Should treatment for blood clots be routine in some Covid patients?

My heading above is a plain English version of the first academic heading below. Blood clots can do a lot of harm so are a serious problem. But they can be treated with considerable success by blood thinners such as Warfarin. But Warfarin has its problems too. It can cause bleeding. So, obviously, you use it only when it is clearly needed.

And the BIG question is whether you should use it for prevention. Should you give it to a patient BEFORE they get any symptoms?

Nobody is saying that you should give thinners to ALL Covid patients so the question is whether you should give it to high-risk patients? If so, how do you identify the patients most likely to suffer from blood clots?

So you can see that there is a real problem there. The study from Oxford University below tries to solve that puzzle

And there are some categories of patient who usually ARE high risk. We can identifty some patients as being at risk. So how great does the risk have to be before you give a patient thinners? The article below tries to answer that and concludes that there are some cases that should get preventive treatment.

But the problem is a difficult one so I reproduce below the Abstract from the original Oxford article plus two further comments on it.

A crude summary of the findings is that fat old guys should be given thinners. I am old and a bit overweight so if ever I get Covid, I should probably be given a low dose of thinners

Clinical and Genetic Risk Factors for Acute Incident Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Patients With COVID-19

JunQing Xie et al.

Key Points

Question What is the 30-day acute risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among ambulatory patients with COVID-19, and what are the clinical and genetic risk factors predisposing them to developing post–COVID-19 VTE?

Findings In this retrospective cohort study of 18 818 outpatients with COVID-19 and 93 179 propensity score–matched noninfected participants, a higher VTE incidence was observed in the former (hazard ratio, 21.42); however, this risk was considerably attenuated among the fully vaccinated, after breakthrough infection. Older age, male sex, obesity, no vaccination or partial vaccination, and inherited thrombophilia were independent risk factors for COVID-19–associated VTE.

Meaning The results of this study suggest that ambulatory patients with COVID-19, either vaccinated or not, present a clinically relevant increased risk of incident VTE during the acute phase, with the risk pronounced by factors of older age, male sex, obesity, incomplete vaccination, and factor V Leiden thrombophilia.

Abstract

Importance The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory COVID-19 is controversial. In addition, the association of vaccination with COVID-19–related VTE and relevant clinical and genetic risk factors remain to be elucidated.

Objective To quantify the association between ambulatory COVID-19 and short-term risk of VTE, study the potential protective role of vaccination, and investigate clinical and genetic risk factors for post–COVID-19 VTE.

Design, Setting, and Participants This population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19 from UK Biobank included participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection that was confirmed by a positive polymerase chain test reaction result between March 1, 2020, and September 3, 2021, who were then propensity score matched to COVID-19–naive people during the same period. Participants with a history of VTE who used antithrombotic drugs (1 year before index dates) or tested positive in hospital were excluded.

Exposures First infection with SARS-CoV-2, age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, obesity, vaccination status, and inherited thrombophilia.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite VTE, including deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, which occurred 30 days after the infection. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using cause-specific Cox models.

Results In 18 818 outpatients with COVID-19 (10 580 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [8.0] years) and 93 179 matched uninfected participants (52 177 women [56.0%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [7.9] years), the infection was associated with an increased risk of VTE in 30 days (incidence rate of 50.99 and 2.37 per 1000 person-years for infected and uninfected people, respectively; HR, 21.42; 95% CI, 12.63-36.31). However, risk was substantially attenuated among the fully vaccinated (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.82-19.5; interaction P = .02). In patients with COVID-19, older age, male sex, and obesity were independently associated with higher risk, with adjusted HRs of 1.87 (95% CI, 1.50-2.33) per 10 years, 1.69 (95% CI, 1.30-2.19), and 1.83 (95% CI, 1.28-2.61), respectively. Further, inherited thrombophilia was associated with an HR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.15-3.66) for post–COVID-19 VTE.

Conclusions and Relevance In this population-based cohort study of patients with COVID-19, ambulatory COVID-19 was associated with a substantially increased risk of incident VTE, but this risk was greatly reduced in fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infection. Older age, male sex, and obesity were clinical risk factors for post–COVID-19 VTE; factor V Leiden thrombophilia was additionally associated with double the risk, comparable with the risk of 10-year aging. These findings may reinforce the need for vaccination, inform VTE risk stratification, and call for targeted VTE prophylaxis strategies for unvaccinated outpatients with COVID-19.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2795466

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

Is There a Role for Thromboprophylaxis in Selected Outpatients With COVID-19?

Anastasios Kollias et al.

Mr Xie and colleagues1 provide important information on an understudied topic: incident venous thromboembolism (VTE) in outpatients with COVID-19. The findings of their study are commendable and provide useful conclusions. First, COVID-19 was associated with increased VTE risk, even in the outpatient setting given that a higher VTE incidence was shown among 18 818 outpatients with COVID-19 compared with 93 179 propensity score matched, noninfected participants. Second, patients with specific characteristics (older age, male sex, obesity, no/partial vaccination, and inherited thrombophilia) had higher VTE risk. Third, the VTE risk was high for up to 30 days after diagnosis. These findings are highly important and may advance case management and treatment for outpatients with COVID-19.

At present, the available data are generally against the routine use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19.2,3 Moreover, current guidelines do not provide specific recommendations.4 However, it is common sense that selected outpatients with VTE risk factors are therefore at higher risk for disease worsening and would benefit from thromboprophylaxis on an individualized basis and after careful assessment of bleeding risk. Indeed, data show that major adverse events tend to occur early in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have a high-risk profile; prompt thromboprophylaxis would benefit these patients.5

The study by Mr Xie and colleagues was performed during a period when only 41% of patients with COVID-19 had been fully vaccinated; a percentage that has increased worldwide. Thus, it would be interesting to study VTE risk factors separately among the fully vaccinated group—despite VTE events having been infrequent. Moreover, apart from the patient risk factors, the disease characteristics may play a role. Symptoms that indicate disease activity or severity, ie, the duration of the fever, could be contributing to an increased VTE risk in selected patients. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 variants may exhibit a different risk regarding VTE. If these data are available, they would make for another interesting study.

Although thromboprophylaxis among outpatients with COVID-19 is not generally recommended, the data and findings derived from studies, such as this one by Mr Xie and colleagues,1 show that selected outpatients carry an increased VTE risk. On the other hand, widespread immunization, as well as the availability of the antiviral therapies, may be substantially reducing VTE risk. Whether thromboprophylaxis would benefit high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 is unclear, but it seems reasonable to conclude that an individualized strategy would improve their prognosis.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2799543

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

Is There a Role for Thromboprophylaxis in Selected Outpatients With COVID-19? — Reply

Junqing Xie et al.

In Reply In our recent research article regarding clinical and genetic determinants associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) among community-dwelling patients with COVID-19,1 we reported a marked increase of 30-day VTE and identified older age, male sex, obesity, no or partial vaccination, and inherited thrombophilia as key risk factors. We appreciate the insightful comments from Prof Kollias and colleagues and their support of our call for targeted VTE thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with COVID-19.

Hospitalization is the recommended indicator for initiating antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19. However, we argue that the likelihood of post−COVID-19 VTE should be conceptually seen as a continuum, with some outpatients treated for COVID-19 at an even higher risk of VTE than some hospitalized patients. Also, given that VTE hazard peaks substantially and shortly after SARS-COV-2 infection,2 individuals with COVID-19 would likely benefit from earlier interventions for primary prophylaxis. Our study1 identified several independent risk factors that can be used to stratify patients with different risk profiles for post−COVID-19 VTE. We should highlight that although existing trials (eg, ETHIC, ACTIV-4B) did not generally support routine pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with COVID-19, the results should be interpreted as inconclusive given the great statistical uncertainty and underrepresentation of older patients, and consequently, the low event rates. Therefore, the results do not preclude the use of thromboprophylaxis in selected outpatient subpopulations, particularly among those with a high baseline risk of VTE.3 Further trials targeting high-risk infected outpatients and more real-world studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are warranted to supplement the existing evidence.4

Admittedly, the net benefits of antithrombotic therapy should always be weighed against potential harms5—eg, for those at high risk of VTE, risk of bleeding should be considered when prescribing antithrombotic therapy.6 Of note, genetic risk owing to monogenic thrombophilia or polygenic risk score, as evidenced in our study,1 was exclusively associated with venous but not arterial thromboembolism, which may be promising for identifying individuals susceptible to VTE but resistant to bleeding. Finally, we agree with the proposal from Prof Kollias and colleagues to investigate whether the risk factors persist in fully vaccinated people and what potential value disease symptoms may have for VTE prediction. However, our available data are insufficient for answering this question given the limited sample size: only 6 VTE events among the breakthrough infection cohort.

As the number of COVID-19 outpatient cases continues to increase, personalized prophylactic anticoagulation in this large population may prevent a substantial number of individuals with COVID-19 from developing severe thrombotic complications that require hospitalization and/or intensive care. The clinical and genetic risk factors identified by our study should inform the identification of participants for new research to bridge the knowledge gaps on the risk vs benefit of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2799542

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

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) Also here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google is increasing their attacks on my Tongue-Tied blog (https://snorphty.blogspot.com/)

On 18th I republished there an article from the NY SUN about the definition of a woman. Google (who own blogspot) have put a notice on that post saying that they have unpublished it because it violates their guidelines. They have instructed me to revise the article according to their guidelines

The odd bit is that as far as I can see, the article is still appearing on my blog unaltered. Maybe I am the only one who can now see it. I would be obliged if readers would tell me what they see there when they log on.

The blog has been for some time behind a scare warning if you access it via a cellphone but remains accessible without interruption if you log onto it via computer

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

The Bible

I have done a bit more writing about Bible topics. My latest is about Methuselah. See here

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

FDA’s Peter Marks Starts Recognizing the Failures of the COVID-19 Vaccines

A controversial figure of late, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been front and center in the regulatory agency’s aggressive greenlights associated with the COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.

Among other things, the agency has been criticized for dropping its rigorous standards during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency at least, when applied to the mRNA vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2.

Interestingly, Dr. Marks has now gone on the record in a piece published in JAMA Network titled “Urgent Need for Next Generation COVID-19 Vaccines” in a clear recognition that the current “version 1.0”, first generation COVID-19 vaccines are no longer viable to protect the American public. This media has labeled the COVID-19 vaccines as novel, version 1.0 since the late spring of 2021, when it became very apparent that vaccine durability challenges coupled with a mutating virus (which was called out by critical scientists from the start) represented a challenge for vaccine durability.

While TrialSite maintains the COVID-19 vaccines partially blunted the sharp edge of the pandemic, initially they did so at a severe cost. The vaccines were bundled in a program precluding any serious embrace of early care with repurposed drugs, orchestrated government censorship of media and social tech, and harassment of doctors that dared question any moves by Washington DC or industry all representing perhaps, one of the greatest public health failures in modern history. More people died in America from SARS-CoV-2 than any other nation despite the vast trillions, sophisticated technologies and supposed state-of-the-art vaccines.

From the start influencers such as the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not to mention academic medicine, big hospital administration, and industry all bought in hook, line, and sinker into the scheme that mass COVID-19 vaccination would control and eradicate SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.

In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) specifically established the 70% vaccination rate as a target threshold to achieve herd immunity. But from near the start this media, and a minority of independent, critical scientists questioned aloud that logic. Could a dynamic RNA virus that mutates like say, HIV or influenza, be controlled by a novel mass vaccination scheme? Has the flu been controlled out of existence?

This seemed a crap shoot at best, yet the U.S. federal government and its health agencies along with other of the world’s richest most sophisticated economies bet the proverbial farm on novel technology in a way that was guaranteed to not work as intended. Was this a totally desperate move or part of some orchestrated response to advance a biomedical platform?

While the vaccines worked to induce antibodies for short bursts, they did save lives, especially earlier on. But within months (Delta appeared by spring of 2021) of the mass vaccination program it was apparent that they failed to control the spread of the pathogen, exhibited poor durability, and were associated with a disturbing safety signal in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

While by the summer of 2021 the whole program should have been under investigation President Biden ordered mandates across the board by September 2021. Now two years later since they were first released on the market Peter Marks initiates a dialogue paving the way to sunset these products, thinking ahead for a next generation of more effective, safety COVID-19 vaccine. But that’s not enough.

Now on the record, that while issues of “vaccines access and hesitancy present throughout the pandemic are partially responsible,” the relentless, or in his words “ceaseless progression of increasingly transmissible variants, recently including BF.7 and BQ.1.1 presents a major challenge to medical interventions, particularly vaccines.”

TrialSite recently showcased a couple studies that indicate real trouble when it comes to the recently authorized bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 vaccine booster effectiveness against subvariants such as BQ.1.1. Put simply, these vaccines don’t work very well against a continuously evolving virus.

To date, the original primary series (2 dose) regimen (mRNA vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) was introduced by December 2020, followed by two additional booster doses due to waning effectiveness. Then by September, the FDA cleared on an emergency basis without clinical data the bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA/5 booster vaccine in a response to mutated subvariants that evade vaccine-induced antibodies with ease. The FDA sought to respond to the ongoing genetic evolution of SARS-CoV-2 seemingly, the best way it could with the latest booster doses from both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.

The market demand has been very weak for the bivalent booster products and yet the FDA has continued to evidence questionable behavior, such as ongoing promotional campaigns that attempt to create tension among family members who aren’t yet boosted. See “FDA Uses Little Girl to Market Moderna and Pfizer Bivalent Jabs—Crosses a Line Yet Again.”

With no definitive clinical data, Marks continues to promote the current products, declaring in his piece that the bivalent boosters may not only reduce morbidity and mortality but also “may also reduce the amount of symptomatic disease and associated health care use.” But he conveys throughout the article that the time has come to move on from these current products.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/fdas-peter-marks-starts-recognizing-the-failures-of-the-covid-19-vaccines-2a916ab9

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

COVID Report Raises Further Questions About Confidence in Virus Origins, and Intelligence Community

On Wednesday night, as Sarah covered, Fox News revealed a report from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee looking into the origins of the COVID-19 virus. The report was released by minority staff members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In a press call held Thursday afternoon, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, (R-OH), a doctor who is a member of the committee, declared that such a report is "just the beginning."

A particularly memorable finding is that the virus may have origins through a Chinese bio weapons program. It becomes even more memorable in that Rep. Wenstrup mentioned during the call that a report from the intelligence community claims there is supposedly agreement that the virus was not developed as such a weapon.

The congressman is especially interested in knowing who came up to what he referred to as this "broad agreement," and as to what level of confidence there was. The certainty of that level of confidence was not included in the report, though, nor was the basis for why the report indicated as much.

Wenstrup spoke further about this supposed "broad agreement" when taking a question from Townhall, confirming that there is an expectation to just take the report's word for it, though he does hope to get to the bottom of that basis. "Where's the accountability for who's making those comments," the congressman wondered. While he agreed that those putting out such a report should have to answer for it, he confirmed that they haven't done so.

When asked during a follow-up about what such lofty and entitled expectations mean for trust in the intelligence community, the congressman acknowledged trust becomes a problem and "is greatly diminished." This acknowledgment comes from both sides of the aisle, with Democratic members indicating as much as well, the congressman confirmed.

"The way you develop trust and confidence is through transparency," Wenstrup offered. When it comes to entitlement, if anyone is entitled, it ought to be the members of this select committee. "There's nothing they should be keeping from us," the congressman insisted, a point he would make throughout the call, especially when it comes to fulfilling their duties. "It's our job to ask these questions and have that type of understanding," the congressman would say during the call as well. Findings about COVID origins are "something I think we're entitled to understand" he said.

When it comes to that trust, the congressman also shared that they have a responsibility of oversight on the committee. "When we're not getting our questions answered, there is a breakdown of trust," something the committee hopes to dispel.

As to other theories for COVID origins, Wenstrup mentioned that, other than the article hypothesizing as much, he hasn't seen evidence that the virus came from nature. One such theory propagated, to the point that those who dare to mention a lab leak or bio weapon have been ostracized, is that it originated at a wet market. While the congressman noted that the wet market could have been the first super spreader, that doesn't mean that's where the virus came from. While the origin of a virus usually can be found within the animal world, that was not the case when it comes to the animals that were tested for this virus.

Transparency, Wenstrup spoke to, is also crucial when it comes to America being prepared for any future viruses and pandemics. We can do that "by learning what is going on and what our adversaries are doing," especially if it comes to China having a bio weapon and/or developing their own virus along with their own vaccine. This is a matter of national security as well.

The press call was billed to be about sharing bombshells, and the stunning lack of transparency from the intelligence community report was not the only revelation. For instance, China having its own vaccine is not merely a hypothetical, as they looked to have a vaccine patent so quickly after the virus was unleashed, something Wenstrup mentioned was not all too common and "you scratch your head over."

A lack of transparency was, unfortunately, a theme and point of concern throughout the call. On the ever-pressing issue of gain-of-function and taxpayer funding of it through the grants involved, Wenstrup lamented that they "haven't had the right people in front of us" to answer questions.

Other pressing issues and potentially damning revelations lie with China's accountability. In answering a question from a reporter as to if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) appears to be emboldened by the lack of accountability, Wenstrup believes that they likely have, especially since it appears they can get away with it. A lack of accountability "would embolden anybody who is in this situation," he offered. If China did in fact create the virus, Wenstrup pointed out, they would have something to lose on the world stage.

"If there was negligence, we certainly should hold someone accountable," the congressman offered.

When it comes to the lack of accountability, and how the CCP is indeed feeling emboldened by this, the mainstream media deserves some of the blame too, in insisting on the theory that occurred in nature, for instance. Who can forget how ostracized Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) was for daring to suggest early on that the virus may have been manufactured in a lab? The New York Times in February 2020 declared it to be "a fringe theory," for instance.

"If our own media is saying you can't tell the other story, that's a problem," Wenstrup mentioned. Thus, China becomes further emboldened if "they feel America can't do anything about this."

There may even be issues for President Joe Biden, as brought up by a reporter on the call, especially when it comes to transparency issues and how the president has (or has not been) discussing COVID with Xi Jinping. Despite how much Biden has touted his relationship with the Chinese leader, the president appears to have failed to discuss the virus' origins of the virus, as Katie highlighted at the time about the two leaders meeting last month.

While the congressman wished to stick to how he was looking "into the science of" the virus as a physician, there was an acknowledgment that transparency concerns with Biden "might be part of a bigger picture."

Wenstrup also sought to emphasize that there is a bipartisan quest for truth on this. Even those who want to find out the origins of the virus without getting into the blame game yet, with Wenstrup mentioning being part of those group of people, there is nevertheless "a lot of evidence that raises eyebrows."

The congressman told reporters he hopes for the classified report to ultimately be declassified.

https://townhall.com//tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2022/12/15/bombshells-in-covid-report-raise-further-questions-about-confidence-in-virus-origins-n2617189

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

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) Also here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrowing moment parents who refused to give their newborn vaccinated blood ahead of urgent surgery have the baby 'ripped away' from them by authorities

Dramatic video has emerged of the moment parents watched their baby taken from them and placed into a doctor's care after they refused to allow him to receive a transfusion with vaccinated blood ahead of urgent heart surgery.

The six-month-old had been in a New Zealand hospital since November to receive surgery for a congenital heart disease that was delayed by several weeks because of the parents' concerns.

A New Zealand High Court decision ruled the baby would be placed into the care of his pediatric heart surgeon and cardiologist until the completion of the surgery and post-operative recovery.

Harrowing footage of the encounter shows the distressed parents frantically trying to speak with authorities as the baby was taken away by hospital staff.

'You guys will be recorded in the annals of history as criminals who take babies from their mothers,' the baby's father can be heard saying to authorities as an administrator informs the mother she can see the baby after surgery.

After the distressing encounter, the baby's father spoke candidly to the camera: 'I dont know where this goes to around the world, but our baby has been medically kidnapped,' he said.

'Thugs have come in wearing police uniforms, and they've ripped the baby out of his bed.

'Let this be a lesson to the entire rest of humanity, the takeover has already started, and it started in a hospital ward with a baby. 'I call on humanity to rise, because you all know what's happening.'

Footage of the incident has circulated around the internet after originally being posted on Rumble.com on December 8.

The parents are represented by lawyer and prominent anti-vax campaigner, Sue Grey, who said 'because they label my clients as conspiracy theorists, [their position] is that anything my clients say can be ignored'.

The hospital planned for the baby to receive the life-saving surgery last week. The parents will prioritise 'peaceful time with their baby until the operation, and to support him through the operation', Ms Grey said in a December 8 Facebook post.

'We have concluded that the government cannot afford anything to go wrong for Baby W as the world is watching. 'He is likely to get the best possible care with the best safest blood.'

Two more parents have requested only unvaccinated blood for their seriously ill toddler this week, NZ Herald reports.

Parents Croydon Hodge and Doreen Rudolph, who have a toddler with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, have refused permission for the hospital to use vaccinated blood for the boy's urgent surgery.

New Zealand's blood service has presented evidence of a 'significant increase in potential blood recipients asking for blood from unvaccinated donors'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11544751/NZ-Heart-wrenching-moment-parents-refused-baby-vaccinated-blood-taken-away.html

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

Can Vaccines 'Prevent Nearly Every Death From COVID'?

As the winter season brings a sickness surge, the Biden administration is back to blathering about the supposed efficacy of the coronavirus vaccine, with one of its top doctors claiming "nearly every" COVID-19 death is preventable with vaccination.

CLAIM: The White House's COVID-19 response coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha claimed at Thursday's press conference, "We know we can prevent nearly every death from COVID if people get their updated vaccines [...] So, we continue to press that message."

FACTS: The White House's "message" is countered by data analysis conducted for the Washington Post's The Health 202, which revealed that 58 percent of COVID-19 fatalities were vaccinated or boosted patients in August. "We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated," Kaiser Family Foundation vice president Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Post.

As Katie covered, the new statistics on COVID-19 deaths debunked the White House's narrative on the vaccine. In late November, when the WaPo report was released, Jha had just made the same claim a day earlier that "if folks get their updated vaccines and they get treated if they have a breakthrough infection, we can prevent essentially every COVID death in America."

Although the findings marked the first time that a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus had received at least the primary series of the vaccine, it continued an eye-opening pattern where we saw the vaxxed population make up 23 percent of 'Rona deaths in September 2021, and then up to 42 percent of the COVID-19 death toll in January and February of this year.

RATING: The claim that keeping up-to-date with coronavirus vaccinations can "prevent nearly every death from COVID" is FALSE. Even though the president has proclaimed we're facing a so-called "pandemic of the unvaccinated" and threatened that unvaxxed Americans alone would suffer "a winter of severe illness and death," Biden's alarmist language isn't backed by real-world numbers.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2022/12/16/fact-check-prevent-covid-deaths-updated-vaccines-n2617221

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

Twitter Censorship Contributed to Destructive Pandemic Policies and Is Criminal, Says Former White House COVID Adviser

The recently revealed censorship that has plagued Twitter in recent years is “criminal,” according to former White House COVID adviser Dr. Scott Atlas, as it allowed “lies to be imposed on the public” during a pandemic that wrought untold damage worldwide.

“When correct science policy is blocked, people die, and people died from the censorship,” Atlas, a special coronavirus adviser during the Trump administration and contributor to The Epoch Times, said in an interview.

Atlas was speaking days after Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter, released troves of internal files showing how the previous Twitter team built a blacklist to limit disfavored tweets’ visibility without the knowledge of those using the platform. Among those flagged was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, whose tweet criticizing pandemic lockdowns shortly after joining the platform last August got him on the “trends blacklist” preventing the amplification of his tweets.

But such revelations, Atlas said, are “only the tip of the iceberg.”

“There’s a far larger story here that we need to hear,” he said, which he considers “far more nefarious and more systemic than isolated tweets being pulled down.”

“This seems to be criminal behavior, and I think it needs to be investigated in the courts,” he said.

The Censorship of 2020

Atlas wants to direct attention back to 2020, when health officials followed in the Chinese Communist Party’s footsteps to implement blanket COVID-19 lockdowns.

In November of that year, while Atlas was still on the White House’s coronavirus task force, Twitter took down his post that argued mask-wearing was not effective in curbing the spread of the virus—a decision celebrated by some proponents of the measures, including fellow task force member Dr. Deborah Birx.

“One would think that the American public should hear what the adviser to the president is saying during the pandemic of 2020. Yet Twitter decided to simply block that discussion from the public,” he said.

Both Twitter and Facebook that August also removed a video from President Donald Trump in which he said children are “almost immune” to COVID-19. That same month, Facebook said it had deleted 7 million pieces of content it deemed to be COVID-19 misinformation over the second quarter of 2020.

Despite most states having a mask mandate until early this year, a number of studies found children and teenagers to be at a far lower risk of getting or dying from COVID-19, even with the emergence of new variants. But the “censorship of 2020,” be it deleting individual tweets, suspending accounts, or blocking the amplification of posts, had done its damage.

“When decisions were being made in 2020 and imposed upon the public, that’s when censorship counted the most,” Atlas said.

The absence of alternative viewpoints manipulated not only the public, but government officials as well, Atlas said.

“It created this illusion that there was a consensus among science and public health policy experts that lockdowns should be imposed; it created and perpetrated lies that if you were opposed to lockdowns, you were choosing the economy over lives, and that if you were opposed to lockdowns, you were somehow calling for letting the infection spread without any mitigation whatsoever,” he said.

“They absolutely contributed to policies that killed massive numbers of people and destroyed children and low-income people, who are the most vulnerable. That’s why it’s criminal.”

Atlas has been a vocal critic of COVID-19 lockdowns since early on in the pandemic, saying that “targeted protection was the logical, safer, and ethical way to manage the pandemic.” In May 2020, he wrote an article for the Hill warning about the “millions of years of life” such policies would cost Americans.

Learning loss aside, the pandemic restrictions led to an explosion of child abuse, drug overdoses, mental health issues, and obesity among youth, who were deprived of normal social interaction and forced to continue schooling through remote learning.

Collectively, America’s social media and legacy media, “coupled with incompetent bureaucrats running the policy and ignorant university professors have left a sinful legacy of damage,” said Atlas—the reason for the massive loss of trust in public health agencies that people depend for guidance in future crises.

Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently said his “biggest mistake” while at the company was to “invest in building tools for us to manage the public conversation, versus building tools for the people using Twitter to easily manage it for themselves,” a decision he said has “burdened the company with too much power.”

Late last month, Musk announced an end to the COVID-19 “misleading information” policy, which has resulted in 100,000 pieces of content cut from the platform and more than 11,000 account suspensions.

Atlas welcomed the gesture but thought that more individuals need to “rise up”—his term for speaking up, for real change.

“There should be a public outrage that is massive,” he said.

He believes those the American public elected to represent them haven’t done their part. “Where are our elected officials in this, where are they?” he asked. “If they can’t act, simply for ensuring free speech, they should all step down.”

‘Distortion’ Around Vaccine Mandates

A recent study published in Nature of over 15,000 citizens across 21 countries shows that people who have received COVID-19 vaccines are far more likely to be prejudiced against the unvaccinated than the other way around, which Atlas saw as yet another illustration of how social media censorship has shaped public opinion through suppressing critical information.

More than 5.47 billion people worldwide have received at least one dose of one of the COVID-19 vaccines, accounting for roughly 70 percent of the world population, despite lacking a “thorough, detailed understanding of efficacy and side effects from the vaccines,” Atlas noted.

But because of the lockdown mandates, which he called “pseudo-scientific,” throngs of workers in healthcare, education, and the military lost their jobs and hospitals suffered staffing shortages, causing backlogs of patients needing vital treatment for other non-COVID-19 diseases.

In perpetrating a “false narrative,” social media platforms have deviated from their promised role as a digital town hall and a visible source of information, and instead allowed themselves to be a tool for harm, said Atlas.

“We are living in an Orwellian society if this sort of censorship is allowed to keep going.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-censorship-contributed-to-destructive-pandemic-policies-and-is-criminal-says-former-white-house-covid-adviser_4927500.html

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

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) Also here

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible

After a gap of about a year, I have just put something up on my scripture blog. It is about love

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

Researchers Decry Censorship in COVID Policy During Meeting With Gov. DeSantis

Michelle Utter, a health care worker and single mother of grown sons who are active-duty military, said she was in great physical shape—running, working out, and martial arts—until she took the Pfizer vaccine for COVID.

Utter described the ordeal she’s been through for the last two years—physically, trying to do her job and facing resistance and silencing from the Florida hospital that employs her. She’s not allowed to say, “vaccine injury.” She’s been on IV infusions for 17 months.

Another vaccine victim, Steven Ordonia, a retired law enforcement officer and military veteran, talked about his ordeal, which began when he received the Pfizer booster shot in December 2021.

“And from that day on, my life has been turned upside down,” with numerous trips to the emergency room, joint pain, muscle twitching, and convulsions.

“I was convinced at the time I was having a mental breakdown, and that’s what was causing all the symptoms. I contemplated suicide several times.”

As a reminder to all that public health policy has real consequences, the two spoke at a round table on Dec. 13 led by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

The governor convened a panel of experts—primarily researchers who had tried to warn about problems with the vaccines—and launched a grand jury investigation into vaccine problems and how they were dealt with or covered up.

The researchers will sit on the state’s new Public Health Integrity Committee.

Researcher after researcher talked about how the public health establishment suppressed information: that the vaccines often don’t pass risk-benefit analysis. How sometimes-fatal myocarditis has emerged as a side effect. How the vaccines’ rates of complications were far higher than those of most approved vaccines. How countries like Denmark, rather than mandating children take the vaccine, now don’t allow them to take it. How lower COVID mortality among vaccine users is often offset by higher mortality from other causes.

They, DeSantis and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo excoriated a medical establishment that, in DeSantis’ words, “wanted to just cocoon themselves from any criticism, and to try to denigrate anybody that had a different way of thinking.”

‘Largest Blunder in Human History’
“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that all decision-making surrounding COVID amounts to the largest blunder in human history,” said Bret Weinstein, a former evolutionary biology professor at Evergreen State College.

“I think the major problem has been that … people, regular people, scientists, whoever thinks that there’s something really different than the narrative, you’re gonna get destroyed,” said Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford Medical School public health professor. “That’s happened over and over again, even for very prominent scientists,” he said.

“A lot of the censorship that’s happened of scientific discussion comes from the top.”

Bhattacharya and another round table participant, Martin Kulldorff, were two of the three lead authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, signed by over 60,000 doctors and researchers, plus 870,000 others. Made public in October 2020, signers decried the harm of the lockdown.

They urged, until a vaccine became available, a policy of “Focused Protection”: isolating those at greatest risk while allowing others to go about their lives, acquiring natural and herd immunity.

It called for the resumption of everyday life for most people, said basic hygiene like routine handwashing and staying home when sick were sufficient community measures, and described how the vulnerable, such as the elderly, could be best protected at home and in nursing homes.

The declaration was targeted immediately by the head of the NIH, Francis Collins, with “a devastating takedown of the premises of the declaration,” Bhattacharya said.

“The federal officials were working to suppress what they called misinformation, but actually what they suppress is scientific discussion.”

Emergency Room Physician

Joseph Fraiman, an emergency room physician in what he termed “Cajun country” in Louisiana, said that he and six fellow researchers studied “serious adverse events” associated with the vaccines, events the manufacturers themselves defined.

“And what I mean by serious is that you’re either hospitalized, or you were permanently disabled, or dead,” he said.

They wanted to look at them with “a magnifying glass” because the manufacturers “originally reported that there was no harm, there was no serious harm to the vaccines.”

What they found, Fraiman said, “is that there are more of these types of events in the vaccine group than in the non-vaccine, the placebo group.”

“To our surprise, in the Pfizer trial, the first vaccine to go through it was a 37 percent increase in the number of serious adverse events. That was never reported, not by the FDA, not by Pfizer,” he said.

“In fact, Pfizer says—I may get it wrong verbatim—but they said that the incidence of serious adverse events are similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Thirty-seven percent is not similar. It’s actually statistically significantly different.”

And, “it turns out in both Pfizer and Moderna, we had a one in 800 risk of serious adverse events” from the list.

Other vaccines, Fraiman said, have a one in one million or one in two million risk. “One in 800 is disastrous, if true.”

Most people, if they contract COVID now, don’t have a one in 800 chance of being hospitalized, he said.

pfizer vaccine

A health care worker prepares a dose of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in a file image. (Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)
Researchers with different areas of specialty talked about their findings, perspectives, and experiences, trying to publicize what they’d found.

Ladapo discussed a small, preliminary study in Florida comparing all-cause mortality with cardiac mortality after COVID vaccination. They found two remarkable things: a markedly increased risk of cardiac death in young men, specifically in that age and group, and a failure by most public health officials to acknowledge it.

Christine Stabell Benn, a Danish doctor and researcher at the University of Southern Denmark who videoconferenced in, said the vaccines appear to have “nonspecific events”—greater risk of infection by other diseases.

“If we’ve only studied its effect against the target disease, we also need to study its effect against other diseases and its effects on overall mortality and morbidity,” she said.

“I was very concerned when we started recommending vaccines for everybody because I simply didn’t think that the vaccines have been investigated thoroughly enough for nonspecific events. In fact, they haven’t been investigated (at all) for nonspecific events,” she said.

“This means that particularly for children and young people who weren’t at a high risk for COVID-19, I was concerned that nonspecific effects might outweigh or exceed … the benefits achieved from the specific protection against COVID-19.”

Danish public health policy now only recommends booster COVID vaccinations to those over 50 except those at severe risk, and immunization of children has stopped altogether.

As of a few weeks ago, she said, COVID is now regarded in Denmark like any other respiratory disease. “It’s really nice to be here (in Denmark),” she said. “Life goes on as it used to do before COVID. Nobody pays attention to COVID-19 anymore.”

‘Disregarded Basic Principles’

Kulldorff, on leave from Harvard and a fellow at Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science & Freedom, said, “I agree with Dr. Weinstein that our approach to this pandemic is the biggest public health mistake in history … We basically disregarded basic principles of public health.”

He and others who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration argued for a different approach: better-focused protection for high-risk old people while keeping schools open and not locking down the rest of society.

“I think now, over two years later, we have been proven right. Florida and Sweden were two exceptions to the strategy, and both Sweden and Florida have come out on top when it comes to both COVID mortality and, even more importantly, to all-cause mortality,” Kulldorff said.

Sweden has among the lowest rates in Europe. “I think it’s very tragic what we have gone through by mismanaging this pandemic so thoroughly.”

Weinstein discussed the high personal cost of his dissent from COVID orthodoxy.

YouTube shut down his channel, and two videos—one featuring an inventor of mRNA technology and the other with an expert on treating COVID—were removed. “They knocked out more than half of our family income inside of a single hour,” he said.

“There was a radical inversion of the normal medical order of things in this pandemic,” Weinstein said.

“The relationship between doctor and patient is essentially an intimate, sacred relationship. And what happened here is that there was a coup, in which what was swapped in place of that relationship was public health wisdom from bureaucrats,” he said.

“And the problem is that, had we not done anything coordinated with COVID, we would have learned clinically how to treat it. Doctors would have followed hunches. They would have tried things out. They would have discovered what worked and what didn’t. They would have talked to each other, and we would have gotten good at treating COVID.

“Instead, what happened was the policy came down from on high, instantaneously, and fully formed. And then that policy was protected with these draconian censorship measures. With slander.”

The system wasted the narrow window of time when it might have contained the virus’ spread.

“So, at this point, we have millions needlessly dead. We have trillions of dollars of wealth that have been destroyed, and the vital systems that humanity depends on have been stressed to their very limit. But worse than that, we have now made this virus into a permanent fellow traveler of humanity.”

‘Afraid to Speak Up’

Bhattacharya said he had been accused of being a fringe epidemiologist.

“The illusion is that there was a scientific consensus, that everybody, all the smart people, agreed. But actually, that was never true. The censorship was used to create that illusion of consensus,” he said.

He called out U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who put in place a policy to identify misinformation online and then gave out instructions for suppressing it to media and social media companies.

“You can’t have good public health policy in this kind of environment,” Bhattacharya said.

“People are afraid to speak up … Even qualified people are afraid to say no because they’re afraid that they’ll also get called ‘fringe.’ They’ll lose their ability to make a living, they’ll lose their reputation, and they stay silent as a result. Scientists always disagree with each other.”

Tracey Hoeg, a physician and epidemiologist at UC San Francisco, talked about how the California Medical Board got a bill through the legislature “telling physicians what they are and aren’t allowed to say to their patients, and that’s specifically related to COVID.”

DeSantis said, “The rule of thumb for us in Florida is whatever they do (in California), we do the opposite.”

His administration plans to move through Florida’s upcoming legislature a bill “that actually protects physicians’ First Amendment rights, and it protects their right to dissent from orthodoxy and from the establishment.”

Loss of Trust

“There’s been a tremendous loss of trust in public health,” said Steven Templeton, an immunology and microbiology professor at Indiana University School of Medicine.

“Fewer people are getting traditional vaccines,” he said. “This isn’t just, you know, anti-vax people. This is people who really lost trust in the system.”

Fraiman interjected that parents listening to the round table should not apply what they heard about the COVID vaccines to most other vaccines, which have nearly no side effects.

DeSantis listed various actions Florida had taken against federal lockdown policy and preserving individual rights.

One event highlighting the system’s corruption for him, he said, happened early on, in the spring of 2020. People were being told to stay home, and Florida, which didn’t follow that policy, had people going to the beach and playing golf.

“If you left your house, you’re almost like a bad person,” DeSantis said of the lockdown rules. “Until you started to have the George Floyd protests. And you had massive numbers of people that are meeting to protest.

“And these public health people wrote a letter, which like hundreds, maybe thousands of them signed, saying, ‘yes, we don’t think you should be leaving your house normally, but we endorse the protest,’ and basically said it was important that people went out even in big groups and protested.”

But they wouldn’t endorse other protests such as those against lockdowns, DeSantis said. “If that just didn’t take the mask off and just show, you know, that this is all a huge political farce,” he said.

“They have totally squandered any type of confidence or goodwill that people would have.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/meeting-with-desantis-researchers-decry-censorship-in-covid-policy_4922584.html

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

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) Also here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter Files Confirm Censorship of the Great Barrington Declaration

Users have suspected Twitter of engaging in “shadowbanning” and suppressing the visibility of user accounts for years, even though the social media giant has adamantly denied the practice.

Yesterday (Dec 8 2022), using the information provided by Twitter under direction from new Chief Executive Elon Musk, journalist Bari Weiss, released a Twitter thread confirming these suspicions. Twitter secretly suppressed accounts, operated a “search blacklist,” and blocked certain content from trending, Weiss’ thread confirms. In response, Musk tweeted that Twitter plans to release software that will provide users with more clarity regarding shadowbanning.

Victims of Twitter’s practices include Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford professor of medicine and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). Weiss’s thread and The Twitter Files confirm what we’ve long suspected. Seeking to prop up Anthony Fauci and the lockdown policies he promoted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter (and other Big Tech companies) intentionally blacklisted, censored, suppressed, and targeted the GBD and its signers.

Within Twitter, the Strategic Response Team—Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET, worked on hundreds of cases daily, actively filtering the visibility of select accounts.

For high-profile accounts, the “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support,” team, known as “SIP-PES” would secretly make censorship decisions. The SIP-PES team comprised high-profile executives such as the Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust, Vijaya Gadde, Global Head of Trust & Safety, Yoel Roth, and former CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal.

In addition to Weiss, Twitter’s new leadership granted journalist Matt Taibbi access to its files. Below, Taibbi illustrates how Twitter deleted tweets at the behest of the Biden Presidential campaign.

Still unfolding in this investigation is the role of government officials in pressuring Twitter to engage in censorship over the COVID-19 pandemic. As revealed by a lawsuit earlier this year, internal company Slack messages show that Andy Slavitt, a former official on Joe Biden’s pandemic task force, met with Twitter officials and pressured them to restrict the account of COVID gadfly Alex Berenson. Slavitt also , delivered an ominous warning to executives at Facebook that the company would find itself in the White House’s crosshairs if it did not step up its efforts to restrict what the task force deemed to be “COVID misinformation.”

We now have conclusive evidence that public officials pressure private companies to do the dirty work of censorship. We have yet to discover, and may never know, how far the political involvement in social media censorship went, and which officials were given the power to silence. An ongoing lawsuit by the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana is currently seeking to get to the bottom of those questions. Just two weeks ago, they obtained a court-ordered deposition from Anthony Fauci, in which they grilled him over similar suppressive tactics. Fauci proved evasive, invoking the “I don’t recall” line 174 times, but was caught in a lie about his direct personal involvement in the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) efforts to smear and discredit the GBD’s authors as “fringe epidemiologists.”

GBD co-author Jay Bhattacharya was slapped with a secret “Trends Blacklist” tag by Twitter executives at some point after his account was created in September 2021, Weiss’s thread confirms. The blacklist tag effectively suppressed Bhattacharya’s tweets by preventing them from going viral or being picked up by Twitter’s trends algorithm. By all appearances, one or more persons on the company’s SIP-PES team made the decision to suppress scientifically grounded dissent against lockdowns.

Given the history surrounding social media giants, government officials, and the GBD, Battacharya’s shadowbanning is not surprising. Unfortunately, neither Weiss nor Taibii’s thread indicates why Twitter took such actions against Dr. Battacharya, a respected Stanford Professor.

What we do know is that Twitter’s actions are consistent with other social media censorship of the declaration, its authors, and supporters. Posts referencing the GBD were removed from popular Reddit threads such as r/COVID-19 and r/Coronavirus, and large online communities with millions of members. Google also played a role. In the week after the GBD’s release in October 2020, Google’s news site search algorithms suppressed mainstream coverage of the document by outlets such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

Instead, it steered news searches for “Great Barrington Declaration” toward anti-GBD hit pieces in fringe venues such as the Byline Times, a blog featuring 9/11 conspiracy theorist Nafeez Ahmed. Google algorithms reportedly prioritized an anti-GBD political editorial in Wired Magazine that Anthony Fauci also mined for his own anti-GBD talking points in the press.

These acts of censorship occurred at a time when government officials were working hard behind the scenes to discredit the GBD and its authors. Most notably, NIAID director Anthony Fauci and NIH director Francis Collins collaborated to wage a “devastating published take down” campaign against the GBD, labeling it “nonsense” or “misinformation.”

Fauci and Collins’ actions are public information in emails first discovered through a Freedom of Information Act inquiry from AIER last winter. The Fauci-Collins emails made national news and became the subject of a Senate hearing in January 2021, where Senator Rand Paul grilled the White House’s COVID advisor over his involvement in the “take down” order.

Last week, Anthony Fauci denied any involvement in coordinating attacks on the GBD under deposition by the Missouri Attorney General. He claims that he was too busy to do so. His emails reveal a different story, though. Fauci expressed his agreement with Collins’ directive, and colluded with Deborah Birx to preempt discussion of the GBD at a White House COVID task force meeting. At some point, Fauci even directed his Chief of Staff Greg Folkers to assemble a list of anti-GBD political editorials, evidently to be parrotted back to the news media during interviews about the GBD. We still don’t know the full extent of Fauci’s efforts, because the NIH heavily redacted several pages of the requested records. But his involvement in the “take down” is undeniable.

Given the nature of Fauci’s smears, lies, and demeanor towards those who question his policy prescriptions, it is time to fully open up the public record at the NIH. It is time to scrutinize the decisions they made during COVID-19, including decisions to politicize science and suppress dissenting viewpoints.

We know that Twitter worked with the Biden campaign to suppress tweets. We know that top Biden administration officials pressured Twitter, Facebook, and presumably other companies to penalize dissenting viewpoints on COVID-19 policy, including lockdowns. We also know that Fauci, former White House Chief Medical Advisor, will leverage the media to undermine his perceived opponents and lie about it under oath. We know.

Private companies are free to censor user speech on their platforms, but when top government officials pressure them to take these actions, that crosses a different line.

Thanks to Musk releasing the Twitter files to Weiss and Taibbi, we have more insight into Twitter’s internal censorship policies. Unfortunately, until the NIH releases more information, the Twitter Files raise more questions than answers.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14366&omhide=true&trk=title

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

With Passenger Mask Mandate Gone, Flight Turbulence Stats Improve Markedly

The friendly skies too often resembled “season’s beatings” shopping brawls during the pandemic, as the number of arguments and even fistfights surged on-board. Viral videos of the flight-and-fight mayhem frequently had a common denominator – the federal government’s mask requirement.

So it may come as little surprise that disruptions on commercial domestic flights have plummeted by 74% since the Biden administration’s mask mandate was overturned by a federal judge in April. The current rate is 1.7 unruly passengers per 10,000 flights, down from 6.4 per 10,000 in February.

But laws and rules created during the pandemic continue to spur federal investigations of passengers, while the federal government has spent untold sums in a legal battle to re-establish its authority, including the power to once again impose mask mandates.

Unions, meanwhile, are seeking stricter measures to give flight attendants more power on the plane.

To date this year, there have been 2,178 reports of unruly passengers, according to the FAA, compared with 87 over roughly the same period in 2019.

Incidents under investigation, which jumped from 183 in 2020 to 1,099 in 2021, have dropped by nearly 40% since a federal judge found the mandate exceeded the rule-making authority of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The U.S. Department of Justice, however, continues to challenge the ruling of U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizell, a Trump nominee. A hearing in the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled for January.

Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit that overturned the CDC’s mask mandate, sees authoritarian impulses driving the continuing litigation.

“Most administrations of the last 10 to 20 years have sought this kind of power,” she said, likening COVID-era measures to the Patriot Act passed after the 9/11 attacks, which vastly increased the ability of government to surveil the public.

“It’s not just the Biden administration,” Manookian said. “It’s about increasing the power of the federal government as well as people who are not elected, and it’s not a partisan issue. They all want more power and are getting it through these emergencies.”

The CDC asked the DOJ, which represents government agencies, to appeal the travel mask decision shortly after it was handed down. The FAA and the DOJ did not respond to questions from RealClearInvestigations.

The legal struggle proceeds as a new peer-reviewed study adds to skepticism about the effectiveness of mask use in general. (In any case, passenger planes are required to have advanced air filtration.)

In a recent deposition in state-led litigation against alleged federal censorship, Dr. Anthony Fauci, retiring director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, couldn't name any studies showing mask effectiveness, according to Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt.

The CDC issued the directive on orders from President Biden on his first day in office in January 2021. The rule was a formal extension of what airlines imposed in 2020 under pressure from flight attendant unions.

Within six months of the federal mask mandate, 85% of all alleged transgressions in the air were related to mask-wearing, with the federal government and a spokesman for the union-backed American Airlines flight attendants declaring that the policy they insisted on had created a situation “out of control.”

The mask ruling on appeal now has 34 amicus filings, or statements from parties who claim an interest in the outcome of the case. Among those filing in support of the federal government are the American Medical Association and a group of 251 public health and legal officials and various professional public health associations, many of whom have been public about the importance of government’s role in controlling the pandemic.

Filing in support of Manookian’s group are the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and a group of 338 flight attendants, pilots, and other airline workers from every major airline and most budget airlines. Several of the pilots in the filing are part of a group that sued the CDC in March, also noting that the mandate overstepped the CDC’s authority.

During the pandemic, the airlines became ground zero for the battle between individuals who sought to determine their own safety measures and the dictating model that was imposed by the government. The result was a series of highly publicized confrontations.

The mandate was so vastly unpopular that many flight attendants again began taking self-defense courses in preparation of doing battle with passengers. Flight attendant unions urged that voluntary training implemented in the wake of 9/11, including measures to thwart a terrorist-style assault, be made compulsory.

In March 2021, the FAA declared a “zero tolerance” policy for alleged disorderly passengers in a threatening announcement. The agency also imposed a new rule beefing up enforcement of alleged in-air infractions, insisting it would pursue legal action against anyone alleged to have violated the agency’s conduct rules.

“The rule was changed and what you have now is a greater percentage of cases that are making it all the way through to being fined that we never saw before,” said William McGee, who spent seven years in flight operations management and is now a senior fellow for aviation for the American Economic Liberties Project.

McGee said that while there is no room for violent behavior by passengers, there are “fundamental rights that include innocent until proven guilty. Some rules now are more like being on the high seas.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/14/air_travel_no_longer_so_scary_-_not_since_a_judge_dropped_the_masks_870032.html

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

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) Also here

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeSantis Announces Major Move Against COVID Vaccine Makers

Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis announced on Tuesday that he was seeking a grand jury investigation into the way COVID-19 vaccines were marketed and promoted and whether wrongdoing occurred.

"It is against the law to mislead and to misrepresent, particularly when you're talking about the efficacy of a drug," DeSantis said on Tuesday.

"Just recently, Florida got $3.2 billion through legal action against those responsible for the opioid crisis," he noted of previous legal action to hold drugmakers and drug sellers accountable. "It's not like this is something that is unprecedented," DeSantis said of his efforts to probe COVID-19 vaccines and the way they were presented to Floridians.

"Today, I'm announcing a petition with the Supreme Court of Florida to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate any and all wrongdoing in Florida with respect to COVID-19 vaccines," DeSantis said.

"We anticipate that we will get the approval for that," DeSantis explained of his petition. The grand jury, DeSantis expects, "will be something that will be impaneled mostly likely in the Tampa Bay area."

DeSantis added that the grand jury "will come with legal processes that will be able to get more information" about any wrongdoing, and will "bring legal accountability for those who committed misconduct," he said.

The announcement on Tuesday is a follow-through on a promise Governor DeSantis made earlier in December when he pledged that his administration would "work to hold these manufacturers accountable for this mRNA [vaccine] because they said there was no side effects and we know that there have been a lot," DeSantis said of his plan to "bring some accountability" for COVID-19 vaccine makers, namely Pfizer and Moderna who produced the mRNA vaccines.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/12/13/desantis-calls-for-grand-jury-to-investigate-covid-vaccines-n2617080?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&recip=6139244

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

Top Doctor: Long COVID is Being Exaggerated to Extort Taxpayers

John's Hopkins Medical School Professor Dr. Marty Makary, who also serves as a health advisor for Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, is warning "long COVID" is being exaggerated in order to extort American taxpayers for more money.

"Long Covid is real. I have reliable patients who describe lingering symptoms after Covid infection. But public-health officials have massively exaggerated long Covid to scare low-risk Americans as our government gives more than $1 billion to a long Covid medical-industrial complex," Makary writes in the Wall Street Journal.

"The National Institutes for Health has been intensely focused on studying long Covid, spending nearly $1.2 billion on the condition. To date, the return on investment has been zero for the people suffering with it. But it’s been terrific for MRI centers, lab testing companies and hospitals that set up long Covid clinics," he continues. "I’ve talked to the staff at some of these clinics and it’s unclear what they are actually offering to people beyond a myriad of tests."

The White House continues to demand endless funding as Dr. Anthony Fauci claims the U.S. is still "in the middle" of a pandemic.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/12/13/top-doctor-long-covid-is-being-exaggerated-to-extort-taxpayers-n2617091?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&recip=6139244

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

Michigan Medicine Prof. of Biologic Nanotechnology investigates Adverse Reactions Associated with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

The founding Director of the Mary H. Weiser Food Allergy Center, and Ruth Dow Doan Professor at Michigan Medicine not to mention an exceptional allergy and clinical immunology specialist, Dr. James Baker Jr., spearheads a 200-patient interventional study titled “Assessing Safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Administration in the Setting of a Previous Adverse Reaction.” Launched in the spring, this single-group assignment open-label study runs till December 2024. In the study, the participant receives a dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) or Moderna (Spikevax), both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The goal? Determine primary and secondary endpoints associated with safety of the mRNA-based vaccines. Specifically, the study team hypothesizes that the individuals that have had adverse reactions to a dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine will tolerate an additional dose and those with a personal history of allergic reaction will tolerate vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines safe and effective, various side effects and adverse events have been identified, including in the regulatory package insert. For example, a cardiovascular signal has been identified in the form of myocarditis and pericarditis in young persons.

Can persons that had an adverse reaction to the first or second dose of either mRNA -based COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) safely tolerate an additional dose if they have a personal history of allergic reaction who declined COVID-19 vaccination administration can safely tolerate an initial dose?

In this study funded by both the University of Michigan and the Wallace Foundation, Dr. Baker along with Dr. Charles Schuler IV, seek 200 eligible to receive an initial or additional dose of either Comirnaty or Spikevax.

Participants in this study will also be required to have 1-2 in person visits along with phone call follow up visits.

The study hypothesizes that individuals that have had adverse reactions to a dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine will tolerate an additional dose, and those with a personal history of allergic reaction will tolerate vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/michigan-medicine-prof.-of-biologic-nanotechnology-investigates-adverse-reactions-associated-with-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-39cb262b

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

Pathological Syncytia Formation with mRNA Vaccines

One of the curious findings from the original randomized trials of mRNA vaccines was an explosive rate of early infection after the first injection as compared with placebo. In a recent paper from Sfera et al., the description of pathological syncytia or fusion between immune cells is described: “The LNP technology, to put it simply, mimics viral envelopes with externalized phosphatidylserine (ePS), a universal “eat me” signal, that directs immune cells to engulf the particle.

However, as ePS is also a potential “fuse me” signal, LNP may inadvertently facilitate the formation of pathological syncytia. Moreover, ePS may activate a disintegrin and metalloprotease 10 and 17 (ADAM10) (ADAM 17), master regulators of syncytia formation, contributing further to the unintended consequence of cell-cell fusion…As mRNA vaccines are based on pre-fusion epitopes, the fusion pathology may be undeterred, allowing viral infection by syncytia formation to continue unabated.

This is significant, as it could account for the reoccurrence of COVID-19 symptoms in fully vaccinated individuals. The authors point out that SARS-CoV-2 utilizes more than just the ACE2 receptor to gain entry into the fused cells and by overlooking this possibility, vaccine developers have made a blunder.

This is further complicated by the choice of lipid nanoparticles and polyethylene glycol which facilitate entry into organs were syncytia as well as Spike protein will incite inflammation and immune system regulation. Sfera also considers pregnancy: “Several studies demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 can activate HERV-W, an ancestral gene that encodes for the physiological placental fusogen syncytin-1 responsible for the merger of trophoblasts during the early pregnancy. This suggests that the reproductive post-vaccine events may be triggered by the furin cleavage site pathology.” Such processes could occur in the gravid uterus and compound the bleeding and clotting risks of ill-advised vaccination is this special population.

In summary Sfera et al. point out the following blind spots of well-funded DARPA consultants, BARDA funded academic researchers, and later, by Pfizer and Moderna in mRNA vaccine development: 1) pathologic syncytia formation, 2) use of lipid nanoparticles with PEG, 3) failure to consider SARS-CoV-2 could use alternative points of cell entry other than ACE2 (metalloprotease pathway, antibody dependent enhancement, cell penetrating peptides, viroporins).

With billions of people rushed into indiscriminate mRNA vaccination, virologists and immunologists will be picking up the pieces of a failed vaccine campaign that has left so many at risk for more SARS-CoV-2 infections and progressive complications over the months and years to come.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/pathological-syncytia-formation-with-mrna-vaccines-482b8930

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

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) Also here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soft censorship of my Tongue Tied blog is now in place

Google has put the blog behind a scare warning. Free speech is dangerous in their view, apparently. I can't say I am surprised. They have done the same to my Political Correctness Watch blog.

I do however back the blog up elsewhere so readers who encounter the scare notice can go straight to the backup site if they wish. See here. I will upload to the backup site only minutes after the original site updates

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

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://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

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

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

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

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

Danish Study Published in Nature Reveals the Prejudice Unvaccinated Individuals Face in Most Countries

The results of a global study from Denmark’s Aarhus University, reveal that across the globe people show prejudice and discriminatory attitudes towards individuals not vaccinated against COVID-19. The findings have been published in the journal Nature.

The study is part of the research project How Democracies Cope with COVID-19: A Data-Driven Approach (HOPE), https://hope-project.dk/#/about supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. It was made in cooperation with the Centre for the Experimental-Philosophical Study of Discrimination, supported by the Danish National Research Foundation.

The researchers set out to assess whether people express discriminatory attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status. Specifically, the sought to quantify discriminatory attitudes between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens in 21 countries, covering a diverse set of cultures across the world.

Across three conjoint experimental studies (N=15,233), researchers demonstrated that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards the unvaccinated, often as high as the discriminatory attitudes often seen in common targets including immigrants, drug-addicts and ex-convicts. In contrast, there was little evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people.

Many vaccinated people do not want close relatives to marry an unvaccinated person. They are also inclined to think that the unvaccinated are incompetent as well as untrustworthy, and they generally feel antipathy against them.

Discriminatory attitudes are more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. According to the researchers, the reason for this appears to be that the vaccinated perceive the unvaccinated as free riders. The findings suggest that contributors to the public good of epidemic control (i.e., the vaccinated) react with discriminatory attitudes against perceived free-riders (i.e., the unvaccinated).

Part of the overall study looking solely in the United States showed that not only do vaccinated people harbor prejudice against the unvaccinated, but they also think they should be denied fundamental rights. For instance, the unvaccinated should not be allowed to move into the neighborhood or express their political views on social media freely, without fear of censorship.

“It is likely that we will encounter similar support for the restriction of rights in other countries, seeing as the prejudice and antipathy can be found across continents and cultures,” said co-author Michael Bang Petersen, who is a professor of political science at Aarhus University.

With low vaccine uptake still a challenge to pandemic management, the researchers warn authorities against employing a rhetoric of moral condemnation in their attempt increase vaccination rates.

“Moral condemnation may strengthen the cleavages and further feelings of exclusion that have led many unvaccinated to refuse the vaccine in the first place. Our prior research has shown that transparent communication about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is a more viable public-health strategy for increasing vaccine uptake in the long term,” said Michael Bang Petersen.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/danish-study-published-in-nature-reveals-the-prejudice-unvaccinated-individuals-face-in-most-countries-722cac29

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

Molecular Changes linked to to Long COVID

One of the first studies of its kind, researchers at Mount Sinai in New York City associate long COVID symptoms with changes in gene expression during acute COVID-19. Specifically, researchers employed with this prestigious academic center in Manhattan are the first to publish a study associating changes in the blood gene expression during COVID-19 with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (long COVID) in patients over a year post hospitalization for severe COVID-19. Published in Nature Medicine on December 8, the team highlights the need for greater attention at the infection stage for improved understanding of how the processes that commence eventually turn into long COVID. The hope is that this research can help scientists better understand how the processes that start with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to long COVID. The goal? Develop prevention strategies and treatment options for COVID-19 survivors experiencing ongoing long COVID problems.

What did the Mount Sinai team discover?

Among other things, the New York City-based team found two molecularly distinct subsets of long COVID symptoms with opposing gene expression patterns during acute COVID-19 in plasma cells, the immune system’s antibody-producing cells.

In patients who went on to develop lung problems, antibody production genes were less abundant. However, for patients with other symptoms such as the loss of smell or taste and sleep disruptions, the same antibody production genes were more abundant instead.

Mount Sinai researchers led by co-corresponding author Noam D. Beckmann, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine (Data Driven and Digital Medicine) and Associate Director of Data Science Strategy at The Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai wrote that these opposing patterns observed in the same cells, as well as additional unique patterns observed in other cell types. They point to the existence of multiple independent processes leading to different long COVID symptoms; importantly, these processes are already present during acute infection.

Principal Investigator's Point of View

Dr. Beckmann went on the record “Our findings show that molecular processes leading to long COVID are already detectable during COVID-19 infection,” which of course has implications for future care regimens. The Mount Sinai professor continued, “Furthermore, we see the start of multiple molecularly distinct paths leading to long COVID, providing a unique viewpoint into differences between long-term symptoms.”

Study Data Sources

Using the Mount Sinai COVID-19 Biobank, the researchers examined gene expression data in blood samples from more than 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between April and June 2020. More than 160 of these patients provided self-reported assessments of symptoms still present six months or more after hospitalization. The team tested each gene expressed in the blood for association with each long COVID symptom, accounting for ICU admission, COVID-19 severity during hospitalization, sex, age, and other variables. The team then tested for associations specific to each of 13 different types of immune cells, including plasma cells. Finally, these associations were categorized by whether they matched up with changes in patients’ levels of antibodies specific to the virus.

“For long COVID symptoms, like smell or taste problems, connecting antibody gene expression in plasma cells with the actual levels of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein demonstrates a direct link to the body’s response to the virus,” said lead author Ryan C. Thompson, Ph.D., Data Science Analyst at The Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine. “On the other hand, the gene expression pattern for lung problems does not match up with SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels, highlighting the different immune processes leading to long COVID that are triggered by COVID-19.”

Long COVID Poorly Defined

The reality is that long COVID still remains poorly defined and future studies should take the initial stage of infection into account to characterize the molecular processes of long COVID more comprehensively and identify biomarkers that can help predict, treat, and prevent prolonged symptoms.

“Our findings show there is the potential to use data from the infection stage to predict what might happen to the patient months later,” said co-corresponding author Alexander W. Charney, MD, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, and Co-Director of The Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine. “We should not ignore the infection phase in research on long COVID—this is clearly a critical window of time where the body’s response to SARS-CoV-2 might be setting the stage for what is to come.”

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/mount-sinai-team-collaborators-link-molecular-changes-to-long-covid-post-hospitalization-dce972db

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

Exaggerated COVID-19 Death Rates used as Fright Factors

What did Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) do to lower the absolute risk of dying from COVID-19?

The phrases "fully vaccinated" and "fully antibody protected" mean different things, obviously. There is not a causation graph that proves that being "fully vaccinated" (a protocol of two shots, that is no longer a measure of efficacy or protection against newer SARS-CoV-2 variants) is any indication of Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) from the risk of death from SARS-CoV-2. Since the original EUA products have diminishing benefits, the COVID-19 vaccination booster and bivalent booster rates are the only vaccination rates that should be considered to determine the ARR of deaths as a result of the COVID-19 variants of today. Even the nonvaccinated-person (as variable as this "group" is) COVID-19 death rates have changed.

There are hidden reasons for stories to come out the way they do. The recent stories that are being now told -- of achieving a universal saturation in humans of natural and injection-assisted antibodies to the variants of SARS-CoV-2 -- have many tangents. With these data from stories (clinical data are also the basis of "storytelling"), statisticians try to come up with one or two figures that represent statistics to comfort themselves with knowledge, such as how many individuals have died from COVID-19 -- 6,657,680 human deaths is a number that was published yesterday. But what do the statisticians' collective knowledge, represented by one figure, mean?

It means, for one thing, that only those official deaths, that were counted by official counters and recorded by official record keepers, that are the basis for COVID-19 policies and actions -- are not revealing everything we need to know. COVID-19 "death rates" are calculated for as many nations and geographic regions as can be officially monitored, but it is not now reasonable to call these numbers absolutely accurate figures.

Another confounding thing is that the number of deaths of individuals who were sometime-in-the-last-three-years infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus -- "had COVID-19" -- but were not only sick with COVID-19 (they were interfered with) -- having other added reasons that they died.

Yet another confounding factor to the official count is the number of deaths that occurred while attempting to mitigate the COVID-19 infections and contagion scope, with such actions "inadvertently leading to deaths of more individuals" than were in the death-by-COVID-19 designation (think: evasive tactics such as taking medications, receiving vaccinations, trying activities to avoid death from the virus, deaths at the hands of hospital staff, suicides, depression and personal abuses, etc.).

There are also the numbers of individuals that have not been revealed to the officials, those who have neither reported their SARS-CoV-2 infections, nor their recoveries, nor have their determined causes of deaths been clearly confirmed, nor has there been, or will be, a clear inventory of their virus-sharing contacts.

All these are confounding factors. This latter category -- 'contacts' -- is a juicy morsel of human geographical information, with absolute accuracy out of the reach of those demanding to convert us to that theory that the world surveillance of the human population would lower death rates.

But such a strained definition of correlation (of officials having knowledge of where we all are, what we own, what we spend, who we associate with -- correlated to our personal safety through submission to official policy) is a false authority attempt and an untenable conspiracy* that is yet currently being attempted by some so as to become centrally global in scope(if that ever made sense) -- just convince people to waive their own rights temporarily for "the sake of all". The COVID-19 death figure is to be your motivation to serve others in the way the government has found to be approved. Obey the mandates, lower the death rate -- is the mantra.

During this current COVID-19 disease period of changing variants, there is a current single figure representing the death rate from the disease called COVID-19, using one figure. This is supposed to scare us into giving our wills to a central organization that is planning to eradicate the disease COVID-19. We can admit that the figure is indicative of a large number of deaths, roughly calculated at 853.8 deaths of individual human beings -- per million population. With the starting point of "a nearly accurate population estimate" for the world of 8,002,627,404 live humans (the Current World Population from the Worldometers website at 0815 hours Mountain Standard Time on 12-10-2022), we can divide 6,657,680 (current official COVID-19 deaths) by 8,002,627,404 and then worry about how to stop that number from becoming a larger number:

It is not reasonable for the World Health Organization to consider being the One that is skilled and powerful -- so much so that it can attempt to persuade and/or mandate us all to a single-source treatment policy. It is advisory only, and advice can be and will be, in many cases in this vast world --- unuseable when that advice is also untenable.

The current conspiracy (or the milder tone of "collusion") to surveil and control our healthcare through the central organization WHO is untenable. The plans to convince us are dependent on waiving rights of masses of human populations in various and diverse countries.

There are 0.083194% of the World's Human Population that have officially died from COVID-19. Or for more clarity, the decimal fraction of the world's humans that have died from COVID-19, officially, is 0.000831937

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-19-death-rates-as-fright-factors.-survival-around-the-world.-sophisticated-eua-mrna-shots.-absolute-risk-reduction-causes.-lower-death-rate.-a62a543c

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

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) Also here

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

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

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

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

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

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