Finally a vaccine to banish Covid for good? Nasal spray reduces risk of infection 86% — nearly DOUBLE protection given by shot in arm

A nasal vaccine that could finally curb Covid infections is one step closer to a reality after promising early trial results.

The inhaled vaccine, made by researchers in Georgia, successfully reduced the risk of symptomatic Covid infections by 86 percent for three months in people who received it as a booster - almost double the protection the mRNA boosters provide.

While still in early stages, it is an exciting development that could prove more effective than the booster doses administered as injections.

The nasal, or ‘mucosal’ vaccines are appealing for their ability to prime immune cells in the mucous membranes that line the nostril cavities and the mouth where the coronavirus first enters the body, and stop the virus in its tracks.

Nasal vaccines such as the one currently in development at Georgia-based startup Blue Lake Biotechnology Inc. concentrate the immune protection in the upper airways, positioning powerful antibodies right on the frontlines.

In their phase 1 trial starting in August 2021, researchers at Blue Lake Biotechnology included 72 participants ages 18 to 55 who had already received two doses of an mRNA vaccine as well as unvaccinated healthy people. They plan to expand the sample size and will continue recruiting subjects through December.

The vaccine technology relies on a type of parainfluenza virus that has been encoded with Covid’s trademark spike protein to train the immune system to recognize and fight it off.

Once the vaccine contents are inhaled, little bits of the parainfluenza virus replicate inside the nasal cavity to such an extent that it triggers an immune response without actually getting the person sick.

Dr Biao He, founder and CEO of Blue Lake Biotechnology said: ‘We were pleasantly surprised to see indications of a protective effect in this Phase 1 trial.’

‘We are excited and encouraged with this result, and through our affiliate, CyanVac LLC, we have submitted a protocol to FDA for a randomized controlled phase 2 trial in which we look forward to more fully evaluating the immunogenicity of the vaccine and to better understanding its protective efficacy.’

The immune response launched by the nasal spray vaccine could potentially be significantly more robust than a vaccine administered via syringe.

In addition to prompting a strong immune response, nasal vaccine technology could ease pressure on health professionals giving vaccine injections, cut medical waste and provide better vaccine access to developing countries.

Booster shots currently in use across the US have been shown to reduce symptomatic infections by 43 percent in people 65 and younger over roughly the same amount of time that the spray is able to confer 86 percent protection.

People in the trials who received the nasal spray experienced fewer adverse reactions than those who received the injectable vaccine.

Nasal spray vaccines will appear to many a less invasive means of gaining protection against severe illness, potentially attracting the needle-phobic vaccine holdouts.

The finished product is still a ways off and this is the type of next generation Covid vaccines that public health officials have said are urgently needed in the event that a new variant that is able to circumvent vaccine protection arises.

Dr Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research within the Food and Drug Administration and fellow experts at Brown University said late last year: ‘Introduction of these bivalent boosters likely only represents a temporizing measure until variants emerge that necessitate additional booster vaccination or modification of the current generation of vaccines.

‘Serious consideration therefore needs to be given to the development of a distinctly improved generation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines offering longer protection with greater scope.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11790943/A-vaccine-end-Covid-good-Early-results-nasal-spray-reduced-risk-severe-covid-86.html

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

Protection From New COVID-19 Vaccines Drops Sharply Within Months: CDC

The new COVID-19 vaccines provide a boost to protection against hospitalization but that shielding wanes within months, according to unpublished data presented on Feb. 24.

A bivalent Pfizer or Moderna booster increased protection against hospitalization initially by 52 percent, but that protection dropped to 36 percent beyond 59 days, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers said.

The researchers separately looked at the protection people who had received two or more monovalent doses, or doses of the original vaccines, and no bivalent booster. They found that people aged 18 to 64 had just 19 percent protection against COVID-19 associated hospitalization and those aged 65 and older had just 28 percent protection.

That means the protection after two months was around 60 percent in total for the elderly and goes below 50 percent for all other adults.

The data came from the CDC’s VISION network. Data from a different CDC-run network, called IVY, showed “minimal to no residual protection” against hospitalization from the original vaccine, Dr. Amadea Britton, a CDC official, said. Two or more monovalent doses provided just 17 percent protection, with uncertain confidence intervals.

A bivalent vaccine on top of a monovalent primary series brought the protection to just 55 percent at seven or more days after the booster.

Waning wasn’t measured in the IVY network.

The bivalent vaccines were authorized and recommended in the fall of 2022 despite no clinical trial data being available. Clinical efficacy data remains unavailable at present.

The COVID-19 vaccines are authorized in the United States to prevent COVID-19 disease but officials have increasingly described the goal of vaccination as preventing severe disease, because the vaccines have performed worse and worse against symptomatic infection as newer variants have emerged.

The effectiveness against severe disease may be higher than against hospitalization, according to Britton.

A third CDC network, Increasing Community Access to Testing, found that a new booster initially provided 65 percent protection against symptomatic infection for children aged 5 to 11, and 68 percent protection for children aged 12 to 17.

That protection waned to 54 percent by three months in the younger group and 53 percent by five months in the older group.

A bivalent booster worked much worse in adults, according to other unpublished data from the network presented for the first time during the meeting.

A bivalent increased protection against symptomatic infection by just 38 percent in the elderly, with protection dropping to 21 percent by five months. In people aged 50 to 64, protection started at 46 percent and waned to 28 percent; among adults aged 18 to 49, protection started at 51 percent and waned to 41 percent.

The protection estimates were relative, being measured against two to four doses of an original vaccine. Previous research has found that the original vaccine provides little protection against symptomatic Omicron infection, with some estimating the protection turning negative over time.

“The pattern of waning against symptomatic infection is very similar to what was observed after monovalent booster doses, with VE against symptomatic infection decreasing to minimal protection by around five to six months,” Britton said.

Change in Vaccine

The updated Pfizer and Moderna vaccines target the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron, in addition to the Wuhan strain. The original vaccines were aimed at only the latter. The updated vaccines are only available currently as booster shots.

U.S. authorities are preparing to replace all of the original Pfizer and Moderna vaccines with the bivalent. Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration backed the move in a recent meeting, and advisers to the CDC on Thursday largely agreed the move would be good.

They cited the improvement in protection the bivalents bestow, however minimal, and the hope that simplifying the vaccines would lead to more uptake.

Many Americans have declined to get any boosters, and even fewer have received one of the new bivalents. The overwhelming majority of parents have chosen not to get their children even a primary series, amid the drop in effectiveness and growing concerns about short- and long-term side effects like heart inflammation.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/protection-from-new-covid-19-vaccines-drops-sharply-within-months-cdc_5080704.html

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

New Study Finds ‘No Evidence’ That City-Wide Vaccine Mandates Impacted the Spread of COVID-19

During the pandemic, a slew of left-wing cities established vaccine mandates that required employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who did not comply faced suspension and termination from their jobs. Many cities took this a step further and mandated all businesses to require patrons to present their vaccine papers in order to enter the business.

This week, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University unveiled a new study,“Indoor Vaccine Mandates in US Cities, Vaccination Behavior, and COVID-19 Outcomes.” The study questioned the efficacy of vaccine mandates in cities that implemented such mandates to visit indoor businesses, which included Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

“City vaccine mandates were arguably among the most restrictive and polarizing regulations ever enacted in the United States,” the study write-up said. “Millions of people were prevented from entering restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, sports arenas, and other public indoor areas without proof of COVID-19 vaccination. The mandates negatively affected unvaccinated individuals and businesses that were not allowed to serve unvaccinated customers.”

The write-up noted that supporters of the mandates said that it would uptick vaccination rates that the spread of COVID-19 would decrease. But, the study shows that this did not happen.

“We find no evidence that the announcement or implementation of indoor vaccine mandate in the cities listed had any significant effect on vaccine uptake, COVID-19 cases, or COVID-19 deaths, and this is largely consistent for all US cities that implemented the mandate,” the study stated.

In New York City, specifically, more than 90 percent of restaurants reported having “customer-related” challenges over the vaccine mandate. And, over 1,400 city workers were fired for refusing to get vaccinated.

"COVID cases were not affected by the mandate, COVID deaths were not affected by it, and people were not more likely to get vaccinated at all in the first place," Vitor Melo, a postdoctoral fellow at the Mercatus Center and one of the authors of the study told Fox 5 DC.

"The idea behind the mandate is more people are gonna get vaccinated, therefore we’re gonna reduce the spread of COVID," Melo added. "That first step really didn’t happen."

One of the reasons why, Melo explained, is because people would travel to neighboring areas without vaccine mandates to go out to eat, etc. In the Washington, D.C. area, for example, people would go out to Arlington, Virginia.

The study pointed out that studies detailing country-wide mandates, like in Europe, were effective and resulted in more people getting a dose of the vaccine. City-wide mandates in America did not have this effect.

“The authors find that city-level mandates had smaller effect on vaccine uptake (and consequently on COVID-19 cases and deaths) than nationwide mandates— and thus failed to achieve their intended objectives,” it concluded.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/george-mason-study-finds-no-evidence-that-vaccine-mandates-in-major-cities-reduced-covid-19-cases/ar-AA17QYFI

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

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

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

F is for Fauci’s failed vaccines

The ‘worst possible thing you could do is vaccinate someone and make them worse,’ said Dr Anthony Fauci on March 26, 2020. He was talking about vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED), the nightmare scenario where a vaccine not only fails to prevent infection, it causes a more serious illness in a vaccinated person than one who is unvaccinated.

To prevent just such a catastrophe, a global, non-profit vaccine safety research network was created in 2000 called the Brighton Collaboration (BC). Its task is to develop vaccine safety protocols to monitor whether new vaccines were protecting people or making them sicker than unvaccinated people. In 2020, BC experts published a peer-reviewed paper defining vaccine enhanced disease in relation to Covid vaccines.

The BC is no anti-vaxxer organisation. It is funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation whose single largest private donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

But the BC experts state bluntly that any Covid infection in a vaccinated person after the normal time it takes to develop immunity is a ‘vaccine failure’ and that, ‘All cases of vaccine failure should be investigated for VAED’, that is, vaccine enhanced disease.

In simple terms this means that every time a vaccinated person gets Covid, their infection should be investigated to see if it is more severe or more frequent than a Covid infection in an unvaccinated person with equivalent health status, especially if they are hospitalised, go into ICU or die.

NSW data over the last six months shows that the rate of Covid cases, hospitalisation and care in an ICU ward all increase exponentially with each additional dose. The rate of Covid deaths are also 1.2 times higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Yet, public health officials have just announced that a fifth vaccine will now be available for all. It doesn’t make sense. But it has taken a young GP from the Whitsunday Islands, Dr Melissa McCann, to reveal the disturbing safety signals that public health officials are ignoring.

McCann was vaccinated like most doctors but she started to notice an alarming increase in adverse events in her practice as the vaccine was rolled out. She audited the cases and examined the database of adverse events collated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and found a dramatic increase in strokes, heart attacks and neurological disorders compared with previous years.

McCann knew that in 2010, Western Australia halted and then suspended the rollout of the childhood flu vaccine after an increase in the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) of febrile convulsions from one to two.

On 1 November, 2021 she wrote to the federal health minister and TGA detailing her findings and requesting an immediate suspension of the vaccination program. Nothing happened.

But McCann didn’t give up. Through Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosures, she discovered that the TGA was ignoring an increase of ratios for many serious adverse events including an increase of over 20 for myocarditis and over 50 for pulmonary infarction – when a clot blocks an artery to the lung causing part of it to die.

These were not the only alarm bells ringing. The increase strongly coincided with the vaccine rollout and there was mounting evidence in hundreds of published medical reports that the vaccine could cause precisely the adverse events that were occurring.

In March last year, McCann and 14 other doctors wrote again to the federal health minister and the TGA requesting an immediate suspension of the vaccine program and a review of safety issues including risks due to microRNA sequences in the vaccines which potentially cause cancer, the unknown metabolism of the lipid nanoparticles that deliver the mRNA into the cells which is highly inflammatory, stays in the body for an unknown period of time, can cross the blood brain barrier invading neurological tissues, and penetrate cells in the ovaries and the testes. The TGA again dismissed the doctors concerns.

So McCann soldiered on with an arduous FOI process uncovering three cases where a 7-year-old boy, a 9-year-old girl and a young woman of 24 had each died of cardiac arrest after a Pfizer vaccine. In these cases the ‘Decision’ recorded was ‘causality’ or ‘causality assessment outcome’ as opposed to ‘causality unlikely’ or ‘causality?’ which appeared on other records.

The TGA claims that ‘causality’ on these reports means a ‘clear decision on causality could not be made for these cases at the point in time that the document was released’. Yet, the TGA failed to make the reports public on its FOI disclosure log as it is obliged to do. When McCann asked why, the TGA wrote that the reports ‘contain sensitive personal information about deceased person’ and ‘disclosure of the documents could undermine public confidence and reduce the willingness of the public to report adverse events to the TGA’. This seems highly unlikely especially since there is no information about the deceased other than their age.

McCann then made a submission to the House of Representatives’ ‘Inquiry into Long COVID and Repeated COVID Infections’ which pointed out that what people call ‘long Covid’ is mostly ‘vaccine failure’ resulting in severe disease, probably enhanced by the vaccine. Mysteriously, her submission, unlike the 546 others, was only published on the parliamentary website this week, after she appeared with world-famous Covid experts Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Pierre Kory at sold-out events in three states organised by the United Australia Party

Outraged by the fact that at present most people with vaccine injuries, including the families of the dead, are not able to access compensation and have been mocked and ostracised, McCann has become a patient advocate and is preparing a class action for compensation to be filed in the Federal Court.

On 11 January, Fauci wrote in an article published in Cell Host & Microbe that the Covid vaccines are ‘reminiscent’ of ‘sub-optimal’ flu vaccines in that both ‘elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants’ that, unsurprisingly, have not ended the pandemic. Fauci says nothing about vaccine injuries and spiralling excess mortality in highly vaccinated countries. That task has been left to a heroic Aussie doctor who so far has proved more than up to the task.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/f-is-for-faucis-failed-vaccines/

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

Republican Senators Push Back Against Accord Giving WHO Power Over US Pandemic Response

As member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) prepare to gather in Switzerland next week to negotiate final terms of an accord that will give the WHO centralized authority over U.S. policy in the case of a pandemic, Republican senators are pushing back with an effort to reinforce congressional power to authorize treaties.

The draft accord, which would be “legally binding” on all 194 member nations, gives the WHO the authority to declare pandemics and submits member countries to “the central role of the WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work,” in areas like lockdowns, treatments, medical supply chains, surveillance, and “disinformation and false news,” once a pandemic is declared.

Seventeen U.S. senators, led by Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), introduced the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act” on Feb 15, which states that the pandemic accord must be deemed a treaty, thus requiring the consent of a supermajority of the Senate, which is two-thirds, or 67 senators. The legislation comes as the WHO gears up to present what it calls the “zero draft” of the accord, negotiated with the help of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, to all member nations on Feb. 27 to agree final terms.

Other sponsors of the bill included Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), and Katie Britt (R-Ala.).

“The WHO, along with our federal health agencies, failed miserably in their response to COVID-19,” Sen. Johnson stated. “This failure should not be rewarded with a new international treaty that would increase the WHO’s power at the expense of American sovereignty.”

But some doubt this bill, even if approved, will stop the WHO accord from going into effect once President Joe Biden signs it.

“With all due respect to the sponsoring senators, that will not do the trick,” Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times. The reason, he said, is that the WHO accord is drafted specifically to circumvent the Senate-approval process, and Congress instead should immediately withhold its yearly contributions to the WHO and take the United States out of the organization.

Currently, the United States is the largest contributor to the WHO’s $6.72 billion budget, of which $1.25 billion is for “health emergencies.” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest donor to the WHO, contributing 9 percent of its budget in 2021; China is the third.

Will Biden Need Senate Approval for WHO Accord?
It remains unclear if the Biden administration will need Senate approval for the WHO accord to go into effect. The accord itself states that it will become effective and legally binding on member states “provisionally,” as soon as it is signed and before any national legislatures approve it.

“The Biden administration can indicate that it is provisionally bringing this treaty into force upon the mere signature of the treaty,” Boyle said. “Hence, it will come into force here in the United States provisionally until the Senate decides whether or not it is going to give its advice and consent to the treaty. I personally know of no other U.S. treaty that provides for its provisional application pending the U.S. Senate giving its advice and consent to the treaty.”

While the U.S. Constitution states that the president can make treaties “provided two-thirds of the senators present concur,” American presidents have increasingly been signing international agreements without Senate consent, and those agreements have taken effect in the United States regardless.

According to the Senate’s website: “Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ … In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called ‘executive agreements.’ Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.”

A report by Justia, a legal analysis and marketing firm, states that “the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.

“During the first half-century of its independence, the United States was party to 60 treaties but to only 27 published executive agreements,” the report states. “Between 1939 and 1993, executive agreements comprised more than 90 percent of the international agreements concluded.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has on several occasions supported the notion that these executive agreements constitute federal law and supersede state laws and regulations. This includes State of Missouri v. Holland, which ruled that treaties supersede state laws, and United States v. Belmont, which ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent are legally binding on Americans. Under the U.S. Constitution, health policy falls under state jurisdiction, but the WHO pandemic accord may be a way to bring health policy under the jurisdiction of the federal government, once the WHO declares a pandemic.

Increasingly, the Biden administration is looking toward international agreements to do what it can’t get be achieved through Congress. Most recently, having failed to increase corporate taxes in Congress, the Biden administration entered into an international agreement with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to set minimum tax levels on all corporations within signatory countries. While GOP lawmakers said the agreement had “no path forward” toward approval as a treaty, provisions written into the agreement allowed foreign countries to tax U.S.-based corporate profits as a punitive measure, if senators do not approve it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/republicans-push-back-against-accord-giving-who-power-over-us-pandemic-response_5070968.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

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

Dissolution Of Spike Protein By Nattokinase

Dr Peter McCullough

Far and away the most common question I get from those who took one of the COVID-19 vaccines is: “how do I get this out of my body.”

The mRNA and adenoviral DNA products were rolled out with no idea on how or when the body would ever breakdown the genetic code.

The synthetic mRNA carried on lipid nanoparticles appears to be resistant to breakdown by human ribonucleases by design so the product would be long-lasting and produce the protein product of interest for a considerable time period.

This would be an advantage for a normal human protein being replaced in a rare genetic deficiency state (e.g. alpha galactosidase in Fabry’s disease). However, it is a big problem when the protein is the pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 Spike. The adenoviral DNA (Janssen) should broken down by deoxyribonuclease, however this has not been exhaustively studied.

This leaves dissolution of Spike protein as a therapeutic goal for the vaccine injured. With the respiratory infection, Spike is processed and activated by cellular proteases including transmembrane serine protein 2 (TMPRSS2), cathepsin, and furin.

With vaccination, these systems may be avoided by systemic administration and production of Spike protein within cells. As a result, the pathogenesis of vaccine injury syndromes is believed to be driven by accumulation of Spike protein in cells, tissues, and organs.

Nattokinase is an enzyme is produced by fermenting soybeans with bacteria Bacillus subtilis var. natto and has been available as an oral supplement. It degrades fibrinogen, factor VII, cytokines, and factor VIII and has been studied for its cardiovascular benefits.

Out of all the available therapies I have used in my practice and among all the proposed detoxification agents, I believe nattokinase and related peptides hold the greatest promise for patients at this time.

Tanikawa et al examined the effect of nattokinase on the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. In the first experiment they demonstrated that Spike was degraded in a time and dose dependent manner in a cell lysate preparation that could be analogous to a vaccine recipient.

The second experiment demonstrated that nattokinase degraded the Spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 infected cells. This reproduced a similar study done by Oba and colleagues in 2021.

Nattokinase is dosed in fibrinolytic units (FU) per gram and can vary according to purity. Kurosawa and colleagues have shown in humans that after a single oral dose of 2000 FU D-dimer concentrations at 6, and 8 hours, and blood fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products at 4 hours after administration elevated significantly (p < 0.05, respectively).

Thus an empiric starting dose could be 2000 FU twice a day. Full pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have not been completed, but several years of market use as an over-the-counter supplement suggests nattokinase is safe with the main caveat being excessive bleeding and cautions with concurrent antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs.

Based on these findings, nattokinase and similar products such as serrapeptase should undergo well-funded, accelerated preclinical and clinical development programs. The issue at hand is the urgency of time, similar to that with SARS-CoV-2 infection and empiric early therapy.

It will take up to 20 years to have a fully developed pharmaceutical profile to characterize the safety and efficacy of nattokinase in the treatment of vaccine injury and post-COVID syndromes. Large number of people are sick now and many believe empiric treatment is justified given sufficiently low risk of side effects and potentially high reward.

My recommendation is to discuss this with your doctor or seek a specialist in holistic or naturopathic medicine who is experienced with the safety profile of nattokinase in a range of applications.

https://principia-scientific.com/dissolution-of-spike-protein-by-nattokinase/

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

Over 60 Scientists Call For An End To Covid-19 ‘Vaccines’

The German Working Group for Covid Vaccine Analysis – which includes over 60 scientists, doctors, lawyers, and journalists – published their “Summary of Preliminary Findings” on the toxic substances they are finding in covid-19 vaccine samples and the changes they are seeing in the blood samples taken from vaccinated individuals.

The scientists “frequently observed an unusually rapid disintegration of the different types of cells in the vaccinated blood” and found concerning rouleaux formations of red blood cells specifically in the vaccinated samples. Because of these issues, the Working Group is calling for all covid-19 vaccine programs to end.”

“In order to avert a direct and imminent danger to human life and public safety, we ask that the Covid-19 vaccination programmes be discontinued immediately,” the Group’s report stated. The report has been sent to all members of the Lower House of Parliament in Germany and is being investigated by scientists and doctors of various disciplines.

Covid-19 Vaccines Damage The Blood, Impede Circulation
The foreign, complex structures that have been isolated in the vaccine lots have also been found in the blood of vaccinated individuals. The Working Group used artificial intelligence to examine, with precision, differences in the blood of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

These toxic substances are having a profound negative impact on the blood of vaccinated individuals, as seen under dark-field microscopy. These inflammatory changes to the blood are taking place regardless of the incidence and severity of the side effects that vaccinated individuals experience.

The covid-19 vaccines can cause long term changes in blood composition, without the vaccinated person being aware of these changes. The scientists wrote that the foreign objects are not the result of contamination because they are found in different blood samples from various vaccine lots.

They warn that the size of the objects can “lead to disruption in the blood circulation in the vessels.” Much of the damage is predicated on the stability of the envelope of the lipid nanoparticles.

The lipid nano-particles are designed to evade detection and deliver mRNA instructions to the cells. When the nanoparticles remain stable and effectively do their job, the blood damage is more severe and the vaccine side effects are more frequent and pronounced. The researchers warn:

The stability of the lipid nano-particle envelope is closely correlated with the incidence of vaccine side effects and injury.

The more stable this envelope, the greater the amount of mRNA that penetrates cells, where the production of spike proteins then takes place.

These results correspond with the findings of pathologists who have carried out autopsies on people who died due to vaccine injury.

Spike proteins were detected in damaged tissue. Researchers suspect that the spike protein is, in itself, toxic.

The vaccine’s mRNA is encapsulated in a protective envelope of nano lipids. These nano lipids are made out of multiple layers of polyethylene glycol (PEG). Some people have antibodies to PEG, due to previous exposure to vaccines and pharmaceuticals that contain PEG.

This may explain the different reactions to the vaccine. If a person’s immune system recognizes, attacks, and breaks down the PEG, then the mRNA will degrade and not make it to the ribosomes of the cells. If this happens, then the vaccine does not produce the spike proteins, does not cause a further immune response, and does not cause subsequent damage.

Microscopic Analysis Finds Various Metallic Elements In Covid-19 Vaccines

Researchers used scanning electron microscopy (“SEM”) and corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (“EDX”) to investigate the different vials of covid-19 vaccines. The analysis found metallic elements in the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines.

These metallic elements included caesium, potassium, calcium, barium, cobalt, iron, chromium, titanium, cerium, gadolinium, aluminum, silicon, and sulfur. These elements were not found in the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Lubecavax, and Influspit Tetra vaccines.

The group hypothesized why the caesium was used in the vaccine. “From a medical point of view, caesium has no therapeutic value; on the contrary, one would have to assume that the addition of caesium disturbs the potassium balance and could cause vital cells (e.g., defense cells) to die in order to possibly accelerate the effect of the vaccination or to avoid endangering that effect.”

The Moderna vaccine also contained antimony, a highly toxic metal that could be used as an antiprotozoal adjuvant, serving an immunosuppressive effect. Notably, the vaccines contain pentavalent sodium stibogluconate.

The side effects of this substance mirror the side effects commonly reported after vaccination, including: nausea, vomiting, myalgia, headache, lethargy and ECG changes.

Long term side effects of pentavalent sodium stibogluconate administration in the blood also mirror long term side effects of vaccinated individuals, including damage to the liver and heart, pneumonia, blood count damage, and liver dysfunction.

https://principia-scientific.com/over-60-scientists-call-for-an-end-to-covid-19-vaccines/

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

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

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

Are covid-19 vaccine-induced adverse cardiovascular events rare?

When compared with Flu vaccines, Covid vaccines are much more dangerous

COVID-19 vaccine-induced adverse cardiovascular events (ACEs) have been judged as “rare” (and many times as mild and temporary) by the major promoters of these vaccines (caveat: these injections prevent neither infection nor viral transmission, so they are not vaccines in the classical sense). To ascertain the frequency of COVID-19 vaccine-induced ACEs, we have examined the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database for reports of ACEs. Since some ACEs can have latency/incubation periods of a decade or more, we have also addressed the issue of Early Warning Indicators that could identify COVID-19 vaccine-induced ACEs on or over the horizon. Finally, we have compared ACEs reported following COVID-19 vaccines with those reported following influenza vaccines for similar numbers of vaccine doses delivered. In Appendix 1, we have also addressed the relevance of human clinical trials to the issues addressed in this OpEd.

While imperfect (as are most publicly-available vaccine adverse events reporting systems), VAERS is a reasonable system for identifying safety signals related to vaccines. One major VAERS deficiency is that only a small fraction of vaccine-related adverse events is reported to VAERS. A study by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, using electronic tracking, showed that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”. This is an average value over all adverse events; it may be worse for some ACEs.

The Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study tracked reporting habits to VAERS for thirty days. Therefore, the 1% number should be termed a thirty-day reporting fraction. For adverse events that tend to occur rapidly, like headache, fever, chills, rashes, anaphylactic shock, blood clots, etc., a thirty-day study may offer a reasonable window. Some ACEs, however, may take a decade or more to emerge, and a thirty-day window would be grossly inadequate for accurate reporting. The numbers shown in the present analysis should be viewed as a “floor” of what the real-world numbers are. To get a more complete picture of the total ACEs of the COVID-19 vaccines, these numbers should be supplemented by ACE Early Warning Indicators whose abnormal values could emerge shortly after the injection, and allow some prediction of what lies on or over the horizon.

METHODOLOGY

The VAERS database was initially accessed on 20 December 2022. The vaccines were limited to COVID-19 vaccines from all manufacturers, and the VAERS reports were for the USA. All adverse event types (termed Symptoms in VAERS) were retrieved. There were ~17,000 adverse event types retrieved, including ~5,000 with zero entries (the latter were not analyzed, although when scaling from VAERS entries to real-world numbers, they could possibly amount to tens of events for each symptom). A comprehensive query (consisting of myriad synonyms of ACEs) was used to search the VAERS database, and retrieve ACE-related adverse events.

On 10 February 2023, the VAERS database was accessed to get similar information for the influenza vaccines from all manufacturers, and the VAERS reports were for the USA. The time period for the latter was selected to cover similar numbers of doses for the flu vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccines.

On 14 February 2023, the VAERS database was accessed to obtain parametric proximity data for assessing the fraction of ACEs that were reported seven and fourteen days past injection.

RESULTS

Before presenting the numbers, we need to define what is an ACE event reported in VAERS. Is it 1) a biomarker associated with the eventual emergence of ACE, 2) a group of biomarkers reflecting pre-clinical ACE, 3) a newly-diagnosed ACE, 4) an ACE that has been exacerbated, or 5) an ACE death? While all five are valid candidates, the present study concentrates on items 3) and 4), with the one exception that Troponins were included (since they were listed as a possible event).

This restriction to items 3) and 4) substantially under-reports the COVID-19 vaccine adverse events that may eventually result in ACEs, because it excludes abnormalities in ACE risk biomarkers (with the exception of Troponins). These abnormalities in the appropriate ACE risk biomarkers would provide an Early Warning Indicator for potential ACEs to emerge in the near or far future. A few potential Early Warning Indicators for ACEs are shown in the following: myocardial injury (Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and T (cTnT), High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), Heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP)); inflammation (High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Growth-differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), Fibrinogen, Uric acid (UA)); plaque instability/rupture (Pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A), Myeloperoxidase (MPO), Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)); platelet activation (Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2), Secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2), Soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L)); neurohormonal activation (Copeptin, Mid-regional-pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM)); myocardial dysfunction or stress (Natriuretic peptides, ST2, Endothelin-1 (ET-1), Galectin-3 (Gal3), Neuregulin-1 (NRG-1)); microRNAs (miRNAs). A broader group of ACE biomarkers, which includes most of the biomarkers listed above, can be found in Figure 1 of the following link, and a broader group can be found in Table 1 of the following link.

Most of the ACE risk biomarkers listed above did not appear in the VAERS output for Symptoms, even for the events that have zero entries. Assessment of abnormalities in these risk biomarkers would provide a more accurate picture of what can be expected in the mid and long-term from the injections given already.

The results for items 3) and 4), and Troponins, follow. There were ~1020 different ACEs reported in VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines, with ~156000 total number of events. Converting these VAERS entries to real-world numbers of COVID-19 vaccine-induced ACEs requires three major assumptions, and some minor ones. The major assumptions are 1) the ACEs reported in VAERS following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines are in fact caused in part or in whole by the COVID-19 vaccines, 2) the under-reporting factor (URF) to be used for ACE scale-up to real-world numbers can be approximated for very conservative estimation purposes by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare thirty-day URFs, and 3) the fraction of the VAERS ACE entries to which the URF should be applied can be approximated by autopsy results for fraction of post-COVID-19 vaccine deaths that can be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Assumption 1)

Assumption 1) is based on four sources of evidence: i) the biological mechanisms responsible for cardiovascular damage; ii) the autopsy results confirming the operability of the biological mechanisms; iii) a comparison with similar influenza vaccination data to estimate the cardiovascular damage expected (based on extrapolations of pre-pandemic adverse cardiovascular events); and iv) a parametric study showing the fraction of symptoms that occurred within seven and fourteen days of onset from the injections.

i). Biological Mechanisms

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are injected in the deltoid muscle, and a fraction enters the bloodstream directly or indirectly (link 1; link2). The mRNA that enters the bloodstream is able to survive because of protection by the LNP encapsulation. As the Pfizer pharmacovigilance studies showed, the LNP package concentrates in a number of organs.

The damage to the blood vessels in the circulatory system, and then to the tissues and organs, has been described most eloquently in a video by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a world-renowned microbiologist: “the vaccines cause cells deep inside our body to express the viral spike protein, which they were never meant to do by nature. Any cell which expresses this foreign antigen on its surface will come under attack by the immune system, which will involve both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. This may occur in any organ, but the damage will be most severe in vital organs. We are seeing now that the heart is affected in many young people, leading to myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death.”.

Thus, while all tissues and organs in the body will be potential targets of this induced autoimmune process, those of the circulatory system will be prime targets because of their proximity to the circulating LNP-enclosed mRNA. The spike proteins expressed on the surface of the endothelial cells (those that line the interior of the blood vessels and are in closest proximity to the innate immune system components flowing by in the bloodstream) are able to interact with the platelets flowing by and initiate the clotting process. So, the net effect is coagulation and clotting of the blood, destruction of the endothelium, and subsequent destruction of the tissues and organs as the LNP package transitions from the bloodstream through the ruptured endothelium into the surrounding tissues and organs.

Given this mode of action, the question we should be asking is not why we are experiencing such large numbers of ACES, but rather why wouldn’t we expect a massive number of ACEs resulting from these vaccinations? In some sense, why doesn’t almost every mRNA vaccine recipient experience one or more ACEs?

The answer may lie in the existence of so-called “hot lots”. Some analysts have correlated VAERS vaccine lot numbers with serious adverse events, and have found some of the vaccine lots are responsible for far more serious adverse events than other lots (link 1; link 2). Explanations for this are manifold, but shoddy manufacturing processes are one credible explanation. Many/most of the vaccines produced are not fully functional, and their potential for damage is muted. If this turns out to be true after further validation, it means the toxicity of the mRNA vaccines per functional dose are higher than have been calculated.

The ACEs represented in the peer-reviewed literature have focused on myocarditis (e.g., link 1; link 2; link 3; link 4; link 5). Because of the censorship that exists in the biomedical peer-reviewed literature today, many other ACEs have not been addressed. However, as Appendix 2 shows, the different types of ACEs are monumental, as one would expect from the operational mechanisms of the injectant, and some ACEs are large compared to myocarditis. The alternative biomedical literature is a much more credible source of real-world information on the causes and extent of ACEs.

ii). Autopsy Results

Autopsies have been the most credible source of information about the extent of the COVID-19 vaccine-induced damage, although they have been discouraged by governments around the world. Some that have been made available show the extent of the damage in detail, and confirm the theory of damage expressed by Dr. Bhakdi and many others. While different organs may receive the bulk of the damage in different individuals, most autopsies show the heart to be a major target. Typically, the autopsies show the spike protein infiltration into an organ (or tissue), the rupture of the endothelium, and the infiltration of the lymphocytes (which attack the cells that express the spike protein on the surface and thereby damage the organ (or tissue)). This infiltration of spike protein appears to be a classic convection-diffusion process, with convection mainly through the bloodstream and diffusion through the tissues/organs. As long as the body continues to function like a spike protein factory, which appears to be one consequence of the injection, the infiltration of spike protein and associated damage will continue. With the addition of periodic boosters, the spike protein “factory” is replenished, and the damage will continue to spread. It is difficult for me to see how anyone who has been injected with a functional mRNA vaccine can avoid this damage, and the associated adverse effects on lifespan.

iii). Comparison with Similar Influenza Vaccination Data

The VAERS entries for ACEs can be viewed as consisting of two parts: the numbers expected for any ACE based on extrapolation of historical pre-pandemic trends, and the numbers for the ACE due to the COVID-19 vaccines. Since the numbers expected would be about the same for influenza and COVID-19, these background numbers can be bounded based on the influenza data. We did a simple comparison of some of the highest frequency ACEs reported here with their counterparts for the influenza vaccines reported in VAERS. We selected influenza, since it is a respiratory viral disease and has a number of features in common with COVID-19.

There have been about 670 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the USA since late December 2020, and about 717 million doses of influenza vaccines administered in the USA since the beginning of 2019. Thus, the number of doses is relatively similar for the influenza vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccines over the time periods selected. Table 1 compares VAERS entries for selected ACEs (those with high entry numbers for COVID-19 vaccines) between influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines.

Thus, for similar dose numbers, and an even longer average tracking times for the flu vaccines, the VAERS ACEs entries for the flu vaccines are almost two orders of magnitude less than for the COVID-19 vaccines. While the number of ACEs induced by the vaccines could be vastly different for the two cases, one would expect the background levels of ACEs (the numbers of ACEs expected based on extrapolation of historical trends) to be roughly similar. If anything, they would be larger for the flu vaccines because of the increased time period over which they were administered relative to the COVID-19 vaccine administration period.

The small number of ACEs (<2% of COVID-19 numbers) reported for the flu vaccines would suggest 1) most of the COVID-19 ACE entries were vaccine-induced, and 2) the ACE onsets following injection were accelerated sufficiently by the COVID-19 injections that the ACEs could be linked to the shots and would motivate reporting to VAERS by the healthcare provider! Conversely, in the case of the flu vaccines, almost all ACEs that occurred post-vaccine may have been sufficiently far removed in time from the injection that the healthcare provider was not motivated to report them to VAERS.

Additionally, I have seen many videos of testimonies by healthcare providers that they were heavily discouraged from reporting post-COVID-19 vaccine adverse events to VAERS, while I have never seen or read of similar discouragement for flu vaccine reporting. This deliberate suppression of reporting post-COVID-19 vaccine adverse events to VAERS lends further argument for increasing the URFs of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/are-covid-19-vaccine-induced-adverse-cardiovascular-events-rare-01b2657e

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Covidians

There seems to be a growing resignation to the fact that the Covid vaccines wane much sooner than initially hoped. At first, of course, the hope was that one shot - or double-shot - would do the trick. That soon devolved to every year, like the flu shot. Now, the understanding seems to be that the boosters ‘last’ about 3-4 months, and someone who wants to stay ‘up to date’ is going to have to get - count ‘em - four shots every year. The more knowledgeable Covidians don’t seem to think anymore that these ‘vaccines’ prevent them from catching Covid in the first place, but they still consider they are protected from getting severely ill or dying. (The vaccinated people who do get severely sick and die from Covid? Well, they were probably going to die anyway.)

With that realization has come growing pockets of concern about the volume of the mRNA spike protein. That was surprising to me since these lemmings tend to trust Big Pharma and anything it wants to put into their bodies most of all. If anything, injecting bucketloads of mRNA spike protein into their systems should be a sacrament as holy to these people as anything a religion could provide to any of us. But, as it turns out, even Branch Covidians are noticing and pointing out uncomfortable side effects, even if they still fail to acknowledge the many deaths and permanent impairments Covid vaccines are likely responsible for (those are always just ‘coincidences,’ don’t you know). I noticed several tweets pointing out concern at this many mRNA shots and even stating how uncomfortable their last shot was because of this or that side effect they experienced. Many in this camp have expressed a desire to switch to a non-mRNA vaccine like the recently approved Novavax, and some even stated that they have already gone out of their way - even crossing state lines - to do so.

Masking, unfortunately, but not surprisingly, maintains its revered status as an Icon of the Covidian religion. Except, while worshippers continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that any face covering is better than no face covering, the shift to at least an N95 or better as a standard of quality and protection is complete. A true Covidian won’t go indoors near people in any setting without a mask, preferably an N95. For those who want to ‘protect’ themselves as much as possible, the cadence seems to be ‘updated vaccine plus masking.’

Covidians on Twitter love hashtags like #CovidIsntOver and #LongCovid. They consistently use them to point out that the virus is still out there, waiting to strike them dead at any point or give them a lifetime of medical issues - a.k.a. #LongCovid. The latter is how they keep the fear alive among the few still willing to listen. Of course, everyone knows or seems to know that Covid has become a cold for most people. Still, if hard-core Covidians can keep the base scared of unknown weird maladies that could last a lifetime, they can keep them ‘masked and vaxxed’ in perpetuity.

Finally, despite all the measures they are still entirely in favor of, Covidians seem to be grudgingly resigning themselves to the fact that they will likely continue getting Covid over and over again in perpetuity. Still, that doesn’t keep them from strictly adhering to their religious dogma of masking and vaccines. It’s a paradox, but they don’t seem to notice or care. Through it all, like any religion, there’s an apocalyptic tenor, a sense that they would love for the virus to return in some deadly form where they are proven right, and the doubters (us) are proven wrong once and for all.

If any of that sounds familiar, remember, it’s a religion.

https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2023/02/20/observations-from-covidian-twitter-n2619739

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

The major mistake Australia made during the Covid-19 lockdowns: Top professor describes hated rule as 'absolutely atrocious'

Peter Collignon - one of Australia's most trusted voices through the Covid crisis - has said restrictions on outdoor activities during the Covid-lockdown was 'absolutely atrocious' and a major mistake.

The infectious diseases doctor tweeted on Monday that 'restrictions on outdoor activities (during Covid lockdowns) was a major mistake'.

He said his warnings from the start of the pandemic that preventing people from going out to exercise had been proven right - 'We should never in the future stop people from being outdoors.'

Professor Collignon told Daily Mail Australia that 'No matter how hard you look, you can not find (much Covid) transmission outdoors.

'There was some - there was a report in the US of someone talking to somebody for 15 minutes outside and getting Covid, and there were some building workers in Singapore who probably got it outdoors.

'But basically, outdoors, there's very little transmission of Covid. The effective R (the rate of passing Covid on to another person) was much less than one.

'In other words, you didn't transmit it much,' he said.

The doctor, who lectures at the Australian National University's medical school in Canberra, said restrictions on outdoor exercise 'was a real mistake'.

'There was a lot of hysteria about people going to beaches and to parks, and you could only be out for an hour a day and closing parks for children.'

He said while it could not have been guaranteed that no transmission would have occurred outdoors, 'it would have been minimal and should have easily been handled by contract tracing and testing'.

Prof Collignon said this is not a conclusion he has come to with the benefit of looking back, that he had been 'saying that three years ago too'.

Photos on social media showing crowded beaches during lockdowns - implying that people were breaking the law - were misleading, he said.

'They did it with telephoto lenses which made it look like people were really close together.

'But when you looked at aerial views from drones, people were more than two metres apart.'

Prof Collignon said at the time that lockdowns such as closing national parks so people couldn't go walking were 'not sensible'.

'And in retrospect, it looks an absolutely atrocious mistake to have made those rules,' he said.

The issue of travelling in a crowded space to get to a beach or park during lockdowns complicated matters, though.

'If you had to travel by train or bus or a crowded car to get there, that's a risk. But it's being indoors that's the big risk.

'If you can go in your own transport to an outdoor venue, you had no more risk of acquiring Covid from anybody not in your household.'

Prof Collignon also addressed the issue of the increased number of drownings this summer being blamed in part on children not having been able to learn to swim in pools due to lockdowns.

'I am under the impression, and it's based on hearsay, but there have been less children learning to swim over the last few years than in the years beforehand,' he said.

'It all depends on the data ... on how many children aged two to six have drowned and how different that is (from pre-pandemic numbers).

'Because that is the age group that would have been affected by not being able to learn to swim (due to lockdowns).'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11770629/Peter-Collignon-Biggest-mistake-Australia-Covid-pandemic-absolutely-atrocious.html

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

Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies

The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a “legally binding” accord with the World Health Organization (WHO) that would give this Geneva-based UN subsidiary the authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic.

Despite widespread criticism of the WHO’s response to the COVID pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September 2022 to announce “the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.” Together, they developed a “platform to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.”

These discussions and others spawned the “zero draft” (pdf) of a pandemic treaty, published on Feb. 1, which now seeks ratification by all 194 WHO member states. A meeting of the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for Feb. 27 to work out the final terms, which all members will then sign.

Written under the banner of “the world together equitably,” the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.

Centralized Pandemic Response

“They want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,” David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer specializing in epidemic policy, told The Epoch Times. “They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare.”

The WHO pandemic treaty is part of a two-track effort, coinciding with an initiative by the World Health Assembly (WHA) to create new global pandemic regulations that would also supersede the laws of member states. The WHA is the rule-making body of the WHO, comprised of representatives from the member states.

“Both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,” Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times. “Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.”

Physician Meryl Nass told The Epoch Times: “If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency. So they can tell you you’re getting remdesivir, but you can’t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they’re also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it, whether or not you’re already immune.”

Regarding medical treatments, the accord would require member nations to “monitor and regulate against substandard and falsified pandemic-related products.” Based on previous WHO and Biden administration policy, this would likely include forcing populations to take newly-developed vaccines while preventing doctors from prescribing non-vaccine treatments or medicines.

Circumventing America’s Constitution

A key question surrounding the accord is whether the Biden administration can bind America to treaties and agreements without the consent of the U.S. Senate, which is required under the Constitution. The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the right of their citizens to consent. However, the draft also includes a clause that the accord will go into effect on a “provisional” basis, as soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.

“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said. In addition, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress, and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals and health officials.”

In July 2020, then-President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from membership in the WHO. Citing the WHO’s dismal performance in responding to the COVID pandemic and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Trump said that U.S. funding of approximately half a billion dollars per year would also cease.

In response, then-presidential-candidate Joe Biden vowed: “On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage.” Biden kept his promise and took it one step further, negotiating the pandemic accord.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-admin-negotiates-deal-to-give-who-authority-over-us-pandemic-policies_5066631.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

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

COVID Vaccine Allergies: What We Know So Far

“Excipients” are likely responsible for allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, according to a 2022 review article published in the Journal of the National Medical Association. At least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine has been administered to 69.5% of the global total population, as of Feb 16, 2023, and over 750,000 doses continue to be administered each day. Vaccine reactions are on the rise, although hypersensitivity reactions are rarely observed. In 2020, TrialSite reported that an ingredient in the COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech may have caused severe allergic reactions in at least eight people within two weeks.

Excipients are ingredients added to drugs or vaccines for the purposes of long-term stabilization, protection, and more. They include everything other than the active pharmaceutical ingredient and are ideally inert.

Hypersensitivity is a situation in which the immune system overreacts or reacts abnormally to an antigen. In a lifetime, a person can experience a wide range of allergic reactions. Many of these responses end spontaneously, but some might cause catastrophic consequences, although this is rare. An allergic reaction can be triggered by any material introduced into the body, whether through inhalation, topical application, oral ingestion, or vaccination.

To investigate the allergic effects of globally administered COVID-19 vaccines, Haq et al. gathered findings from 72 articles by using 11 keywords such as "SARS-CoV-2," "COVID-19," and "hypersensitivity". They also examined different types of hypersensitivity reactions, allergic reactions to different COVID-19 vaccines, clinical aspects, and prevention of vaccine-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

Highlights of Hypersensitivity Reactions

Various kinds of hypersensitivities can occur. These different reactions can be classified into four main types:

Type I is an IgE antibody-mediated hypersensitivity that can occur within minutes to a few hours following allergen exposure through a vaccination, wasp, or toxin. This allergen can cause the release of biochemical messengers such as histamine, prostaglandins, and leukotrienes, leading to anaphylactic shock, which can be fatal.

Type II is mediated by IgE or lgM antibodies. This type of allergy causes cell malfunction and cell death. It's responsible for most autoimmune disorders, such as lupus or Goodpasture syndrome that cause antibodies to damage the organs such as kidneys and lungs.

Type III causes a complex reaction of immune complements. Immune complexes, consisting of accumulated antigen and antibody molecules, mediate inappropriate immune reactions. These immune reactions cause damage to vessels skin, and joints.

Type IV, or delayed-type hypersensitivity, is a cell-mediated immune response that occurs after allergen exposure. This response takes place over the course of several days and is triggered by T cells rather than antibodies. T cells that have been sensitized in advance trigger an immunological response that eventually causes dermatitis.

Those who have a history of allergic reactions are more likely to experience anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations. These reactions often take place less than 30 minutes after immunization and are caused by an acute IgE-mediated mechanism.

What Causes Vaccine Hypersensitivity?

The cause of a vaccine-induced hypersensitivity reaction is frequently difficult to pinpoint. Allergies are caused by the excipients added to preserve the drug's density, uptake, or solvability. However, these compounds can produce a variety of detrimental reactions, from dermatitis to hypotensive shock. Unfortunately, vaccinations must contain excipients to sustain vaccine potency, generate a robust immune response, and prevent contamination.

Vaccines that contain egg protein, gelatin, virus-inactivating proteins, mercury-based protective agents, or specific antibiotics such as neomycin can cause common type 1 hypersensitivity. Researchers also point out that the polyethylene glycol (PEG) molecule present in vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, could activate the complement system.

PEGs are polyester-based chemicals that are widely utilized as additives in medicine, cosmetics, and the food industry. PEG allergy is uncommon, although it is becoming more common and can be serious. PEGs are utilized for the stabilization of biomedicine formulas, however, conjugating PEGs with other compounds found in vaccines, such as proteins, might boost their immunogenic response.

Different Excipients in Different Vaccines

There are various types of COVID-19 vaccines that use different mechanisms. However, Haq et al. reviewed vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S), and Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV). They found the following:

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, contain many excipients. Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines contain mRNA and excipients such as potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride (salt), dibasic sodium phosphate, and sucrose (type of sugar). Minerals such as potassium, chloride, and phosphate are commonly found in foods and medicines. All these chemicals are usually used in vaccines to deliver the vaccine in a liquid solution and also to preserve stability and pH values.

New mRNA vaccines, unlike previously existing vaccines, deliver mRNA to your body using multiple lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA and contribute to the formation of immunity. These mRNA vaccines also contain PEG molecules, which were previously mentioned as an allergen.

Oxford/Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson's vaccines insert the COVID-19 S-protein gene into the chimpanzee, gorilla, and human adenovirus vectors. These vectors are used to transport viral genes into a human cell to make it lose its ability to replicate. Excipients like polysorbate 80 or Tween 80 can be found in AstraZeneca's and Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccines. The chemical structure of polysorbate 80 is similar to that of PEGs and these can also cause allergic reactions.Most individuals who experience allergic reactions do so as a result of these excipients.

Sinopharm is a more traditional vaccine that is generated from the inactivated COVID-19 virus. Thimerosal and aluminum are used as adjuvants in this type of vaccine in addition to the active ingredient. Thimerosal is a mercury-based antiviral agent that is added to vaccines to kill viruses and bacteria. Aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate is used to boost the immune system. Thimerosal and aluminum are metals and are considered contaminants. However, whether they induce allergies or not is still debatable.

Detection and Prevention of COVID-19 Vaccine Hypersensitivity
Almost all vaccination components may cause allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Allergies can be caused by living or non-living main ingredients, protective agents, additives, or antibiotics. Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines do not have latex rubber stoppers or cultured proteins made from eggs, yeast, or gelatin, which can cause hypersensitivity. Almost all COVID-19 vaccinations, however, can induce IgE-mediated Type-I hypersensitivity. Although vaccine protective agents and additives can produce particular reactions by boosting the effects of a strong immune system and the vaccination's protection, the vaccine's capacity to trigger reactions is frequently unpredictable.

These reactions can be triggered by vaccine-induced allergies as well as by vasovagal syndrome, which is caused by an inability to regulate blood pressure. Vasovagal syndrome might cause nausea, blurred vision, and a feeling of lightheadedness. Furthermore, anxiety, fear, and tension can promote vasovagal activity and be misinterpreted as an allergic reaction. Tremors, palpitations, dizziness, and breathing problems caused by anxiety may appear to be allergic reactions.

Screening for hypersensitivity reactions before the COVID-19 vaccination is not mandatory. However, it is recommended by the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI). Many health professionals also advise monitoring allergic reactions for 30 minutes after the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. If a severe reaction occurs after the first vaccination, it is recommended not to take a second dose without consulting a medical professional. Allergy sufferers should take precautions and have a clear understanding of their allergic sensitivities.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-vaccine-allergies-what-we-know-so-far-8b638a9d

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

Vaccine Activist Group Sues to Get VAERS Analyses: “Incredible Level of Harm”?

In a February 17 legal update, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), a nonprofit activist group considered “anti-vax” by the mainstream but one of the most active groups forcing information disclosures from the U.S. government in association with the COVID-19 countermeasure response reports on the status of two lawsuits seeking disclosure of legally required VAERS analyses.

Although considered “anti-vaxers,” ICAN’s efforts may well lead to increased transparency which will benefit the public. They note that on June 30, 2022, they submitted about 20 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to both the FDA and the CDC seeking analyses they were required to do based on VAERS’ Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for SARS-CoV-2. To date, ICAN has filed two lawsuits over three of the FOIA, and they allege that they have already uncovered damning data: “They reflect that the CDC’s own pre-determined analysis of VAERS data showed COVID-19 vaccines were causing an incredible level of harm.” CDC’s response is that a separate FDA analysis demonstrates that the CDC’s identification of widespread injuries is “not concerning.” Yet FDA is still fighting to keep its data out of the public realm.

FDA Denies Possession of Records

One key request sought all, “reports of possible concern based on [] data mining results” that FDA had been required to share CDC according to the SOP. After a denial by FDA and its appeal process, ICAN sued FDA on January 13, 2023. A separate request sought records relating to “Empirical Bayesian data mining” which is mandated by the SOP. Asserting that these records are “opinions, recommendations, and policy discussions,” FDA denied the request. Eventually, ICAN filed yet another suit on January 25, 2023. Per the SOP, Propositional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analyses were to be done, “to identify AEs [adverse events] that are disproportionately reported relative to other AEs.” To ICAN’s surprise, FDA responded that it did not have any records that would be covered by the request.

House of Cards?

Yet a letter from CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky to Senator Ron Johnson said otherwise by stating that, “CDC performed PRR analysis between March 2022 through July 31, 2022, to corroborate the results of EB data mining.” And after ICAN sued for PRR-related materials, the Epoch Times reported that, strangely, the outlet did get the PRR analyses from CDC based on its own FOIA—and this is data that ICAN had been told did not even exist. According to ICAN, “the analyses show alarming safety signals.” Dr. Walensky’s letter to Sen. Johnson included that, “Notably, results from PRR analysis were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA]….” ICAN supposes that the Bayesian data mining records are being withheld as they likely support the “shocking” PRR data. So, CDC is relying on FDA information to claim that its own PRR data is not of concern, yet the latter agency won’t release this information. To quote ICAN, “If FDA’s Empirical Bayesian analysis also shows the same level of harm, then the entire CDC/FDA house of cards regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety will come crashing down.”

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/vaccine-activist-group-sues-to-get-vaers-analyses-incredible-level-of-harm-8eed20b1

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

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

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

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

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