020 and last year, was a disaster.

“Wow, what a mistake that was … women couldn’t go to their jobs. They lost their jobs, or they thought they’re back at their jobs and one child in a classroom tests positive, the whole class goes home for a week and a half. It was chaos,” Hochul said.

If you’ve been wondering how the debate that erupted in March 2020 was panning out between proponents of China-style lockdowns and that small minority of people who argued in favour of following established pandemic plans, look no further than the US.

The proponents of shutting everything down, China-style, have gone very quiet, or tried to blame their opponents for the policies they championed with vehemence for almost two years.

Even Anthony Fauci, who perhaps had more influence in pushing authoritarian health policies than any other individual, is washing his hands of them. “I think we need to make sure that your listeners understand I didn’t shut down anything,” he told Fox News last month.

The internet can be a right pain, can’t it? “When it became clear that we had community spread in the country, with a few cases of community spread … I recommended to the president that we shut the country down,” Fauci said in October 2020.

The outcome of this debate matters because if the most destructive and far-reaching interventions in peacetime history had costs greater then benefits or, more shockingly, didn’t appear to work to slow the spread of Covid-19 at all, it’s best we don’t repeat them.

It should be clear lockdown proponents have been eviscerated on the question of schools. But schools are just the beginning.

In a few years, I predict, defenders of authoritarian health policies will be like supporters of Vichy France after World War II – close to non-existent.

Even renowned US public health expert Leana Wen, one of the doyens of authoritarian health restrictions in the US, who demanded the unvaccinated be forced to stay in their homes, has done an about-face.

“Masking has harmed our son’s language development,” she said a recent column in The Washington Post, foreshadowing the death of mask mandates even as Covid cases soar in the northern winter.

Excess deaths across the West have increased this year when they should have declined significantly, as elderly deaths from Covid-19 throughout 2020 and last year were brought forward in time.

Whatever the cause, you can bet it stems from the unprecedented Chinese Comnmunist Party-style interventions enacted in 2020 to “save lives”.

From January to May, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, deaths were about 17 per cent higher than usual but only about half of those were accounted for by Covid-19.

Moreover, health systems are struggling, severely in Europe, when shutting them down was supposed to ensure they were protected – the opposite of what was promised.

Mandatory vaccination will be the next policy to succumb to condemnation, as it becomes clear that forcing healthy young people, let alone children, to be vaccinated against a disease that obviously poses negligible threat to them was insane.

For instance, a new study by nine top scientists and doctors, including from Oxford, Harvard, the University of California and Johns Hopkins University, published this week, concludes forcing young people to obtain boosters to attend university was totally unethical, contrary to longstanding practice of Western medicine.

“We estimate that 22,000-30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one Covid-19 hospitalisation,” the study’s authors conclude.

“Per Covid-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events.”

It shouldn’t be a shock that forcing hundreds of millions of people to take a vaccine that, despite repeated promises from experts, obviously failed to prevent transmission, illness or confer lasting immunity resulted in complications for a tiny minority.

After the global financial crisis in 2008, it became obvious that greed and capture of the financial regulators led to shockingly bad outcomes for the economy.

Yet we are meant to believe today that pharmaceutical regulators, which are funded to a much greater extent by the entities they regulate than financial regulators are by the institutions they regulate, are beyond reproach.

Fauci, in remarks almost totally missed in the wake of the Queen’s death, told Canadian television there “wasn’t the time” to test the new Covid-19 booster, about to be foisted on millions of people, on humans, happy instead to rely on trials on eight mice (which apparently still developed mild Covid).

“Masking 2 year olds … and boosting 20 (year old) men with a new vax tested in 8 mice is openly crazy … policy,” one of the study doctors, Vinay Prasad, said this week on social media.

It might be crazy but boy is it lucrative, as big pharma in the US pencils in tens of billions of revenue guaranteed by the state – for now, at least.

One by one, the liturgy of absurd restrictions, either made up or copied from China, or motivated by greed, will fall into disrepute. It can’t come soon enough.


COVID stress eases in young people: survey

Young people are more positive about their lives and in less psychological distress as Australia comes out of the pandemic, a new study shows.

More than two in three young people aged 18 to 24 said their lives had improved in the past year, while there was a five per cent drop in psychological distress, ANU's Professor Nicholas Biddle found.

Prof Biddle said stress remained above pre-pandemic levels, with young people "the most dramatically impacted" by COVID-19. "Overall this is really encouraging news," he said. "It's heartening to see the majority of young Australians say they are feeling much better ... even though they still face ongoing pandemic pressures."

While young people recorded the biggest decline in psychological distress, Australians of all ages felt better than they did in October 2021.

More than half of those surveyed said they thought their life was worse in May 2020, months after tough restrictions including lockdowns were introduced. This dropped to about one in five - or 20 per cent - in August 2021.

"Wellbeing and mental health outcomes have improved over recent months as lockdown conditions have substantially eased and despite high case numbers," Prof Biddle said.

The report is based on 12 surveys of 3500 Australians over two years.

It comes as national cabinet decided pandemic leave would remain in effect as long as mandatory COVID-19 isolation periods are in place. The payments were due to expire at the end of the month.

National cabinet also agreed to limit the number of payments to three in six months unless people can argue extraordinary circumstances.

The ACTU welcomed the decision to extend the payments. It said it was critical workers were able to isolate while they were infectious.

The union's assistant secretary Liam O'Brien said financial incentives for people to stay home while sick should remain.

"Paid pandemic leave needs to stay in place as long as working people are being asked to isolate and take time away from work to control the spread of the virus," he said.

"The third of our working population who do not have access to paid sick leave cannot be expected to go without pay to keep the rest of the community safe."


September 16, 2022

2022 Excess Deaths All Around the World Raise an Alarm

The Scottish government has started an inquiry into the causes of excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland.

Excess deaths refer to the total number of deaths in a week in 2022 minus the average number of deaths in the same week over the period from 2016 to 2021, while excluding 2020 to not inflate the previous years’ average, as there was a large number of deaths in spring 2020 (Excess Deaths = Total Number of Deaths – Average Number of Deaths in Previous Years).

Excess deaths include deaths caused by the pandemic and those from other causes.

According to the official website of the Scottish Parliament, the weekly numbers of deaths in Scotland between April 2020 and April 2022 (the latest available date) are larger than the average numbers of deaths in the same weeks of previous years, for most of the weeks during this period.

For instance, for the week beginning Jan. 4, 2021, there were 1,720 deaths, while the previous years’ average for the weeks beginning Jan. 4 (from 2016 to 2019) was 1,276, so the number of excess deaths was 444 (34.80 percent).

However, what’s unclear is the extent to which the excess deaths are caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, or if they are due to other reasons.

In June 2022, in an article published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, a journal of the European Society of Cardiology, recommended gene testing athletes to prevent sudden cardiac death.

Sports cardiology is an advanced field of practice that evaluates athletes for genetically determined cardiac conditions which may lead to malignant arrhythmias, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death. Genetic testing is becoming more widely used in sports cardiology, and it is generally considered part of a comprehensive cardiac assessment in athletes.

According to the statistics, up to 80 percent of athletes who die suddenly had no symptoms or family history of heart disease. Moreover, other than the case of Rab Wardell, a universal pattern of increased excess mortality has been reported all over the world.

However, genetic factors are rather stable factors that won’t normally directly cause death unless there are significant external risk factors. As the saying goes, internal causes are like basic prerequisites, like a seed, while external factors are like sunlight or water. The seed will grow into a plant only with the suitable conditions of temperature, sunlight, and water.

We could not attribute a large number of excess death rates to genetic factors alone. There must be other external triggers to be found.

Excess Mortality in England and Wales

Beyond Scotland, other areas of the UK also experienced an unexplained rise in excess deaths. According to the latest data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS), from June to late August 2022, around 1,000 excess deaths took place in England and Wales each week. However, most of them are unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic.

For instance, in the week ending Aug. 26, there were 1,556 cases of excess mortality, but only approximately 453 cases of them were caused by the pandemic.

Before the end of March 2022, deaths in England and Wales were fewer than usual, although several hundreds of people were still dying from the pandemic every week. However, the situation changed subsequently, with the number of excess deaths rising or sometimes fluctuating, even though the numbers and percentages of COVID-19 deaths have been falling.

For example, during the following five weeks after the week ending July 29, the percentages of COVID-related deaths were 7.4 (810 cases out of a total of 11,013 deaths), 6.8 (723 cases out of 10,698), 5.7 (592 cases out of 10,355), 5.0 (551 cases out of 10,982), and 4.1 (453 cases out of 10,942), respectively, with declines on a weekly basis.

On the contrary, during the same time period, the weekly numbers of excess deaths were 1,678, 1,350, 950, 1,719, and 1,556, respectively, with declines in the first three weeks—but surprisingly an increase in the latter two weeks.

Currently, many baffled and worried health experts in the UK are calling for an urgent government investigation into these excess deaths. Among them, there is Dr. Charles Levinson, chief executive of the private general practice company DoctorCall. According to Levinson, the causes of these excess deaths are complicated and not fully understood by the medical professionals in the UK, thus there’s an urgent need for a comprehensive government inquiry.

If the current trajectory continues, the number of non-COVID-related excess deaths will soon outstrip the number of COVID-related deaths in 2022 in the UK.

Excess All-cause Mortality in the United States

According to a study on the medRxiv preprint server, the U.S. official COVID-19 death counts have underestimated the pandemic’s impact on mortality. An estimated 936,911 excess deaths occurred during 2020 and 2021. Among them, 171,168 cases(18.3 percent) were not assigned to COVID-19 on the death certificates as an underlying cause of death. The excess mortality in this case refers to the difference between the expected deaths before the pandemic and the actual deaths, which is a universal definition all over the world. (Excess Deaths = Actual Reported Deaths – Expected Deaths Prior to 2020. The expected number of deaths is derived from the numbers of deaths for the same time period in the previous years.)

Rising Excess Deaths All Over the World

The United States and the UK are not alone in this trend of unexplained rising excess deaths. Similar phenomena have been taking place in many countries, as attested by statistics from the scientific online publication Our World in Data. The site uses the same definition for excess mortality as defined above.

As different countries have vastly different populations, the number of excess deaths is not a useful measure for comparison purposes. To better enable comparisons across different countries, the P-score can be used.

P-score is calculated by dividing the difference between reported deaths and expected deaths by the expected deaths first and then times 100.

[P-score = (Reported Deaths – Expected Deaths)/ Expected Deaths x 100] OR [P-score = Excess Deaths / Expected Deaths x 100]

For instance, if a P-score is 50 percent in a given week, it implies that the actual number of deaths for that week is 50 percent higher than the expected (i.e. projected) number of deaths, had the COVID-19 pandemic never taken place.

Top 5 Countries With Cumulative Excess Deaths Since COVID Pandemic

Among these countries, the United States boasts of a population of over 338 million, Brazil has a population of over 215 million, and the other three countries all have a population of over 110 million.

As they are all countries with relatively large populations in the world, and given the fact that certain countries with larger populations such as China, India, and Pakistan might have grossly understated their numbers of COVID-related deaths, it’s not surprising that these five countries are shown with the largest numbers of excess deaths. This phenomenon in fact logically indicates that the excess death is proportionally related to population toll in each country.

This is a clear signal that the above mentioned high excess death rates is not a country or local or geographic specific reason. It must have been caused by a certain type of health risk factor that has the power to influence the whole human world during 2021-2022.

But what event could possibly have such significant power? Even the global infection rate of COVID-19 is around 3 percent, which does not justify COVID-19 itself to be categorized as a global health risk factor.

What, then, could be classified as a global health risk factor with the power to influence the majority of the global population?

Unexplained Excess Death Rates in 2022 During Omicron Period

During this time period, the COVID-19 Omicron variant was the most prevalent. Although highly transmissible, Omicron’s infection fatality ratio is 78.7 percent lower than that of the previous strains. According to a study on the medRxiv preprint server, Omicron’s death rate over the general population is 0.021 percent.

Accordingly, in theory, if the excess death rate had been directly caused by SARS-CoV-2, the absolute excess death number should be decreasing in 2022, after Omicron’s spread.

Let’s do a simplified calculation of the excess death rate that should have been caused by Omicron in the UK.

During the five-year period from 2015 to 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic started to wreak havoc in the UK, the crude death rate per 1,000 people was 9. Therefore, the mortality rate was 0.9 percent (= 9/1,000 x 100). In 2022, the UK has a population of 67.58 million. The expected number of deaths would be 608,220 (=0.9% x 67.58 million).

Assuming that all the excess deaths in the UK were caused by Omicron from January to July 2022, the number of excess deaths should be 14,192 (= 0.021% x 67.58 million), which was much lower than the expected number of 608,220.

On the other hand, if the Omicron-caused deaths explained the excess death rate in the UK, the excess death rate would be only 2.3 percent (=14,192/608,220 x 100), which was much lower than the excess death rate exhibited in the graph.

Therefore, the Omicron variant could not be the main cause of all the excess deaths in the UK. This should also be the case in Germany, Australia, Israel, and the United States.

Investigation Into Potential Causes of Excess Deaths

Regardless of the diseases that directly cause their deaths, many people die from old age every year. Due to weakened immunity, the elderly are especially prone to COVID-19 infection. Therefore, as of August 24, 2022, 74.7 percent of the total COVID-related deaths in the United States were among people aged 65 or older.

So, it can be inferred that many elderly people died of the more lethal viruses, such as alpha and delta, in 2021 from the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the number of excess deaths in 2022 should actually be below the number of expected deaths.

Apparently, the consistent pattern of unexpected high levels of excess deaths across the globe is abnormal. This issue warrants an investigation that may involve accessing the raw data on death certificates (i.e. causes of death), checking a random sample of medical records, analyzing autopsy reports, and transparently examining the deceased’s COVID-19 vaccination status.

Heart Diseases as a Major Concern of Academic Journals

According to the UK’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, from the week ending on June 24, 2000 to the week ending on June 24, 2022, the leading causes of excess deaths included ischemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, other circulatory diseases, heart failure, and cancer.

A study published in July 2022 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine indicates that the major causes of death in the United States from March 2020 to October 2021 were heart disease and cancer. Specifically, 20.1 percent of deaths were due to heart disease, and 17.5 percent were caused by cancer. Together, they accounted for 1.29 million deaths, while, at the same time, COVID-19 infection was the cause of 350,000 deaths.

Cardiovascular problems, including carditis, heart attack, and stroke can be caused by COVID-19 infection or mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

According to an article published in the journal Nature, some studies have shown that the risk of heart problems remains high many months after a patient recovers from a COVID-19 infection.

Furthermore, on June 9, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer or Moderna), especially among adolescents and young adult males within several days after their second dose of vaccination.

According to Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, as of June 9, 226 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination in people younger than age 30 had been confirmed.

Both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). According to a study published in December 2021 in the journal iScience, there is evidence that the LNPs used in preclinical mRNA vaccine studies have been found to be highly inflammatory in mice. Injection of these LNPs into the mice caused rapid and robust inflammatory responses. Maybe this can explain the underlying cause of post-vaccine carditis, which is the inflammation of the heart, including myocarditis and pericarditis.

VAERS Data Suggest a Large Number of Post-Vaccination Deaths and Rising Adverse Events
Not coincidentally, there are an alarming number of adverse events reportedly associated with COVID-19 vaccine jabs, including deaths.

The latest numbers of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in the American Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of August 26, 2022 were: 1,394,703 reports of vaccine adverse events, including 30,605 deaths, 175,020 hospitalizations, 134,530 cases of urgent care, and 204,343 doctor office visits. There were also 51,879 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis, 16,385 heart attacks, and 8,942 cases of thrombocytopenia/low platelets.

The provincial government of Manitoba in Canada reported in July 2022 that the vaccine booster shot administration rate in the province was 43.8 percent in May 2022. However, people who had received booster injections accounted for more than 70 percent of COVID-related deaths.

The fact that such a majority of people (over 70%) with 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine contribute to the cause of death in two major countries with the world’s most advanced medical system, is convincingly suggesting that COVID-19 jabs are a potential health risk factor. The impact of COVID-19 jabs are also dose-dependent.

Research Findings Point to Possible Injuries Due to Spike Protein

Many studies have shown that the SARS-CoV-2 virus’s spike protein can potentially cause injuries to our cardiac pericytes, endothelial function, mitochondria, DNA self-repairing mechanisms, and immunity.

As COVID-19 vaccine injections also contain spike protein, the vaccines can cause injuries in our heart, nerves, brain, and vessels. All of these potential injuries can lead to cardiovascular problems or even sudden deaths.

We herein call for a transparent global investigation into this urgent issue of rising excess deaths as soon as possible. When it comes to people’s health and well-being, there’s no time to waste, and it’s unacceptable to wait.

Based on the aforementioned evidence, there is a strong possibility that the ascending global trend of excess deaths is at least partially contributed to by the COVID-19 vaccine jabs. Or, at least the that role COVID-19 vaccines might have played in this issue should be thoroughly investigated and the results should be publicly announced.

As the Chinese idiom goes, “After you lose a sheep, it’s not too late to fix the pen.” It’s never too late to take remedial action.

However, if we keep losing sheep without correcting the root causes, we would in one day lose all the sheep.

If no action is taken as these reg flags become increasingly obvious, we fear the heavy burden of responsibility will become greater than any single person could possibly bear.


September 15, 2022

Two big admissions regarding Covid vaccines surfaced this week

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged publicly for the first time that the agency gave false information about its COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the agency’s director, said in a letter made public on Sept. 12 that the CDC did not analyze certain types of adverse event reports at all in 2021, despite the agency previously saying it started in February 2021.

“CDC performed PRR analysis between March 25, 2022, through July 31, 2022,” Walensky said. “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.”

Walensky’s agency had promised in several documents, starting in early 2021, to perform a type of analysis called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) on reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which it helps manage.

But the agency said in June that it did not perform PRRs. It also said that performing them was “outside th[e] agency’s purview.”

Confronted with the contradiction, Dr. John Su, a CDC official, told The Epoch Times in July that the agency started performing PRRs in February 2021 and “continues to do so to date.”

But just weeks later, the CDC said Su was wrong.

“CDC performed PRRs from March 25, 2022 through July 31, 2022,” a spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in August.

Walensky’s new letter, dated Sept. 2 and sent on Sept. 6 to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), shows that Walensky is aware that her agency gave false information.

‘Lacked Any Justification’

Walensky’s letter included no explanation of why that happened.

The letter “lacked any justification for why CDC performed PRRS during certain periods and not others,” Johnson, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations, told Walensky in a response.

“You also provided no explanation as to why Dr. Su’s assertion … completely contradicts the CDC’s [initial] response … as well as your September 6, 2022, response to me,” he added.

He demanded answers from the CDC on the situation, including why the CDC did not perform PRRs until March and why the agency misinformed the public when it said no PRRs were conducted.

The CDC and Walensky did not respond to requests for comment.

Of course, what can they say to justify lying, especially about the number one issue plaguing America for the past two years?!

But, wait! There’s MORE!

Not only did the CDC lie, but we now have the first undeniable proof linking the vaccine to the myocarditis.

We’ve long reported the many connections between the virus and various ailments, myocarditis among them. Too many stories of teenage athletes, professional athletes, and people in strikingly good health until they took the vaccine emerged almost immediately.

But did our government say “let’s pause, and check this out”? No, of course not. They said “these links to illnesses are lies. These people are fine.” Or, perhaps it was “they had underlying conditions.” I never once heard a leftist say “I’m not comfortable poking more people until we double check their safety.”. Honestly, it’s a damn shame. So many lives, especially young vibrant lives, were lost for no good reason other than to line some corporate pockets. And government pockets, too. Don’t let them pretend to be innocent bystanders here.

The Epoch Times found that a study published in August verified the link between 345 people in England who died of myocarditis in one year were all vaccinated with one of three COVID-19 vaccines.

According to ET:

The study, conducted from December 2020 to December 2021, looked at deaths after a hospital stay for myocarditis or with myocarditis listed as a cause of death on a death certificate among 42.8 million vaccinated people in England age 13 and up.

The publication of the study’s findings in the American Heart Association’s journal, Circulation, marked the first time in the medical literature that researchers have confirmed that myocarditis associated with one of the COVID-19 vaccines can result in death. The article was published online on Aug. 22 and appears in the journal’s September 5, 2022, issue.

“This is really big, to talk about deaths. CDC keeps saying, ‘generally mild, generally mild,” cardiologist Sanjay Verma, who was not involved in the research, told The Epoch Times. “There’s been a concerted campaign to emphasize that people have not died from myocarditis and that it’s generally mild.”

Myocarditis is defined as inflammation of the myocardium, the middle layer of the heart muscle. Although the CDC has acknowledged since the spring of 2021 that myocarditis is a possible side effect of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, the agency has not publicly spoken about death as a possible outcome of myocarditis.

The authors of the study in Circulation looked at patient data pulled from the national health database for all those in England age 13 and up who received at least one dose of one of three vaccines available in that country: AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Moderna.

About 20 million people got the AstraZeneca vaccine, 20 million got the Pfizer vaccine, and just over 1 million got the Moderna vaccine.

The study tracked hospital admissions and deaths from myocarditis by age and gender and in relation to how many doses of each vaccine a person had received. It compared how many cases of myocarditis were associated with a recent SARS-CoV2 infection, and how many were associated with one of the vaccines.

Of the people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and were hospitalized for myocarditis or with myocarditis listed on their death certificates, 22 people (17 percent) died within 28 days of receiving the first dose, 14 people (12 percent) died after their second dose, and 13 people (15 percent) died after getting the Pfizer-BioNTech booster.

For the AstraZeneca vaccine, 40 people died of myocarditis after the first dose and 11 after the second dose, 28 percent and 12 percent respectively.

Among those who got the Moderna vaccine, there were no myocarditis deaths within 28 days of vaccination.

The study concluded that, in general, the risk of myocarditis from SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was greater than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccines. But there was no control group of unvaccinated people, the study was limited to the 28 days following vaccination, and the conclusion did not hold for all ages or all of the vaccines.

For males under 40, the risk of myocarditis after a second dose of the Moderna vaccine was almost four times higher than the risk of myocarditis after a SARS-CoV2 infection, the data showed.

The study is a follow-up to a prior study in which the authors reported an association between the first and second dose of the vaccines and myocarditis.

More Lies!

Neither the CDC nor the FDA has ever acknowledged that any American has died from myocarditis caused by one of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The most recent version of the CDC advisory on adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination said that as of Aug. 31, 2022, there were 1,022 “preliminary reports” of myocarditis and pericarditis for people under 18 in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and that 672 of them had been verified and had met the CDC’s working definition of myocarditis or pericarditis.

But there is no mention of death as a possible outcome.

“Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly,” the advisory said.

A CDC morbidity and mortality report from February 2022 referenced one reported death from myocarditis but offered no confirmation.

“One death was reported; investigation is ongoing, and other contributory factors for myocarditis are being evaluated,” it said.

A CDC advisory on adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines linked to a January 25, 2022, study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which found that the risk of myocarditis increased after both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines and was highest after the second dose in adolescents and young men.

The JAMA study alluded to deaths without confirming any, saying that among people under 30, there were “no confirmed cases of myocarditis in those who died after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination without another identifiable cause” and that two other deaths “with potential myocarditis” are under investigation.

But once again, did any one shout “Stop the Presses! Let’s get this thing investigated?” Nah, why bother. Leftists would rather just keep lying straight to our faces and hoping we’re too dumb to ever realize that 2 and 2 make 4. Sorry to disappoint you leftists, but we’ve been on to you from the beginning. We’ve always known it was a death poke. Clearly, that’s why I didn’t take one, I sure as heck didn’t let anyone jab my kids, and I tried my best to warn anyone that would listen. I pissed off plenty of people, but I knew they’d thank me later.

Hey guys- it’s later!


First multi-strain COVID-19 vaccine approved for use in Australia after government backs Moderna shot

The federal government has approved a COVID-19 vaccine that specifically targets two coronavirus variants of concern, including the original Omicron strain.

Health Minister Mark Butler said the government had accepted a recommendation from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) on the use of a new Moderna vaccine as a booster shot for people aged 18 years and older.

The move marks the first time a multi-strain COVID vaccine — otherwise known as a bivalent vaccine — has been approved for use in Australia.

The new shot is already being used in other countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom.

Unlike other approved vaccines, which only target the original Wuhan strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the bivalent one also targets the original Omicron BA.1 strain.

"This is an important first step in showing how mRNA vaccines can be adapted to different dominant variants and subvariants," Mr Butler said in a statement.

The first doses of the bivalent vaccine have already arrived in the country and will now undergo batch testing by Australia's medical regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

They will be introduced into the rollout as existing stocks of Moderna's already-approved COVID-19 vaccine are exhausted.

How effective is it?

The vaccines already in use in Australia provide protection from severe disease against Omicron subvariant infections, but ATAGI found Moderna's bivalent shot provides a modest improvement in the body's immune response.

All jabs provide significant protection from severe disease against Omicron subvariant infections.

Infectious disease physician and microbiologist Paul Griffin, from the University of Queensland, said the approval of the bivalent vaccine did not "detract from how well our original vaccines have worked".

"The virus has continued to change and so we need to update our vaccines accordingly," he said.

Infectious diseases expert Robert Booy said lab data showed this bivalent vaccine was helpful in preventing infection from all Omicron variants, over and above what existing vaccines are expected to provide.

"However we don't know about efficacy because that requires doing a study of many thousands of people, so we have to rely on the immunogenicity, the antibody production," he said.

"And we know that neutralising antibodies with the vaccine are high and protective against the common Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5."

"But we can see that the vaccine is effective [and] worth having."

Professor Booy also said the bivalent vaccine could be used as a fifth shot in the future. "So if you've had four … you would have had the most recent one within the last few months, and that would protect you until at least Christmas," he said. "So it might be something you do in March or April, at the same time you get your flu jab."

Dr Griffin said it could also help keep Australians safe for some time to come. "The thought there is that it'll get better, broader cross-protection, maybe even against new emerging variants when they do arise," he said.


September 14, 2022

Fauci and White Coat Censorship On Trial

More than 50 government officials across a dozen agencies, the Epoch Times reports, were involved in applying pressure to social media companies to censor users. Officials refusing to provide answers include Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical adviser and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984.

The case, Missouri et al v. Biden et al, is now in federal court under judge Terry Doughty. Jenin Younes of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and an attorney for some of the plaintiffs, notes that Dr. Fauci had “demanded that specific individuals, including two of our clients, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, be censored on social media.” Dr. Bhattacharya, of Stanford Medical School, and Dr. Kulldorff of Harvard, are co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which took issue with Dr. Fauci on the issue of lockdowns.

As we noted, National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins tasked Dr. Fauci to conduct “a quick and devastating public takedown” of the Great Barrington scientists, smeared as “fringe epidemiologists.”

In an Epoch Times commentary, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff wondered if Collins and Fauci ever read the GBD and why they opted for a “takedown” instead of “vigorous scientific discussion.” The GBD authors recall the harm caused by the lockdowns caused, particularly the school shutdowns that harmed children without affecting disease spread. That damage will take years to reverse, but the authors have thoughts on ways to avoid similar disasters.

The NIH director commands a budget of $42.9 billion and the NIAID $6.1 billion. “If we want scientists to speak freely in the future, we should avoid having the same people in charge of public health policy and medical research funding.”

Those taking issue with NIH and NIAID pronouncements have found themselves censored by social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter. As we noted in 2018, Sen. Cory Gardner asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg if the federal government had ever demanded that Facebook remove a page from the site. Zuckerberg said, “yes, I believe so,” but did not indicate the content of the page, which government official had demanded its removal, and when the removal had taken place.

Judge Doughty has also ruled that Dr. Fauci’s communications are relevant to claims of suppression of free speech over the COVID-19 lab-leak theory. Dr. Fauci, who funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, maintains that the COVID virus arose naturally in the wild.

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but in 1968 took a job with the NIH. Dr. Fauci’s bio showed no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, but in 1984 the NIH made Dr. Fauci director of NIAID. Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), maintained that Dr. Fauci was unqualified for the post. Dr. Fauci now claims, “I represent science,” and that his critics are only attacking science itself.

“It is time for Dr. Fauci to answer for his flagrant disregard for Americans’ constitutional rights and civil liberties,” proclaimed attorney Jenin Younes. Judge Doughty gave Dr. Fauci 21 days to comply.


Israel has played a key role in the pandemic

What is astonishing – or perhaps convenient – is that for the first year of the vaccine rollout, Israel had no system to collect data on vaccine injuries and deaths; just an anonymous form that could be submitted but not be tracked. Shapira had a significant injury following his booster. He says no one checked up on it.

Finally, at the end of 2021, the Israeli Ministry of Health created a system and commissioned a six-month study led by Professor Mati Berkowitz, an expert in pharmacology and toxicology. He reported in June 2022 via a Zoom meeting that was recorded and leaked to Israeli journalist Yaffa Shir-Raz who analysed the findings with the help of Professor Retsef Levi, an expert in risk management and health systems at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of Israel’s Public Emergency Council.

Levi garnered international attention when, in mid-2021, he reported that data from Israeli emergency medical services showed a 25 per cent increase in heart problems for 16–39-year-olds years following the administration of the Covid vaccine compared with previous years. It gave the lie to the claim that any heart damage caused by the vaccine was not as bad as damage done by the virus.

The report by Shir-Raz and Levi on the Zoom call was equally damning. It showed that 90 per cent of reports of adverse events were not resolved in a few days, as claimed, but lasted up to three months, and 60 per cent lasted longer with some still ongoing. It proved causality in many instances because of dose-dependent reactions demonstrated when people were re-exposed to the jab. Finally, Berkowitz warned that the government could be exposed to medico legal claims for urging people to get vaccinated despite the known risks.

The response of the ministry was to sit on the report for two months while the decision was made to vaccinate children as young as six months. When they finally released it, they diluted the findings by calculating the frequency of adverse events not against doses administered to the 15 per cent of population surveyed during six months, but against the entire population of Israel for the entire campaign. They even included doses administered to males and females of all ages when calculating the frequency of menstrual problems.

As shocking as this was, it was matched by the utter indifference of the media which failed – with the honourable exception of Neil Oliver at GB News – to report the revelations. It has fallen to citizen journalists – doctors, statisticians, assorted others – many who have been banned on social media, to spread the word, mostly via

Shapira was incensed that the Israeli Genesis Award was given to Bourla for ‘a mediocre, short-acting vaccine that yielded Pfizer a profit of billions’. ‘What grade would you give to a vaccine that people are vaccinated with three times and get sick twice (as of today)? Not to mention significant side effects’ he tweeted. ‘And don’t say that it prevents a serious illness,’ he added, ‘no one has proven it.’

The word ‘Israel’ means one who struggles with G-d, as Jacob wrestled with an angel. The Torah teaches that Jews are not expected to accept faith blindly but to engage intellectually with their doubts. How does a nation with such a tradition sink into censorship and self-censorship? Of course, it is not just Israel. It is Australia, the UK, the US, the West. Countries where we are bound – even the atheists – by our laws and traditions to the Ten Commandments, children of The Book.

In this sense Udi Qimron, professor of microbiology in the department of medicine at the University of Tel Aviv spoke for all of us when he tweeted: ‘Now, when everything is open and the wave is fading, and it is clear to everyone that the danger is increasing and that the measures were unnecessary, it is still not clear how: How did we neglect our children’s education? How did we burn our resources? How did we give up our freedom? How did we exclude, conceal and disintegrate the fabric of society? How was our mind so easily controlled? how?!?!’ There are no easy answers. ?


Navy quietly rolled back punishments for SEALs seeking religious exemptions to the COVID vaccine

The U.S. Navy quietly rolled back an order punishing SEALs who remain unvaccinated due to their religious beliefs, according to recent court documents.

The order, "Trident Order #12," disqualified SEALs seeking religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine from training, traveling for deployment and conducting other standard business. It was first issued on Sept. 24, 2021 by Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William Lescher, and all special warfare forces were initially expected to come into compliance with the vaccine mandate by mid-October 2021.

The order specifically said that "Special Operations Designated Personnel (SEAL and SWCC) refusing to receive recommended vaccines based solely on personal or religious beliefs will still be medically disqualified," meaning that SEALs were designated as "non-deployable" if they submitted religious accommodation requests.

The order was put on hold due to a preliminary injunction issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in early 2022 as part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by First Liberty Institute and Hacker Stephens LLP on behalf of 35 active-duty SEALs and three reservists seeking a religious exemption to the mandate.

However, according to a new filing in the lawsuit, the Navy quietly rolled back Trident Order #12 on May 22, 2022, a few months after the injunction was issued.

A communication order was circulated by the Navy on May 23 with the subject: "NSWC CLOSEOUT TO TRIDENT ORDER #12 - MANDATORY VACCINATION FOR COVID-19." NSWC refers to the Naval Special Warfare Command.

"This order rescinds reference A," it states, referring to "Ref A" as "Trident Order #12 on COVID-19 Vaccinations."

The May 23 communication order also said Navy commands "will continue to follow guidance, as appropriate, regarding COVID-19 vaccination, accommodation requests, and mitigation measures."

It is not immediately clear whether the Navy replaced the order with any other document or the reasoning behind Trident Order #12's termination. The Navy spokesperson told Fox News Digital, "The Navy does not comment on ongoing litigation."

According to a filing from plaintiff attorney Heather Gebelin Hacker to a Fifth Circuit clerk, the legal team representing the SEALs only became aware of the recession of the order on Sept. 1, months after it was rolled back.

"To the best of counsel’s knowledge, Trident Order #12 was not replaced. As the Court will recall, Trident Order #12 stated that SEALs who are unvaccinated due to religious beliefs are medically disqualified, though SEALs who are unvaccinated due to medical reasons are not automatically disqualified. Trident Order #12 also implemented the COVID-19 vaccine mandate at the command level for Naval Special Warfare forces, setting a deadline of compliance for October 17, 2021," the SEALs' legal team wrote.


13 September, 2022

‘Irrefutable Proof’ That mRNA Vaccines Cause Vascular and Organ Damage: Study

A recent study claims to have found “irrefutable proof of causality” that the mRNA vaccines cause vascular and organ damage.

The study, conducted by microbiologists Dr. Michael Palmer and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, was mostly based on the findings of German pathologists Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Dr. Walter Lang.

Here is a summary of the findings:

mRNA vaccines don’t stay at the injection site; they instead travel throughout the body and accumulate in various organs.

mRNA-based COVID vaccines induce long-lasting expression of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in many organs.

Vaccine-induced expression of the spike protein induces autoimmune-like inflammation.

Vaccine-induced inflammation can cause grave organ damage, especially in vessels, sometimes with deadly outcomes.

“This study, by the type of dyes they use, shows irrefutable proof that the spike protein goes everywhere—heart, ovary, liver, spleen—and to a lesser extent, testes.” Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an expert in vaccine damage, told The Epoch Times.

“This is what leads to multi-organ system failure. This is what leads to infertility in women.”

“There has been a lot of hypothesis about the damage these shots cause. Now, with these pathology slides and the specific types of immunochemistry staining, Bhakti and Palmer show—unequivocally—that the spike protein is quickly disseminated to every organ they examined,” Tenpenny said.

“They are both pathologists; looking at slides of tissue under a microscope and appropriately staining tissue is what they are trained to do!” she added.

“Those of us who warned of the dangers of these COVID shots were widely censored and ridiculed,” Dr. Christiane Northrup, former fellow in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The Epoch Times.

“I wish we had been wrong. We weren’t. And we finally have irrefutable proof,” Northrup added.

According to toxicologist Janci Lindsay, Ph.D., who has been following the COVID vaccine story since its inception, the most valuable takeaway from this study is that it “corroborates” Markus Aldén et al.’s findings (in-vitro) that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine may be transcribed into cellular DNA—in an in-vivo system.

In-vitro, which means “in glass” in Latin, refers to when a test or process is done in a test tube or outside a living organism. In-vivo (within the living) means the studies are done in living organisms.

That the vaccine quickly distributes through the body was a finding present in Pfizer’s own animal experiments.

“The subject was deceased but the examination of their tissue showed that they were expressing the spike protein, nine months after the injection of the genetic vaccine,” Lindsay told The Epoch Times.

The only three possible ways that the abovementioned could happen, she explains, are when:

mod-mRNA is stable in the body for nine months.

The mRNA has been integrated into the genome, such as in the Aldén study.

The person was around somebody who was recently vaccinated and the mRNA was transmitted.

The Palmer and Bhakdi study says that the “limited experimental studies available (2015, 2018)” indicate that the injected modified mRNA should degrade “within days to a few weeks of the injection.”

But, “this is obviously difficult to square with the observed long-lasting expression; in some form or other, the genetic information appears to be perpetuated in-vivo,” the study states.

“Their findings of spike expression nine months out from [taking the vaccine] support either genomic integration of the mRNA coding the spike protein into the genome of the cells shown expressing it, or, that the synthetically modified messenger RNA is remaining stable within these cells months after it was supposed to be degraded,” Lindsay said.

“This constitutive expression of the spike protein would exhaust the immune system and/or eventually possibly make it non-responsive or tolerant to the spike protein, allowing for untold spike-mediated damage,” she added.


The methods used by Dr. Burkhardt are called histopathology and immunohistochemistry.

The technique is explained in the study: “If a vaccine particle—composed of the spike-encoding mRNA, coated with lipids—enters a body cell, this will cause the spike protein to be synthesized within the cell and then taken to the cell surface. There, it can be recognized by a spike-specific antibody.”

“After washing the tissue specimen to remove unbound antibody molecules, the bound ones can be detected with a secondary antibody that is coupled with some enzyme, often horseradish peroxidase,” it reads. “After another washing step, the specimen is incubated with a water-soluble precursor dye that is converted by the enzyme to an insoluble brown pigment. Each enzyme molecule can rapidly convert a large number of dye molecules, which greatly amplifies the signal.”

“Histo” comes from the Greek word for “web, tissue.”

“At the top right of the image, you can see two cells which were exposed to the Pfizer vaccine and then subjected to the protocol outlined above. The intense brown stain indicates that the cells were indeed producing the spike protein,” the study reads, referring to image 3.

“The idea that mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines can remain in our bodies in the long term is a common myth with no scientific basis,” the WHO fact-checking branch states.

“mRNA from vaccines is fragile and gets rapidly degraded by cellular machinery once it has delivered the genetic instructions. The spike protein generated by COVID-19 vaccines is thought to remain in the body for up to a few weeks, like other proteins made by the body,” they add.

Blood Vessel Inflammation

The second biggest discovery, Lindsay believes, would be the observation of endothelial damage—inflammation and denuded endothelial cells inside the blood vessels.

Endothelium is the tissue that lines the blood vessels and other organs, such as the heart.

“Spike protein disease is an endothelial disease—very key to myocarditis, etc.,” Dr. Tenpenny said.

Dr. Wade Hamilton, a cardiologist who has been punished by the medical establishment for giving an exemption to a COVID vaccine, commented on the study.

“The first 13 items in and of themselves are major reason for concern and halting the COVID shot use,” Hamilton told The Epoch Times.

“Item 14 (Aldén study), which concerns the possibility that the shot can alter the DNA of recipients and subsequently the DNA of their offspring, is of great concern,” Hamilton said.

“The paper I have sent (comment on Aldén et al.) raises unanswered questions, the three easiest to understand are:

The dose of mRNA used in this study is higher than mRNA in the COVID shot.

The Alden study is in-vitro (not in-vivo) and the normal human immune and chemical protections are not present.

The liver cells used in the experiment are liver cancer cells and their response to reverse transcriptase may not be typical.

“It is possible as queried in the comment on Aldén et al. paper, that persistent pieces of DNA or mRNA in people with COVID lead to persistent circulating spike protein as a cause of long COVID. Furthermore, the same symptoms could be produced via an analogous mechanism by the COVID shot as well,” he added.

Burkhardt and Lang

The Palmer and Bhakdi paper says that Burkhardt and Lang studied many cases of people who died months or days after getting the COVID vaccine.

In all of these cases, the cause of death was documented as “natural” or “unknown.”

Some members of the families of those deceased had doubts about the verdicts of their causes of death and wanted to double-check.

According to the study, Burkhardt found “the majority of these deaths to be due to vaccination.”


Covid-19 Is Still Killing Hundreds of Americans Daily

Mark Pfundheller promptly got his first two Covid-19 shots and a booster, his family said, knowing the disease was a threat related to treatment for an inflammatory disorder that compromised his immune system.

The 66-year-old former aviation consultant for Wisconsin’s Transportation Department caught the virus in April at a family wedding near his home in southern Wisconsin, where many guests were infected. Mr. Pfundheller died in a Madison, Wis., hospital on July 2 after an illness including time on a ventilator.

His was one of nearly 200,000 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. this year, according to death-certificate data. While the virus has become less risky for many thanks in part to immunity from vaccines and prior infections, it is still killing hundreds each day. Most are older people, and many have underlying health conditions and compromised immune systems, doctors said.

“I don’t think people realize that this is still a big deal,” Mr. Pfundheller’s daughter Jamie Pfundheller said.

The U.S. has recently averaged about 320 new Covid-19 deaths each day, and the average was above 400 before the Labor Day holiday weekend, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. The rate is far below pandemic peaks, including levels above 2,500 a day during the Omicron wave early this year. But the country hasn’t matched lows closer to 200 a day reached during a lull last year.

Roughly 85% of people who died from Covid-19 through mid-August this summer were 65 or older, a Wall Street Journal analysis of death-certificate data show. The rate is similar to 2020 peaks, before vaccines were available. Deaths trended younger for much of last year.

Covid-19 is on pace to be the third-leading cause of death for the third straight year, said Dr. Robert Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. Since 2020, it has trailed only heart disease and cancer, significantly reducing life expectancy.


September 12, 2022

‘Unethical’ and up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease: Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines

A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.

This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.

The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Heath Care”; and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.

But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current Director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.

Risking Disenrollment

As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada, and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled. Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.

These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines. But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.

Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors. These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.

5 Ethical Arguments Against Mandated Boosters
Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.

While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.

At the same time, public health authorities in Canada are suggesting Canadians will need COVID-19 vaccines every 90 days.

Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical. They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:

1) Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.

2) Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.

3) Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work—the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness”—the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.

4) No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.

5) Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”

The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities, and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things. These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income, and fear of being deported, to name just a few.

22,000 to 30,000 Previously Unaffected Young Adults Must be Vaccinated to Prevent Just 1 Hospitalization
The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.

However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”

In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.

Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good
But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.

These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.

At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.

“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”

“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”

This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.

These measures are necessary, the authors argued, to “begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.”

May the Force Be With Brave Scientists

The two co-first authors, Dr. Kevin Bardosh and Dr. Allison Krug, both thanked their families for supporting them to “publicly debate Covid-19 vaccine mandates” in the acknowledgments section of the paper.

As we wrote in May, an increasing number of scientists and medical doctors are speaking out about the dubious efficacy and disturbing safety issues surrounding theses fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines. They do so fully aware of the personal and professional risks involved. They deserve our encouragement and support.


New Zealand Scraps Nearly All COVID-19 Restrictions, Including Mask and Vaccination Mandates

New Zealand will be retiring its COVID-19 traffic light system and significantly scaling down COVID restrictions from Sept. 13 so Kiwis could “move forward with certainty,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced.

“It’s time to safely turn the page on our COVID-19 management and live without the extraordinary measures we have previously used,” Ardern said, calling it a “milestone.”

With the abolishment of the traffic light COVID protection framework, mask mandates will be lifted in all areas except in healthcare and aged care settings.

Household contacts will no longer need to isolate, while people tested positive to COVID-19 will continue to be required to isolate for seven days.

All government vaccine mandates will end on Sept. 26, and all vaccination requirements for incoming travellers and aircrew will also be removed.

After restrictions are lifted, it will be up to the employer’s discretion whether they will require workers to wear masks or get vaccinated for COVID-19.

“In short, we now move on to a simple two requirements system of masks in healthcare settings and seven days isolation for positive cases only,” Ardern said.

The COVID-19 protection framework, or traffic light system, set out the rules for different traffic light settings, where red was the highest alert setting, and green meant no restrictions. At the time of removal, New Zealand was at orange.

The government also confirmed that COVID leave payments will continue.

COVID-19 Minister Ayesha Verrall also announced the purchase of an additional 40,000 anti-viral medicine courses, expected to arrive in New Zealand within days.

“So now, anyone over the age of 65, and Maori and Pacific people over the age of 50, or anyone who meets Pharmac requirements, can access the treatment in the early stages of contracting the virus.

“This means more than double the number of New Zealanders will be able to access these medicines if they need them than previously,” Verrall said.

Decision Welcomed Across the Board

Retail NZ welcomed the move to return New Zealand to a “sense of normality.”

“After over two years of being at the forefront of COVID-19 rules, alert level changes, low foot traffic, and nonsensical mask rules, retailers across New Zealand will be pleased with today’s revised approach,” Retail NZ Chief Executive Greg Harford said.

“The revision today largely brings New Zealand in line with most of the rest of the world.”

But Harford encouraged the government to further revise the isolation period down to between three to five days.

ACT party agreed with the idea, with ACT Leader David Seymour noting that New Zealand had among the strictest isolation rules in the world.

“Keeping people locked in their houses longer than is necessary imposes real costs to them and the economy without improving our COVID-19 response,” he said.

“New Zealand is holding on to a long COVID hangover. It turns out an ‘abundance of caution’ is an abundance of cost for New Zealanders.”


11 September, 2022

‘Metal-Like Objects’ Found in 94 Percent of Group Who Had Symptoms After Taking mRNA Vaccines: Study

Three Italian surgeons conducted a study analyzing blood from 1,006 people who developed symptoms after they got a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna mRNA injection and found 94 percent of them to have “aggregation of erythrocytes and the presence of particles of various shapes and sizes of unclear origin,” one month after inoculation.

Erythrocytes are a type of red blood cell that carries oxygen and carbon dioxide.

“What seems plain enough is that metallic particles resembling graphene oxide and possibly other metallic compounds … have been included in the cocktail of whatever the manufacturers have seen fit to put in the so-called mRNA ‘vaccines,'” the authors wrote in the study’s discussion and conclusions.

Franco Giovannini, Riccardo Benzi Cipelli, and Gianpaolo Pisano, are the surgeons who authored the study, which was published on Aug. 12 in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, practice, and Research (IJVTPR).

They said their results are very similar to the findings of Korean doctors Young Mi Lee, Sunyoung Park, and Ki-Yeob Jeon, titled “Foreign Materials in Blood Samples of Recipients of COVID-19 Vaccines,” but that their 1,006 subjects represent “a much larger sample.”

“It could be claimed that, except for our innovative application of dark-field microscopy to mark the foreign metal-like objects in the blood of mRNA injections from Pfizer or Moderna, we have replicated the blood work of the Korean doctors with a much larger sample,” the Italian surgeons wrote.

“Our findings, however, are bolstered by their parallel analysis of the fluids in vials of the mRNA concoctions alongside centrifuged plasma samples from the cases they studied intensively,” they added.

Further studies are needed to define the exact nature of the particles found in the blood and to identify possible solutions to the problems they are evidently causing.

Out of the 1,006 cases, only 58 people showed a completely normal hematological picture via microscopic analysis.

The researchers cited numerous studies to back up their findings, including the “well-known” tendency of fibrin to cluster, vascular toxicity of the spike protein, and other adverse effects.

They picked four cases and analyzed their pre and post-vaccination health status, while showing dark field microscopic images.

“We assert unequivocally that the 4 cases described in this series are representative of the 948 cases in which extraordinarily anomalous structures and substances were found,” the researchers wrote.

“In conclusion, such abrupt changes as we have documented in the peripheral blood profile of 948 patients have never been observed after inoculation by any vaccines in the past according to our clinical experience. The sudden transition, usually at the time of a second mRNA injection, from a state of perfect normalcy to a pathological one, with accompanying hemolysis, visible packing and stacking of red blood cells in conjunction with the formation of gigantic conglomerate foreign structures, some of them appearing as graphene-family super-structures, is unprecedented. Such phenomena have never been seen before after any ‘vaccination’ of the past,” the researchers stated.

“In our experience as clinicians, these mRNA injections are very unlike traditional ‘vaccines’ and their manufacturers need, in our opinions, to come clean about what is in the injections and why it is there.”

“In our collective experience, and in our shared professional opinion, the large quantity of particles in the blood of mRNA injection recipients is incompatible with normal blood flow especially at the level of the capillaries,” the authors wrote. “As far as we know, such self-aggregation phenomena have only been documented after the COVID-19 mRNA injections were first authorized, then, mandated in some countries.”


Sherri Tenpenny, who has been ahead of the curve in vaccine adverse reactions, believes that these structures could be related to the strange clots embalmers have been finding in the corpses they treat since around the pandemic.

“Whatever is actually found to be in the shots, whether the components are graphene, aluminum, crystalline amyloid, disintegrated fibrin, highly charged nanotech particles, or something else, the disruption in the blood demonstrated on these slides is devastating and irrefutable, as are the corresponding histories of the patients involved,” Tenpenny told The Epoch Times.

“The rouleaux formations seen, for example, in figures 8, 16, and 22, represent widespread ‘sticky red blood cells’ which can lead to clots anywhere in the body. Figure 22 is especially frightening as this sample was taken only two days after the second Moderna jab,” she added.

James Thorp, who has been analyzing the adverse effects of COVID vaccines, thinks that this study could answer some questions about the contents in the vaccines, he shared some of his findings and theories with The Epoch Times.

“Graphene oxide is an artificial, highly magnetic substance with widespread utilization. … While first discovered in 1859, graphene oxide has extensive commercial application, especially in the field of pharmacologic nanotech delivery systems in medicine. It has the potential of self-assembly within the blood by a variety of potential energetic mechanisms,” Thorp told The Epoch Times.

But Thorp thinks that the phenomenon involving metallic objects sticking to people’s bodies, apparently magnetically, is not related to the vaccines, as some have claimed.

“Last year many social media posts alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine contained substances that caused attraction to magnets and non-magnetized metals. We conclusively demonstrated that this was a false narrative. The neodymium magnets and non-magnetized paperclips attached to the human body in about 50 percent of testing subjects unrelated to the COVID-19 vaccines,” Thorp said.

“Interestingly no other medical study could be found in the medical literature that describes human magnetism prior to this manuscript. Magnets and paperclips have been around for centuries, and it would be quite peculiar had they stuck to the human body in the past and not be the focus of intense scrutiny and investigation. One might speculate that graphene oxide in our bodies was not present 30 years ago but slowly accumulated over decades of exposure resulting in attachment of magnets and paperclips to the human body. It is speculated the electromagnetic energy possibly even from cell towers and/or WIFI could stimulate the assembly of graphene oxide and interfere with the body’s own energetics fields,” he went on.

Potential Explanation of Abnormal Assemblies

Thorp is also of the opinion that the metallic-like objects could be the cause of the strange clots that embalmers have been finding.

“The basis of most illnesses, including COVID-19, and the basis of the COVID-19 vaccine complications are directly related to energy deficiencies. The vaccine causes disruption and diversion of energy away from the water, molecular and cellular levels, away from basic physiologic processes and toward the pathologic production of spike protein. This potentially explains many of the abnormal assembly of substances within the intravascular space including the substances noted by Cipelli et al. as well as the misfolded proteins resulting in blood clots, prion disease, Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, amyloidosis, and countless other diseases,” Thorp said.

Felipe Reitz, a biologist from Brazil, also did peripheral live blood analysis on vaccinated vs unvaccinated people’s blood using computerized thermographic imaging.

“I have observed that vaccinated individuals present some particular changes in their blood and in their peripheral circulation with more frequency than non-vaccinated,” Reitz told The Epoch Times.

“I am observing individuals with one jab, two jabs, three jabs, and four jabs. Individuals that were vaccinated 18 months ago, 12 months ago, and 6 months ago. This probability permutation is very important to determine the number of injections per time as I noticed it determines the degree of severity of reaction in the person’s body. That could explain why some researchers using the same tools and techniques are differing in their results. That is because they are not considering the individuality here, time of exposure, and jab content. All these variables only create difficulties for the scientific community to reach a consensus although we are all correct in what we are finding, but our findings alone do not represent the total truth,” Reitz said.

“My comparison is based on signs of compromised immune system, indications of radiation exposure, blood electrostatic changes, size and number of platelets, fibrins, infections, chemicals and crystallization structures in the blood samples, and indications of graphene.”

Official Statements

Pfizer told Reuters in July of 2021 that their COVID vaccines do not contain graphene oxide. “Graphene oxide is not used in the manufacture of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” Pfizer’s senior associate of Global Media Relations told the outlet.

James Smith, the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Thomson Reuters is a board member of Pfizer.

According to a fact sheet issued by the FDA, the Moderna vaccine does not contain graphene oxide.

Moderna and Pfizer did not respond to requests for comment.

Update: The headline has been revised to include important context. It was only symptomatic people who were vaccinated that developed the symptoms.


See the SHOCKING NEW Treatment for COVID

The NIH is setting Americans up. So now they are discussing Ivermectin as a potential treatment of COVID.

Before we get to this, understand that I predicted the Left would back away from COVID like it never happened. They recommended masking, as manufacturers posted warnings directly on their products stating: will not stop airborne diseases.

Next, they recommended lockdowns, business closures, and so on. Still people got COVID and overwhelmingly survived.

So what? With so much money to be made during the scam, the Fed plowed on.

Despite massive evidence of the effectiveness of HCL and ivermectin, Fauci the fraud and others pushed vaccines. These snake oil salesmen manipulated data to bolster their diabolical plot, and many people needlessly died. That’s how history will remember this saga.

And now, the National Institute of Health begins backing away from the lies against the use of Ivermectin.
From the NIH website:

Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process.3,4 Viruses hijack the process and enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response. In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein attachment to the human cell membrane.5 Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.6-8

Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.9 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.10,11 Although ivermectin appears to accumulate in lung tissue, predicted systemic plasma and lung tissue concentrations are much lower than 2 µM, the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) observed in vitro for ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2.12-15 Subcutaneous administration of ivermectin 400 µg/kg had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in hamsters.16 However, there was a reduction in olfactory deficit (measured using a food-finding test) and a reduction in the interleukin (IL)-6:IL-10 ratio in lung tissues.
While this isn’t the NIH admitting that Ivermectin works, it’s as close as a bureaucracy gets to a confession.

Here’s another little Ivermectin secret. It’s also being used to treat cancer, and there are people in complete remission, thanks to this wonder drug. As research proves, Ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2. That’s clear. The disclaimer afterward is a mere “CYA” statement by the bureaucrats who were paid to lie to the American public for the better part of three years.

So what Ivermectin worked. The “clinical trials” were performed by people actually TAKING IVERMECTIN. But the Leftist medical “experts” ridiculed Ivermectin, calling it a “horse tranquilizer”, and accusing those taking the anti-viral of being idiots.

$6 trillion later, and now the NIH cites studies that indicate what many of us knew.


9 September, 2022


That was my immediate and proper response when I was told that Her Majesty the Queen had died. Britain is never without a monarch. When one passes the successor is immediately known and recognized.

Like untold millions worldwide I was upset to hear of her death and shed a tear over it. Australia is a monarchy and I think you have to be a citizen of a monarchy to understand the emotional significance of that.

I also shed a tear when the previous monarch died. I was only nine when King George VI died but even then I felt the significance of the occasion.

Aside from Britain itself there are two other great monarchies where the Queen will be widely mourned: Australia and Canada. Each occupies around 3 million square miles of territory and their collective populations exceed that of all European countries except Russia and Germany. Our courageous English forebears in their little wooden ships did an amazing job of spreading their civilization far and wide across the globe.

I have family members presently living in both Scotland and New Zealand -- two countries that are about as oppositely located on the face of the earth as you can get. Yet both speak every day the English language that they learnt in their Australian childhoods. And they are perfectly understood in both locations. Such is the miracle that our English forebears created.

There were a few uncomprehending people who spoke ill of the Queen after hearing of her death. I wonder how many people will shed a tear over their deaths? If they were wise they might reflect on that

The Queen's loyal public are gathering outside Balmoral Castle, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace as they pay emotional tributes to the Monarch who has died today aged 96.

Thousands of well-wishers flocked to Buckingham Palace this evening as news broke of the Queen's death.

Tourists and concerned Britons headed to the iconic London landmark, while people also congregated outside the royal castle in Aberdeenshire to mourn for Her Majesty.

Her son Charles, the former Prince of Wales, is now King. The Queen's children and grandchildren travelled to be with her this afternoon after doctors said they were 'concerned' for her health.

Around 100,000 people are expecting to line the streets outside Buckingham Palace this evening. Already crowds now stretch for more than a mile to Trafalgar Square.

At 6.30pm a Union flag atop Buckingham Palace lowered. It drew gasps from the crowd who knew what the symbolic gesture meant.

The sad news of Queen Elizabeth II death was then announced officially. Some people in the crowd wept as others gave an impromptu rendition of God Save The Queen.

Two members of the Queens household emerged and placed a notice of the Queen’s passing on the gates of Buckingham Palace.

The crowd surged to the gates as the notice announcing the death of the only monarch most Britons have ever known was attached to the black iron gates.


Do you REALLY need another Covid jab? Experts give their verdicts as a major new booster campaign begins - but AstraZeneca's boss says a fourth jab ISN'T necessary

Covid is still officially a pandemic, but many experts would now describe it as endemic (something that’s constantly present in the population).

More than 24,000 people in England tested positive for the virus in the last week of August, but thousands more are likely to have it as many people don’t have symptoms.

While this is much lower than its peak (there were almost 235,000 cases a day on January 4 this year), cases are expected to rise in the coming months as we spend more time indoors. (The virus is mainly spread in close proximity, in tiny droplets when we speak.)

Around half the population — 33.5 million — has now had three doses of Covid vaccine (the two-part initial course, plus a booster), while 42.6 million have had only two doses.

‘For many, Covid is now a relatively mild respiratory disease,’ says Andrew Preston, a professor of microbial pathogenesis at the University of Bath. ‘That’s largely due to most of us being able to mount a robust immune response to the virus, having now been vaccinated, infected or both.

‘Protection against SARS-CoV-2 [which causes Covid] is associated with high levels of antibodies. These levels are greatly boosted by vaccination, but they drop over time, meaning we can become susceptible to infection once the levels drop.’

But I’ve already had the other three jabs?

Professor Preston says: ‘As many people have experienced, three jabs haven’t prevented infection with one of the Omicron strains, but they have kept it to a generally tolerable mild infection.

‘The problem is that we don’t know how long that protection will last, particularly if new variants arise.

‘Vaccines stimulate greater magnitude immune responses than even natural infection, so provide greater levels of protection. Boosters reduce your chances of suffering from any type of disease, at least for a while.

‘And the more people who are protected, the less Covid will circulate. The theory is that this reduces the risk of new strains developing.

‘Boosters are also important for those who’ve never tested positive for Covid. Given the levels of infection over the past year, if you’ve never had Covid, then it’s very likely down to the protection you’ve got from vaccination.’

But others have questioned the benefits of the booster campaign. Last month, Pascal Soriot, chief executive of AstraZeneca, said boosting healthy people again was not ‘good use of money’ as vaccines protect healthy people for a ‘long time’. (AstraZeneca’s jab will not be used in the campaign.)

Will Irving, a professor of virology at Nottingham University, told Good Health: ‘Many people have now had three doses of vaccine, as well as two or three bouts of real infection, and you would imagine that would provide them with enough immune memory to protect them for a while.

‘The issue is we don’t know how long the immune memory lasts, so a top-up dose is a good idea for those advised to have one.’

So am I eligible for the new jab?

Around 26 million people in England are eligible. They are: adults aged 50 and over; those aged five to 49 with underlying health problems such as auto- immune conditions that put them at risk; those aged 16 to 49 who are carers or who live with someone who is immuno-suppressed; pregnant women; care home residents; care home workers; social care workers and frontline health workers.These people can have a booster jab three months or more after their last Covid vaccination.

Healthy children and adults under the age of 50 ‘continue to have good protection from their first two vaccinations and their first booster jab,’ says the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

Which vaccines are being used for the booster?

The jabs will be one of the mRNA vaccines: the new bivalent version of the Moderna (Spikevax) and Pfizer jabs, which protect against two strains of Covid, the Delta variant and Omicron; the original single-strain Moderna jab (Spikevax); and the Pfizer vaccine (Comirnaty).

The Novavax (Nuvaxovid) jab, which works differently, will be offered to those for whom the mRNA vaccine is unsuitable.

‘These mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine which deliver the genetic code for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein directly into our cells,’ explains Professor Preston. The spike protein binds the virus to our cells to start infection.

‘The natural protein-making machinery in the cell interprets this [spike protein] code, produces the spike protein and presents it to our immune cells to stimulate the immune response, which will help your body fight off Covid if you come into contact with the virus.’

In very rare circumstances, such as a severe allergy, none of the approved mRNA vaccines will be suitable, says the UKHSA. In these circumstances, the Nuvaxovid vaccine should be offered. For some, such as many immunosuppressed people, vaccination is not possible at all.

Last month, the Government decided not to buy Evusheld, a potentially life-saving treatment for the 500,000 high-risk patients who are not able to have a vaccine because they have weakened immune systems. Evusheld, which costs Ł1,500 per person a year, is taken as a preventative treatment. Data from Israel shows immunocompromised people who get it are half as likely to become infected with Covid and 92 per cent less likely to be hospitalised and/or die.

Why aren’t we getting the AstraZeneca vaccine?

‘The concern over the very rare clotting disorders observed with the AstraZeneca jab led to the decision to use the Moderna/Pfizer RNA vaccines for boosters,’ Professor Preston says.

The UKHSA points to evidence from a trial of seven different vaccines given as a third dose by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, which found mRNA vaccines were ‘the most effective’.

How good is the new vaccine?

Vaccines are very effective at preventing people from dying or becoming seriously ill with Covid; a booster of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines is still more than 85 per cent effective at preventing death three months after being administered, and around 60 per cent effective at preventing hospitalisation.

However, this wanes and by six months, protection against symptomatic infection drops to zero. How long booster protection lasts is as yet unclear.

Last month, Dame Kate Bingham, the architect of Britain’s successful vaccination campaign, accused civil servants of ‘taking their foot off the gas’ in finding new jabs. She said the current jabs are ‘not good enough’ because they ‘don’t block transmission, they don’t protect for very long’.

She is concerned that the Government drive to find new vaccines has fallen away.

Scientists are working on new Covid vaccines, the ultimate goal being a universal version that protects against all variants.




8 September, 2022

How Anti-White Hate Won Open Acceptance among America's Leftist elite

The hate described below is certainly horrible and alarming and sounds quite deranged. It is undoubtedly designed to make most of the population uncomfortable. And that is the clue to it. That is its aim. That is what underlies it. Leftists WANT to make contented people unhappy. To them, contented people are "complacent" and they hate that and want to upset it

Probably the oldest manifestation of Leftism is envy. And envy is destructive and generates hate. The Ten Commandments rightly ordered against it. The haters/enviers decribed below have undoubtedly seen what they regard as complacency among many members of the white population. Large numbers of whites have the audacity to be reasonably happy with their lives. And a Leftist misery-guts hates that.

Even if the Leftist is himself well-off he cannot stand other people doing well for themselves. Tearing down the rich has always been what Leftism is about -- lifting up the poor is just a facade.

Although I am a libertarian conservative, I have some instinctive understanding of that. When I see a tall, well-built young man with blue eyes wearing a private-school blazer, I am conscious that he will probably not have to try hard to have an easy path to and through the best things in life. He is obviously the product of a family that cares enough about him and is economically successful enough to spend a lot of money in giving him a good and pleasant school experience. And that is a great start.

And he will only faintly be aware of the extent of his privilege. He will stroll though life with effortless ease and confidence. Most people will be nice to him and he will be casually nice back.

And that is all in some sense unfair and is felt as unfair and in need of a remedy. Why should one person have so much when others have very little? Should he not be taken down a peg or two?

And society does do a lot to equalize things. He will pay a lot of taxes that other people will live on. But is that enough?

In thinking about that I think of my own son. He is 6' tall, blue-eyed and well built. I sent him to a private school and he later acquired a first class honours degree in mathematics from a highly regarded university. And he has a father who is a distinguished academic and a mother who is very sociable. And he has inherited advantages from both sides.

So he is one of those privileged people that Leftists love to hate. But he has had difficult personal issues that left him unhappy for quite a while. He was betrayed by his flexibility and tendency to trust. He has got past his dark period now but it set him back a lot in various ways.

So we should not assume much about anyone. Even privilege is not an automatic path to happiness and fulfilment. It may even be a hindrance. Well-off men can be targeted by "gold diggers" for instance. And "affirmative action" is deliberately rigged against them.

The plain truth is that the path to happiness is much more influenced by personal relationships than anything else. People both rich and poor can find lasting love in their lives and it is they who are the lucky ones. But that is too deep for Leftists. In their usual way, they just see superficialities

So the hate described below can be understood but no remedy for it is obvious. One can only hope that normal people will eventually kick back against it in some way

In a 2021 lecture at Yale University titled “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” psychiatrist Aruna Khilanani described her “fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a favor.”

Around the same time, a scholarly article in a peer-reviewed academic journal described “whiteness” as “a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility.” The author, Donald Moss, had also presented his paper as a continuing education course for licensed therapists who would presumably treat patients with this condition. The paper advises: “There is not yet a permanent cure.”

This is a sampling of the new racism that is gaining purchase in American society even as its advocates relentlessly punish speech they deem harmful and threatening to people of color. It parallels the acceptance of anti-male rhetoric that casts masculinity as “predatory” and “toxic,” or just casually demeans males as oafish and clueless, which allows the Washington Post to give a megaphone to Northeastern University professor Suzanna Danuta Walters to ask: “Why can’t we hate men?” (Her conclusion: We can and we should.)

The escalation of this inflammatory rhetoric is reaching the highest levels of American society, as when President Biden insinuated in a fiery campaign speech last week that Donald Trump supporters are “white supremacists” and when he maligned conservative mask skeptics last year for “Neanderthal thinking."

What strikes a casual observer is that such language would be instantly denounced if it targeted racial minorities or other protected groups. Just as remarkable is that this new rhetoric is not coming from dropouts and loners at society’s margins; it is being advanced by successful professionals who have scaled the heights of respectability and are given a platform on social media and in prestigious cultural outlets.

And though each of those examples generated a public furor, such inflammatory rhetoric is defended or downplayed by cultural gatekeepers. The incidents have been piling up especially in the past few years, especially since the election of Donald Trump to the White House during the ascent of Black Lives Matter in the age of social media, and even include cases of people calling for the hate of privileged groups and insisting it’s not hate speech.

In its ultimate sign of success, this messaging has taken hold in public schools, corporate workplaces, medical journals, scientific research and even diversity training in federal agencies. It’s not limited to any single race but endorsed by whites, blacks, Asians and others, and disseminated in diversity materials and workplace-recommended readings that characterize white people as flawed, predatory and dangerous to society. Its sudden spread has caused a sense of culture shock and given rise to acrimonious school board meetings and employee lawsuits over hostile work environments as legions of teachers, students and workers have been educated about white privilege, white fragility, white complicity, and the moral imperative to de-center “whiteness” so as not to “normalize white domination.”

This new take on speech produces a moral paradox, particularly among academics and journalists: Those who are most militant about policing what they deem to be hate speech against minorities, women, gays and trans communities are often the most tolerant of demeaning depictions, incendiary rhetoric and violent imagery against whites and men.

To those who see a double standard, such routine disparagement of masculinity and whiteness is a case study in hypocrisy that upends longstanding norms against stereotyping entire social groups. It’s a manifestation of what Columbia University linguist and social commentator John McWhorter dubbed “woke racism” in a 2021 book of the same name that warns of the dangerous spread of “the kinds of language, policies, and actions that Orwell wrote of as fiction.”

But its advocates insist there is no double standard; they argue they are simply speaking truth to power, which should cause discomfort. In this belief system, reverse discrimination can’t exist because social justice demands tipping the scales to favor marginalized groups to correct for centuries of injustice.

They include Rutgers University historian James Livingston who, in a Facebook critique of gentrification, described a Harlem burger joint as being “overrun with little Caucasian assholes who know their parents will approve of anything they do. Slide around the floor, you little shithead, sing loudly you unlikely moron. Do what you want, nobody here is gonna restrict your right to be white.”

The post concluded: “I hereby resign from my race. Fuck these people. Yeah, I know, it’s about access to my dinner. Fuck you, too.”

In a phone call, Livingston, who is white, said his Facebook post was a joke targeted at white people who are privileged and therefore require less protection than marginalized groups.

“White males have been the norm of our culture and our politics and our society and our economy for so long that unearthing the unstated assumptions that go into that is pretty hard work, and it reveals things that make us uncomfortable,” Livingston said. “So do they need to be protected? I suppose. Everybody needs some protection. But I’m not too worried about people telling me that I have no right to speak on the issue of transgender individuals.”

Although Livingston was initially found in violation of Rutgers’ discrimination and harassment policy, Rutgers later reversed its decision, accepting his claim that his Facebook post was satire protected by academic freedom.

Festering for Decades

It can seem that such putdowns and trash talk have burst out of nowhere in the last few years. But the underlying justifications have been percolating for decades, and they are seen by skeptics as a modern repackaging of ancient us-versus-them tribal reflexes. Telltale signs of role-reversal have been described by serious thinkers, such as 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote that “He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself.”

More recently, author Douglas Murray has warned of the tendency for social justice movements to “behave – in victory – as its opponents once did” – which is to say: meanly – and which ultimately results in “the normalization of vengefulness.”

The idea that stereotyping and denigrating entire groups has no place in a society that strives for equality is one of the signature achievements of the Civil Rights era. By the 1970s, openly expressing racist slurs and jokes against black people was seen as a distasteful holdover from the Jim Crow era, an Archie Bunker-ism signifying low education and low intelligence.

The prohibition against racist speech rapidly became generalized to all identity groups. Ethnic slurs against Poles, Italians, Asians, and others became verboten as did mockery of gays and the disabled. Many words once commonly used to describe women, such as “dame” and “broad” became unacceptable, while terms that were once seen as neutral or descriptive, such as “colored,” “Oriental,” and “Negro,” suddenly took on negative connotations, and became unutterable in public (creating a replacement term, “people of color”).

But at the same time that these language taboos against expressing prejudice were becoming widely accepted across the political spectrum as a matter of civility, a far-more radical effort to regulate speech was percolating on the left.

This movement sought to limit speech on the rationale that language was a form of social control and therefore the source of oppression and violence. The assumption that hurtful language leads to harmful policies ultimately produced today’s cancel culture phenomenon, where otherwise well-regarded professionals are investigated, suspended, canned, or booted from social media for simply questioning the factual claims of Black Lives Matter, for affirming biological sex differences, for satirizing ritual land acknowledgements, and even for publicly saying the Mandarin word “nei-ge” (because it supposedly resembles a racial epithet in English).

The core proposition of this mindset can be traced to philosophers like Michel Foucault, who developed theories of language as a form of societal power and domination, and Herbert Marcuse, the Marxist scholar whose now-classic 1960s essay, “Repressive Tolerance,” argues that the oppressor class and the oppressed cannot be held to the same standard. Marcuse proposed that the classical liberal doctrine of free speech is a mechanism that benefits capitalists and others who wield power, that the struggle for “a real democracy” paradoxically necessitates “the fight against an ideology of tolerance.”

The subversive intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s passed on the torch to Critical Race Theorists and radical feminists, and in the 1990s the critique of bourgeoisie liberalism was taken up by Stanley Fish, a post-modernist literary critic and critical legal scholar who ridiculed the idea of “free speech” and “reverse racism,” giving wider exposure to these esoteric scholarly arguments.

“By insisting that from now on there shall be no discrimination, they leave in place the effects of the discrimination that had been practiced for generations,” Fish wrote. “What is usually meant by perfect neutrality is a policy that leaves in place the effects of the discrimination you now officially repudiate. Neutrality thus perpetuates discrimination, rather than reversing it, for you can only fight discrimination with discrimination.”

During the Obama era, Fish was a celebrity public intellectual publishing pieces in the New York Times titled “Two Cheers for Double Standards” and “The Harm in Free Speech.”

Thus it came to be accepted that creating a just society will require controlling speech to disempower the historically privileged and empower aggrieved groups, and to undo sex, gender, and racial disparities in society.

More here:


7 September, 2022

Inflammatory mRNA Nanoparticles Inhibit and Alter Immune Response: Pre-Print Study

A recent preprint study has shed light on why adverse events have been observed following a COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination.

The study, led by researchers from Thomas Jefferson University, found that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used to transport mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines could “inhibit” and “alter” immune responses in mice.

LNPs are shells of lipids that envelope mRNA to prevent degradation and detection by our body’s immune system.

LNPs are not mRNA, simply an envelope to transport the mRNA cargo.

Both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines use LNPs to deliver mRNA spike protein sequences into human cells. Once human cells received the mRNA sequences, the cells will then manufacture spike proteins, triggering an immune response.

It was originally intended that the LNPs discreetly deliver mRNA sequences into the cells to produce spike proteins, and in doing so, form immunity against the COVID-19 virus.

However, many studies in mice have since found that the LNPs, claimed to be non-toxic and safe, are actually highly inflammatory.

These nanoparticles are highly durable and can last for 20 to 30 days in the body. While they persist in the body, it is likely they will continue to activate the immune system, leading to immune exhaustion and non-responsiveness.

The Thomas Jefferson study also shared similar findings. The researchers investigated how LNPs affect the immune system by injecting mice with the same LNPs used in Pfizer’s vaccines, and some mice were even double-dosed.

Inflammation and immune responses in mice are not sure signs that the same will happen in humans. Nonetheless, mice have long been used to test for safety and efficacy in drugs for human use; signs of immune problems are an indication of possible health risks in humans.

The authors found that mice that received two doses had a reduced immune response on their second injection as compared to mice that only received one dose.

“The mRNA-LNP (nanoparticle) vaccine platform induces long-term unexpected immunological changes affecting both adaptive immune responses and heterologous protection against infections,” the authors wrote.

Pre-Exposure to mRNA Nanoparticles Reduce Innate Cell Numbers
Mice that were injected with two doses of LNPs had a reduced number of innate immune cells, the first-responder immune cells.

The authors wanted to find how the LNPs, the shell that wraps around mRNA, affected mice by injecting them with different variations LNPs.

The mice were split into three groups, all three groups received two injections, albeit with different contents.

For the first injection, most mice were given an injection of LNP. Half were given LNPs containing mRNA sequences and another half were given empty LNPs with no mRNA inside.

The remaining mice were given an injection of salted water. These mice are used as the baseline for comparison as salted water injections are not supposed to introduce any changes to the body.

Two weeks later, all three groups were given the same LNP injection containing mRNA sequences for an influenza protein (HA). The second injection allowed their cells to make HA proteins, which triggered an immune response. It was intended that this immune response would then make the mice immune against the influenza virus.

The three groups of mice and what they were vaccinated against. The first group was given saline for the first shot, the second group was given a mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccination against a jellyfish protein, the third group was vaccinated with an empty mRNA LNP.

All three groups were given a vaccination of influenza HA protein sequenced in mRNA and packaged in mRNA LNPs. Modified figure of “Pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNPs significantly inhibits subsequent adaptive immune responses induced by the mRNA-LNP vaccine"

The researchers found that following the second injection, all mice had developed immune defense against the influenza virus.

The authors observed mice that were given two doses of LNPs were more resistant to an influenza infection as they lost less weight. Oddly enough, these same mice also had a lower immune response to the flu vaccine with fewer immune cells activated.

The authors speculated that their “resistance” is likely not from strengthened immunity, but a product from an alternative pathway triggered by LNPs. It is unknown if this “resistance” will apply to other infections and may only be applicable to influenza.

This is because the study found that mice that were more “resistant” to the flu were actually more susceptible to fungal infections.

The researchers infected mice with Candida albicans, the mice that received two doses lost more weight and had poorer control over the infection, indicating an alteration in the innate immune response.

Further investigations showed that these mice had a lower number of neutrophils, which are the most common first responder immune cells.

The job of neutrophils is to patrol the body and attack indiscriminately when encountering something foreign, therefore a reduced number of neutrophils put an individual at a greater risk of infection.

Since an uncontrolled fungal infection, particularly C. albicans, is often a sign of weakened innate or first responder immune response, the authors therefore suspected that reduced neutrophil numbers may have contributed to the fungal outbreak.

LNPs cause inflammation, and certain inflammatory pathways reduce the production of blood cells. The authors speculated that the two doses of LNPs some mice received may have caused greater inflammation leading to a decline in blood cell production and low neutrophil counts.

Though this is speculation and it is uncertain if the effects in mice would apply to humans, there have been reports in vaccinated individuals of the sudden onset of severe aplastic anemia, a condition where the body can no longer make enough blood cells, particularly red blood cells.

There have also been some reports of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals developing rare fungal diseases and others with worsening of pre-existing fungal diseases.

Though serious fungal disease does not automatically mean a weak immune system, nonetheless, serious fungal infections “are most common among people with weak immune systems,” writes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Antigen Numbers Reduced in Mice with High Nanoparticle Exposure

Within the immune system, there are the first responder (innate immune cells) and the second responders (adaptive immune cells).

The first responders mount an immediate attack upon encountering something foreign. However, their attacks are nonspecific and often cannot fully clear infections.

Therefore the adaptive immune cells, also known as T and B cells serve as our second responders.

They are activated around a week into the infection and clear infections by mounting potent and specific attacks.

To activate adaptive immune cells, T and B cells must be presented with information on the pathogen. In the case of Sars-Cov-2, it can be a section of the spike protein.

APCs (antigen presenting cells), a type of first responding cell bring pieces of the virus, bacteria, or infectious particle to the adaptive T or B cells. This will activate the T or B cell, triggering an adaptive immune response.

The image below shows a dendritic cell (APC), activating a T cell by presenting it with an antigen, a toxic or foreign substance.

However, the authors found that mice that were given two doses of mRNA LNPs had reduced antigen presentation compared to mice that were only given one dose of LNPs.

This implies that fewer adaptive immune cells were made to activate against the influenza proteins.

mRNA Nanoparticles Reduce T and B cell Responses
The authors found the mice that received two injections of LNP had lower T and B cell responses to the flu mRNA vaccine than mice that were only given one dose.

As the final line of immune response, T and B cells are critical in our immune system’s ability to clear out infections.

However, in mice given two doses of LNP, less of their T and B cells were activated.

The double-dosed groups also had lower concentrations of antibodies (B cells make antibodies) against the influenza protein.

The reduced adaptive immune response was systemic, persisting across all organs and regions. Yet this reduction was even greater at the site of injection, especially if the mice were given injections at the same place for both shots, according to the authors.

On the other hand, the group that was only given one injection of LNP had higher T and B cell responses with more antibodies produced.

The authors found that exposure to LNP reduced T progenitor cells. Since T progenitor cells mature into activated T cells, less progenitors mean reduced T cell numbers and response.

The authors found if the T progenitor cells were removed before vaccination and then returned after vaccination, the active T cell numbers would not be reduced. This suggests that the LNP directly reduce the number of T progenitor cells, and in doing so, reduces the T cell response.

“Pre-exposure to mRNA-LNP inhibits T cell responses,” the authors wrote.

This reduced immunity should not be permanent, the authors speculated.

They noted that B cell responses mostly recovered if an interval of 8 weeks was introduced between the first and second doses.

Nevertheless, the authors did not verify the time period needed for a complete recovery, nor did they verify if the B cell response ever recovered in the mice.

However, injecting mice with adjuvants such as aluminum salts or AddaVax removed the suppressive effects the LNP injections had on mice immune cells.

“Inhibition of the adaptive immune responses by pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs is long-lasting but it is likely to wane with time.”

Immunity Changes from LNPs Can Be Inherited
As aforementioned, mice that were injected with two doses of LNPs were more resistant against an influenza infection than mice that were only given one dose of LNPs.

This was demonstrated through the mice’s superior maintenance of weight during infection, though it is uncertain if the resistance was from an immune response or some other pathway triggered by the LNPs.

Oddly enough, this increased defensiveness could be passed to their offspring. The inheritance of resistance against influenza is stronger if both parents were immunized, and less so when only a single parent, particularly if only the male parent is immunized.

However, the study did not address if the offspring also inherit immune weakness, such as a decline in immunity against C. albicans, a trait also observed in mice that were given two LNPs doses.

Implication of the Study and Pressing Questions
The findings from the mice study suggest that T and B cell functions are reduced temporarily in mice and raises the question if the same occurs in humans.

The adaptive immune response is critical to clearing infections, and preventing chronic conditions such as cancer. The study suggests that after two vaccinations with the mRNA LNPs, there are a few weeks of vulnerability in mice, putting them at a greater risk of infections and cancer.

Similar reports are also observed in humans, though there is yet to be any study establishing a conclusive link.

However, an increased rate of disease being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after COVID-19 vaccination suggests reduced immunity in people following vaccination.

There have been many reports of cancers emerging following COVID-19 vaccinations.

In the VAERS database, 284 cases of breast cancer were reported after COVID-19 vaccination, while just 350 cases have been reported in the entire history of VAERS.

There were 269 cases of leukemia reported after COVID-19 vaccination as compared to 432 cases in the entire history of VAERS.

Additionally, there have also been concerning reports of new onset and recurrent shingles following COVID-19 vaccinations. VAERS data shows that 7,559 cases of shingles have been reported following COVID-19 vaccination.

Over the entire history of VAERS, 28,180 cases of shingles have been reported following any vaccination, meaning that around a quarter of shingles cases occurred after COVID-19 vaccination.

The CDC has indicated that a new diagnosis or recurrence of shingles primarily occurs in people with compromised immune systems and is a sign of weakened immunity.

Though the study on mice suggests possible health implications in humans, it is unknown whether all the symptoms and effects seen in mice will occur in people.

Nevertheless, growing data of reported adverse health effects in humans following COVID-19 vaccination warrant further research. Examination of the overlaps between health implications for mice and humans is also needed.

“Considering the broad exposure of a large proportion of human populations to vaccines based on this novel (mRNA) technology, more studies are warranted to fully understand its overall immunological and physiological effects. Determining this platform’s short and long-term impact on human health would help optimize it to decrease its potentially harmful effects,” the authors concluded.


6 September, 2022

The Mysteries of Long COVID-19

When the original strain of COVID-19 arrived in spring 2020, a pandemic soon swept the country.

By far most survived COVID-19. But hundreds of thousands did not. American deaths now number well over 1 million.

Amid the tragedy, there initially was some hope that the pernicious effects of the disease would all disappear upon recovery among the nearly 99% who survived the initial infection.

Vaccinations by late 2020 were promised to end the pandemic for good. But they did not. New mutant strains, while more infectious, were said to be less lethal, thus supposedly resulting in spreading natural immunity while causing fewer deaths from infection.

But that too was not quite so.

Instead, sometimes the original symptoms, sometimes frightening new ones, not only lingered after the acute phase, but were of increased morbidity.

Now two-and-a-half years after the onset of the pandemic, there may be more than 20 million Americans who are still suffering from what is currently known as “long COVID-19?—a less acute version but one ultimately as debilitating.

Some pessimistic analyses suggest well over 4 million once-active Americans are now disabled from this often-ignored pandemic and out of the workforce.

Perhaps 10%-30% of those originally infected with COVID-19 have some lingering symptoms six months to a year after the initial infection. And they are quite physically sick, desperate to get well, and certainly not crazy.

So far, no government Marshall plan exists to cure long COVID.

While we know the nature of the virus well by now, no one fathoms what causes long COVID’s overwhelming fatigue, flu-like symptoms, neuralgic impairment, cardiac and pulmonary damage, and an array of eerie problems from extended loss of taste and smell to vertigo, neuropathy, and “brain fog.”

“Post-viral fatigue” has long been known to doctors. Many who get the flu or other viruses like mononucleosis sometimes take weeks or even months to recover after the initial acute symptoms retire.

But no one knows why long COVID often seems to last far longer and with more disability.

Is its persistence due to one theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a uniquely insidious, engineered virus? Or do vaccines and antivirals only help to curb infection, while possibly encouraging more unpredictable mutations?

Who gets long COVID, and why and how is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”

Those who nearly die from acute COVID-19 can descend into long COVID. But then again, so can those with minimal or few initial acute symptoms.

The obese with comorbidities are prone to long COVID, but triathletes and marathon runners are, too.

The elderly, the mature, the middle-aged, adolescents, and children can all get long COVID. Those with down-regulated and impaired immune systems fight long COVID. But then again, so do those with up-regulated and prior robust immunity, as well as people with severe allergies.

Since early 2020, no one has deciphered the cause, although numerous Nobel Prizes await anyone who unlocks its mysteries.

Does a weakened but not vanquished SARS-CoV-2 virus hide out and linger, causing an unending immune response that sickens patients?

Or does COVID-19 so weaken some long-haulers to the degree that old viruses, long in remission, suddenly flare up again, sickening the host with an unending case of, say, mononucleosis?

Or is the problem autoimmunity?

Is there something unique to the nature of COVID-19 that damages the vital on and off buttons of the immune system, causing the body to become stuck in overdrive, as it needlessly sends out its own poisons against itself?

Without knowledge of what explains long COVID, it is hard for researchers to find a cure.

After all, is the answer to slow down the immune system to dampen the immune storm, or to enhance it to root out lingering viruses?

Do more vaccines help or worsen long COVID?

Is the solution some magical new drug, or discovering off-label uses of old, reliable medicines?

Can a good diet, moderate exercise, and patience finally wear out long COVID? Or is its course too unpredictable or near permanent and chronic?

Is long COVID a single phenomenon, or a cluster of maladies, each manifesting according to one’s own genetic makeup, particular history of past illness, and unique reaction to the initial infection?

If we have few answers, we do have an idea about the costs.

Long COVID may be one of many reasons why in a recession, labor paradoxically still remains scarce. Millions likely stay home in utter disbelief that they are still battling long COVID. Others isolate in deadly fear of getting either the acute or chronic form of the illness.

The social costs to America of this hidden pandemic in lost wages and productivity, family and work disruption, and expensive medical care are unknown.

But they are likely enormous, still growing—and mostly ignored.


There Is a Much Larger Problem Than the Great Resignation. No One Wants to Talk About It

The United States likes to talk about problems. Well, ones we have solutions for, anyway. Others we tend to willfully ignore.

This time, though, we’ve really outdone ourselves in terms of mental gymnastics. We’ve been managing to relentlessly cover the “Great Resignation,” wage growth, and employment disruptions from the pandemic while ignoring a larger problem in that field. Our workforce is old. Not “a few years older than it likely should be” old, but dangerously old.

This speaks to certain generational trends (most of them having to do with my delightful cohorts here in Gen Y), but also to a looming catastrophe if we don’t course-correct sometime soon. So how did we get here? Why is it so significant? Let’s look.

The math

I hate to have to bring math into an article (in any form), but it’s necessary here. The median age in the United States is currently 38.1 years old — a number that reflects a consistent rise in recent years, but not too terrible. That number has been moving up about .15 per year as our largest generation, the oft-discussed boomers, age.

When looking at our workforce figures, we need to keep that figure in mind. The population under 16 (not working) and population over 65 (more likely to be retired) are roughly equivalent right now, which means our workforce age should hew pretty close to our overall median age. In other words, for every child not dragging the workforce age down, there should be a retiree not dragging the workforce age up.

In our professions, then, we would expect to see a median age of around 38. Naturally, that’s not the case, specifically when you get into some of the trades or other professions that aren’t necessarily glamourous. Still, these jobs are essential to our everyday lives. We should not ignore them.

So how far off are they? Well, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we’ve got some wide discrepancies. Looking at just a few:

· Real estate agents: 49.1 years old

· Automotive mechanics: 47.4 years old

· Facilities managers: 50.1 years old

· Bus/Shuttle drivers: 55.6 years old

· Housekeeping/Janitorial: 50.1 years old

· Home health aides: 47.2 years old

· Electrical trades: 46.8 years old

Yikes. There were plenty of professions even older than that, but I picked these for a reason — there’s little barrier to entry. You don’t need a $200,000 piece of paper, and they’re located across the country. You don’t need to live in a growing metropolitan area to have any of these jobs. In other words, based on ease of access, they should be younger. But they’re not.

The least productive generation

That brings us to a natural question: Why? Yes, the whole population is aging, but those professions are still 10+ years older than the median age in the country. Something is up. And it’s generational.

I don’t like to blame millennials universally as many others do. Make no mistake, I loathe my generation, but I think a lot of what they turned out to be was outside of their control. The first years of Gen Y were hit with the dot-com burst as they entered the workforce, the Great Recession in their later 20s, and now a global pandemic when they were finally getting everything together. Not ideal economic events for the entire first half of life.

But that’s not the problem. No, instead, Gen Y was the first generation to be universally told that they would need college to succeed. Even I got that speech frequently, and I was an underperforming (and often absent) student in a mediocre school. I can only imagine how heavy it was indoctrinated in other districts.

Well, even if it wasn’t implicitly stated, adolescents could get the gist of what was being said: No college means no college-required jobs, which means failure. The obvious conclusion is that non-college careers are failures.

This is simultaneously false, condescending, and ridiculous, but it’s also how a lot of this generation was brought up. I remember towards the end of high school, I was kicking around the idea of taking some certificate courses in construction management and exploring those trades a bit. My teachers and classmates looked at me like I just publicly threatened suicide. It was ridiculous. For the record, I’ve gone on to finance and supervise the funding and progress of large construction projects across the U.S.

So, what did we get? A generation that went to college in larger numbers than ever before, regardless of whether it appealed to them, made financial sense, or even made practical sense for the individual. If you were of the means or opportunity to go, you went. Period. A few like myself didn’t, but we were rare.

Now once you’ve blown $100,000 or more on your education, it’s only natural to feel that you shouldn’t have to work a “manual” job. I mean, what was all this for then, right? Especially since grade inflation made everyone a 3.2+ GPA student. So they swarmed the white-collar fields, drove salaries down, and realized that those jobs sucked too. Attached to your phone long after work was over, responding to whatever imaginary crisis needs resolution. What a deal. Meanwhile, the vital jobs went unattended.

Why it matters

Mechanics, electricians, stonemasons, general laborers: these are all trades that allow the world to keep on humming. We can’t rely on the older half of Gen X and the younger half of the boomers to build everything for everyone in perpetuity. Yet we seem content to.

Producing something and making a living wage for yourself or your family used to be an item of pride for many. Now, if our primary careers flame out, we instead look for a permanent side-hustle or join the “creator” economy.

There’s some value there for society, sure, but not everyone can just live the dream forever. This whole trend of “influencing” is a bit ridiculous too, but more a byproduct of how our society is today than anything else. Point is, at the peak of their professional careers, fewer millennials are in the real workforce than any other generation before them.

It may work very well for some individuals, but 1,000 spokes going in opposite directions doesn’t make a wheel. It makes a tangled mess of alloy on the floor. This is sometimes referred to as “the current labor market”.

Funny thing is, I think my generation’s dismal failure at participating in society is going to course-correct this disaster. Or, at least, I hope it will. A lot of my friends went to work in trades. They’re universally doing better than the white-collar college graduates I know. Higher incomes (due to excessive demand) and no debt. The pendulum may be swinging back. It needs to, particularly before the next wave of retirements leaves us in an even greater shortage of skilled labor that will be more difficult to claw out of.

There’s been a good bit of coverage on Gen Z and their increasing disillusionment with college — not seeing it as a good value, as it were. They’ve also been shown to be more financially savvy and involved than any other generation at their age. Considering their financial acumen, I’d be surprised if a few didn’t notice the average salary for an electrician is now higher than the average for a staff accountant.

Our current workforce needs an immediate infusion of young, skilled talent before we face such labor shortages that projects become impossible. Gen Z may be the answer. The ship has sailed on its predecessors.


4 September, 2022


I am completely secular but I like to observe a Sabbath for my own well-being. Sabbaths seem to me to be another example of Biblical wisdom. I normally observe the Jewish Sabbath -- Saturday -- but that is mainly because it fits best with my social life. I normally see Anne over breakfast and Jenny over dinner on Saturdays. So it is a pleasant day to pursue other interests than blogging.

I realized that this weekend was down to be different, however so had my Sabbath today -- on the Christian Sabbath of Sunday. I knew in advance that Anne would be out of town this weekend but that I would be seeing Joe for a fathers' day breakfast on Sunday and Zoe that evening.

So I did a usual schedule of blogging yesterday on Saturday and took a break from blogging today on Sunday. I have a separate report on how my Sunday went here

Which Sabbath is the "right" one for a Christian is an interesting exegetical problem. On the whole however, Sunday sabbaths are well justified by the New Testament. In Acts 15 it is laid down that Jewish law is not binding on Christians and Paul on several occasion dismissed as unimportant the day you keep as special.

It remains however that Sunday was originally the big pagan holy day -- for sun worship -- so I would be most comfortable with Saturday as the sabbath if I were still a Christian. The relevant New Testament excerpts are reproduced below:

Acts 15

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."ť And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question ...

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues....ť

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Romans 14:1-23 KJV

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Colossians 2:16-17

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Galatians 4

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Hebrews 4

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God

(Note that, in the Greek, the word for Sabbath is anarthrous, meaning that it is not THE Sabbath that is being referred to but "A" sabbath)



3 September, 2022

Amazing retreat by Biden

He must have changed speechwriters

President Joe Biden walked back his attacks on Donald Trump's MAGA supporters, saying on Friday he doesn't consider 'any Trump supporter a threat to the country.' 'I don't consider any Trump supporter a threat to the country,' the president said at the White House.

It was a contrast to his remarks on Thursday night when, in a primetime address on the threat to democracy, he said Trump and his supporters were a threat to the republic.

Republicans slammed Biden's speech as divisive while Trump said Biden was 'insane.'

Biden toned down his tough talk on Friday, defending supporters of the former president. In response to a question after an event on federal manufacturing grants, Biden said Trump supporters weren't voting for violence.

He said the 74 million people who voted for Trump weren't voting for an insurrection. 'When people voted for Donald Trump - and support him now - they weren't voting for attacking the capital. They weren't voting for overruling the election. They were going for a philosophy he put forward.'

He did condemn the Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol in the January 6th insurrection and those who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. He insisted his speech was directed at those who attacked democracy.

'I do think anyone who calls for the use of violence, fails to condemn violence when it's used, refuses to acknowledge an election has been won, insists upon changing the way in which the rules and we count votes, that is a threat to democracy. Democracy. And everything we stand for, everything we stand for, rests on the platform of democracy,' he said.

'So I am not talking about anything other than it is inappropriate. And it's not only happening here, but other parts of the world with failure to recognize and condemn violence whenever it's used for those purposes, failure to condemn the attempt to manipulate an electrical outcome, failure to acknowledge when elections were won or lost.'

In his speech on Thursday night, Biden gave a notably different message. He said Trump is a 'threat to the country' in remarks that contained his harshest rhetoric to date about his predecessor in the Oval Office and the MAGA movement.

'Equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise,' Biden declared at the top of his remarks before Philadelphia's Independence Hall.

He called out Trump by name, slamming the former president for his false claim the 2020 election was stolen and berating those who support Trump.

Trump, meanwhile, gave a blistering response to Biden's remarks. The former president called Biden 'insane' and asked if he was 'suffering from late stage dementia' after the president claimed he was a 'threat to democracy'.

Trump took to his Truth Social account on Thursday night to slam the 'awkward and angry' speech outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia - and called on someone to explain to his successor what MAGA means, 'slowly but passionately'.

'Someone should explain to Joe Biden, slowly but passionately, that MAGA means, as powerfully as mere words can get, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!,' he wrote.

'If he doesn't want to Make America Great Again, which through words, action, and thought, he doesn't, then he certainly should not be representing the United States of America!


California Lawmakers Pass Bill to Punish Dissenting Doctors for ‘Misinformation’

Legislation that would punish doctors who dissent from the California government’s messaging on COVID-19 has passed the state Legislature. Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to either veto the bill or sign it into law.

The final amendments to Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), introduced by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), were passed by a 56-20 vote on Aug. 30 in the Assembly.

The bill would amend the state’s Business and Professions Code to give the Medical Board of California (MBC) the discretionary power to discipline physicians or surgeons who spread “misinformation or disinformation” related to COVID-19. The MBC currently has the power to punish doctors charged with unprofessional conduct under the Medical Practice Act for violations including gross negligence, incompetence, dishonesty, or corruption.

“Misinformation,” according to the Aug. 23 Senate Floor analysis, means “false or misleading information about the nature and risks of the virus; COVID-19 prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

In response, Sen. Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) told The Epoch Times, “Doctors should be neither controlled nor prohibited by government from giving relevant health information to their patients.”

“Californians deserve to make informed decisions about their health without their doctors being threatened with disciplinary actions over what some state board deems ‘misinformation,’” Melendez said in a text message on Aug. 31.

Dr. Michael Huang of Roseville, Calif., who is in jeopardy of losing his medical license for allegedly issuing invalid mask and vaccine medical exemptions to his patients—many of them firefighters and school-age children—told The Epoch Times the state government has overstepped its bounds.

“It’s horrible. We’re back into the days of the Inquisition when Galileo was found guilty for saying that the Earth revolves around the sun,” he said. “The state is acting well beyond what it’s designed to do.”

The bill, Huang contends, will make it impossible to practice honest medicine.

Politicians shouldn’t meddle in medicine by “looking for fault and trying to punish physicians” for their medical opinions, because knowledge is always evolving, he said. “What we knew about COVID two years ago is completely different than what we know now.”

Huang has been under investigation by the medical board since at least December 2021 for “unprofessional conduct,” and the decision regarding the fate of his medical license is still pending.

The investigation followed an announcement issued by the medical board on Aug. 18, 2021 that physicians could be subject to disciplinary action for granting mask or other exemptions inappropriately.

If his license to practice medicine is suspended, Huang will likely leave the state, and may even stop practicing medicine altogether, because, he said, doctors everywhere are facing political pressure to comply.

“It’s not just in California,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Aug. 22 Assembly Floor analysis accused former President Donald Trump of advising people to inject themselves with disinfectant in its discussion on misinformation.

“If, for example, a physician were to advise patients to inject disinfectant as a way of treating COVID-19—as former President Trump once did, resulting in a sharp rise in reported incidents of misusing bleach and other cleaning products—disseminating that ‘misinformation’ would almost certainly be considered negligent care subject to discipline,” the analysis states.

However, the transcript of Trump’s comments at a press briefing on April 23, 2020, referenced by the California Assembly analysis, shows he did not say people should inject themselves with disinfectants to treat COVID-19. In fact, he was asking officials on the White House coronavirus task force whether they could be used in potential cures, according to PolitiFact.

Trump later clarified his comments after a reporter asked whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.

“It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object,” Trump said at the time.

The analysis also targeted America’s Frontline Doctors founder Dr. Simone Gold.

“Dr. Gold has engaged in multiple campaigns to stoke public distrust in COVID-19 vaccines, characterizing them as ‘experimental’ despite numerous safety and efficacy trials successfully confirming their safety and efficacy. Dr. Gold spoke at a rally held in conjunction with the attempted insurrection on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021; she was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor relating to that event,” the analysis states.


Biden Admin Regularly Coordinated With Facebook, Twitter To Censor Users, Records Show

Dozens of federal officials across multiple agencies within the Biden administration communicated extensively with social media companies to coordinate censorship of information, according to internal documents released by Republican Attorneys General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana.

Officials within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent emails to employees at Facebook and Twitter to flag instances of alleged misinformation and provide talking points to counter allegedly false narratives spreading on the platforms. Government officials would occasionally initiate this activity, with one message from a CDC official requesting monthly meetings with Facebook to plan “debunking” strategies, and a White House official requesting the removal of a parody Anthony Fauci account.

One collection of emails shows Facebook staff collaborating closely with staff at the HHS to remove Facebook groups, with one message describing the collaboration as “critical.” Staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) discussed setting up “regular chats” with Twitter, and Twitter invited White House staff to be briefed on their efforts relating to vaccine misinformation. (RELATED: Court Orders Biden White House To Cough Up Top Officials’ Communications With Big Tech)

“I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward,” one email from Facebook staff to HHS staff states. “In our previous conversations I’ve appreciated the way you and your team have approached our engagement, and we have worked hard to meet the moment — we’ve dedicated enormous time and resources to fighting this pandemic and consider ourselves partners in fighting the same battle.”

Documents produced by the Department of Justice allegedly reveal a connection between 45 federal officials at the DHS and HHS and social media giants, with the social media companies disclosing connections to officials at the White House and U.S. Election Assistance Commision, among others, according to Schmitt’s press release. The administration has allegedly refused to disclose the connections of the highest-ranking members, citing executive privilege, according to the press release.

“The limited discovery produced so far provides a tantalizing snapshot into a massive, sprawling federal “Censorship Enterprise,” which includes dozens of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies and components identified so far,” Schmitt and Landry write in a Wednesday petition for additional documents. “[These officials] communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and the suppression of private speech on social media—all with the intent and effect of pressuring social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech that federal officials disfavor.”

The DHS this spring launched a short-lived initiative known as the Government Disinformation Board, which was supposed to study misinformation online and provide the DHS with tools to combat propaganda that posed a national security threat, according to The Washington Post. The program disbanded after just three weeks due to significant backlash, according to The Washington Post.

“We’re going to need another [Nina Jankowicz] down the road,” an anonymous DHS staffer to The Washington Post, referring to the board’s erstwhile executive director. “And anyone who takes that position is going to be vulnerable to a disinformation campaign or attack.”

2 September, 2022

Pandemic profits: Winners and losers in the Covid casino

This week, John Ratcliffe, former Director of National Intelligence under former President Trump, told CBS News that throughout 2020 he ‘had a high degree of confidence that the origins of Covid-19 were in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)’ and said there was zero intelligence that points to a natural origin noting, ‘It’s been now almost three years since Covid-19 was first identified and there has never been an intermediary host identified’.

He’s not the only highly placed insider who believes Covid may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In February, Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that, as he’d said before, ‘the hypothesis of an escape from a lab by an accident is possible. Human makes mistakes. So it is possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement or gene modification, and then there’s an accident where somebody was infected in a lab and then infected family and friends’.

When Bancel says that a lab leak is possible it should carry considerable weight because he was instrumental in bringing the WIV into existence. His first job was at BioMérieux, a company which sponsored his MBA at Harvard and to which he returned as CEO in 2007 aged only 34. The founder of BioMérieux, Alain Mérieux – and his father-in-law Paul Berliet before him – had a deep relationship with the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, at the highest levels, including Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and ultimately Xi Jinping.

Mérieux as co-president of the Franco-Chinese Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases lobbied the French government repeatedly to support the construction of the WIV and in 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy signed an agreement in China to ‘ensure that all necessary measures are taken as soon as possible to implement… the Wuhan P4 laboratory’. This coincided with Bancel taking over as CEO and supporting Mérieux who worked personally as a consultant in the WIV construction. The company’s relationship with China was so strong that in October 2012, before being officially appointed president, Xi Jinping received Mérieux in private audience.

In 2011, Bancel took over as CEO of Moderna. Could the scientists at the WIV have been using a sequence patented by Moderna to enhance a virus? It certainly looks like it. One of the closest relatives of Sars-CoV-2 is RATG13, a bat coronavirus discovered by researchers at the WIV in 2013. The only significant difference between RATG13 and Sars-CoV-2 is the furin cleavage site in the spike protein which makes the virus infectious in humans. It is this furin cleavage site which contains the 19 nucleotide sequence patented by Moderna five times between 2013 and 2015 and it shares some similarities with the furin cleavage site in the Mers coronavirus which was first identified in 2012 and might have served as a model for researchers at the WIV looking to enhance RATG13. When Bartiromo asked Bancel in February whether part of the DNA of the Sars-CoV-2 virus had been patented by Moderna, he said, ‘It is possible’.

In addition to his relationship with WIV, in 2015, Bancel partnered with the Vaccine Research Centre, part of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, to collaborate on vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, and studying coronaviruses. Meanwhile, Fauci’s NIAID was funding gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at WIV via grants to the EcoHealth Alliance headed by Peter Daszak. Indeed, NIAID only terminated the funding last week, after the WIV repeatedly refused to hand over key information about the coronavirus research it conducted with US taxpayer dollars.

Bancel says that it was while he was in Davos for the World Economic Forum in January 2020 that he understood the extent of the impact that the Sars CoV-2 virus would have on the world and started work on his vaccine. Yet Moderna and NIAID had already signed an agreement to transfer their jointly-owned mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on 12 December 2019 for Ralph Baric to test on animals.

This has taken on fresh relevance with Fauci announcing that he will step down as director of NIAID in December. Republicans say that Fauci might be gone but they will bring him back to testify about what he knew and what he funded at the WIV.

Meanwhile, Moderna has announced that it is suing Pfizer for breach of its patents. It’s a bitter pill to swallow for those who have suffered vaccine injuries and aren’t allowed to sue either company. Unlike Australia with its loss of $144 billion, both companies have profited handsomely from the pandemic. But while Pfizer was already an established titan of the pharmaceutical industry, Moderna was a heavily loss-making biotech with unproven technology, wrote the Sunday Times. As one of Bancel’s peers observed, ‘The pandemic came almost as a blessing to prove the technology’. The question is, what, if anything, did NIAID or Moderna or the WIV do to hasten that blessing?


‘More than 400,000 people’ have had long Covid for over two years

A total of two million people across the country are estimated to be suffering from long Covid, according to a new survey from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Some 429,000 – the equivalent of around one in five (22%) – first had Covid-19, or suspected they had the virus, at least 24 months previously.

The number of people with long Covid who first had the virus at least one year ago is estimated to be 892,000, or 45% of the total.

The figures are based on self-reported long Covid from a representative sample of people in private households in the four weeks to July 31.

They show that long Covid is likely to be adversely affecting the day-to-day activities of 1.5 million people – nearly three-quarters of those with self-reported long Covid – with 384,000 saying their ability to undertake day-to-day activities has been “limited a lot”.

Fatigue is the most common symptom (experienced by 62% of those with self-reported long Covid), followed by shortness of breath (37%), difficulty concentrating (33%) and muscle ache (31%).

The estimates cannot be compared directly with previous long Covid surveys published by the ONS, due to a change in the way the data has been collected.

Prevalence of long Covid is currently highest among 35 to 69-year-olds, at 4.4%, followed by 25 to 34-year-olds, at 3.0%.

People working in social care reported the highest prevalence of long Covid among employment groups (5.6%), followed by teachers and educators (4.4%) and arts and entertainment workers (4.3%).

There is no standard measure for long Covid, with the ONS using a definition based on symptoms that have persisted for more than four weeks after a first suspected coronavirus infection, where the symptoms could not be explained by something else


Australia: Business hails five-day Covid isolation ‘a game changer’

Business has hailed national cabinet’s decision to reduce mandatory Covid isolation requirements from seven days to five for people with no symptoms, declaring it a “game changer” that will help ­alleviate labour shortages.

Anthony Albanese, who labelling the move a “proportionate response at this point in the pan­demic”, also said masks would no longer be mandatory on domestic flights from September 9 – the same day the isolation changes take effect.

However, all workers in high-risk settings, including aged care and disability care, must still self-isolate for seven days.

Government sources confirmed if a person not in those settings has symptoms on day six and onwards, they should follow their state’s health advice.

“There aren’t mandated requirements for the flu or for a range of other illnesses that people suffer from,” the Prime Minister said. “What we want to do is to make sure that government responds to the changed circumstances. Covid is likely going to be around for a considerable period of time. And we need to respond appropriately to it based upon the weight of evidence.

“We had a discussion about people looking after each other, people looking after their own health,” he added.

Mr Albanese did not rule out extending pandemic leave payments worth up to $750, which are now jointly funded by the commonwealth and states. National cabinet is due to make a decision on the payments when it next meets in a fortnight.

The payments will reflect the five-day isolation rule from September 9, meaning they should be worth about $536.

Restaurant and Catering chief executive Belinda Clarke said that with the current staffing crisis, a reduction in isolation days would be a “game changer”.

“As we’ve continued to learn to live with Covid-19, we have to start becoming more flexible,” she told The Australian. “Other countries have had a five-day isolation period for months now, and this goes a long way to helping staff who are asymptomatic return to work and resume their lives.”

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said the decision was “overdue and welcome”, stressing it was important for people to get back to work in a more timely manner as the pandemic passes its peak.

1 September 22

Britain’s COVID rules rethink holds lessons for others

London: When British Prime Minister Boris Johnson ended the legal requirement to self-isolate after a positive COVID-19 test seven months ago, about 3.3 million people – almost one in 19 – in the United Kingdom were infected with the virus.

In early February, some cynics, with the memory of Johnson’s shambolic early handling of the crisis fresh in their minds, described the move as an attempted distraction from his own political scandals.

Downing Street stressed the decision was not a recommendation that people should go to work if they had coronavirus, adding that “guidance” on appropriate behaviour would remain in place.

“Obviously in the same way that someone with flu, we wouldn’t recommend they go to work; we would never recommend anyone goes to work when they have an infectious disease,” it said, wary of a backlash from an anxious public.

It was, at the time, considered somewhat of a gamble and Johnson was condemned in some quarters as reckless and, as one union leader said, “going too far, way too soon”. Life, however, slowly returned to normal in London and major cities throughout the country.

Nurses from the nearby St Thomas’ Hospital take a break atop the National COVID Memorial Wall in London.
Nurses from the nearby St Thomas’ Hospital take a break atop the National COVID Memorial Wall in London.CREDIT:AP

As Australia and other nations emerge from a third long, cold COVID winter, Johnson’s bold move is being examined closely to determine if it was brave or indeed premature.

In Britain, some are warning that cases will most likely increase in autumn and winter as people spend less time in the open air, that disruption to school and university life will continue, and young people will once again be a vector of transmission to older generations.

Experts, such as Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, said scrapping the legal requirement was “pragmatic” as self-isolation rules were, essentially, self-policed anyway.

“No longer mandating isolation periods isn’t going to make a big difference,” he said then. But he stressed the need to continue with “strong public health messaging”, adding that the government “must not pretend it’s over”.

Authorities held their nerves as a new variant appeared and, by the end of March, infection numbers hit a record 4.9 million at the peak of the Omicron BA.2 wave before falling again. Infections jumped again by a fifth in early June after Jubilee celebrations amid increased socialising, waning immunity and a drop-off in preventative measures helped spread the virus.

In the months since, case numbers have largely stabilised, not only because of a long, hot summer where windows are open and people have spent hours outside, but because of a dramatic fall in testing after the government scrapped free kits in April. Many people now have COVID without even knowing it.

The government took a calculated risk in lifting restrictions before all the data was in, and, most now agree the decision was justified. Politicians have to lead, after all, and the Band-Aid needed to be ripped off.

While more than 200,000 Britons have now died with COVID mentioned on their death certificates, the virus is not the killer it once was. At the start of the pandemic, one in 100 people who caught it died. Now, that figure is as low as one in 3000.

On Thursday, the last coronavirus requirements in England will be scrapped when even hospital patients and care home residents will no longer be tested for COVID-19 unless they have symptoms.

In the latest estimates of infections, released last week, cases fell by 16 per cent from the previous week. One in every 45 people were believed to be infected – about 2.2 per cent of the population.

The government said it expected prevalence to remain low following the most recent wave, caused by the BA.4 and BA.5 variants of Omicron. The authorities now intend to protect individuals through vaccination and antiviral treatments, instead of isolation and testing.

Health Secretary Steve Barclay said last week that pausing routine asymptomatic testing in most high-risk settings was possible because of a strong vaccine rollout.

“This reflects the fact case rates have fallen and the risk of transmission has reduced, though we will continue to closely monitor the situation and work with sectors to resume testing should it be needed,” he said.

Barclay said the upcoming autumn booster program would offer jabs to protect those at greatest risk from severe COVID-19.

In an editorial last month, The Times declared: “Draconian restrictions on the model of 2020 are not necessary or desirable but modest measures to arrest the spread of infection, including a return to mask-wearing on public transport and encouraging social distancing, would be prudent.”

Ending mandatory isolation for positive cases relegated COVID from the front pages of newspapers and TV news bulletins, but the move did not result in a massive uptick in economic activity.

Gross domestic product, the measure of the quantity of goods and services produced, fell 0.1 per cent in the second quarter this year after rising 0.7 per cent in the previous quarter, as households cut spending when the cost of living crisis began to bite and health sector output fell as cases and testing declined.

Warning that a new wave could put added pressure on the stretched public hospital system, a think tank headed by former prime minister Tony Blair has called for the government to adapt to the changing circumstance and make face masks compulsory on trains and buses.

The National Health Service (NHS) is struggling, though not directly because of the virus. Of the 92,000 general acute beds that are open in England, fewer than 5000 are occupied by patients who are there because of COVID.

The proportion of people being treated for very severe infections and needing intensive care remains lower than earlier in the pandemic, as vaccinations continue to protect people from severe disease.

But the system is facing a record backlog of patients waiting for treatment following more than two years of disruption.

The number of people waiting more than 12 hours in emergency departments rose 33 per cent in July from the previous month, according to data from NHS England, a record high that underscores the intense pressure facing the health system.

Face coverings have not been in force since July last year, but Blair’s institute said, “the strategic implementation of mask mandates should be considered for this autumn and winter” on public transport.

It also suggested masks should be brought back for indoor events if a new variant emerges that causes a surge in hospitalisations. Blair has also called for the COVID booster vaccination campaign to be expanded to include all adults.

Current guidance from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation says that over-50s, the clinically vulnerable and frontline health and social care workers can get a booster, with all expected to get an upgraded, Omicron-specific jab.

“This winter will bring a perfect storm, resulting in unprecedented demand and reduced capacity, which will combine to create the worst winter crisis in the NHS’s history,” the report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change warned.

“The government must do whatever it takes to support the NHS through this period and act immediately to avert an unmitigated disaster.”

While official health guidance in the UK remains “try to stay at home and avoid contact with other people for five days” after they start feeling unwell, a new study by Imperial College London, released last week, now suggests this five-day period is not long enough to cut transmission.

In the first real-world study of its kind, experts monitored 57 people at home after they were exposed to the coronavirus to test how long they remained infectious. The participants completed questionnaires about their symptoms and had daily tests looking at how much virus they were shedding each day.

Only one in five was infectious before their symptoms developed, but two-thirds of cases were still infectious five days after first reporting symptoms.

Professor Ajit Lalvani, the lead author, said that, under a crude five-day self-isolation period, two-thirds of cases released into the community would still be infectious – though their level of infectiousness would have reduced substantially.

He said that people should isolate for five days and not leave isolation until they had tested negative twice on rapid tests.

“We recommend that anyone who has been exposed to the virus and has symptoms isolates for five days, then uses daily lateral flow tests to safely leave isolation when two consecutive daily tests are negative.”

Pandemic leave payments ‘can’t continue forever’: treasurer
Adam Finn, a professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol and a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, said the fact that the booster program was now focused entirely on people at enhanced risk of serious illness might help this winter. Eight out of 10 of those aged 75 and over had the spring booster.

He stressed the need for clear communication over the booster program.

“We’ve got a tool that is really good at stopping the old folks from dying,” he said. “We’ve more or less given up on the idea of mass immunisation to control the spread of infection. Vaccinating everyone every three months is just not feasible.”


FDA authorizes updated COVID-19 boosters

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized two newly updated COVID-19 booster shots: one made by Moderna and one made by Pfizer and German biotechnology company BioNTech, according to a statement(opens in new tab) released Wednesday (Aug. 31).

Both boosters guard against the original SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus variant targeted by the original vaccines as well as two omicron subvariants, known as the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages. These two versions of omicron are "currently causing most cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and are predicted to circulate this fall and winter," the FDA statement notes. BA.5 accounts for nearly 90% of current cases in the U.S., and BA.4 accounts for most of the remaining cases, STAT reported(opens in new tab).

Through an "emergency use authorization," the updated Moderna booster can be used in people ages 18 and older, while the Pfizer-BioNTech booster is authorized for people as young as 12. The single-dose shots can be given to people who are at least two months out from the final dose of their initial COVID-19 vaccine series or at least two months out from their last booster shot, if they've received one.

"As we head into fall and begin to spend more time indoors, we strongly encourage anyone who is eligible to consider receiving a booster dose with a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine to provide better protection against currently circulating variants," FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf said in Wednesday's statement. (The term "bivalent" means the boosters target two coronavirus components: one from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and one that's shared by BA.4 and BA.5.)





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.