Natural immunity is best

From the outset of the pandemic the usefulness of natural immunity was pooh-poohed by all those in power. One would normally assume that once you had a viral illness, that would protect you from catching it again. For some reason --presumably political -- Covid was said to be an exception to that.

Naturally-acquired immunity was said not to matter. You still had to get vaccinated to be protected from the illness. That was always rubbish and a very comprehensive study just out in The Lancet really knocks the nonsense on the head. After examining all the research now available in the medical literature, they conclude:

"Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants"

So if you had already had the disease you didn't need vaccination. We were all lied to by those in power. Some of them may have meant well but all should have been aware that what they were saying was unlikely to be true.

Journal summary below:

Summary

Background
Understanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection.

Methods
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850).

Findings
We identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3–76·1) and 44·0% (26·5–65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8–93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4–51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7–97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7–90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks.

Interpretation
Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext

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

Breaking the silence: do vested interests stifle medical discussions?

Julie Sladden

Previously we examined the story behind UK Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra’s call to ‘stop the shots’.

In this follow up piece we explore potential factors stifling open discussion by medical professionals around this important issue. There are two broad categories: blind spots and roadblocks.

Blind spots

All vaccines are safe, therefore these vaccines are safe. This is something we have all heard before.

One of the biggest blind spots is the foundation of apparent ‘universal vaccine safety’ upon which this new technology rests. Dr Aseem Malhotra admits that even he ‘could not have expected or conceived of the possibility that these vaccines, these new vaccines, could cause harm’.

Assumptions were made. Malhotra explains:

‘Vaccines… have got this special place in medicine, they’re untouchable. (They’re) “only good”, so don’t even go there. Combine that with the fact the regulator approved it, and the fact (these vaccines were) originally invented… by smaller groups of scientists. (Pfizer and Moderna) just scaled it up. So, there was the benefit of the doubt here.’

However, no drug, medication or intervention is completely safe. Not even vaccines – why else would vaccine injury compensation schemes exist around the world?

In addition, these mRNA products are not like every other vaccine that we’ve seen. Just ask world-renowned virologist, immunologist, and mRNA technology developer, Robert Malone.

With any new technology caution is paramount and the focus should be on demonstrating that benefits outweigh harms. For this to happen, the ingredients are time (usually around decade for new drug development), and an attitude of ‘prove to me it’s safe’ rather than ‘prove to me it’s unsafe’ – the inverted reality we currently seem to have.

There is also a widely held assumption that pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart. They don’t.

A medical colleague recently stated, ‘Oh, I don’t think (insert drug company name here) would do anything like that!’ I was gobsmacked. My colleague was talking about a member of the industry well known for corruption and lawsuits resulting in convictions that run to the billions.

In the case of the Covid mRNA injectables, reports of compromised data integrity, attempts to withhold raw data (for 55 years!), and data reanalyses raising serious safety concerns, have done nothing to convince us otherwise.

Malhotra agrees:

‘I find it difficult to believe that scientists at these companies didn’t know what that data showed… and the harm it would do. But (the companies) are not interested in that because they are legally protected from liability of injury. The legal obligation … of pharma companies is to profit their shareholders. Ethics don’t mean anything to them.

‘Big Pharma and Big Corporations often behave, in the way they conduct their business, like psychopaths: deliberately deceiving others for profit with callous unconcern for the safety of others. This is essentially what we are seeing.‘

Another misunderstanding is the idea that the government provides a current, individualised, and unbiased source of medical information.

Government information is generally slow to appear, impersonal (for the patient in front of you), and driven by fiscal and political motives. Every year doctors are issued with pages of ‘guidelines’ aimed at populations, not individuals, presenting a minefield for the discerning doctor and the patient in front of them.

Some doctors have come to rely heavily on guidelines. In this over-litigious and over-regulated space, guidelines present a safe, and easy, way to practice for time-poor professionals. The by-product of this is there is a less perceived necessity for doctors to seek the evidence for themselves, combined with a mindset that ‘if I stick to the guidelines all will be well’.

Roadblocks

‘In answering why aren’t more doctors speaking out, (partly it) is that most doctors are not aware that the vaccines are causing all these harms,’ says Malhotra.

‘If you are not aware of a possibility of something causing harm or a side effect, then you never diagnose it. You will miss it.

‘The WHO endorsed an official list of potential serious adverse effects when the vaccine was rolled out and the list is huge.

‘Doctors have not been aware of these (potential) side effects and so they are not diagnosing. They are looking around for other causes when people are having heart attacks and (they are) not even thinking of the vaccine.’

The co-director of Coverse, an Australian organisation run by, and for, those who have suffered a significant adverse reaction following their Covid jab, says this is a vicious cycle:

‘If the doctor doesn’t think (something) is caused by the vaccine they may not report it… By not reporting it, the government doesn’t have the full picture so they don’t put out safety notices and then doctors don’t know that they should be looking out for it, so they don’t report it.’

There is also an ongoing information war.

When the pandemic started so did the daily government-endorsed updates into my email and in tray. Added to this, as the vaccines rolled out, was an information stream from professional, regulatory, and ‘pharma-funded’ doctors’ media. It was relentless.

It is hard not to drown in all that info and instead choose to do individual research rather than be spoon-fed. Many doctors are working so hard they simply don’t have the time. Malhotra agrees:

‘The chair of the BMA, when I spent two hours on the phone with him last December said, “Aseem, nobody seems to have critically appraised the evidence … most of my colleagues are getting their information on the vaccines from the BBC.”’

Understanding ‘the science’ is not straightforward.

If a doctor does undertake individual research, it’s important they understand the current landscape of the literature. It’s a long story, probably best summed up by Lancet editor, Richard Horton:

‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue… science has taken a turn towards darkness.’

There are many drivers of this problem, but front and centre is (you guessed it), the ‘pharma elephant’ in the room. Pharmaceutical interests are responsible for much of the funding for research grants and academic institutions, and also influence the journals in which such research is published.

A doctor also needs to have the ability to critically appraise the evidence in a way that they can then communicate it to patients. This takes time and expertise. Many end up relying on the regulator (for example the TGA) to give them the information (read: guidelines, see above) in the way that they should communicate it. But even this path is subject to potential pharmaceutical influence, as highlighted recently in the BMJ: ‘Of the six regulators, Australia had the highest proportion of budget from industry fees (96 per cent).’

Finally, if a doctor can critically appraise the data, they may become afraid to go against the establishment or to speak out due to likely censorship and pushback.

Malhotra surmises, ‘As you narrow it down, you end up with only a handful of people that; 1) can critically appraise the evidence; 2) can articulate it, and; 3) have the platform to do it. That then becomes a very small number of people.’

‘We are up against a juggernaut in terms of the capture of the medical establishment and media, repetition of “safe and effective”, and the gaslighting that’s gone on,’ summarises Malhotra.

To break free will not be easy.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/breaking-the-silence-do-vested-interests-stifle-medical-discussions

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

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

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

Republicans Launch Next COVID-19 Origins Inquiry---Lab Leak Theory Becomes Likely Suspect

What is the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19? An important question, it has yet to be answered. The Chinese government doesn’t seem keen on helping the world figure this vexing problem out, and neither does the World Health Organization (WHO). In fact, when the WHO first investigated, they sent the head of EcoHealth Alliance as the sole representative of America and not surprisingly, found nothing.

As reported recently by Smriti Mallapaty, writing for Nature, the WHO has abandoned any initiative to further investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in China. Just at a critical time to further the investigation, the prominent medical journal reports that WHO has “quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The reason for the not-at-all-surprising cancellation, difficulties of such an investigation in China---not an open place to do a deep investigation into potential government conspiracies.

But the GOP with its slight majority continues to push forward. Both Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman and James Comer (R-KY), House Committee on Oversight and Accountability now request senior Biden Administration officials including Dr. Anthony Fauci as well as Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, to provide sufficient information to the Select Subcommittee and Oversight Committee’s investigation into COVID origins.

This effort at obtaining information to support the investigation isn’t new. To the GOP’s credit, they seem to be the only party that cares about this critical topic. For example, the most recent actions follow up on a request on December 13, 2022, for the same materials (documents, information, and testimony). How can so many politicians, health-focused agencies and authorities, academic medical centers, and health systems not be interested in pursuing this absolutely vital question? Could the topic have been politicized on purpose by underlying forces, part of some deeper more nefarious agenda?

As reported by the Congressional Committee, the 117th Congress Oversight Committee Republicans sent numerous letters to officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The Committee’s investigation has already uncovered three facts driving further investigation:

Growing evidence shows COVID-19 likely originated from the Wuhan Lab and the Chinese Communist Party covered it up
U.S. taxpayer dollars were being funneled into the Wuhan Lab to conduct risky gain-of-function research on novel bat coronaviruses

Dr. Fauci was aware of this information at the start of the pandemic and may have acted to conceal the information by intentionally downplaying the lab leak theory.
Of course, more information is needed to not only probe this critically important matter but also to inform legislative activity.

TrialSite has accumulated substantial information in the form of emails, data, documents, and insights from experts to suggest the lab leak theory is likely.

Interestingly enough, the censorship apparatus put in place during the pandemic (or perhaps, intensified since then) is real, and hence why the agreement to join the lawsuit targeting the Trusted News Initiative. See the coverage of that lawsuit. The basis of the lawsuit isn’t freedom of the press but rather antitrust violations.

While there most certainly is plenty of misinformation, disinformation, and frankly, loony information circulating about, that all serves as a convenient cover, distracting those that track such matters from pursuing the real important evidential pathways.

Chairman Comer recently got right to the point on this historical matter: “Understanding the origins of COVID-19 is essential to providing accountability and protecting Americans in the future.” Given TrialSite’s global focus as well, we would add all people around the world given 6.8 million people worldwide died due to this virus according to WHO. Comer continued:

“Evidence continues to mount pointing to the virus leaking from an unsecure lab in Wuhan. We know EcoHealth Alliance acted as a go-between, improperly funneling thousands of taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan lab to conduct risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses which could have started the pandemic. Dr. Fauci was alerted early on that COVID-19 had markings of a manipulated virus yet may have chosen to cover it up instead of blowing the whistle. We will continue to follow the facts to determine what could have been done differently to better protect Americans from this virus and hold U.S. government officials that took part in any sort of cover-up accountable.”

According to Select Subcommittee Chairman Wenstrup:

“The American people deserve real answers after years of suffering through the Coronavirus pandemic and related government policies. This investigation must begin with where and how this virus came about so that we can attempt to predict, prepare, or prevent it from happening again. Government scientists and government-funded researchers have so far been less-than-forthcoming in their knowledge and actions, including work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and potential pandemic pathogens. We can’t accept more years of stonewalling; the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is committed to conducting a proper investigation that the American people have demanded.”

Could the Chinese cover-up hypothesis be the correct pathway of investigation? It most certainly is the top candidate. The first known outbreak occurred right in Wuhan, right near the Wuhan Institute of Virology which has benefited from U.S. funding via the EcoHealth Alliance intermediary. TrialSite has covered that consistently even when a mere mention of this topic would get one censored on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. An independent media platform with its own technology stack, TrialSite was able to continue investigational coverage into biomedical research-related topics despite what is clearly a massive censorship operation involving the U.S. government.

The first investigation into the origins, sponsored by WHO didn’t seem serious. They found nothing, and who was sent representing the United States? They sent Peter Daszak, head of EcoHealth Alliance! See multiple entries in TrialSite.

What about the DARPA memo? Originating from one of Project Veritas’ endeavors, nonetheless, the internal DoD memo declaring SARS-CoV-2 to be an American-originated technology appeared authentic. TrialSite reached out directly to DARPA and a top communications officer there responded promptly, declaring that they could not either verify or deny the allegation as to the document’s authenticity. Interestingly, however, the spokesperson did elaborate that they have not funded EcoHealth Alliance studies which we at TrialSite found quite interesting.

We have reported on troubling matters generally related to the topic. Recently, TrialSite reported a U.S. HHS Office of Inspector General audit finding that the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance failed to appropriately monitor U.S. taxpayer-funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The mainstream media avoided this highly relevant and timely topic, again interesting. In 2021, TrialSite reported on other evidence that EcoHealth Alliance and NIH acknowledged supporting some forms of gain-of-function research. By July 2021, TrialSite’s “Origins of the Pandemic are Elusive & Timeline Reveals Glimpse of Path into Better Tomorrow” probed the matter of SARS-CoV-2 origins, including breakthrough research of players like Ralph Baric, and collaborators in Wuhan, China.

But the answers are elusive, especially when it comes to matters touching on deep national security interests.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/republicans-launch-next-covid-19-origins-inquiry-lab-leak-theory-becomes-likely-suspect-89dcc972

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

Misleading Trial Site Article Concerning Guillain Barre Syndrome Following mRNA Vaccinations

Neil Spielholz

The J&J vaccine was associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome but the mRNA vaccines were not

An Opinion Article entitled, “CDC Reports Hundreds of Guillain-Barré Cases with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination” recently appeared in Trial Site News. Let’s review what this opinion article says, but more importantly, what it does not say.

The opinion article “summarizes” a paper by Abara et al, “Reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome After COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States”. The opinion article’s title trumpets that “hundreds” of GBS cases have been reported. The actual number reported by Abara et al, is 211. These occurred from December 2020 through January 2022, and they occurred within 42 days of receiving either the BNT162b2 (n=104) or the mRNA-1273 (n=107) vaccine. (Note that for this communication, I am using just the cumulative number of GBS cases reported 42 days after vaccination. Abara et al, report number of cases 21 and 42 days after vaccination.)

But note that the opinion article omits mentioning that the main thrust of the Abara et al paper, was to compare the incidence of GBS in these two mRNA groups to a third group of 82 GBS patients that had received a non-mRNA vaccination, the Ad26.COV2.S [J & J] vaccine. This head-to-head incidence comparison was based on the total number of vaccine doses delivered between the start and stop dates of data collection in terms of “per 100,000 doses”. See the original paper for details.

So what did Abara et al, report, but was omitted in the opinion article?

The non-mRNA group had an incidence rate of 4.07 compared to 0.34 and 0.44 for the two mRNA groups. In other words, despite the "hundreds" of cases in the mRNA groups, these vaccines had a lower incidence rate of GBS than did the non-mRNA vaccine!

But this lack of information in the opinion article goes on. It neglects to tell readers that Abara et al, also performed an observed-to-expected ratio, where the incidence of GBS prior to the coronavirus pandemic was compared to the incidence found in these three groups. Indeed, Abara et al, report that the O-E ratios “were significantly increased” in the non-mRNA group, but NOT in either of the mRNA groups. Abara et al write, “These findings suggest that Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with GBS and that GBS after BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 may represent background incidence.” No mention of this in the opinion article.

In their Discussion section, Abara et al, summarize these findings as follows: “In this retrospective cohort study, we identified 295 verified GBS cases among VAERS reports submitted from December 2020 through January 2022. GBS reporting after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was approximately 9 to 12 times more common than after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination within 21-and 42-day post-vaccination intervals. Similarly, observed GBS cases after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination were 2 to 3 times greater than expected based on background within 21- and 42-day post-vaccination intervals. There was no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

Elsewhere, Abara et al, write, “No association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations and risk of GBS were observed.” (Emphasis mine).

None of this is mentioned in the Opinion Article.

One other point concerns the different death rates between the non-mRNA group and the two mRNA groups. Two deaths occurred in the non-mRNA group, and 8 (4 in each of the mRNA groups). Therefore, the death rate in the non-mRNA group was 2/82, or 2.4%, while in the two mRNA groups, the death rate was 8/211, or 3.8%. Does this 1.4% difference herald the death-knell for mRNA vaccinations? Not without more data.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/misleading-trial-site-article-concerning-guillain-barre-syndrome-following-mrna-vaccinations-2d6bebb5

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

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

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

Australian health agencies are inspiring misinformation on Covid vaccine injuries

The issue of Covid-19 vaccination injuries and deaths have been largely ignored by the media. It’s a dangerous business which allows misinformation to flourish.

There have been some notable exceptions.

Last month, Christine Middap’s sensitive article in The Weekend Australian included profiles of people who had suffered serious Covid-19 vaccine injury. And Chris Kenny recently drew attention to the problem in a thoughtful way on his program on Sky News.

The figures on vaccine related injury should be widely available, published by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to the point where even the incurious will have a broad understanding.

The compensation scheme, known as the Covid-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme is administered by Services Australia. The scheme was announced by then health minister Greg Hunt as the vaccines were rolled out in the first half of 2021. Therein lies an acknowledgment that Covid-19 vaccines were likely to cause injury and death in rare cases.

Less than 10 per cent of 3206 claims have been approved. Most of the remainder are still being considered.

These are Australians who have suffered injury as a result of taking the Covid vaccine and they should not be forgotten or cast into a bureaucratic abyss.

Even obtaining an official figure on vaccine related deaths is fraught. My understanding from the often tortured TGA’s reports is that 14 Australians have died from severe adverse reactions to Covid vaccines, nine from Astra-Zeneca and five from mRNA based vaccines, including Pfizer and Moderna. One of those five is an extraordinarily harrowing story of the death of a 21-year-old Melbourne woman in March 2021.

Those who suffered injury, and often extended periods of incapacity have been left to deal with the usual bureaucratic exercise that requires medical evidence, which may include but not be restricted to proof of hospital admission, sending the forms in, then sitting and waiting. And waiting. And waiting.

In the United States, a similarly convoluted compensation scheme is in place. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program is known to be a well-intentioned office but under-resourced and not fit for the purpose of dealing with thousands of claims and determining outcomes in a timely fashion.

At the end of 2022, there were more than 7500 claimants to the scheme. Some have been waiting for compensation for more than a year. I’ll leave it to the mathematicians to figure out the percentages of claims for Covid vaccine injury against the more than 600 million doses of the Covid vaccine administered in the US.

A void of information is filled with misinformation and the people perpetrating are armed and ready, bristling with falsehoods and deceit.

Stew Peters is a Minnesotan former bounty hunter who has developed a business model to achieve fame and fortune from the pandemic. He refers to Covid vaccines as “bioweapons”. Peters contends Covid vaccines are a means of global depopulation.

Peters’s pseudo-documentary, Died Suddenly, has been described as a “tsunami of anti-vax misinformation and conspiracy theories” by Science Based Medicine magazine. It has been viewed over 250,000 times on Rumble. The documentary makers were allowed to post the entire 69 minutes on Twitter.

The ersatz doco includes the appropriation of news items reporting on people who had suddenly died, many of which were probably not vaccine-related. Some of the sudden deaths exploited in Died Suddenly occurred before the pandemic.

Retired teacher turned writer in Los Angeles, Dolores Cruz, published an article in the Huffington Post about the grieving process she had undergone and written extensively about in two books. Her youngest son, Eric, had died in a car crash in 2017 at 24-years of age. The fake doco used a screenshot of the headline in the film, portraying his death as vaccine related.

It would be difficult to imagine more ghoulish behaviour. I reached out to Cruz recently, asking how she felt seeing Peters appropriate the death of her son.

“I want people to know that the suggestion that my son died from the Covid vaccine is completely false. I was angered to see that the title of the article I wrote for HuffPost was used in the documentary Died Suddenly. My article was about my grief and healing journey after my 24-year-old son died in a car accident in May of 2017 which was years before the pandemic began and has nothing to do with the Covid vaccine. The documentary has misappropriated how my son died and it hurts to have my son’s story used in this way,” she wrote.

But she was not surprised that it happened. “Though this has made me angry and caused hurt, sadly, false information runs rampant in the world today by way of news media, social media, and film and television.”

This fake documentary watched by a relatively small audience in global terms has now taken on a life of its own as a hashtag that runs across every possible social media platform, republishing every newspaper headline, every media article, small or large, where the phrase ‘died suddenly’ is mentioned and aggregates them to infer people have died suddenly from vaccine-related injury.

Liberal MP Russell Broadbent is advocating on behalf of the thousands of Australians who have experienced an adverse reaction after getting a… COVID-19 vaccination. “They feel … they are not being heard, they don’t feel like they are being justly treated by governments,” he told Sky News host More
On Saturday February 13, a Belgian goalkeeper, Arne Espeel, died suddenly while playing in the second division league in Belgium for Winkel Sport B. According to reports, Espeel made a save and then collapsed. He was attended to by a doctor at the ground and a defibrillator was used. The attempts to save his life failed and he was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

And there it was again. A flurry of Died Suddenly hashtags amid anti-vax comments on social media.

Espeel’s sudden death comes after a bogus review announced that 108 footballers had died suddenly in 2021. The original report was published in Hebrew but was subject to a Reuters Fact Check that found that, of the 108, only a few died playing soccer. There were archers, American footballers, hockey players – both on ice rinks and on fields, rugby league and union footballers. Some were not playing at all, including a cricket coach, and a golf caddie.

What the misinfo shouters didn’t account for is that FIFA established a sudden death register in 2014 due to concerns that had risen over decades that men and women playing soccer were dying on the pitch at a fairly high rate.

In the five-year period 2014-2018, the sudden deaths of 617 footballers were registered with FIFA, on average 123 in any year. Elite players were less likely to suffer sudden cardiac arrest due to elevated fitness levels and were more likely to survive these events due to the increased likelihood of being attended to by skilled first aid practitioners and the presence of defibrillators. Nevertheless, the study published in the British Medical Journal and peer reviewed found that five per cent of the 617 deaths came from the elite level.

Misinformation is easy to create and requires ten times the energy to refute. ‘Died suddenly’ should not be a loaded term but that’s where we are now.

The issue of proper and prompt redress to people who have suffered Covid vaccine injury and those who spread misinformation is deeply entwined. Morally, those who have suffered injury should not be pushed into the shadows, collateral casualties of a rush to vaccinate. But more so, the vacuum created by bureaucratic babble and evasion will always be filled by misinformation. The truth gets left dazed and bruised by the roadside.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/how-our-health-agencies-are-inspiring-misinformation-on-covid-vaccine-injuries/news-story/f9ea6549bd70d7ee026fad0a8d64358f

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

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

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

Medicaid has expanded by 20 million during Covid

Keeping a lot of people out of the workforce

By Robert Romano

Since Feb. 2020, thanks to the “continuous enrollment” in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which prohibited states from disenrolling Medicaid patients when they no longer qualify on the basis of income, Medicaid enrollment has skyrocketed by 20.2 million to more than 91 million since Feb. 2020, according to the latest data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The mechanism for the expansion was temporary Covid unemployment, when 25 million jobs were lost in the blink of an eye, resulting in lapses in private insurance. When patients got Covid and went to the hospital and other medical providers, this resulted in automatic enrollment so providers could get paid.

The largest increases came from California (2.3 million), Texas (1.5 million), New York (1.3 million) and Florida (1.2 million). With 2.7 million in Texas and Florida alone, were Republican governors Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis ever made aware of this provision? What about state Republican lawmakers?

Reviewing the gubernatorial websites in Texas and Florida, as well as the official Twitter feeds of both governors, I cannot find a single statement either opposing the “continuous enrollment” provision—which left recipients in state Medicaid programs long after they had returned to work—or even acknowledging it or the rapid expansion of their state’s Medicaid programs.

In fact, the 20 million added during the Covid Medicaid expansion was even larger than the expansion that ultimately occurred under the Affordable Care Act from 2010 to 2019, when the number went from 56 million before the Affordable Care Act was passed, to 71 million in 2019. In 2020 the economy tanked, unemployment skyrocketed and Medicaid enrollment exploded.

That would have happened anyway. The consequential provision was the “continuous enrollment” that prohibited states like Texas and Florida from recertifying patients’ income as was required under prior law.

How is that possible? Maybe someone should ask them. I personally only discovered it when I learned of the disenrollments that are set to begin after March 31 thanks to a provision in the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.

And yet the federal government wasn’t hiding it. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were publishing Medicaid enrollment snapshots under the provision dating back to June 2020.

A Jan. 19 piece from Orlando Sentinel appears to show Florida State House Republicans were similarly not made aware of Medicaid expansion in Florida until the Medicaid disenrollments began, with House Health & Human Services Chairman Randy Fine, (R-Brevard County) stating after being briefed in committee: “The federal government during the pandemic said once you are on, it’s like being on the Supreme Court — you can’t get kicked off… And so we have people who qualified at one moment in time but do not qualify today.”

But they weren’t alone. In my prior look at the issue, I couldn’t find a single statement by House or Senate Republicans specifically about the continuous enrollment provision. There was a House Republican Oversight Committee letter about potential improper payments to Medicaid during Covid in Aug. 2021, but with no mention of the program’s expansion. By then, the program had already expanded by 13 million.

The problem appears to be an apparent lack of information and institutional knowledge by Republicans in Congress, legislatures and state governor’s mansions. In the old king’s cabinet in Great Britain, there was the saying that “the king could do no wrong.” That, if something went wrong, it could not be because of his own failures, but because he had been given poor advice. But that might be too charitable in this case.

The data was there to be found, but you had to know to go look for it.

Moreover, Republicans were complaining about many of the other governmental expansions in the health system during Covid. They opposed Medicaid expansion for more than a decade under the Affordable Care Act, and here was a backdoor expansion of socialized medicine that dwarfed the program’s prior expansion.

Are the GOP elected branches so disconnected from the professional, permanent, administrative state that during Covid they appear to have been asleep at the switch?

And now, states will have to come up with plans to begin disenrollment, which the Department of Health and Human Services says could impact up to 15 million recipients, assuming they went back to work and no longer qualify.

What preparations were made to disenroll these patients from Medicaid at the state level? This is a question for all 50 state governors, not simply Republican governors who you think would have opposed this.

The fact is, even the Medicaid disenrollments will tax state public health systems, too, as resources will have to go to tracking down eligibility. The amount of fraud in the disenrollments alone could be gargantuan, as now there is a perverse incentive to conceal income, but red states might have been ready for it — if they knew about it. The question is, did they know?

https://dailytorch.com/2023/02/were-republican-governors-aware-that-medicaid-had-expanded-by-20-million-during-covid/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=3bb22294-a815-4979-911e-ee96efd08850

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

Substantial Meta-Analysis Reveals COVID-19 Vaccine Waning Effectiveness—Further Decline of Performance During Omicron

Canadian researchers affiliated with Concordia University in Montreal conducted a systematic meta-analysis covering what they refer to as living evidence synthesis tracking COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and durability data associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.

But what is this “living review?” The study team represented by corresponding author Prof. Simon Bacon, PhD, FTOS, FCCS, FABMR, an expert in health behavior report they first search for studies published until September 10, 2021, and thereafter updated the ongoing search on November 19, 2021. Then, beginning on February 25, 2022, the French-Canadian study team updated the synthesis each four weeks until the 13th synthesis when they reported final results.

The group did add additional information including data from the booster studies as well as variant updates. Their work was sponsored by both Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada. The evolving findings reveal vaccine effectiveness decreases over time against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, and mortality. This shows durability challenges are a real factor.

Importantly, the overall vaccine quality as measured as effectiveness against Omicron further degraded as compared to other variants of concern as has been evidenced in dozens of other studies chronicled by TrialSite.

The study authors all but concede that the COVID-19 vaccination program as a means by itself isn’t sufficient due to waning effectiveness

What did the authors find?

Out of 16,696 records at the title and abstract level, the group studied 832 full texts, ultimately including 72 (0.4%) studies and excluding five of them for a risk of bias, a total of 68 studies were extracted for analysis.

But the above numbers are across previous variants of concern. What about the Omicron variant which has been in circulation in one form or another for late 2021 and all of 2022 and into 2023?

The study authors report they had not been able to accumulate sufficient data to track mortality data during the Omicron period.

Summary

This study team embraced three-level meta-analytic models which evidenced “marked decreases over time in vaccine effectiveness for SARS-CoV-2 infections for both primary series and booster, and a smaller decrease for hospitalizations and mortality.”

Overall vaccine performance degraded against Omicron due to the mutational changes and ability to better evade vaccine-induced antibodies. The authors extend the necessary statement that “vaccination continues to be an effective measure over time to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations and mortality,” but they do acknowledge the case doesn’t look great for infections.

The vaccines did help reduce the sharp edges of the pandemic’s deadly knife by temporarily boosting antibody defense in humans, thereby in surges reducing hospitalization and death rates.

But this doesn’t last long and the prospect of boosts every half a year with these vaccines is unlikely—the long-term health effects haven’t been studied. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are recommending that they go on the standard immunization schedule meaning they become comparable to the recommended influenza vaccine once per year.

It’s known that the present SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not sterilizing and already Dr. Anthony Fauci and cohorts published a piece declaring the need to advance beyond the current vaccines to consider intranasal mucosal vaccine development among other activities.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/substantial-meta-analysis-reveals-covid-19-vaccine-waning-effectivenessfurther-decline-of-performance-during-omicron-4bb90166

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

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

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

Booster Shots May Trigger Stroke Incidents, According to CDC and FDA

In addition to cardiac events, another life-threatening side effect has been associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. When is the risk period? Does the flu shot play any role in these events? What actions should we take to better protect ourselves?

Summary of Key Facts

An increased risk of stroke events has been identified with the Pfizer COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, according to a joint statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The onset time in people aged 65 years and older was 1–21 days after the booster, with a significant cluster of events observed 11–21 days after the booster.

Sixty-four percent had received the flu vaccine on the same day as the COVID-19 booster.

The bivalent booster contains the code of the spike protein, contributing to the increased risk of blood clots. High-risk people should avoid the boosters.

Solution: Remember the five “suddens” of stroke warning signs.

Advice on preventing other risk factors of stroke is also provided in this paper.

On Jan. 13, 2023, the FDA and CDC issued a joint statement that a new “safety signal” for ischemic stroke had been detected in one of the agency’s vaccine safety surveillance systems.

The statement read, in part: “CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a near real-time surveillance system, met the statistical criteria to prompt additional investigation into whether there was a safety concern for ischemic stroke in people ages 65 and older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine bivalent.”

The VSD system monitors the electronic health records of 12.5 million Americans served by nine integrated health systems.

The CDC stated that no other safety databases had detected this signal (including the Medicare and Veterans Affairs data sets). Pfizer released a statement that it had not detected this signal in its databases, and no other countries have found a similar signal in their monitoring systems.

The clot risk appears to be greater on days 11–21 after receiving the booster, especially for those who received a high-dose or adjuvant flu vaccine on the same day.

A follow-up meeting was held on Jan. 26, 2023. Despite the identified risk, the CDC continues to recommend booster shots for all people over six months of age.

Increased Risk of Stroke Mostly Found 11 to 21 Days After Booster

The findings presented on Jan. 26, 2023, suggest that more stroke events occurred during days 1–21 post-vaccination than days 22–42 after receiving the shot.

People aged 65 or older who received the Pfizer bivalent booster experienced 130 events during the “risk interval” (1–21 days after the booster) and 92 events during the “comparison interval” (22–42 days after the booster). There was a 47 percent increased risk of ischemic stroke during 1-21 days post-booster, compared to those events occurring during 22-42 days post-booster, with a p = 0.005. In studies, when the P value is less than 0.05, it means the difference is statistically significant.

It is important to note that stroke events occurred throughout the entire 42-day follow-up period after the booster; a cluster of stroke events occurred between 11 and 21 days after receiving the booster.

In a preliminary review of 22 stroke cases in people 65 years or older on days 11–21 after receiving the booster, none of the individuals had a previous history of transient ischemic attack (TIA). Sixty-four percent received the flu vaccine on the same day as the COVID-19 booster (13 high-dose flu vaccines and one adjuvant flu vaccine).

Outcome data of these events shows that 59 percent of the people who experienced a TIA were discharged home, 18 percent were discharged with home health, nine percent were discharged to a skilled nursing facility, and 14 percent (three of the 22) died. The CDC notes that one death was likely related to a stroke.

No safety signal was detected in the VSD database for Moderna; however, the VAERS reported stroke cases related to the Moderna booster. The difference could be due to the number of booster doses administered for the two vaccines. Nearly twice as many Pfizer booster doses had been given as Moderna (549,943 vs. 285,706) as of Jan. 7, 2023.

As of Jan. 8, 2023, 40 ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack cases after the bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccination were detected in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). The median age was 74 years. Nineteen were males, and 21 were females. The median time to onset was four days. Twenty-five cases occurred after the Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccine, and 15 occurred after the Moderna bivalent vaccine.

Receiving a Flu Shot on the Same Day as the Booster Increases Risk

VSD data analysis showed that three people experienced a stroke after receiving the Pfizer booster and a standard dose of flu vaccine on the same day. By contrast, 40 people who received the Pfizer booster and a high-dose or adjuvant flu vaccine on the same day experienced a stroke. Sixty older adults experienced a stroke after receiving only the COVID-19 booster.

Receiving a high dose or adjuvanted flu shot on the same day seemed to double the risk of stroke.

The spike protein in the SARS-CoV-2 virus can significantly increase the risk of arterial and venous clots. A database analysis of 48 million individuals in the United Kingdom found an increased risk of ischemic stroke, especially in the first weeks after COVID-19 infection.

The mRNA vaccine also produces the spike protein. The bivalent booster contains the code for two strains of the spike protein (original Wuhan strain and BA.4/BA.5).

Your blood contains platelets, which form clots to stop bleeding after an injury. The S1 unit of the spike protein hyperactivates these platelets. This can cause the blood to form tiny clots after infection or vaccination. These blockages in blood flow can cause problems throughout the body’s tissues and organs.

The flu shot increases the risk of stroke, possibly because the vaccine provokes an inflammatory response. This increases the risk of ischemic stroke, especially in people with pre-existing coagulation abnormalities. A report from Taiwan indicated that a 75-year-old male patient suffered posterior circulation ischemia after an influenza A/H1N1 vaccination.

Remember the ‘FAST’ Rule

Ischemic stroke occurs when a blood clot blocks or narrows an artery that leads to or is inside the brain. A blood clot often forms in arteries damaged by the buildup of plaques (atherosclerosis). It can occur in the carotid artery of the neck as well as in other arteries.

After vaccination—at a very rare rate—if an adverse stroke event does appear, what signs can alert you in time?

There are five “suddens” of stroke warning signs. If you observe one or more of these signs of a stroke, don’t wait; call a doctor or 911 immediately!

Sudden numbness, weakness, or tingling of the face, arm, or leg, especially on one side of the body

Sudden confusion, drowsiness, or trouble talking or understanding speech

Sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes, or double vision

Sudden trouble walking, dizziness, or loss of balance or coordination

Sudden severe headache, nausea, or vomiting with no known cause

Sometimes the signs may last only a few moments and then disappear. These episodes, known as transient ischemic attacks or TIAs, are called “mini-strokes.” Paying attention to them can be life-saving.

Remember the FAST (face, arm, speech, time) rule.

F ace drooping? Can’t smile
A rm weakness? Can’t raise above head
S peech difficulty? Can’t repeat simple nursery rhyme
T ime to call 911.

One or more of these signs—face weakness, arm weakness, and speech difficulty—are present in 88 percent of all strokes and TIAs. Getting to an emergency room quickly can save your life or the life of a loved one.

An intravenous injection of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is the gold standard treatment for selected patients with ischemic stroke. An injection of TPA is usually given through a vein in the arm within the first three hours after a stroke.

Arriving at an emergency room as quickly as possible after noticing symptoms is critical to reducing the odds of disability. A successful rescue of stroke patients includes early identification of signs of stroke and medical care within the first hour of acute stroke.

Recommendations on Vaccinations

It may not be advisable for individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 and who experienced a stroke to take extra COVID-19 jabs such as boosters.

For now, this safety signal looks like a worrisome association with vaccination. Elderly individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19 should check with their physicians for the most appropriate guidance tailored to their risks, given that COVID-19 also increases the risk of stroke and other cardiovascular events for months after infection.

Carefully monitor individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine or flu vaccine, especially those with high ischemic stroke risk.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/booster-shots-may-trigger-stroke-incidents-according-to-cdc-and-fda_5021604.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

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

Unmasked: the failure of Covid mandates

No nation forced masks on people with as much zeal as the US, whose libertarian reputation belied pockets of maniacal health authoritarianism unknown in Australia or even Europe.

The US, uniquely among advanced nations, forced masks on children aged two and up, something not even Victoria countenanced at the height of the great madness.

Today, still, after the vast bulk of Americans has sheepishly consigned masks to the bin, school students in Michigan and Massachusetts are required to mask up in class, despite mounting evidence that masks stunt childhood development.

In that context, a new, rigorous study that found masks did nothing to slow Covid-19 might have made the news. But no; a 305-page Cochrane analysis published globally on January 30 that assessed 78 high-quality scientific studies that included more than 610,000 participants has yet to rate a single mention in The Washington Post, The New York Times or on CNN, for instance.

Even passionate maskers, such as Baltimore epidemiologist Jennifer Nuzzo, conceded Cochrane reviews were the “gold standard” of evidence-based medicine and its latest mask study “a very serious undertaking”.

Cochrane found that surgical masks, the kind doctors wear in operating theatres to avoid accidentally sneezing into an open wound, did nothing to stop Covid-19.

More embarrassing for Team Mask, those even more uncomfortable N95 masks made little to no difference either. Only hand washing seemed to work to prevent the spread of corona and influenza-like viruses.

“There is just no evidence masks make any difference. Full stop,” University of Oxford associate tutor Tom Jefferson, one of the study’s 12 authors, told Australian journalist Maryanne Demasi last week.

“In the absence of evidence, you shouldn’t be forcing anybody to do so,” he said, describing advocates of forced masking as “activists, not scientists”.

It turns out the billions upon billions of masks that were manufactured in response to government mandates and now are floating in oceans or piling up at rubbish tips were likely to have been a colossal waste. American multinational 3M alone produced 4.5 billion N95 masks in 2020 and 2021, according to Statista; the mind boggles at what the global total for all masks might be.

“Governments completely failed to do the right thing and demand better evidence,” Jefferson says. “At the beginning of the pandemic there were some voices who said masks did not work and then suddenly the narrative changed.”

Thankfully, the narrative is changing again, in part to a US House of Representatives Repub­lican majority that is determined to probe some of the madder aspects of the great madness.

“I had doctors who spent years in medicine telling me masks were not effective, and yet these were being forced on people and school kids,” Republican congressman Gary Palmer said last week at a congressional hearing that included US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky. “We’re seeing a devastating impact on their educational attainment, so it surprises me that the CDC didn’t do any follow-up testing even while this was going on.”

Surprisingly, no government health agency in the US or elsewhere bothered to conduct any randomised control trial of what was a highly divisive intervention that pre-2020 science had counselled against.

Walensky said she didn’t rate the latest Cochrane study because it analysed only the highest quality mask studies. “I’m not sure anybody would have proposed a clinical trial because so many studies demonstrated time and time again … masks were working,” she said in reply, referring to studies that would have been deemed junk before 2020.

Indeed, none of the findings in the latest Cochrane review should have been a surprise. The overwhelming consensus among scientists pre-Covid-19 was that forcing healthy people to wear masks, let alone outside, was pointless and potentially harmful. Minuscule viruses would slip through the tiny holes in the masks or simply go around them.

As late as March 31, 2020, the World Health Organisation was sticking to the old science.

“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,” WHO health emergencies program executive director Mike Ryan told journalists.

But a few weeks later, following a total of zero new studies, “the science” had emerged in all its authoritarian glory, deeming masks effective and forcing them on hundreds of millions of people against their will for up to two years. Masks might have failed totally at stopping Covid-19 surges in every nation that implemented them, but they were highly successful on one metric: stoking fear, providing an in-your-face, everyday reminder of the pandemic that might increase compliance with other measures.

At the same time the incentive structure for researchers, who previously had toiled largely in obscurity, changed dramatically in the first half of 2020. Fame, speaking fees, academic promotion – all were in the offing for the canny researcher who could help demonise anyone who pointed to pre-2020 science or simply preferred to risk getting a bad cold rather than wear a mask.

Governments and their media cheer squad were eager to promote studies that vindicated mandatory masking.

That’s what explains the contemptible silence following the latest Cochrane review.

Wearing a mask sent a powerful message throughout the pandemic: I follow the science. Increasingly, it’s sending a different one: I’m a credulous goose. Or perhaps even, following new research in Frontiers in Psychology published last month: I’m not very attractive.

“Our results consistently demonstrated that self-perceived unattractive individuals were more willing to wear a mask, as they believed it would benefit their attractiveness,” the authors concluded.

To be sure, it wasn’t a randomised control trial but it reveals at least as much truth as any post-2020 study telling you masks worked.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/unmasked-the-failure-ofcovid-mandates/news-story/8d5313cef8ca90ec49e73a164a161933

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

Covid’s devastating impact on the heart as lockdowns take a triple toll on the health of the nation

New heart research confirms fears COVID-19 has taken a devastating toll on the health of Australians after confining them indoors, deprived of opportunities to exercise and exposed to poor diets and sleep routines.

Almost half of more than 6000 people who have undergone Victor Chang Heart Health Checks since the start of the pandemic have recorded results considered outside the healthy range.

A specialist team which conducts a mobile testing service across Australia has found cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure levels all significantly higher since COVID arrived.

The number of people having at least one test result outside the healthy range since March 2020 increased from 33 per cent to 47 per cent - a relative jump of more than 40 per cent.

Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute Program manager Anastasia Dounas says for many the COVID effect was real and of serious concern. 'They got out of the habit of going to the gym during lockdown and ate and drank more because they were worried and stressed, leading to weight gain,' she said.

'Working from home also led to less incidental exercise and the fear of COVID saw more people choosing to drive to work than catching public transport which resulted in people taking fewer steps each day. 'That all adds up.'

Since the launch of the heart check program in 2011 until the onset of COVID in 2020, more than 76,000 participants have been tested with just over a third having one or more results outside the normal healthy range and advised to follow up with a GP.

Within this group, eight per cent were beyond the healthy limit for blood pressure and blood sugar, and almost 30 per cent for cholesterol.

Since March 2020, 6182 participants have been tested with just over 47 per cent having one or more results outside the healthy range and advised to see their doctor.

Of these, 15 per cent were on the wrong side of healthy for blood pressure, 10.5 per cent for blood sugar and 32 per cent for cholesterol.

Heart check nurse Clare Lennon said it was more important than ever to be assessed and start re-engaging with exercise and a healthy diet.

'Heart health checks are vital in revealing if you are at risk of heart disease but can also help prevent it,' she said.

'Lifestyle changes or medications can make a huge difference to risk factors but you need to be aware of whether you have high cholesterol, blood pressure, or blood sugar to begin with.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11741345/Covid-Australia-2023-Heart-disease-caused-lockdowns.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

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

CDC Adds COVID-19 Vaccines to Child Immunization Schedule

This is alarming. How would you feel if your baby died of a shot? Vaccines can kill and a baby's immune system is immature so babies may be especially vulnerable

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) added COVID-19 vaccines to its routine immunization schedule for children and adults on Thursday, attracting criticism for the decision.

According to the CDC’s 2023 immunization schedule for children and adolescents, two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended beginning with infants who are just six months old. Children in the age group of 6 months to four years, and five years to 11 years are recommended COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna or Pfizer. Among children aged 12 to 18, Novavax vaccines are also recommended in addition to Pfizer and Moderna.

In the list for adults, two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended from the age of 19 years. The 2023 COVID-19 vaccine recommendation for kids and adults is included among other typically-recommended vaccines for measles, flu, rubella, and so on.

Advisers to the CDC in 2022 recommended adding the vaccines to the schedule.

Though the CDC has added COVID-19 vaccines to the recommended list, it has not mandated the vaccines. The agency does not have the authorization to do so, but local and state jurisdictions can, and many mandate most of the vaccines on the schedule. However, there are hardly any states that make flu vaccinations mandatory in public schools.

Lawyers have said they’ll sue any state that requires COVID-19 vaccination to attend school and many officials have vowed not to implement such a requirement.

The CDC’s move to add COVID-19 vaccines to immunization schedules has attracted criticism online.

“While I thought impossible for @CDCgov to lose anymore credibility—they decide to do this despite growing studies showing declining efficacy, no net benefit for majority of immunocompetent” individuals, anesthesiologist Megan Martin said in a Feb. 10 tweet.

Vaccine Injury Compensation For COVID-19

The children’s vaccine schedule points out that COVID-19 vaccines are not covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions.

Instead, COVID-19 vaccines authorized or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

Created in 2010, the CICP is a compensation program aimed at vaccines and medications which are developed as a response to any public health emergency.

Claimants must file a request for compensation within a year of being injected with the vaccine. The program, mostly intended for children’s vaccines, is known to be more arduous and less generous than VICP.

Without the development of a vaccine injury table by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the burden of proof lies with the petitioner and not the government to prove causation in order to establish eligibility.

An analysis by Bloomberg shows that while the average compensation payout under VICP is around $533,000, the payout under CICP is just above $200,000. VICP guarantees legal representation and hearing for claimants. Individuals applying under CICP do not get these benefits. While decisions made by VICP officials are made public, CICP decisions are never known.

“Agency officials decide the claims in secret, without the opportunity for injured individuals or their families to speak with or interact with decision makers,” Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School who researches vaccine injury compensation programs, said to the outlet.

Since CICP decisions remain unpublished, “the public and researchers can’t know which adverse events were found with vaccines and which were not … This has the potential to stunt our understanding of these vaccines’ safety and efficacy,” she stated.

COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries

According to a recent study from the CDC, more than 1,600 children between the ages of five and 11 experienced a systemic reaction like diarrhea or fever after receiving a dose of COVID-19 vaccines.

Almost half of the children in the study who received updated Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were found to have experienced a systemic reaction, which is defined as “usually mild” reactions that last for multiple days. Systemic reactions are rated above local reactions on the severity scale, just below severe reactions.

In a Feb. 1 paper, the CDC reported that 73 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome were identified in adults within 42 days of taking a Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 shot.

The syndrome causes the body’s immune system to attack certain parts of the nervous system. Based on the usual annual rate of the syndrome, only 31 cases were expected.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/cdc-adds-covid-19-vaccines-to-child-immunization-schedule_5048320.html

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

Study: Heart attacks increased among young people post-COVID

What percentage of those who died were vaccinated is not said

A recent study has found that the number of deaths from heart attacks increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

The increase was more pronounced in people aged between 25 and 44. A 29.9% relative increase in heart attack deaths (about 30% higher than the predicted number) was observed in this age group over the first two years of the pandemic.

Cardiologist Dr. Susan Cheng, a study co-author, told TODAY, “Young people are obviously not really supposed to die of heart attack. They’re not really supposed to have heart attacks at all.”

The relative increase in heart attack deaths among adults between 45 and 64 was 19.6%, and 13.7% for adults 65 and older.

This increase also coincided with COVID-19 surges in the country. Los Angeles County paramedic Romeo Robles told TODAY that such surges would often lead to an increase in emergency calls related to heart issues, even among young people.

Cheng pointed out that the connection is surely “more than coincidental,” since COVID-19 can have a significant impact on the cardiovascular system. She said that the illness appears to increase “the stickiness of the blood,” the probability of “blood clot formation,” blood pressure spikes, and “an overwhelming stress.”

While the reason for the increased rate in young people is still unclear, the study authors posited a theory. Cheng said that young people were more likely to have stronger immune systems which could also lead to an excessive response to the virus.

A February 2022 study of over 150,000 individuals with COVID-19 revealed that COVID-19 survivors are at “substantial” risk of developing heart disease even a year after infection, regardless of their symptoms’ severity and risk factors.

Physician-scientist Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, a study co-author, estimated that around 4% of people who had COVID-19 will develop a heart issue that ranges from an irregular heartbeat and inflammation to heart attacks and heart failure.

The risk also increases with each COVID-19 infection an individual experiences.

If you have been infected before, especially multiple times, Cheng advised improving your health and monitoring your risk factors, such as blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol.

Heart attack signs to look out for include: pain, discomfort, or pressure in the chest area; pain or discomfort in the neck, jaw, or back; cold sweat; weakness, light-headedness, or fainting; and shortness of breath.

The study noted that the number of heart attacks has been previously decreasing in the country, but the trend increased again since the pandemic.

The study by Cedars Sinai hospital in Los Angeles was published in September 2022.

https://crystalclearnews.com/study-heart-attacks-increased-among-young-people-post-covid/

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

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

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

University of Sydney scientists make ‘crazy’ Covid-19 discovery

The COVID public health emergency is coming to an end, and even thought you might not have been following protocols recently, this will still affect you and your wallet.
Australian scientists have made an incredible discovery that could change the way we view Covid — and could explain why some people suffer serious illness with the virus, or even death, while others never get sick or appear symptomless.

University of Sydney researchers discovered a protein in the lung that blocks Covid infection and forms a natural protective barrier in the human body.

The naturally occurring protein, LRRC15, works by attaching itself to the virus, stopping Covid particles from binding with more vulnerable cells - as well as reducing the chance of infection.

The research offers a promising pathway to develop new drugs to prevent Covid or deal with fibrosis in the lungs.

The study led by Professor Greg Neely found that this new receptor acts by binding to the virus and sequestering it which reduces infection.

“For me, as an immunologist, the fact that there’s this natural immune receptor that we didn’t know about, that’s lining our lungs and blocks and controls viruses, that’s crazy interesting,” Professor Neely said.

“We can now use this new receptor design broad acting drugs that can block viral infection or even suppress lung fibrosis.”

How it works

The Covid-19 virus infects humans by using a spike protein to attach to a specific receptor in our cells. It primarily uses a protein called the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor to ender human cells.

Lung cells have high levels of ACE2 receptors, which is why the Covid-19 virus often causes severe problems in this organ.

Like AEC2, LRRC15 is a receptor for Covid meaning the virus can bind to it. But unlike ACE2, LRRC15 does not support infection.

It can however stick to the virus and immobilise it.

Researchers believe patients who died from Covid did not produce enough of the protein, or produced it too late to make a difference.

“We think it acts a bit like Velcro, molecular Velcro, in that it sticks to the spike of the virus and then pulls it away from the target cell types,” another researcher Dr Lipin Loo said.

The breakthrough comes as millions of Australians are now eligible for a fifth Covid vaccine within a fortnight.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation has recommended that all people aged 18 and over receive a top-up jab, no matter how many doses they’ve already received, as long as they have not been infected with the virus in the last six months.

Up to four million Australians are estimated to have been struck down with Covid-19 just in the past four months.

More than 2600 Australians have died with the virus since October. Around 800 of those deaths were aged care residents.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/university-of-sydney-scientists-make-crazy-covid19-discovery/news-story/392bf1ee21e0923c187e0330e48c162a

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

Can Plant Extracts Effectively Inhibit SARS-CoV-2—The Results of a Portugal Review Study Look Promising

Can natural products be used as a means of combating COVID-19? Afterall, plant-based chemistry has been at work in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for centuries, based on plants: long the source of individual molecules and extracts capable of inhibiting/neutralizing several microorganisms, including viruses.

In fact, natural extracts have demonstrated potential efficacy against various pathogens in the coronavirus families, although that fact isn’t touted much by mainstream media in the West. But plenty of misinformation associated with this topic continues to circulate across cyberspace. There are reasons medical products are tightly regulated at the national level.

Only after careful and systematic research demonstrating safety and effectiveness will such natural products be authorized by relevant authorities. In that spirit, recently, a group of collaborating scientists from Portugal, affiliated with the Mountain Research Institute and the Catholic University of Portugal (Center for Biotechnology and Fine Chemistry), investigated select plant metabolites and their potential therapeutic value targeting SARS-CoV, the virus behind COVID-19.

Of particular interest to the Portugal-based scientists, represented by corresponding author Lillian Barros, Ph.D., a biotech engineer with a focus on biotechnology and food chemistry, was a couple of molecules associated with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) as the world’s biggest population depends heavily on this approach targeting COVID-19.

What are the primary strategies to inhibit or stop SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19?

Researchers have determined a couple pathways for therapy to work, including 1) inhibiting of SARS-CoV-2 penetration by preventing SARS-CoV-2 S-ACE2 binding interactions and 2) the inhibiting of protease enzymes such as Mpro (main protease), 3CLpro (3C-like protease) and PLpro (papain-like protease).

Enter this investigation into plant metabolites targeting SARS-CoV-2

The study team centered their investigation on select plants associated with TCM, for example, and the derived molecules that can actually bind with glycoprotein and consequently stop membrane fusion included A) luteolin (11 µM) and TGG (tetra-O-galloyl-β-D-glucose, 5.0 µM), both taken from TCM that do bind with spike glycoprotein. The team looked at other plant-based molecules.

The study team used the SCOPUS database and associated software to better understand a relation between plants and SARS-CoV02. They report about 1504 documents surfaced based on targeted keywords from 2020 to 2022. Selecting output with at least one of the chosen search terms, the team used specialized software to organize output by relevance and relationship.

What’s interesting about plant-based molecules potentially capable of stopping what’s known as cysteine proteases?
It turns out that SARS-CoV-2 thrives thanks to an enzyme called 3CLpro, responsible for the processing of proteins essential for the novel coronaviruses thriving. Hence why, drugs such as Paxlovid fall in the class of 3CLpro inhibition.

Other inhibitors involving both PLpro and 3CLpro identified by the researchers include chalcones, especially chalcone 6 as well. Some properties associated with plans inhibit PLpro with more effectiveness—such as polyphenol compounds taken from the leaves of the paper mulberry tree native to eastern Asia.

Overall, the team reported in their paper published in MDPI that of the compounds studied, Papyriflavonol A shows superior ability to inhibit PLpro enzyme. While one compound could inhibit both the relevant proteins—PLpro and 3CLpro: Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge-derived lipophilic tanshinones.

The researchers analyze the plant-based metabolites’ potential for contributing to regimen targeting SARS-CoV-2, including several other examples.

What’s a takeaway?

The scientific literature suggests a definite therapeutic value associated with certain plant extracts, including ones involved in TCM, targeting SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. The Portuguese researchers document a particular interest in bioactive molecules such as alkaloid compounds as well as phenolic substances from chalcones and flavonoids to tannins and lignins to glycosides.

Likely, with targeted focus and investment in this plant-based medicinal approach, companies focusing on this area could offer substantially safe and effective, not to mention economical treatments against COVID-19. But would this fit into the biopharmaceutical business model?

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/can-plant-extracts-effectively-inhibit-sars-cov-2the-results-of-a-portugal-review-study-look-promising-0d1c2c73

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

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

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

CDC Retrospective Cohort Study: Janssen COVID-19 Vaccines Increases Risk of Guillain–Barré syndrome

Mounting evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines can, on rare occasions, lead to a rare autoimmune condition associated with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). Associated with muscle weakness, this typically virus-originated disease can lead to paralysis, and even death in a minority of cases. GBS has been associated with other vaccines, but it is typically a rare occurrence, and the public benefit of vaccines according to health authorities such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) outweigh rare risks such as GBS.

Recently, physician-scientists affiliated with both the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyzed in a retrospective cohort study whether COVID-19 vaccines, including Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Johnson & Johnson/Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S) associated with GBS in the period of 21 or 42 days post the vaccination. Tapping into and analyzing data associated with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the investigators analyzed and verified cases of GBS after the COVID-19 jab in Americans aged 18 and above. The CDC and FDA team have gone on the record with this study result that the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) associates with an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Importantly, the study authors report that based on this observational study, there is no association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and GBS. The investigators do acknowledge that VAERS is subject to underreporting.

The Condition

With rapid-onset muscle weakness triggered by the immune system damaging the peripheral nervous system, Guillain–Barré Syndrome most often impacts both sides of the body. Typically starting with changes in sensation or pain often in the back along with muscle weakness, it can also start in the hands and feet and spread up the arms or upper body. These symptoms can last for hours or even weeks and during an acute phase, the disease can lead to hospitalization and death. About 15% of acute cases involve a debilitation of breathing muscles leading to the need for mechanical ventilation. The condition may lead to potentially deadly abnormalities associated with heart rate and blood pressure.

GBS occurs throughout the world with a median annual incidence of 1.3 cases per population of 100 000, with men being more frequently affected than women. GBS is considered to be an autoimmune disease triggered by a preceding bacterial or viral infection. About 3,000 to 6,000 cases are diagnosed annually in America.

Study Data

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using US VAERS reports submitted during December 2020 to January 2022. GBS case reports verified as meeting the Brighton Collaboration case definition for GBS in US adults after COVID-19 vaccination were included.

Represented by corresponding author Winston E. Abara, CDC, the study team reported in JAMA that they found a total of 295 validated GBS reports post the COVID-19 jab. What was the average age of individuals afflicted with GBS post the vaccination? Average age was 59 years, and males represented 57.3% of the study subjects.

Out of all the injured, 275 representing 93.2% of the total were hospitalized, while 209 of the incidents happened within 21 days of the subject receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Another 253 of the safety incidents occurred within 42 days post the COVID-19 vaccine jab.

GBS was more frequently reported within 21 days after Ad26.COV2.S than after BNT162b2 (RRR = 11.40; 95% CI, 8.11-15.99) or mRNA-1273 (RRR = 9.26; 95% CI, 6.57-13.07) vaccination.

The CDC and FDA team have gone on the record with the study results that the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) associates with an increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/cdc-retrospective-cohort-study-janssen-covid-19-vaccines-increases-risk-of-guillainbarre-syndrome-4560ac66

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

Bivalent COVID Vaccines Perform Worse Against Variant Now Dominant in United States

The new COVID-19 vaccines don’t work as well against XBB.1.5, the virus variant that’s now dominant in the United States, according to multiple studies.

In one of the papers, researchers found the vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies, believed to be a measure of protection, but that the antibody levels declined to previous levels within three months.

Compared to the antibody responses to BA.5, the responses to XBB.1.5 were reduced 20-fold.

“Following bivalent mRNA boosting, responses to XBB.1.5 increase but remain low and wane within 3 months back to pre-boost levels. These data suggest that once a year boosters with the current mRNA vaccines may not provide adequate protection for an entire year for those at high risk of complications of COVID-19,” Dr. Dan Barouch, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a co-author of the preprint study (pdf), told The Epoch Times via email.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines both utilize messenger RNA, or mRNA, technology. The updated versions of the vaccines are bivalent, targeting the Wuhan variant and a sublineage of the BA.4 and BA.5 strain. The new versions were cleared as boosters in the fall of 2022 despite no clinical data being available. They are poised to replace the original vaccines.

Other studies have also found that the bivalents induce a better response than the old, monovalent boosters, but that the response is reduced against XBB.1.5 or its parent, XBB, which comes from BA.2 lineages.

Researchers with Pfizer and Pfizer partners, for instance, reported recently that the antibody levels were the lowest against XBB.1.5, and were particularly low among people without evidence of prior infection. Similarly, researchers with the U.S. National Institutes of Health and other institutions concluded (pdf) that “the lowest titers were observed against XBB.1” and researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) detected (pdf) “low activity” against XBB.1. And Japanese scientists also observed a reduction in neutralizing power.

A group of Chinese researchers, who reported evidence that XBB.1.5 can more easily evade protection, said that the circulation of the strain “needs to be closely monitored, and the development of effective neutralizing antibodies and vaccines against XBB.1.5 is urgently needed.”

“Based on its genetic characteristics and growth rate estimates, XBB.1.5 is likely to contribute to increases in case incidence globally. There is moderate-strength evidence for increased risk of transmission and immune escape. From reports by several countries, no early signals of increases in severity have been observed,” the World Health Organization stated in a risk assessment (pdf), though it acknowledged that the low number of cases caused by the strain does not enable a confident assessment of severity.

New York officials claimed in January that XBB.1.5 “may be more likely to infect people who have been vaccinated or already had COVID-19,” later adding that they meant compared to prior variants. When asked for evidence to back up the claim, a spokesperson declined to provide any.

Authorization Revoked as XBB Becomes Dominant
Regulators have not yet altered authorizations or approvals for vaccines, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) yanked authorization for Evusheld, a monoclonal antibody treatment, because it said the drug wouldn’t work against XBB.1.5 and other emerging subvariants.

XBB.1.5, an Omicron subvariant like BA.5, was estimated to be behind 66.4 percent of the COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending Feb. 4, according to genomic sequencing and other data.

BA.5 was the dominant strain until late 2022, when it was displaced by BQ.1.1 and BQ.1. Those Omicron subvariants make up about a quarter of the cases.

The bivalent vaccines were cleared in part because the vaccines had been performing increasingly worse against Omicron and its subvariants. Regulators chose not to wait for clinical data despite widespread warnings that authorizing the shots without the data would further undermine confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines.

The FDA met with its advisory panel in January but none of the vaccine makers that made presentations during the meeting, including Pfizer and Moderna, presented clinical efficacy data. Officials from the companies alleged that testing data indicated the vaccines work against XBB.

CDC Data

CDC researchers, drawing from testing data, estimated similar vaccine effectiveness (VE) against XBB and BA.5.

For people aged 18 to 49, for instance, the relative effectiveness against symptomatic infection was estimated at 52 percent two to three months after a bivalent booster against the latter and 48 percent against the former.

Relative effectiveness means effectiveness beyond the initial shots, which provide little protection against symptomatic infection.

“‘Generally, VE against symptomatic infection is similar for the two sub lineages and across age groups,” Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles, a CDC researcher and co-author of the report, told the FDA’s advisory panel.

“We’re continuing to monitor this as XBB.1.5 continues to increase nationally,” she added.

Researchers drew from the Increasing Community Access to Testing program, which provides free COVID-19 testing at CBS, Walmart, and other places.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/bivalent-covid-vaccines-perform-worse-against-variant-now-dominant-in-united-states-studies_5040659.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

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

California ‘Quietly’ Drops Student COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

While California’s government is celebrated by some for its commitment to contain and combat COVID-19, many critics have suggested the various governmental and public units, from state offices to universities and school districts, went too far during the COVID-19 response, representing an overreach of constitutional norms and mores. While Gavin Newsom, the Governor of the state, announced a universal COVID-19 vaccination policy by October 2021 (it would eventually apply to 6.7 million public and private school children), the Golden State became one of the first states where school districts proactively pushed universal COVID-19 mandates for children as soon as the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 was formally approved (albeit there was nothing usual about how the controversial vaccine was approved).

Now with the science clearly pointing to the reality that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are not only non-sterilizing but also lack breadth in response to various mutations and durability, the Los Angeles Times and other media report that the state has quietly dropped the student COVID-19 vaccine mandate as the state emergency is planned to end February 28. The national public health emergency is scheduled to end by May 11.

Apparently, the mandate was put on hold in April 2022 by the Governor, as was a bill that was to eliminate any exemptions for personal beliefs, writes Howard Blume for the Los Angeles Times.

A confluence of forces converges to make such mandates not even practical anymore, admits the mainstream media.

Most notable is the fact, writes Blume, that SARS-CoV-2 “has evolved to a less deadly, more manageable, and treatable stage. Although COVID-19 remains widespread — and people continue to die from it — the availability of vaccines and antiviral treatments has lessened the effects — offering relief to what had been an overwhelmed public health system.”

In California, Newsom plans to end the state of emergency on Feb. 28, ending a three-year period of history for the Golden State.

It's still taboo to express any critical views of the COVID-19 vaccine products in the mainstream press. On the topic of these products, Blume and contributing writers Adam Beam and Times staff writer Taryn Luna reassure the reader that the move to cease any mandates doesn’t mean that the state rejects the COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, the state’s health department declared:

“COVID-19 immunization is an important tool for keeping our kids healthy and schools open,” the department statement said. “Health officials strongly recommend immunization of students and staff against COVID-19 to prevent hospitalization and other serious complications, including death. Widespread vaccination has contributed to keeping California children in school to learn and to strengthen social connections. Turnkey mobile vaccination services remain available for any K-12 school within the state.”

The Reality

The truth is that the current COVID-19 vaccines, softening the sharp, deadly edges of the COVID-19 pandemic, most definitely exhibited attributes of early state or “Version 1.0” products.

Because the world found out the COVID-19 vaccines were not preventing the contagion from spreading, a movement grew against inoculation mandates by the spring of 2021. It didn’t make much sense if the products didn’t halt the infection in the first place and, thereby stop the transmission of the virus.

That aside, the positioning for the benefits shifted at the time to a reduction in the probability of serious infection and hospitalization, even death. In fact, across many different real-world studies evaluated by TrialSite over the past couple of years, the evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines did serve to induce surges of immune protection during surges of the pandemic, slowing down hospitalization and saving lives.

But two other elements further weakened the prospect of these COVID-19 vaccine products as permanent fixtures on the vaccination schedule in addition to the fact that they were not sterilizing in impact. First, is their lack of breadth, in that as the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutated from Delta into Omicron and various subvariants, increasingly, the pathogen evaded the vaccine’s neutralizing impact, while also and in relation to a mutating RNA virus the durability of the vaccine was questionable. This is why boosters were required, and since the release of the first COVID-19 vaccines to the market in mid-December 2020, up to five doses have been administered, two in the primary series and up to three boosters including the most recent bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 booster does.

The market has resoundingly rejected this product despite intense and ongoing promotional edicts from the government, echoed by health systems. As of this writing, only about 15% of all persons eligible have opted to take the shot.

The whole strategy in response to COVID-19 should be evaluated carefully. For example, early treatment (now emphasized once pharmaceutical products were approved) was de-emphasized when front-line providers produced various approaches in the clinics during the pandemic.

One such approach was the ICAM protocol, which was purportedly saving hundreds of lives out of one Florida-based health system. Involving the use of blood thinners and certain steroids, (both later shown to help) TrialSite learned that once the CEO became aware of the protocol it was canceled. TrialSite brought significant attention to the effort worldwide. Sources conveyed that a contract between Pfizer and the health system precluded the latter from its employees developing any regimen for SARS-CoV-2, even though it was in the middle of a deadly pandemic.

Assuming these declarations are authentic, Pfizer leveraged its position in the pandemic quite ruthlessly to lock in behaviors it deemed appropriate. The message to health systems: If you want access to the COVID-19 vaccines via clinical trials, sign this adhesion-style contract. Of course, there is evidence that Pfizer enforced this approach worldwide via all sorts of unorthodox contracts with draconian clauses. See “Pfizer’s Power in the COVID-19 Vaccine Space.”

Moving forward, state agencies, school districts, and other units of government will likely back out of any hardline COVID-19 vaccine stances now, including relevant mandates, as the science irrefutably reveals the limitations of the current batch of COVID-19 vaccines.

Importantly, this is not to minimize intention for and even the protective results, albeit short-lived, at the time, and in many cases, their influence as a medical tool, along with other approaches during the pandemic, only expresses what the reality is on the ground.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/california-quietly-drops-student-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-71c682eb

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

Study finds way to help children overcome peanut allergy

This is rather old hat. Systematic desensitization has been known to psychologists for decades and its application to peanut allergy also goes back at least a decade. Good that someone is still working on it though

Consuming small, sequential doses of boiled peanuts help overcome children’s allergic reactions, according to a new study.

The research, published in the journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy, found that 80 per cent of children with peanut allergy become desensitised to eating peanuts following the trial.

Since up to three per cent of children in Western countries are grappling with peanut allergies, scientists, including those from Flinders University in the US, say the new clinical trial can help develop a novel treatment to reduce the risk of accidental peanut exposure and improve quality of life for peanut-allergic children.

Their new study is based on previous findings that heat affects the protein structure and allergic properties of peanuts, making them potentially less likely to cause severe allergic reactions.

Scientists tested whether a therapy delivering small, increasing doses of boiled peanuts, followed by roasted peanuts, may help children overcome their peanut allergies.

“Small and increasing doses of boiled nuts were first given to children to partially desensitise them, and when they showed no signs of an allergic reaction, increasing doses of roasted peanuts were then provided to increase their tolerance in the next stage of treatment,” study co-author Tim Chataway said in a statement.

Researchers asked 70 peanut-allergic children of ages six to 18 to consume peanuts boiled for 12 hours for 12 weeks, 2 hour boiled peanuts for 20 weeks, and roasted peanuts for 20 weeks.

Scientists found that 56 of the 70 (80 per cent) participants became desensitized to a daily target dose of consuming 12 roasted peanuts without allergic reactions.

While treatment-related adverse events were reported in over 60 per cent of the participants, only 3 withdrew from the trial as a result, the study noted.

“Our clinical trial shows promising early signs in demonstrating that boiling peanuts may provide a safe and effective method for treating peanut-allergic children with sequential doses of boiled and roasted peanuts over an extended period of time,” says Luke Grzeskowiak, another author of the study, said.

However, scientists caution that this method of therapy may not work for everyone, but add that they are in the process of better understanding what factors can influence how people respond to treatment.

While these findings hold “great promise”, researchers add that the results also require confirmation in a larger definitive clinical trial.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/study-finds-way-to-help-children-overcome-peanut-allergy/ar-AA179HsM

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

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

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