Well, blow me down!

Google have deleted my post here of 24th. The post reported findings that had appeared in academic journals so it is suprising to see academic journals being censored

I know what the trigger word was that activated the Google search bots and it was a pity that the matter was not referred to a human reviewer before deleting the post -- as my post was actually quite critical of the journal report. A human reviewer at Google would probably have agreed with my post.

Anyway, no great harm done as the materials concerned can still be found on my two backup sites

http://jonjayray.com/jun24.html or

https://johnjayray.com/jun24.html

******************************************

Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis Observational Study Finds Cannabis Use Associated with Heightened COVID-19 Mortality

As the deadly disease that came to be known as COVID-19 started spreading in late 2019, scientists rushed to answer a critical question: Who is most at risk? That answer became quickly more clear---ranging from age, smoking history, high body mass index (BMI) and the presence of other diseases such as diabetes — led people infected with the virus much more likely to become seriously ill and even die. But cannabis use remains an unconfirmed risk factor four years later until now. Evidence has emerged over time indicating both protective and harmful effects. In fact, this research team now links cannabis to higher risk of serious illness for those with COVID-19.

The Study

Published June 21 in JAMA Network Open, the study authors analyzed the health records of 72,501 people seen for COVID-19 at health centers in a major Midwestern health-care system during the first two years of the pandemic.

The study team analyzed deidentified electronic health records of people who were seen for COVID-19 at BJC HealthCare hospitals and clinics in Missouri and Illinois between Feb. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2022. The records contained data on demographic characteristics such as sex, age and race; other medical conditions such as diabetes and heart disease; use of substances including tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and vaping; and outcomes of the illness — specifically, hospitalization, intensive-care unit (ICU) admittance and survival.

The researchers discovered that individuals reporting any use of cannabis at least once in the year before developing COVID-19 were significantly more likely to need hospitalization and intensive care than were people with no such history. This elevated risk of severe illness was on par with that from smoking.

Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis science writer Tamara Schnieder recently covered this topic in the academic medical center’s News Hub.

“There’s this sense among the public that cannabis is safe to use, that it’s not as bad for your health as smoking or drinking, that it may even be good for you,” said senior author Li-Shiun Chen, MD, DSc, a professor of psychiatry. “I think that’s because there hasn’t been as much research on the health effects of cannabis as compared to tobacco or alcohol.

What we found is that cannabis use is not harmless in the context of COVID-19. People who reported yes to current cannabis use, at any frequency, were more likely to require hospitalization and intensive care than those who did not use cannabis.”

Cannabis use was different than tobacco smoking in one key outcome measure: survival. While smokers were significantly more likely to die of COVID-19 than nonsmokers — a finding that fits with numerous other studies — the same was not true of cannabis users, the study showed.

“The independent effect of cannabis is similar to the independent effect of tobacco regarding the risk of hospitalization and intensive care,” Chen said. “For the risk of death, tobacco risk is clear but more evidence is needed for cannabis.”

COVID-19 patients who reported that they had used cannabis in the previous year were 80% more likely to be hospitalized, and 27% more likely to be admitted to the ICU than patients who had not used cannabis, after considering tobacco smoking, vaccination, other health conditions, date of diagnosis, and demographic factors. For comparison, tobacco smokers with COVID-19 were 72% more likely to be hospitalized, and 22% more likely to require intensive care than were nonsmokers, after adjusting for other factors.

Contradicting Prior Data Points?

These results contradict some other research suggesting that cannabis may help the body fight off viral diseases such as COVID-19.

“Most of the evidence suggesting that cannabis is good for you comes from studies in cells or animals,” Chen said. “The advantage of our study is that it is in people and uses real-world health-care data collected across multiple sites over an extended time period. All the outcomes were verified: hospitalization, ICU stay, death. Using this data set, we were able to confirm the well-established effects of smoking, which suggests that the data are reliable.”

The study was not designed to answer the question of why cannabis use might make COVID-19 worse. One possibility is that inhaling marijuana smoke injures delicate lung tissue and makes it more vulnerable to infection, in much the same way that tobacco smoke causes lung damage that puts people at risk of pneumonia, the researchers said. That isn’t to say that taking edibles would be safer than smoking joints. It is also possible that cannabis, which is known to suppress the immune system, undermines the body’s ability to fight off viral infections no matter how it is consumed, the researchers noted.

“We just don’t know whether edibles are safer,” said first author Nicholas Griffith, MD, a medical resident at Washington University. Griffith was a medical student at Washington University when he led the study. “People were asked a yes-or-no question: ‘Have you used cannabis in the past year?’ That gave us enough information to establish that if you use cannabis, your health-care journey will be different, but we can’t know how much cannabis you have to use, or whether it makes a difference whether you smoke it or eat edibles. Those are questions we’d really like the answers to. I hope this study opens the door to more research on the health effects of cannabis.”

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/washington-university-school-of-medicine-in-st.-louis-observational-study-finds-cannabis-use-associated-with-heightened-covid-19-mortality-d07b3b97

*********************************************

39 US States Are Seeing Rise in COVID-19 Cases, CDC Data Show

Recent data show that COVID-19 cases are on the rise in several dozen U.S. states, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said there’s no sign that the variants driving that increase lead to more severe symptoms.

The latest data collected by the CDC show that 39 states and territories have seen a growth in COVID-19 infections, while the virus is “declining or likely declining in [zero] states.” Cases are either at a stable level or the status is unclear in remaining states, the CDC said.

More general data for the week ending on June 24 provided by the CDC show that cases have increased by 1.2 percent.
It comes as other CDC data show that a newly discovered COVID-19 variant, KP.3, is the most dominant strain, accounting for an estimated 22 percent to 46 percent of all cases.

Several CDC officials didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time.

“There is currently no evidence that KP.3 or LB.1 cause more severe disease” and the agency continues “to track SARS-CoV-2 variants and is working to better understand the potential impact on public health,” David Daigle, a spokesman for the agency, told CBS News on June 25. SARS-CoV-2 refers to the virus that causes COVID-19.

As compared with previous increases in COVID-19—which some media outlets have described as “surges”—deaths from the virus appear to be at an all-time low, according to a graph provided by the federal health agency. Virus-linked hospitalizations are also at what appears to be their lowest point since the pandemic started in March 2020, the data show.

“Most key COVID-19 indicators are showing low levels of activity nationally, therefore, the total number of infections this lineage may be causing is likely low,” a CDC spokesperson said in a statement earlier this month, while adding the variant will become the “most common lineage” around the United States.

Andy Pekosz, a molecular microbiology professor at Johns Hopkins University, said that the KP.3 variant also doesn’t appear to cause more severe symptoms, adding that antibodies provided through prior infection or vaccines have led to better outcomes in recent months.

“After exposure, it may take five or more days before you develop symptoms, though symptoms may appear sooner,” he said in a question and answer session published on the Johns Hopkins website earlier this month.

“You are contagious one to two days before you experience symptoms and a few days after symptoms subside. And as with previous variants, some people may have detectable live virus for up to a week after their symptoms begin, and some may experience rebound symptoms,” Mr. Pekosz said.

In May, the CDC announced that hospitals are no longer mandated to report COVID-19 hospital admissions, capacity, or other COVID-19 information. The old “data will be archived as of May 10, 2024, and available at United States COVID-19 Hospitalization Metrics by Jurisdiction, Timeseries,” according to a statement posted on the CDC website last month.

This month, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel suggested that vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer and Moderna target COVID-19 strains derived from JN.1, which include KP.2, KP.3, and LB.1.

“We’ve seen descendants of that moving along, that’s KP.2, KP.3 and LB.1,” the FDA’s Dr. Peter Marks told news outlets on June 21. “So these other new variants, these came up relatively quickly. I wouldn’t say they caught us by surprise, but because they happened relatively quickly, we had to react.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/cdc-data-show-39-us-states-are-seeing-a-rise-in-covid-19-cases-5675750

*************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*********************************************************

Early Treatment With Fluvoxamine May Reduce Severe COVID-19 Outcomes: Review

A surprising finding. An anti-depression drug is not an obvious choice to combat Covid. It is good that some doctors thought outside the box and were insightful enough to see a connection. The drug does actually seem to have saved lives

A side benefit seems to be that Fluvoxamine recipients were less depressed by their illness!

An antidepressant commonly used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may significantly reduce the risk of clinical deterioration in COVID-19 patients, according to new research published in Scientific Reports.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 clinical studies involving 7,153 patients found that early treatment with fluvoxamine, especially at doses of 200 milligrams or more, notably reduced COVID-19 clinical deterioration, mortality, and long-COVID complications.

The authors defined clinical deterioration as needing hospitalization after testing positive for COVID. About 7 percent of patients who took fluvoxamine needed hospitalization after testing positive for COVID-19, whereas about 19 percent of those who did not take fluvoxamine required hospitalization, the authors found.

Eight of the studies analyzed were placebo-controlled and used proper blinding methods. The STOP COVID trial was among the first to explore repurposing fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In this trial, 80 patients received 300 milligrams of fluvoxamine daily. None experienced clinical worsening of their symptoms, while six out of 72 patients in the placebo group did.

Another early trial, the TOGETHER trial, was significantly larger than the STOP COVID trial and involved 1,497 participants—741 of whom received 200 milligrams of fluvoxamine daily and 756 of whom received a placebo.

The study found that 11 percent of patients in the fluvoxamine group versus 16 percent of patients in the placebo group needed observation for COVID-19 in an emergency setting for more than six hours or were transferred to a tertiary hospital. Moreover, there were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group.

Early Outpatient Treatment for COVID-19: The Evidence
In the STOP COVID 2 trial, initiated in late 2020, researchers found that a lower 100-milligram dose twice daily would also effectively reduce COVID-19 hospitalization.

Open-Label and Retrospective Studies Favor Fluvoxamine

In an early open-label study on fluvoxamine, researchers investigated the drug’s effects on intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19. They did not find that fluvoxamine reduced ICU time or time on ventilators but did find a statistically significant improvement in mortality in those treated with fluvoxamine.

Open-label studies are not blinded, meaning participants know they are receiving fluvoxamine, and no placebo drug is given to patients in the placebo group.

A larger clinical study from Honduras and smaller studies from Uganda and Greece showed similar results. In Greece, data indicated fluvoxamine was associated with reduced development of dyspnea (shortness of breath) and pneumonia in COVID-19 patients, as well as reduced mortality.

A 2021 study of 162 patients in Thailand analyzed multiple drugs alone and in combination with fluvoxamine. Researchers found that none of the patients taking fluvoxamine experienced deterioration requiring hospitalization by day nine compared to 67.5 percent of the patients who received standard care.

Fluvoxamine May Reduce Mortality

Since open-label studies may not provide complete data, the researchers also conducted a meta-analysis using only “gold standard” placebo-controlled double-blind studies.

The meta-analysis examined seven studies involving 5,080 patients. Just over 9 percent of the standard-care group and 6 percent of the fluvoxamine-treatment group experienced clinical deterioration.

The researchers also investigated the effect of fluvoxamine on COVID-19-related mortality in 12 studies involving 7,722 patients. Results showed that 4.8 percent in the standard-care group died, compared to about 1.6 percent in the fluvoxamine group. Among five studies that reported deaths in either group, fluvoxamine demonstrated greater benefits than the placebo or standard care.

How Fluvoxamine Works

Fluvoxamine is a generic selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat OCD and depression. It is also known to have anti-inflammatory properties and gained popularity during the pandemic for its potential to treat COVID-19, reduce mortality, and potentially mitigate long-COVID symptoms.

All SSRIs, including fluvoxamine, target the serotonin transporters localized throughout the body in the brain, lungs, and platelets. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that SSRIs can mediate inflammation. According to a 2021 paper in Frontiers in Pharmacology, SSRIs can positively affect numerous inflammatory processes that have a direct antiviral effect on severe COVID-19.

Dr. Syed Haider, a physician who has treated thousands of COVID-19 patients, told The Epoch Times he is one of the first physicians to begin widely prescribing fluvoxamine for COVID-19. He saw the benefits of using it early in the pandemic in severe cases that needed “everything we could throw at them,” he said.

“It was very early for me personally, and I had only thus far seen about 10 or 20 patients for acute COVID-19,” said Dr. Haider. One of his patients had been hospitalized.

“After I added fluvoxamine to the protocol, the next few hundred patients had no hospitalizations for COVID-19, though one young male was briefly admitted due to a severe psychological adverse reaction to fluvoxamine itself, though that quickly wore off,” he added.

As time went on, Dr. Haider said it became apparent that a minority of patients couldn’t tolerate the side effects of fluvoxamine and stopped taking it, while others were concerned about the potential impacts of taking a psychiatric drug.

Side effects of fluvoxamine include nausea, diarrhea, indigestion, and neurological symptoms such as asthenia (weakness), insomnia, anxiety, headache, and, rarely, suicidal ideation.

Fluvoxamine May Reduce Long-COVID Complications

All but one of the studies reviewed by researchers found that fluvoxamine may reduce long-COVID complications. In a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study investigating neuropsychiatric symptoms in mildly to moderately affected long-COVID patients, researchers found fewer neuropsychological symptoms in those who used the drug. Additionally, fluvoxamine-treated patients experienced less fatigue and depression.

In follow-up data of the STOP COVID 1 and 2 trials, researchers found that most trial patients reported that they had not fully recovered. Those who received fluvoxamine during the acute COVID-19 trial were about half as likely to report having recovered less than 60 percent. According to the authors, other reviewed studies suggested SSRIs may be beneficial for treating long COVID due to their anti-inflammatory properties.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/early-treatment-with-fluvoxamine-may-reduce-severe-covid-19-outcomes-review-5670073

*************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*********************************************************

Long COVID Clarity—Three-Year Study of VA Population in America

Those who were hospitalized with acute SARS-CoV-2 have a significantly higher risk for ongoing death and long COVID symptoms

Researchers affiliated with the VA St. Louis Health Care System as well as well-known physician-scientist Eric Topol at Scripps Research Institute using national health care databases designed a cohort of 135,161 US veterans who survived the first 30 days of COVID-19 and a control of 5,206,835 users of the VA healthcare system with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

To ensure 3-year follow-up, these cohorts were enrolled between March and December 2020, an era that pre-dated the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and antivirals and when the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus predominated. These cohorts were followed longitudinally for 3 years to estimate the risks of death and incident of long COVID symptoms throughout the 3-year follow-up and cumulatively at 3 years in mutually exclusive groups according to care setting of the acute phase of the disease (in non-hospitalized and hospitalized).

The net summary of this important study, albeit one with limitations.

Those who were hospitalized with acute SARS-CoV-2 have a significantly higher risk for ongoing death and long COVID symptoms. While the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections were mild to moderate and the authors here minimize the risk of death and significant long COVID symptoms in the non-hospitalized COVID-19 infection population, they acknowledge the vast population meaning there are many people struggling with issues, while deemed mild to moderate under long COVID symptom category, nonetheless see overall decline in quality of life. The authors acknowledge the need for more research and eventually therapeutic options.

An important point TrialSite emphasizes is that the vast majority of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections were mild to moderate meaning no hospitalization. While this study highlights the greater risks of persons in the VA system who were hospitalized, a great toll on individuals and society now impacts persons who could be considered a mild long COVID. Meaning they had a mild to moderate COVID-19 and continue to face long COVID symptoms, ones that adversely impact quality of life. Even the authors herein acknowledge this vast cohort.

They declare “Consequently, much of the burden of PASC in populations is attributed to mild infection. According to an analysis by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) collaborators, about 90% of people with PASC had mild COVID-19, suggesting that, although preventing severe disease is important, strategies to reduce the risk of post-acute and long-term health loss in people with mild COVID-19 are also needed.”

Findings

There were 114,864 participants (13,810 (12.0%) females and 101,054 (88.0%) males) in the non-hospitalized COVID-19 group and 20,297 participants in the hospitalized COVID-19 group (1,177 (5.8%) females and 19,120 (94.2%) males), plus 5,206,835 participants in the control group with no infection (503,509 (9.7%) females and 4,703,326 (90.3%) males).

The researchers ensured these patients all had follow up totaling 344,592, 60,891 and 15,620,505 person-years of follow-up in the non-hospitalized COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 and control groups, respectively. In total this all equaled 16,025,988 person-years of follow-up. The researchers investigated the demographic, health characteristics and standardized mean differences of the non-hospitalized COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 and control groups before and after inverse probability weighting for baseline covariates.

Examining the risks and burdens of death and a set of pre-specified PASC as well as sequelae aggregated by organ system and aggregated as an overall outcome of PASC by care setting during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (non-hospitalized (n = 114,864) and hospitalized (n = 20,297) groups) in the first, second and third year after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Among non-hospitalized study subjects, there was no longer an increased risk of death post the first year of infection, and the risk of long COVID declined over the three year duration, however still contributed 9.6 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4–18.7) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 1,000 persons in the third year.

Among hospitalized individuals, risk of death declined but remained significantly elevated in the third year post infection (incidence rate ratio: 1.29 (95% CI: 1.19–1.40)). Risk of incident PASC declined over the 3 years, but substantial residual risk remained in the third year, leading to 90.0 (95% CI: 55.2–124.8) DALYs per 1,000 persons.

With risks diminishing over time, a death mortality continues in addition to overall loss of good health by year three in that cohort that was hospitalized.

Breakdown

Is it the finding that the risk after 3 years among non-hospitalized persons goes down, and in fact the risk of mortality goes away?

Yes. The risk of death goes away after the first year of infection, plus the risk of long COVID symptoms also declines substantially by year 3.

What about hospitalized persons with COVID-19?

Their risk declines as well but remains significantly “elevated” on into the third year post infection (29% increased risk and excess burden of death of 8.16 per 1,000 persons).

So, does this mean that persons that were hospitalized have higher chances of long COVID incidence as well?

Yes. While the risks for post-acute sequelae went down over the years, nonetheless a material “residual risk remained in the third year, leading to 252.8 sequelae per 1,000 persons and 90.0 DALYs per 1,000 persons.”

How can the risks be summarized?

The totality of the study finds overall lower risks of symptoms over 3 years of follow-up, however, continued amplified risks of major adverse outcomes among hospitalized individuals.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/long-covid-claritythree-year-study-of-va-population-in-america-7ea6be60

***********************************************

Supreme Court Turns Away COVID-19 Vaccine Appeals

This case was about compulsory vaccination but it failed on the purely legal ground that the petitioners "lacked standing"

U.S. Supreme Court justices on June 24 rejected appeals brought over COVID-19 vaccines by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent candidate running for president.

The nation’s top court rejected an appeal seeking to overturn lower court rulings that found that CHD and its members lacked standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its emergency authorizations of COVID-19 vaccines for minors.

The justices also rebuffed another CHD appeal in a case that challenged the COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed on students at Rutgers University, a public college in New Jersey.

The Supreme Court did not comment on either denial. It included them in a lengthy list dealing with dozens of cases.
“Disappointing that the courts are closed to FDA fraud harming millions of Americans,” Robert Barnes, an attorney representing CHD in the FDA case, told The Epoch Times in an email.

He called for Congress to pass reforms.

Julio Gomez, an attorney representing CHD in the Rutgers case, told The Epoch Times in an email that the Supreme Court’s denials marked a sad day because clarity is needed on vaccines and the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a city’s law requiring vaccination against smallpox.

Mr. Gomez pointed to a recent federal appeals court ruling that determined that Jacobson did not apply to a case filed against a vaccine mandate in California because plaintiffs had produced evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Lawyers for Rutgers and the government did not return requests for comment.

In the FDA case, CHD and parents in Texas and Florida argued that the regulatory agency cleared COVID-19 vaccines under emergency authorization despite COVID-19 posing less risk than influenza to children and without adequate clinical testing. The FDA also wrongly promoted the vaccines, the plaintiffs alleged.

U.S. District Judge Alan Albright tossed out the lawsuit in 2023, finding that CHD and the parents did not meet the requirements for standing, or the ability to sue over the actions, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

While the parents said their children were at risk of being vaccinated by other people, they did not show that they faced imminent harm because of the FDA issuing emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines, the judge said. Imminent harm is one requirement for standing.

The judge also said CHD had not shown that its resources were drained in responding to the FDA’s conduct and that it was airing a “generalized grievance,” which is not allowed under Supreme Court precedent.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in January upheld the ruling.

“Plaintiffs contend that the injury-in-fact element is satisfied because a third party might vaccinate their children over their objections, and that such vaccine could allegedly injure them and their children,” the panel stated. “Be that as it may, we agree with the district court that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate an injury in fact because the alleged injury is neither concrete nor imminent.”

Mr. Barnes had urged the Supreme Court to look at the case.

“Can no one sue the FDA? Is that what Article III means?” he wrote in a filing

Government lawyers waived their right to file a brief to the court.

In the case against Rutgers, CHD and some of its members said the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional in part because the Constitution’s due process clause enables people to refuse medical treatment.

U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled against the plaintiffs in 2022, finding that Rutgers mandated vaccination as part of a legitimate goal of protecting the school community from COVID-19 and that the students either brought claims that had become moot because they were granted religious exemptions to the mandate or failed to state a claim.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the decision in February.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-turns-away-covid-19-vaccine-appeals-5674328

*************************************************

Government Misinformation On Australian Excess Mortality

Written by Dr Wilson Sy

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has deviated from international standards of calculating excess deaths during the pandemic (based on 2015-19 average) by using computer
models ‘adjusted’ for factors like population growth, resulting in significantly lower statistics

The ABS approach, questioned by the Australian Senate inquiry, effectively reduces excess deaths to merely COVID-19 fatalities.

Both the Australian Government and ABS have conflated scientific theory with statistical data. Unlike scientific research bodies, the ABS’s role is in national statistics collection and publication.

Despite this, the ABS has proposed a hypothesis that its model assumptions adequately explain Australian excess deaths as attributable solely to COVID-19. Hypothetical estimates have been published as data.

The disclosure of excess death data should initiate rigorous scientific inquiries into their underlying causes, rather than conclude them. By endorsing ABS’s interpretations, the Government will risk misleading the public into believing that Australian excess deaths require no further investigation.

I formally addressed these concerns in an individual submission to the Senate Committee on excess mortality, highlighting the Government’s inadequate scientific approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although my submission was censored, its content is reproduced below.

My main concern is the lack of scientific rigour in the Australian response to the COVID pandemic, in which misguided government policy has caused high excess mortality.

Flawed COVID Data

The health policy response to COVID in Australia has been marred by reliance on selective and biased research, leading to misinformation. Official COVID data, upon which much of this research is based, has been shown to be flawed and unreliable due to inadequate scientific rigor in data collection processes [1].

In the realm of formal logic, it’s well understood that a false premise can be used to validate any arbitrary conclusion. This concept, epitomized by Bertrand Russell’s famous quip which demonstrated that from the false statement “1=0,” one could deduce absurdities like he was the Pope.

This fallacy is commonly summarized as “garbage in, garbage out.” During the COVID crisis, Australian authorities have relied on flawed data to draw conclusions, resulting in numerous erroneous assertions.

A critical flaw in much of published research is the failure to cross-validate official COVID data against independent sources. Despite the availability of alternate datasets often aligning more closely with common sense and broader empirical observations, these were systematically disregarded. Such selective acceptance of evidence, without rigorous scrutiny or falsification, undermines the integrity of scientific inquiry.

Cherry-Picking Evidence

The practice of cherry-picking evidence by purported “experts” lacks scientific validity. In genuine scientific practice, the collective body of evidence, not the opinions of select individuals, guides conclusions. Without proper evaluation, the Australian government has dismissed contrary evidence of elevated excess deaths during the pandemic, which is antithetical to sound scientific methodology.

Through flawed research methodologies, the Australian government has misled both itself and the public, asserting that elevated excess deaths can be solely attributed to COVID-related fatalities. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has further exacerbated this issue by manipulating raw data through complex modelling, resulting in significantly diminished excess death statistics [2]. Such manipulations obscure the true extent of excess mortality and hinder meaningful investigations into its causes.

Comparisons with pre-pandemic all-cause mortality benchmark (2015-19 average) reveal a stark increase in excess deaths during and after the COVID outbreak, far exceeding benchmark figures. This high excess deaths suggest a systemic failure in accurately recording COVID-related deaths, which fall short of being able to account for Australian excess deaths.

Unreliable COVID Deaths

Contrary to official narratives, substantial evidence challenges the assertion that COVID alone is responsible for excess mortality. Instances such as the spike in deaths in England in April 2020, coinciding with the widespread misuse of Midazolam and opioids in elderly care, underscore the errors in attributing deaths to COVID [3]. Similarly, evidence from Australia suggests that a significant portion of reported COVID deaths may actually be misclassified cases of influenza and pneumonia [4].

While COVID may indeed contribute to excess mortality, the rush to attribute all excess deaths to the virus overlooks other potential causes, including systemic issues within healthcare systems and inappropriate medical interventions. The correlation between rising excess deaths and the rollout of mass vaccination campaigns warrants thorough investigation, particularly considering the possibility of adverse effects associated with vaccination.

A different approach is needed, not relying on flawed official COVID data, to address the issue of Australian excess deaths in the pandemic.

Granger Causality

Granger causality analysis, named after a 2003 Nobel Laureat, offers a methodological framework [5] for examining causal relationships between variables, such as COVID vaccination and excess mortality. By analysing independent time series data, it’s possible to establish temporal associations and assess the likelihood of causality. Granger causality hinges on the principle that a cause must precede its effect, and that the causal variable should consistently lead the outcome variable by a fixed period with high correlation.

Our Granger causality analysis reveals a significant relationship between Australian COVID vaccination and subsequent excess deaths, with a lag time of five months or 21 weeks and an accuracy rate of approximately 70 percent. In our initial study [4], we shifted the COVID vaccination data forward by five months or 21 weeks and observed a strong and consistent correlation with excess deaths, as depicted in Figure 1.

Notably, the vaccination data, extending until May 2023, which also provides an out-of-sample prediction of future excess deaths.

Conclusion

Due to flawed official COVID data, Australian governments and the public have been misled by research based on that unreliable data. The numbers of COVID deaths are inaccurate, probably exaggerated, but regardless, the numbers fall well short of being able to explain excess deaths.

Australian excess deaths may have several causes, but we have shown by Granger causality that COVID vaccination explains about 70 percent of Australian excess deaths. The issue extends beyond my individual submission.

The government’s practice of collecting data to support its policies raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding accountability.

Australia requires a data integrity commission to rectify official data inaccuracies.

https://principia-scientific.com/government-misinformation-on-australian-excess-mortality/

*************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*********************************************************