Tuesday, October 03, 2023
Do COVID-19 Vaccines Link to Cancer? 3/4 Reviewers Accept but Frontiers in Oncology Reject Manuscript
A recent paper uploaded to the Authorea preprint server, involves the possibility that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could trigger changes leading to oncogenesis. Led by Rachel Valdes Angues, a senior researcher and Post Doc at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), and researcher Yolanda Perea Bustos, the pair point to a hypothesis for COVID-19 vaccines and oncogenesis, also known as tumorigenesis or carcinogenesis, a phenomenon referring to the process by which normal cells are transformed into cancer cells. This process represents one that is complex, and multistep, one that involves various genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. Overall, oncogenesis leads to the development and progression of cancer. The pair express a disturbing hypothesis, one that’s based on reviews of the medical literature: that COVID-19 vaccines may predispose some cancer patients to cancer progression, recurrence, and/or metastasis.
The recent paper was submitted to Frontiers in Oncology. Interestingly, three of the reviewers endorsed the paper's publication yet the paper was rejected on “editorial grounds.” Does the topic raise an inconvenient topic? This manuscript has not been peer-reviewed and should not be cited as evidence. But TrialSite calls attention to the disturbing premise, one that should be further vetted.
What’s this hypothesis based on? According to the two authors whose paper was rejected for “editorial” reasons, they argue, “One that raises alarm of “biological plausibility (i.e., induction of lymphopenia and inflammation; downregulation of ACE2 expression; activation of oncogenic cascades; sequestration of tumor suppressor proteins; dysregulation of the G4-RNA-protein binding system and type I IFN responses; unsilencing of LINE-1 retrotransposons) together with growing anecdotal evidence and reports filed to Vaccine Adverse Effects Report System (VAERS) suggesting that some cancer patients experienced disease exacerbation or recurrence following COVID-19 vaccination. In light of the above, and because some of these concerns also apply to cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, we encourage the scientific and medical community to urgently evaluate the impact of both COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination on cancer biology, adjusting public health recommendations accordingly.”
What is this hypothesis?
The pair hypothesize that “COVID-19 and/or certain COVID-19 vaccines generate a pro-tumorigenic milieu that predisposes some (stable) cancer patients and survivors to disease progression and/or (metastatic) recurrence.” Importantly, the vaccines covered in this hypothesis include those that “promote the endogenous production of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) glycoprotein” including the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) and the adenovirus-vectored vaccines (Johnson & Johnson and Oxford/AstraZeneca).
Limitations of this hypothesis
The authors to their credit acknowledge that studying the matter of COVID-19 and cancer, using VAERS and other sources remains a tricky research affair. It’s likely difficult to truly prove that COVID-19 vaccines induce cancer because of the “other clinical and social factors resulting from the 111 pandemic, such as adverse effects related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (29,30); steep declines in cancer 112 screening, diagnosis and treatment (31); adoption of unhealthy behaviors (i.e., increased alcohol 113 consumption, reduced physical activity) during long pandemic lockdowns (32); stress induced by the 114 COVID-19 crisis (33); and the assumption that millions of adults will remain unemployed and without health insurance; will independently contribute to cancer mortality in the months and years to come.”
Evidentiary Summary
The pair articulate that COVID-19 vaccine-based “SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein-based vaccines, and particularly mRNA vaccines, can possibly initiate a set of biological mechanisms that could, in theory, “collectively generate a (transient) pro-tumorigenic environment favorable to cancer progression and/or reactivation of dormant cancer cells (DCCs).”
Such tragic adverse events would be “attributed to the pro-inflammatory action of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs); the impaired type I interferon (IFN) response and/or translational dysregulation of cellular microRNAs triggered by structurally modified mRNA (mRNA vaccines); as well as to the unique nature, expression pattern, binding profile, and proinflammatory and tumorigenic effects of the produced antigens, namely the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and/or its subunits S1 and S2 (mRNA and adenovirus-vectorized 127 vaccines).”
Biodistribution evidence points to the possibility at least in rare occasions of substantial levels of soluble spike and/or its subunits and peptide fragments in the circulation of vaccinees, possibly persisting for weeks, or even months.
Could it be the case that sustained and systemic distribution of spike within the human body promote a range of unforeseen interactions with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the entry receptor for SARS132 CoV-2, either in its soluble circulating form or expressed in cells from various tissues and organs? As part of this hypothesis, the authors point out that in most cases, the spike protein associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself usually only impacts respiratory tract tissues and organs.
********************************************
Children’s Health Defense Australia: saving our kids after Covid lockdowns
Julie Sladden
Few would disagree that the health of the children today foreshadows the health of the population tomorrow. With that in mind, the past three years of pandemic fear and dystopia have upset any preconceived ideas that the health of the people is on solid ground. In a worldwide response that saw nations lockdown, mask up, and mass vaccinate – ‘to protect grandma’ – it seems scant regard was paid to the cost incurred on the future generation.
Australia was ground zero for many of the more tyrannical restrictions of freedom and it didn’t go unnoticed. ‘The whole world is alarmed by what’s happening in Australia,’ said Robert F. Kennedy Jnr., founder of Children’s Health Defense US. With many states enforcing closed schools, masking of children, social distancing, and mandates, it will be years before the full impact of these actions is known.
As early data emerges on the impact on education, health, and social development it seems those who might pay the greatest price are the next generation. It is timely then that the Australian Chapter of the Children’s Health Defense was officially launched on August 26 this year.
With a board packed with expertise – Professor Robyn Cosford, Emeritus Professor Ramesh Thakur, lawyers Julian Gillespie and Peter Fam, Dr Astrid Lefringhausen, AMPS secretary and registered nurse Kara Thomas, and medical freedom advocate Cloi Geddes – Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Australia is well placed to bring light to, and stand against, the incursions on children’s health over the Covid years. But the story doesn’t begin there. The Covid response may simply be the catalyst, in Australia at least, for a light to be shone on the deterioration in the health of children over recent decades.
‘What we’re seeing in our children now … is an epidemic of chronic disease,’ explains Professor Cosford. ‘The sorts of things that we used to be seeing in older adults, in our grandparents, and our great aunts and uncles. We don’t expect to be seeing them in our children. We’re seeing an epidemic of immunological disorders where nearly half of the children have some kind of allergic-type disease, and we have autoimmune diseases occurring in our children which never have been seen before… We have an epidemic of mental health … (with) some 40 per cent (suffering) with depression, anxiety, OCD, panic disorders, and so on.’
‘And then there’s a big epidemic we’re seeing of neurodevelopmental disorders … one in ten diagnosed with ADHD, one in five with learning disorders, (and) one in 36 with autism. These (figures) have increased dramatically over the last 20-30 years and were unheard of before now.’
With a mission to ‘end childhood health epidemics’ the road ahead looks long. These alarming trends in the health of our children have been brewing for years and now may well have been exacerbated by the additional insult inflicted by the Covid response.
‘I ask as a grandparent: Why did we use children and adolescents as human shields to protect the supposed grown-ups and elderly?’ asks Ramesh Thakur, in his presentation titled Our Enemy the Government. ‘A major study recently concluded that lockdown harmed the emotional development of almost half of all British children.’ With lockdowns, closing of schools, restricted socialising, and masking it seems the price was paid by the young, who were least at risk, ‘…for a few more months of existing without living by the elderly most at risk,’ concludes Thakur.
More concerning and down-right disturbing, information is delivered during the launch by fellow presenters including the adverse effects of the Covid injections, censorship of free speech in science and medicine, DNA contamination in the Pfizer Covid injections, and legal cases in process which aim to protect our future generations.
Julian Gillespie described the heartache of ‘being belted by a judiciary that’s not acting like a judiciary’ in the recent AVN Babies case. Despite this, an unexpected benefit was the growth in support as the story spread around the nation.
‘Even though we didn’t get the correct and proper decision from the High Court, there was a massive outpouring of donors who told their friends who watched our videos with Maria Z, or Graham Hood, Health Alliance Australia, and AMPS. Parents would (start to) question (as) those videos… were pushed out across the country.’
Speaking to supporters Gillespie is clear, ‘It is correct to feel good that you participated. It did make a difference. You’ve enabled us to get the message out which is just the most important thing to allow the court of public opinion to make its mind up. (And) there are millions of us who can share the information and (help) save lives.’
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Monday, October 02, 2023
Doctor Peter McCullough: Stop all COVID-19 Vaccination Now
As TrialSite has reported, on September 13, Dr. Peter McCullough spoke at an event hosted at the European Parliament, and he called for an immediate end to use of any existing COVID-19 vaccines. The prominent cardiologist, clinical investigator and public health scientist, often outspoken in his challenging of the U.S. government’s strategy to combat COVID-19, shared at the hearing that the pandemic included two separate waves of crisis or injury: SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA vaccines.
The Dallas area-based physician that’s become a regular on various media—usually conservative leaning-- argues that a pharmaceutical syndicate led by the WHO, Bill Gates, GAVI, the EMA, and the US’s CDC, NIH, and FDA usurped the practice of medicine, away from the front-line doctors that placed patient health first and foremost priority. This group of organizations, he says, are operating as a carefully coordinated unit. This has been a problem, as an example this syndicate covered up the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Anthony Fauci and other leaders conspired to hide the fact that this virus was created by a US-funded lab in Wuhan, China.
“Environment of therapeutic nihilism”
And the WHO did not help doctors in their efforts to treat folks with COVID-19, creating an “environment of therapeutic nihilism” in which it was advised that people in an early stage of the disease not receive treatment. TrialSite reported on all sorts of examples which in some ways, support the claims of the much-criticized physician.
For example, early on during the pandemic, a pharmacist in a Florida -based health system developed the ICAM protocol which reportedly was saving hundreds of lives. TrialSite learned after the pharmacist got herself in trouble after our report, that the CEO cut the protocol which included blood thinners and other FDA approved drugs, as their contracts with Pfizer during the pandemic precluded them from actually doing anything to treat COVID-19 patients off label.
Early on during the pandemic, TrialSite chronicled front line doctors around the world and their use of different combinations of off label drugs such as ivermectin, a drug used by hundreds of millions in the tropics as an anti-parasite regimen. Studies in the U.S. such as the ICON study, published in the journal Chest, showed off-label early treatment may help at least mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. Later, NIH supported studies pointed to no effectiveness. Yet McCullough, a frequent contributor of opinion pieces to TrialSite, at the onset of the pandemic experimented with various combinations, even publishing an analysis of the COVID-19 disease lifecycle, and appropriate off label combinations to treat patients.
McCullough says that there are two things that prevent hospitalization or death: early intervention and natural immunity. To this day, WHO is not embracing early treatment. He also argues that the majority of bad COVID-19 outcomes could have been prevented with treatment.
Does mRNA ever leave?
Moving on to crisis number two, according to McCullough, contrasting to most medical establishment reports saying the contrary, since 2021 vaccines have “ravaged” the world’s population. When 75% of people in the US got a COVID-19 vaccine, McCullough was publicly calling out that this was a major mistake. He says that our vaccines “code for the worst part of the virus” and that our approach was the “worst possible.” There have been no studies showing that mRNA ever leaves the body, and so far, research has found spike proteins up to six months after vaccination. While there are plenty of data points that mRNA leaves the body via the lymphatic system, the outspoken doctor is correct that at least in some rare cases, the mRNA’s spike protein may circulate in the human body for up to a couple years. TrialSite has reported on nearly a dozen studies that in the aggregate lead to serious evidence for the unfolding science to not be what the government presents.
Three false narratives
Based on about 3,500+ studies, categories of harm from these vaccines include cardiovascular, such as mass cardiac deaths in young athletes with myocarditis from the vaccine; neurological; clotting “like never seen before” with spikes found within clots which are larger and more resistant to medication than pre-vaccine norms and immunological.
McCullough is the senior author of the largest study of post-vaccination autopsies. He reported to the European MPs that he and colleagues found that 73% of deaths that occurred after vaccination were due to the vaccine. He shared that the world faces three false narratives: 1) the initial fear and lockdowns; 2) the safety and efficacy of the vaccines; and 3) the claim that the surge in heart problems is caused by COVID-19 itself.
15% adverse event rate?
Per the doctor, the technical criteria for causality in medicine are met, so it is clear that the vaccine is causing the medical complications. And there are issues with varying adverse event rates among different batches of the same vaccine. In a study in Denmark with three batches, one of them was related to the prevalence of sudden death. Analysis shows that in Europe 4.2% of batches are “bad.”
He cites another CDC database of 10 million self-reports showing that 7.7% of that cohort after vaccination needed to go see a doctor in a clinic or hospital. According to a Zogby poll, 15% of vaccinated folks had an adverse event. While TrialSite’s far more conservative estimate of between about 0.2% to 0.8% of those vaccinated face life-altering injuries. Even in the conservative estimation of TrialSite that leaves anywhere from just under half-a-million to over 2 million people in need of care.
“No one should ever take another one of these shots,” states McCullough to the European MPs. According to the cardiologist, the World Council for Health looked at 30 “safety databases” and opined that the COVID-19 vaccines should be taken off the market forthwith.
Is McCullough right or not? Or perhaps, some core truth lies somewhere in between what the good Dallas, Texas doctor opines, and the government’s ongoing position that the products are fully safe and effective?
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/doctor-peter-mccullough-stop-all-covid-19-vaccination-now-9c304cab
************************************************UK Qualitative Study: Long COVID’s Adverse Impacts on Children’s Health, Education, Overall Quality of Life
Children are significantly impacted by long COVID, both direct health and school experience according to the results of a recent study published BMJ Open. Led by the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England, the pioneering qualitative study investigated the impact of Long Covid on children and young people’s experiences of school. In addition to the University of Oxford, the universities of Stirling and Aberdeen helped conduct the study.
Key researchers include Dr Alice MacLean, lead author and researcher based within the Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Sue Ziebland, Principle Investigator for the study and Professor of Medical Sociology based within Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford and Dr Cervantée Wild, co-author and researcher based within Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.
The University of Oxford included a quote from a study subject, 11-year-old Mae who had long COVID for eight months to convey the essence of findings:
'I have really bad meltdowns where I just want to be back to normal [...] I do half days at school [...] go in at like 11am, and I come home and I just, I’m crying [and] ‘I just want to be normal again.”
The Study
The researchers carried out narrative interviews over video calls or telephone between October 2021 and July 2022. They engaged with 22 children and young people (aged 10-18) and 15 parents and caregivers of those aged 5-18 years, all dealing with the persistent aftermath of Covid-19 infection – Long Covid.
Participants were recruited through routes including social media, Long Covid support groups, clinicians, and community groups to capture a varied spectrum of experiences. The researchers particularly focused on what interviewees said about the impact of Long Covid on schooling and education.
Troubled Conditions
As reported by University of Oxford the study findings point to the vital role school plays in children’s return to a ‘normal life’ after enduring COVID-19.
Yet, life has changed for good since COVID-19. That’s because returning to school was often a false hope, rather than a genuine return to normality. Why? The study team found that extreme fatigue meant full school attendance was often a quick route back into illness.
As one 13-year-old boy described: 'I couldn't really do anything [with friends] at break. I was just resting. I struggled going up the stairs. I can’t do PE. Yeah, I just feel tired after every lesson.’
For those managing to attend school part-time, juggling studies and social activities with enough rest to avoid making symptoms worse was a big challenge. The University of Oxford shared a 16-year-old’s explanation:
‘The hardest part is not being able to go to school or like see people my age, socialise and everything. It’s all like online for me now over like social media or messages [...] seeing other people [...] my age that are going out in school or doing all their exams [and] doing lots of things throughout the summer that I would like to be able to do, but I just can’t. I think that’s quite hard.’
‘Cut off’ & Falling Behind
Young people valued education highly but felt cut off from friends and stressed about falling behind due to frequent absences. Parents told of difficulties liaising with schools, particularly around getting validation about legitimate illness from already overburdened healthcare. School support varied drastically, spanning from skepticism to empathy and tailored adjustment.
PI POV
According to lead author Dr. Maclean, “This research clearly shows that absence from school due to Long Covid has a stressful and isolating impact on children and young people. The findings highlight the need for greater awareness and understanding of Long Covid in schools, and for tailored support to enable those affected to engage with school in a way that is manageable and not detrimental to their physical or mental health.”
According to Sue Ziebland:
“Our study provides practical recommendations for how healthcare and education professionals can better support children and young people in managing their Long Covid symptoms alongside school demands. These have the potential to improve experiences for young people with Long Covid and reduce pressures on their caregivers. Listening to and validating the experiences of children and young people with Long Covid is vital.”
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Sunday, October 01, 2023
During the pandemic, the U.S. government violated my free speech rights and those of my scientist colleagues for questioning the federal government’s COVID-19 policies
Jay Bhattacharya
American government officials, working in concert with Big Tech companies, defamed and suppressed me and my colleagues for criticizing official pandemic policies—criticism that has been proven prescient. While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is a documented fact, and one recently confirmed by a federal circuit court.
In August 2022, the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general asked me to join as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, against the Biden administration. The suit aims to end the government’s role in this censorship and restore the free speech rights of all Americans in the digital town square.
Lawyers in the Missouri v. Biden case took sworn depositions from many federal officials involved in the censorship efforts, including Anthony Fauci. During the hourslong deposition, Fauci showed a striking inability to answer basic questions about his pandemic management, replying “I don’t recall” over 170 times.
Legal discovery unearthed email exchanges between the government and social media companies showing an administration willing to threaten the use of its regulatory power to harm social media companies that did not comply with censorship demands.
The case revealed that a dozen federal agencies pressured social media companies Google, Facebook, and Twitter to censor and suppress speech contradicting federal pandemic priorities.
In the name of slowing the spread of harmful misinformation, the administration forced the censorship of scientific facts that didn’t fit its narrative de jour. This included facts relating to the evidence for immunity after COVID-19 recovery, the inefficacy of mask mandates, and the inability of the vaccine to stop disease transmission. True or false, if speech interfered with the government’s priorities, it had to go.
On July 4, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction in the case, ordering the government to immediately stop coercing social media companies to censor protected free speech. In his decision, Doughty called the administration’s censorship infrastructure an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”
In my November 2021 testimony in the House of Representatives, I used this exact phrase to describe the government’s censorship efforts. For this heresy, I faced slanderous accusations by Rep. Jamie Raskin, who accused me of wanting to let the virus “rip.” Raskin was joined by fellow Democrat Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who tried to smear my reputation on the grounds that I spoke with a Chinese journalist in April 2020.
Judge Doughty’s ruling decried the vast federal censorship enterprise dictating to social media companies who and what to censor, and ordered it to end. But the Biden administration immediately appealed the decision, claiming that it needed to be able to censor scientists or else public health would be endangered and people would die. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted it an administrative stay that lasted until mid-September, permitting the Biden administration to continue violating the First Amendment.
After a long month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that that pandemic policy critics were not imagining these violations. The Biden administration did indeed strong-arm social media companies into doing its bidding.
The court found that the Biden White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, and the FBI have “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints.”
The appellate judges described a pattern of government officials making “threats of ‘fundamental reforms’ like regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions that would ensure the platforms were ‘held accountable.’”
But, beyond express threats, there was always an “unspoken ‘or else.’” The implication was clear. If social media companies did not comply, the administration would work to harm the economic interests of the companies. Paraphrasing Al Capone, “Well that’s a nice company you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it,” the government insinuated.
“The officials’ campaign succeeded. The platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies,” the 5th Circuit judges wrote, and they renewed the injunction against the government’s violation of free speech rights. Here is the full order, filled with many glorious adverbs:
Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social media companies’ decision-making processes.
The federal government can no longer threaten social media companies with destruction if they don’t censor scientists on behalf of the government. The ruling is a victory for every American since it is a victory for free speech rights.
Although I am thrilled by it, the decision isn’t perfect. Some entities at the heart of the government’s censorship enterprise can still organize to suppress speech.
For instance, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency within the Department of Homeland Security can still work with academics to develop a hit list for government censorship. And the National Institutes of Health, Fauci’s old organization, can still coordinate devastating takedowns of outside scientists critical of government policy.
So, what did the government want censored?
The trouble began on Oct. 4, 2020, when my colleagues and I—Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford—published the Great Barrington Declaration. It called for an end to economic lockdowns, school shutdowns, and similar restrictive policies because they disproportionately harm the young and economically disadvantaged while conferring limited benefits.
The declaration endorsed a “focused protection” approach that called for strong measures to protect high-risk populations while allowing lower-risk individuals to return to normal life with reasonable precautions. Tens of thousands of doctors and public health scientists signed on to our statement.
With hindsight, it is clear that this strategy was the right one. Sweden, which in large part eschewed lockdown and, after early problems, embraced focused protection of older populations, had among the lowest age-adjusted all-cause excess deaths of nearly every other country in Europe and suffered none of the learning loss for its elementary school children. Similarly, Florida has lower cumulative age-adjusted all-cause excess deaths than lockdown-crazy California since the start of the pandemic.
In the poorest parts of the world, the lockdowns were an even greater disaster. By spring 2020, the United Nations was already warning that the economic disruptions caused by the lockdowns would lead to 130 million or more people starving. The World Bank warned the lockdowns would throw 100 million people into dire poverty.
Some version of those predictions came true—millions of the world’s poorest suffered from the West’s lockdowns. Over the past 40 years, the world’s economies globalized, becoming more interdependent. At a stroke, the lockdowns broke the promise the world’s rich nations had implicitly made to poor nations. The rich nations had told the poor: Reorganize your economies, connect yourself to the world, and you will become more prosperous. This worked, with 1 billion people lifted out of dire poverty over the last half-century.
But the lockdowns violated that promise. The supply chain disruptions that predictably followed them meant millions of poor people in sub-Saharan Africa, Bangladesh, and elsewhere lost their jobs and could no longer feed their families.
In California, where I live, the government closed public schools and disrupted our children’s education for two straight academic years. The educational disruption was very unevenly distributed, with the poorest students and minority students suffering the greatest educational losses. By contrast, Sweden kept its schools open for students under 16 throughout the pandemic. The Swedes let their children live near-normal lives with no masks, no social distancing, and no forced isolation. As a result, Swedish kids suffered no educational loss.
The lockdowns, then, were a form of trickle-down epidemiology. The idea seemed to be that we should protect the well-to-do from the virus and that protection would somehow trickle down to protect the poor and the vulnerable. The strategy failed, as a large fraction of the deaths attributable to COVID-19 hit the vulnerable elderly.
The government wanted to suppress the fact that there were prominent scientists who opposed the lockdowns and had alternate ideas—like the Great Barrington Declaration—that might have worked better. They wanted to maintain an illusion of total consensus in favor of Fauci’s ideas, as if he were indeed the high pope of science. When he told an interviewer, “Everyone knows I represent science. If you criticize me, you are not simply criticizing a man, you are criticizing science itself,” he meant it unironically.
Federal officials immediately targeted the Great Barrington Declaration for suppression. Four days after the declaration’s publication, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins emailed Fauci to organize a “devastating takedown” of the document. Almost immediately, social media companies such as Google/YouTube, Reddit, and Facebook censored mentions of the declaration.
In 2021, Twitter blacklisted me for posting a link to the Great Barrington Declaration. YouTube censored a video of a public policy roundtable of me with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for the “crime” of telling him the scientific evidence for masking children is weak.
At the height of the pandemic, I found myself smeared for my supposed political views, and my views about COVID-19 policy and epidemiology were removed from the public square on all manner of social networks.
It is impossible for me not to speculate about what might have happened had our proposal been met with a more typical scientific spirit rather than censorship and vitriol.
For anyone with an open mind, the Great Barrington Declaration represented a return to the old pandemic management strategy that had served the world well for a century—identify and protect the vulnerable, develop treatments and countermeasures as rapidly as possible, and disrupt the lives of the rest of society as little as possible since such disruption is likely to cause more harm than good.
Without censorship, we might have won that debate, and if so, the world could have moved along a different and better path in the last three and a half years, with less death and less suffering.
Since I started with a story about how dissidents skirted the Soviet censorship regime, I will close with a story about Trofim Lysenko, the famous Russian biologist.
Josef Stalin’s favorite scientist was a biologist who did not believe in Mendelian genetics—one of the most important ideas in biology. He thought it was all hokum, inconsistent with communist ideology, which emphasized the importance of nurture over nature. Lysenko developed a theory that if you expose seeds to cold before you plant them, they will be more resistant to cold, and thereby, crop output could be increased dramatically.
I hope it is not a surprise to readers to learn that Lysenko was wrong about the science. Nevertheless, Lysenko convinced Stalin that his ideas were right, and Stalin rewarded him by making him the director of the USSR’s Institute for Genetics for more than 20 years. Stalin gave him the Order of Lenin eight times.
Lysenko used his power to destroy any biologist who disagreed with him. He smeared and demoted the reputations of rival scientists who thought Mendelian genetics was true. Stalin sent some of these disfavored scientists to Siberia, where they died. Lysenko censored the scientific discussion in the Soviet Union so no one dared question his theories.
The result was mass starvation. Soviet agriculture stalled, and millions died in famines caused by Lysenko’s ideas put into practice. Some sources say that Ukraine and China under Mao Zedong also followed Lysenko’s ideas, causing millions more to starve there.
Censorship is the death of science and inevitably leads to the death of people. America should be a bulwark against it, but it was not during the pandemic. Though the tide is turning with the Missouri v. Biden case, we must reform our scientific institutions so what happened during the pandemic never happens again.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/09/22/american-pandemic-samizdat/
********************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Friday, September 29, 2023
COVID Vaccines Causally Linked to Increased Mortality, Resulting in 17 Million Deaths: Scientific Report
A new scientific report challenges the idea that COVID-19 vaccines have prevented deaths after researchers assessed all-cause mortality in 17 countries and found COVID-19 vaccines did not have any beneficial effect on reducing mortality. Instead, researchers found that unprecedented peaks in high all-cause mortality in each country—especially among the elderly population when COVID-19 vaccines were deployed—coincided with the rollout of third and fourth booster doses.
The report published Sept. 17 by Correlation Research in the Public Interest (pdf) quantified the vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) for all ages—which is the ratio of inferred vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a given population. After analyzing mortality data, the researchers calculated a mean all-ages fatal toxicity by injection of vDFR of one death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.
This equates to 17 million COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths worldwide from 13.25 billion injections as of Sept. 2, 2023.
"This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths," the authors said. The overall risk of death induced by COVID-19 vaccines is 1,000 times greater than previously reported in data from clinical trials, adverse event monitoring, and cause-of-death statistics obtained from death certificates.
"All-cause mortality is a good feature to use in statistical medical analyses since there is no ambiguity in whether someone has died or not," Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told The Epoch Times in an email. "It is highly disturbing that these authors have found a consistent trend among seventeen countries showing a significant increase in all-cause mortality coinciding with extensive COVID vaccine rollout. Their estimate of one death for every 800 injections globally is alarming."
Ms. Seneff said her investigations into potential mechanisms of vaccine injury have led her to believe that it is plausible that these injections are "extremely toxic" and should not have been approved by regulatory agencies.
Key Findings
The researchers conducted an analysis of all-cause mortality using data from the World Mortality Dataset for 17 equatorial and Southern Hemisphere countries, including Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, and Uruguay. Equatorial countries have no summer and winter seasons, so there are no seasonal variations in their all-cause mortality patterns.
These countries comprise 9.1 percent of the global population and 10.3 percent of worldwide COVID-19 injections—with a vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per person of all ages—and include nearly every COVID-19 vaccine product and manufacturer across four continents.
Key findings from the 180-page report include:
In all countries included in the analysis, all-cause mortality increased when COVID-19 vaccines were deployed.
Nine of 17 countries had no detectable excess deaths following the World Health Organization’s March 11, 2020, declaration and the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.
Unprecedented peaks in all-cause mortality were observed in January and February 2022, during the summer season of Southern Hemisphere countries coinciding with or following the rollout of boosters in 15 of 17 countries studied.
Excess all-cause mortality during the vaccination period beginning January 2021 was 1.74 million deaths, or one death per 800 injections, in the 17 countries studied.
The vDFR increased exponentially with age, reaching almost 5 percent among those 90 years and older who received a fourth vaccine dose.
"There is no evidence in the hard data of all-cause mortality of a beneficial effect from the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts. No lives were saved,” Denis Rancourt, co-director of Correlation Research in the Public Interest with a doctorate in physics, told The Epoch Times in an email. “On the contrary, the evidence can be understood in terms of being subjected to a toxic substance. The risk of death per injection increases exponentially with age. The policy of prioritizing the elderly for injection must be ended immediately.”
Peaks in All-Cause Mortality Coincide with Booster Doses
Using mortality and vaccination data from Chile and Peru by age and dose number, researchers observed clear peaks in all-cause mortality in July through August 2021, January through February 2022, and July through August 2022 among elderly age groups. The increase in all-cause mortality observed in January and February 2022 in both countries coincided with the rapid rollout of Chile’s fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose and Peru’s third dose.
It is unlikely that the rise in all-cause mortality coinciding with the rollout and sustained administration of COVID-19 vaccines in all 17 countries could be due to any cause other than the vaccines, researchers said.
In Chile and Peru, the vDFR increased exponentially with age and was most significant for the most recent booster doses, resulting in one death per 20 injections of vaccine dose for in those over age 90. This pattern was similar to data the same researchers collected in Australia.
“Synchronicity between the many peaks in ACM (in 17 countries, on 4 continents, in all elderly age groups, at different times) and associated rapid booster rollouts allows this firm conclusion regarding causality and accurate quantification of COVID-19-vaccine toxicity,” the researchers wrote.
Results in other countries mirrored what was observed in Chile and Peru in every case where age-stratified mortality and age-stratified dose-specific vaccination data were available. In 15 countries with sufficient mortality data, an unprecedented surge in all-age all-cause mortality during or near January and February 2022 coincided with or was immediately preceded by a rapid rollout of booster doses three or four depending on the country and the continued administration of non-booster doses.
Researchers Found No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccines Improved Mortality
The researchers said their findings are conclusive, and the associations observed are numerous and systematic. They could not find a single counter-example showing COVID-19 vaccines improved all-cause mortality.
“If vaccines prevented transmission, infection or serious illness, then there should be decreases in mortality following vaccine rollouts, not increases, as in every observed elderly age group subjected to rapid booster rollouts. And, mortality would not increase solely when vaccines are rolled out, where no excess mortality occurs before vaccine rollouts, as we have documented here, in nine countries across three continents,” researchers concluded.
According to the report, data from numerous countries such as India, Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United States show a similar phenomenon—abnormal peaks in all-cause mortality coinciding with booster rollouts. In the United States, deaths were prominent in the 25 to 64 age group in 21 states, coinciding with a “rapid surge” in vaccines given during the “vaccine equity” campaigns launched by regulatory agencies. Researchers estimated the United States experienced roughly 160,000 excess deaths during a period where more than 60 million COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered
***********************************************
Elon Musk: 'I Would Rather Go to Prison Than...'
Billionaire businessman and "X" (formerly known as Twitter) owner Elon Musk is speaking out about government vaccine mandates and companies that forced employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine or be fired. Musk, who oversees approximately 140,000 employees at Telsa, SpaceX and X, is staunchly against the practice.
Writing on his social media platform, where he has 158 million followers, Musk detailed the lengths he would go to avoid forcing his employees to undergo a medical procedure they do not want.
"My concern was more the outrageous demand that people *must* take the vaccine and multiple boosters to do anything at all. That was messed up," Musk wrote on X. "Until the Supreme Court invalidated Biden's exec order, SpaceX and many other companies would have been forced to fire anyone who refused to get vaccinated! We would not have done so. I would rather go to prison than fire good people who didn't want to be jabbed."
He continued by explaining his own status and complications from the COVID-19 vaccine while touting vaccines for other, more serious diseases.
"As for myself, I got original Covid before the vaccine was out (mild cold symptoms) and had to get three vaccines for travel. The third shot almost sent me to hospital," Musk said. "It's not like I don't believe in vaccines – I do. However, the cure cannot be potentially worse than the disease. And public debate over efficacy should not be shut down. There is also great potential for curing many diseases using synthetic mRNA, so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water."
In September 2021, President Joe Biden announced an executive order forcing private companies across the country, through OSHA enforcement, to fire unvaccinated employees. The mandate was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court.
"On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) ("ETS"). The court ordered that OSHA 'take no steps to implement or enforce' the ETS 'until further court order,'" the OSHA website stated when the mandate was repealed. "While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation."
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Wednesday, September 27, 2023
False, Misleading Information About COVID-19 Vaccines and Myocarditis Spreads Widely
False and misleading information about COVID-19 vaccines and heart inflammation is being spread widely, including by doctors.
That includes claims that data clearly show myocarditis, or heart inflammation, is more prevalent after COVID-19 infection when compared to COVID-19 vaccination.
"Teen boys have been up to five times as likely to have heart inflammation after having a COVID infection than after getting vaccinated," Dr. Mandy Cohen, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said in a video encouraging nearly all Americans to get one of the new COVID-19 vaccines.
A similar claim was made by Dr. Scott Rivkees, Florida's former surgeon general, to ABC.
The claims are largely based on a non-peer reviewed study from the CDC from April 2022.
"At this point it does not seem like an intellectually honest attempt to conduct a risk-benefit analysis," Allison Krug, an epidemiologist, told The Epoch Times. "I'm just dismayed that they don't seem genuinely interested in repairing the credibility with parents lost over the last two-and-a-half years."
The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.
Dr. Rivkees, presented with studies that have found people in at least some populations are at a higher risk of myocarditis after vaccination when compared to after a positive test, doubled down on his claim.
"In articles that compare risks of myocarditis from COVID vs. following vaccination ... the risk of myocarditis is greater after COVID than after vaccination," Dr. Rivkees, professor of the practice of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, told The Epoch Times via email.
In one of the papers, English researchers found a higher risk for men under 40 who were vaccinated with Moderna's shot.
Nordic researchers also identified a higher risk for men under 40, as well as some females.
German researchers found 655 cases related to a COVID-19 vaccine, versus 77 related to COVID-19.
The CDC researchers found a higher rate of cardiac complications after a positive COVID-19 test than after COVID-19 vaccination in 40 U.S. health care systems. They did not include all COVID-19 infections.
Dr. Rivkees later sent meta-analyses that confirm the COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of myocarditis, with no tabulations for the risk following COVID-19.
Dr. Rivkees was quoted by ABC as countering recommendations from Florida to people under 65 to avoid new COVID-19 vaccines, which have virtually no clinical trial data behind them.
Florida's recommendations contradict the CDC, which advises nearly all Americans receive one of the new shots, but align with or are close to the recommendations from much of the rest of the world, including many European countries and Israel.
Other Claims
Other recent reporting on COVID-19 vaccines also includes false or misleading claims about myocarditis.
"The risk of myocarditis from the virus is far greater than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine,” Dr. Kawsar Talaat, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, told MIT Technology Review. Dr. Talaat did not provide any citations. A request for comment returned an away message.
CBS News reporter Alexander Tin wrote in an article that "research shows people are more likely to develop myocarditis from a COVID infection than from the vaccine." Mr. Tin did not link to any of the purported research and declined to comment on the record.
USA Today reporter Karen Weintraub wrote that no myocarditis cases were recorded after receipt of the bivalent vaccines, which were available from 2022 through when the new vaccines were cleared. That's false, according to the CDC presentation (pdf) to which she hyperlinked. The CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink alone recorded two confirmed cases, including one in a young male. Ms. Weintraub did not respond to a query.
Continues Trend
Solid information on myocarditis and COVID-19 vaccines has been hard to come by during the pandemic, with even the CDC hiding data and making false statements about the condition.
State health officials and agencies have also repeatedly offered false and misleading information, including on heart inflammation.
In guidance on its website, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services says that COVID-19 poses more of a risk than COVID-19 vaccination. Officials pointed to the same CDC paper cited by vaccine proponents.
That report, published by the CDC's quasi-journal, analyzed electronic health records from 40 U.S. health care systems and counted cardiac complications following a positive COVID-19 test or COVID-19 vaccination. Then they compared the rates and claimed people were at higher risk after a positive test.
"For post COVID-myocarditis, they only included young people with an official COVID diagnosis in the health system," Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, an epidemiologist in California, told The Epoch Times via email.
"So not only was this a non-representative sample because these were a subset of the sickest children who were seeking medical attention but happened to also have a COVID positive test," she added. "At the same time they underestimated the total number of children infected by only including those with a health system associated positive result (so this shrinks the denominator and increases the myocarditis rate per infection)," she said.
Those choices would inflate the rate of post-COVID myocarditis cases, she said.
The researchers did include in the paper calculations for post-vaccination myocarditis as high as 360 cases per million second doses in 12- to 17-year-old males, or as high as one in 2,800 second doses.
The CDC "glossed over" those calculations, Dr. Hoeg said. "I don't know how many parents would have taken the chance on vaccination if they had known this risk of myocarditis was around 1/3,000 according to the CDC's own study, which was consistent by the way with data from Hong Kong."
Dr. Hoeg and Ms. Krug previously authored a paper that found the risk of cardiac complications to young, healthy males from COVID-19 vaccines was higher than the risk from COVID-19.
Dr. Jason Block, the CDC study's corresponding author, did not respond to a request for comment. The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to an inquiry. Pfizer and Moderna have not responded to requests for comment.
Cases After Bivalent Shot
According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink data, through March 11, one case of myocarditis was detected after Pfizer vaccination and one case was detected after Moderna vaccination.
CDC officials did not present any data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Starting in mid-2021, the CDC has analyzed reports to the system and verified some of them before regularly updating reported rates.
The CDC, asked for the data, would only provide a study that covered VAERS reports lodged through Oct. 23, 2022. The study found nine reports of myocarditis or pericarditis, seven of which were verified by medical record review.
Asked for more current data, the official said the study "is the most recent publicly available data we have on the topic" and that more current data would be made available to the public "when appropriate."
An Epoch Times search of VAERS turned up 98 myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis reports following bivalent vaccination through Sept. 8. Ms. Krug counted 10 reported cases that were or appeared to be myocarditis or pericarditis among 12- to 29-year-olds.
Dr. Rivkees said the Vaccine Safety Datalink data "show that the risk of myocarditis following COVID boosters is very rare." He did not comment on the lack of VAERS data.
Dr. Walid Gellad disagreed.
Without the VAERS data, "no risk benefit can accurately be calculated for young people," Dr. Gellad, director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing, wrote on X.
Dr. Rivkees said he also felt the vaccines would prevent deaths in children, pointing to observational papers on older versions of the shots. Two were non-peer reviewed studies from the CDC.
Multiple people, including children, have died from post-vaccination myocarditis. And there's no evidence the new vaccines prevent infections, hospitalizations, or deaths in any age group. Pfizer's vaccine has no human data behind it, while Moderna's vaccine was tested on just 50 people, with no efficacy estimates presented. One of those 50 suffered a medically-attended adverse event deemed related to the shot. Moderna has not disclosed what the event was.
Older Misinformation
The CDC started the trend of mis- and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis in early 2021, when then-Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky falsely claimed that the agency had seen no cases of the condition.
The agency also missed or ignored a safety signal for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination.
Outside researchers have also downplayed the cases by citing how symptoms resolved quickly in many patients, while abnormalities on imaging and symptoms persisted in some.
They've also made false claims about deaths from post-vaccination myocarditis.
"No deaths from myocarditis post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination have been reported in the USA, with very rare deaths reported worldwide," U.S. researchers wrote in a review article in 2022. By then, multiple deaths had been reported in the United States alone. Dr. Stephanie Chin, the study's corresponding author, did not return a query.
In another example from late 2021, Chinese researchers falsely said, "so far, all adults and adolescents with myocarditis/pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccinations, including those reported in the current study, have been mild cases." They cited a single study from California.
Severe cases, including deadly ones, were reported in the literature starting in mid-2021.
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Tuesday, September 26, 2023
Scientists ‘shocked’ and ‘alarmed’ at what’s in the mRNA shots
Early in 2023, genomics scientist Kevin McKernan made an accidental discovery. While running an experiment in his Boston lab, McKernan used some vials of mRNA Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines as controls. He was ‘shocked’ to find that they were allegedly contaminated with tiny fragments of plasma DNA.
McKernan, who has 25 years’ experience in his field, ran the experiment again, confirming that the vials contained up to, in his opinion, 18-70 times more DNA contamination than the legal limits allowed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In particular, McKernan was alarmed to find the presence of an SV40 promoter in the Pfizer vaccine vials. This is a sequence that is, ‘…used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies,’ McKernan explains. This is something that regulatory agencies around the world have specifically said is not possible with the mRNA vaccines.
Knowing that the contamination had not been disclosed by the manufacturers during the regulatory process, McKernan raised the alarm, posting his findings to Twitter (now X) and Substack with a call-out to other scientists to see if they could replicate his findings.
Other scientists soon confirmed McKernan’s findings, though the amount of DNA contamination was variable, suggesting inconsistency of vial contents depending on batch lots. One of these scientists was cancer genomics expert Dr Phillip Buckhaults, who is a proponent of the mRNA platform and has received the Pfizer Covid vaccine himself.
In September of this year, Dr Buckhaults shared his findings in South Carolina Senate hearing. ‘I’m kind of alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine – it’s different from RNA, because it can be permanent,’ he told those present.
‘There is a very real hazard,’ he said, that the contaminant DNA fragments will integrate with a person’s genome and become a ‘permanent fixture of the cell’ leading to autoimmune problems and cancers in some people who have had the vaccinations. He also noted that these genome changes can ‘last for generations’.
Dr Buckhaults alleges that the presence of high levels of contaminant DNA in the mRNA vaccines ‘may be causing some of the rare but serious side effects, like death from cardiac arrest’. He added, ‘I think this is a real serious regulatory oversight that happened at the federal level.’
Dr Buckhaults’ concerns are shared by McKernan, who presented his findings to the FDA in June. At the time of writing, McKernan had not received any response from the FDA on the matter. Dr Buckhaults said in the Senate hearing that he had emailed his findings to the FDA, but he had not received a response either.
In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) maintains that Covid vaccines cannot alter a person’s DNA. A spokesperson for the TGA stated, ‘The mRNA in the vaccines does not enter the nucleus of cells and is not integrated into the human genome. Thus, the mRNA does not cause genetic damage or affect the offspring of vaccinated individuals.’
They also said, ‘All batches of Covid vaccines distributed to Australians have been tested for the presence of contaminants including residual DNA template levels.’
However, a legal case filed in the Australian Federal Court in July of this year alleges that the TGA is not the appropriate regulator of Covid mRNA vaccines because, under the Gene Technology Act (2000) definition, the DNA contamination is a genetically modified organism (GMO).
The plaintiff, Victorian doctor and pharmacist Dr Julian Fidge, is seeking an injunction to stop Pfizer and Moderna from distributing their mRNA Covid vaccines because they never obtained a license from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), which is the agency that oversees all GMO related products.
The TGA did not require tests for genotoxicity or carcinogenicity before providing provisional approval and, eventually, full registration of both the Moderna and Pfizer Covid vaccines. OGTR guidance strongly suggests such tests should be undertaken where there exists a risk of harm to human health.
McKernan, who provided expert advice on the case, agrees that the DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines fits the Australian legal definition of a GMO. But there is also a second component of the mRNA vaccines that fits the definition.
That’s the mRNA itself, which is actually modified RNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). The case argues that this ‘LNP-mod-RNA complex’ falls under the legal definition of a GMO and that, like the DNA contamination, it has the capacity to enter the cell nucleus and integrate into the human genome.
There is already at least one peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating that the Pfizer Covid vaccine mRNA can enter the human liver cell line and reverse transcribe into DNA in vitro (meaning in a lab dish).
Other studies cited in the case materials show the presence of spike protein mRNA in the nucleus of human cells, and evidence that acquired immune traits pass down to the offspring of mice pre-exposed to the Covid vaccine mRNA-LNP platform. This is suggestive that, once in the nucleus, the vaccine mRNA can be transferred and integrated with chromosomal DNA.
Taking both the LNP-mod-RNA complexes and the recently discovered DNA contamination present in the mRNA Covid vaccines, acting solicitor Katie Ashby Koppens says, ‘Every single person who has been injected with these products has received a GMO that has not been through the expert regulatory process in this country.’ She adds, ‘The human genome could be changed permanently, and no one was informed.’
Now, McKernan, Dr Buckhaults and other scientists are calling for urgent research to test whether the DNA contamination is lingering in the cells of mRNA vaccinated people, and whether the human genome has in fact been altered by mRNA Covid vaccines.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/09/scientists-shocked-and-alarmed-at-whats-in-the-mrna-shots
***********************************************Doctor working for US government visited Wuhan lab and raised safety concerns TWO YEARS before the pandemic hit
A doctor working for the US government visited the Wuhan facility which has faced questions over the origins of Covid-19 and raised safety concerns almost two years before the start of the pandemic.
Dr Ping Chen was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) office in China when she went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in October 2017.
She wrote a report the following month in which she expressed her worries about the laboratory and the staff working in it.
'It is clear to me by talking to the technician that certainly there is a need for training support,' Dr Chen wrote in the memo seen by The New York Post.
The FBI believes Covid-19 'most likely' originated in a 'Chinese government-controlled lab' and supporters of the theory have pointed at the WIV - but there is no evidence to prove this claim.
'I think the institute would welcome any help and technical support by NIAID,' Dr Chen wrote about the Wuhan laboratory.
Senator Ron Johnson, from Wisconsin, is seeking more information about the concerns the doctor previously raised.
He believes a State Department cable from 2018 which referenced Chen and other scientists' misgivings about the WIV was more pointed.
'[D]uring interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted that the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory,' it read.
Some of Dr Chen's private concerns about the Wuhan facility have previously been documented.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) were pressured for more information by Johnson and Senator Rand Paul in 2021.
They got their hands on a redacted copy of Chen's report and were allowed an in camera review of it.
However, Johnson was frustrated by the large number of redactions in the version of the report he was handed.
The health department later admitted that now all of the redactions were made due to national security concerns.
'In the public FOIA document, HHS redacted Dr. Chen’s entire report claiming that it contains privacy and deliberative information,' Johnson said in a letter to the head of the HSS and National Institutes of Health on Thursday.
'It seems apparent that the only reason that HHS redacted this information was to hide the report’s contents from the American people.
'Perhaps HHS did not want the public to fully understand the fact that NIH and NIAID officials were aware of safety concerns at the WIV dating as far back as 2017.'
Those who believe the 'lab leak' theory have suggested the pandemic started at the WIV where 'gain-of-function' research on bat coronavirus was performed, with some of it funded by the US taxpayer.
The HHS told Congress on Tuesday that the Wuhan facility would no longer receive US government support until at least July 2033.
It pointed to the laboratory's failure to comply with government regulations.
Senator Johnson, who is the ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has demanded an interview with Dr Chen.
He is also calling for unredacted copies of her 2017 report, her private communications on it and other material relating to the WIV.
'HHS and NIH continue to obstruct my oversight efforts. It is unacceptable that HHS and NIH had Dr. Chen’s report in its possession and only provided a slightly-less redacted version for my staff to review in camera,' he said.
Johnson sent a letter with those demands to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and NIH acting director Lawrence Tabak.
Almost seven million people have died due to coronavirus around the world, with 1.1 million deaths in the US.
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Monday, September 25, 2023
We’re fighting the Covid censors
Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff
On July 4, our Independence Day, Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction ordering the federal government to immediately cease contact with social media companies, which it had been urging to censor protected free speech. Evidence unearthed in the Missouri v. Biden case, in which we are co-plaintiffs, has revealed a vast federal enterprise dictating to social media companies who and what to censor. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Surgeon General’s office, the National Institutes of Health, the FBI, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House itself were all closely involved.
You can get a good sense of what ideas the government finds threatening from its priority list of what it does not want Americans to talk about freely: the pandemic, vaccines, wars, concerns about election fraud and Hunter Biden’s laptop.
In the Missouri case, depositions of government officials and the discovery of email exchanges between the government and social media companies show an administration willing to threaten the use of its regulatory power to harm social media companies that do not comply with censorship demands.
Social media companies rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes them against defamation lawsuits that traditional media are subject to. It states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” But unlike, for example, a phone company, they may still censor or decline to publish perfectly legal content protected under the First Amendment. For social media companies, losing this protection would threaten their multibillion-dollar business.
The companies understand what is at stake even if the threats are not explicit. But documents adduced in this case sometimes show explicit threats. For instance, at one point, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield announced that “the White House is assessing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms, and examining how misinformation fits into the liability protection process by Section 230 of The Communication [sic] Decency Act.” The government’s message to social media companies was unmistakable: comply or else. Internal documents show company employees sometimes trying to push back on censorship demands but then capitulating.
The administration insists that without the power to censor social media, dangerous misinformation will spread unchecked. But the government also wanted social media companies to censor true information that cut against its policy goals. For instance, social media censored accurate health information like the fact that Covid recovery provides excellent natural immunity that is better than that developed from receiving the vaccines.
We both have personal experience of social media censorship. In October 2020, Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, emailed then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci to organize a “devastating takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration, a focused protection anti-lockdown public letter co-written by the two of us and Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University. Almost immediately, tech companies such as YouTube, Google, Reddit and Facebook censored mentions of the Declaration.
In 2020, Twitter blacklisted one of us (Dr. Kulldorff) for arguing that schools should re-open. He cited an excellent study that showed Sweden safely kept its schools and daycare open for children fifteen and under in the spring, with no Covid deaths among its 1.8 million school-aged children and no excess risk for teachers. In 2021, Twitter blacklisted the other (Dr. Bhattacharya) immediately after joining for posting a link to the Great Barrington Declaration.
Ironically, even the White House itself was caught by its censorship demands. At the administration’s behest, Facebook implemented AI algorithms to suppress posts their computers deemed “antivax.” When the CDC issued a “pause” on the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine because it had identified an elevated level of strokes, the Facebook algorithms tagged the White House account as “antivax.” The administration angrily ordered Facebook to stop censoring its speech while at the same time firing Dr. Kulldorff from a position as a CDC scientific advisor for arguing against the J&J “pause.” Their apparent position: free speech for the government, but not for anyone opposing the government in whatever direction.
The July 4 ruling in Missouri v. Biden restored free speech in America for ten days. On July 14, the government appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court, leading to an adminis- trative stay of the injunction. On August 10, in an oral argument, the government told the federal judges that it has a right to violate the First Amendment because there is an ongoing pandemic, including a right to censor the truth. At the time of writing the Fifth Circuit ruling is still pending, and due to its fundamental and significant implications regarding freedom of speech, the case may eventually end up at the Supreme Court.
Why were knowledgeable and outspoken scientists treated with censorship and contempt during the pandemic? The government’s smearing and censorship of scientific dissidents caused other scientists to self-censor. Its censorship enterprise created a public illusion that there was scientific consensus in favor of the government’s policies, even though many epidemiologists and public health scientists disagreed with the unscientific and ill-fated lockdown strategy that contradicted ethical principles of public health.
When there is scientific disagreement or uncertainty, the government must never pretend there is consensus and certainty. Let us learn from this shameful episode that the truth should never be censored and that the solution to incorrect information is more speech, not less.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/09/were-fighting-the-covid-censors/
*********************************************Pfizer-Funded Study Shows Poor Effectiveness for COVID-19 Vaccine in Young Children
A new study funded by Pfizer found the company's COVID-19 vaccine did not perform well in children under 5. Children aged 6 months to 4 years are supposed to receive three shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The number was increased from two when early testing showed little effectiveness.
Three doses of the Pfizer vaccine provided little protection against emergency room visits, urgent care encounters, or outpatient visits, according to the new study.
Researchers with and funded by Pfizer analyzed records from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. They included patients who tested for COVID-19 at an emergency department, urgent care, or outpatient setting along with being diagnosed with acute respiratory infection. The date range was July 23, 2022 through May 19, 2023.
Positive cases were those with a positive test result. Controls tested negative and had no evidence of prior infection in the past 90 days. Children were only counted as vaccinated if they received a second or third shot two or more weeks before being exposed to COVID-19. Children were excluded if they only received one dose, received any doses from a different company, or did not follow the recommended dosing schedule.
After adjusting for factors such as age and sex, researchers estimated just 12 percent effectiveness against medically-attended encounters for children who completed the three-dose primary series.
Confidence intervals crossed well over one, indicating that the effectiveness might actually be worse or even negative.
The effectiveness was estimated to be higher, or 44 percent, for children who received two doses of the regimen.
Researchers speculated that the difference stemmed from more immune-evasive virus variants becoming dominant in the United States by the time children received a third dose.
"Updated vaccines will likely be needed to maintain protection against contemporary Omicron strains in young children," they wrote.
The study was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Sara Tartof, the study's corresponding author and an employee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, did not answer questions, including why researchers included those with two doses but not those with one dose.
Among the key problems with the research were only including children who were diagnosed with acute respiratory infection (ARI), Dr. Robert Malone, who was not involved in the research, said.
That "may predispose to young children that lack a primary care physician/pediatrician," Dr. Malone, who helped invent the mRNA technology Pfizer's vaccine utilizes, told The Epoch Times via email.
"Likewise, the control group of non-vaccinated with ARI will also have selection bias. These intrinsic study biases make the relevance of the measured outcome to the general population quite problematic."
The newly reported results are based on a test-negative design, which is inappropriate for measuring effectiveness, said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of health policy at Stanford University.
"The design starts with children who are already seeing a doctor and then makes strong and unsupportable statistical assumptions to derive the probability of seeing a doctor for vaccinated and unvaccinated children," Dr. Bhattacharya, who was not involved in the research, told The Epoch Times via email.
"What is needed to answer this question without bias is a randomized control trial. I am shocked that the FDA has not asked Pfizer and Moderna to conduct such a study," he added.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared Pfizer's shot on the basis of immunobridging, or comparing antibody levels in children after vaccination with levels in adults after vaccination.
Antibodies are believed to protect people against COVID-19.
The authorization has been the subject of protests, including a complaint that said the FDA violated its own standards with the clearance.
A single dose of a bivalent shot, introduced in the fall of 2022, boosted protection to 61 percent, but no estimates were available over time and the estimate was based on just eight vaccinated patients who tested positive.
"This imprecision indicates that the actual [effectiveness] could be substantially different," the CDC said.
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Sunday, September 24, 2023
They Suffered Myocarditis After COVID-19 Vaccination. Years Later, Some Still Haven't Recovered
Mr. Cohen did not want to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. He knew the shots had not been available for long. He was worried about their safety.
While Mr. Cohen initially resisted receiving a shot, he faced restrictions such as being forced to remain on base while vaccinated soldiers left. He was also pressured by military commanders, who scheduled a vaccination appointment for him and contacted his mother as part of a multipronged campaign.
"They told me, 'Come on. It's your mother. She's crying. She's worried. What wouldn't you do for her?'" Mr. Cohen, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym because of concern about repercussions for going public, told The Epoch Times.
"I didn't want to take the vaccine. I didn't believe in it," he said. But he wanted to appease his mother. "I would do anything for her."
Mr. Cohen received his first shot, manufactured by Pfizer, on Sept. 22, 2021. He was 21.
Two weeks later, he was awakened by a sharp pain at 3 a.m. "I felt like my heart was trying to get out of my chest," Mr. Cohen said. The soldier has felt pain before. "I never felt something like this," he said.
Mr. Cohen went with a friend to the hospital, where he was placed in quarantine because he wasn't fully vaccinated. Thirty minutes ticked by.
"I felt like it was the first time in my life I actually started seeing flashbacks of things that I did in my life—I felt like I was truly dying," Mr. Cohen said.
Doctors finally came in and ran tests. They diagnosed Mr. Cohen with perimyocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle and the tissue around the heart.
They said Mr. Cohen was lucky. If he had come just a little later, he would have needed open heart surgery.
He spent three days in the hospital, taking medication and pills. When he was discharged, he was told not to engage in any physical activity for at least six months. He also needed to report for regular checkups and take a pill every day.
Six months after leaving the hospital, Mr. Cohen's cardiac MRI showed concerning results. His heart still hadn't recovered.
Doctors gave him more pills. "They told me maybe I will need them for the rest of my life," Mr. Cohen said. The military marked him as unable to serve for the rest of his life, and released him.
To this day, he suffers. "I've been feeling, I'm not sure if it's trauma or something, but it feels sometimes like a sting there, a short sharp pain," Mr. Cohen said.
He's also unable to do all he used to do before. "I was training. I was playing soccer. I did a lot of physical things, which now I can't afford ... to do anymore," Mr. Cohen said.
Dr. Adam Hirschfeld was among the first people to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. The orthopedic surgeon was motivated by a desire to prevent his patients from becoming sick. "I didn't want to put any of my patients at risk," Dr. Hirschfeld told The Epoch Times. He received a Moderna primary series, composed of two doses, in January 2021. He was 36.
Three days after the second shot, Dr. Hirschfeld felt discomfort in his chest and numbness in his left arm. A cardiac MRI confirmed evidence of heart inflammation. Dr. Hirschfeld was prescribed medicine and discharged two days later.
Dr. Hirschfeld has since undergone about a dozen electrocardiograms, another half a dozen echocardiograms, and a follow-up cardiac MRI.
"I went from being completely healthy—no issues, no medications—to seeing 10 different doctors in the blink of an eye," Dr. Hirschfeld said.
The follow-up MRI, conducted about 18 months after the vaccinations, showed normal cardiac function. But Dr. Hirschfeld still experiences pain.
"I have continued chest pain on the right side, and then I have neuropathic type pains in my neck and shoulder areas," he told The Epoch Times. "I have it when I wake up, and it's there when I go to sleep."
The suffering affects the doctor physically and mentally. "Having chest pain every day for two and a half years is very disconcerting," he said.
Mr. Cohen lives in Israel. Dr. Hirschfeld lives in the United States. The first myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination were reported in those countries in January 2021. Only a few weeks had elapsed since authorities cleared and recommended the shots for large portions of the population, including many young, healthy people.
At first, authorities hid reports of myocarditis from the public. Israel first acknowledged there was a likely link between the shots and the inflammation. The United States finally followed in June 2021, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said there was a "likely association."
Even after the association was made public, officials and many experts claimed that the myocarditis cases were mild. Most patients were hospitalized, authorities acknowledged, but they said patients could expect to recover without treatment and with rest.
The myocarditis is "rare but mild," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director at the time, said on "Good Morning America" on June 24, 2021. Dr. Walensky said the cases were "self-limited," or didn't require treatment to resolve.
Dr. Jeremy Faust, editor-in-chief of MedPage Today and a teacher at Harvard Medical School, on Twitter two days later described the cases as "self-limited troponinemia," or elevated troponin levels that would resolve on their own. Troponin is a protein in the heart that's a marker of heart injury.
Those claims were already wrong at the time, based on case reports alone. A previously healthy 24-year-old man in Massachusetts, for example, experienced chest pain so serious that he went to an emergency department, doctors reported on May 18, 2021. He was eventually discharged with a prescription for a beta-blocker and anti-inflammatory drugs and told not to engage in strenuous activity for three months.
Another early case involved a previously healthy 16-year-old boy in California who experienced "stabbing chest pain" and went to the emergency department for help. He described the pain as 6 to 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. The symptoms prompted doctors to admit him to intensive care. He spent six days in the hospital before being discharged.
Like many early case reports, no follow-up data were reported, making it impossible to say that the cases had fully resolved.
"Unless you've experienced it individually, you can't tell somebody that their case was mild," Dr. Hirschfeld said. "If you have elevated troponin, that's your cardiac muscle breaking down. "That's something that's permanent. And so to tell me that my cardiac muscle breaking down is mild is pretty insulting."
Signs of persistent symptoms appeared in the literature before long. U.S. military researchers, for instance, stated on June 29, 2021, that seven of 23 patients continued to have chest discomfort weeks or even months later. Dire outcomes were known even earlier. Two deaths were reported to U.S. authorities in February 2021, while another two were reported in Israel in the spring. Both of the Israelis who died were previously young and healthy.
Professional Biker Affected
Kyle Warner was a professional mountain bike racer when he received his first COVID-19 vaccine in May 2021. He completed a primary series the following month. Mr. Warner, who lives in the western United States, teaches older people and wanted to protect them from COVID-19. The CDC and others promoted the idea that the vaccines curbed or even prevented transmission based on observational data.
"The sentiment was these are safe and effective. If you get them, you don't need to wear a mask anymore, and you can't transmit COVID or catch COVID," Mr. Warner told The Epoch Times. "I spend quite a bit of time around older people and help them learn.
"I wasn't necessarily afraid of COVID myself. Not that I did respect it, but I wasn't worried it was going to kill me," he added. "But I was worried about getting someone else sick, especially when I'm with our older clients."
Mr. Warner was diagnosed with myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination and was hospitalized. After being discharged, Mr. Warner was bedridden for weeks.
"There's points where I was unable to even get up out of bed without passing out or blacking out," Mr. Warner told The Epoch Times. "It was really eye-opening. I felt like I went from being 28 years old to being 88 years old."
Mr. Warner was diagnosed with myopericarditis and two other conditions—postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and mast cell activation syndrome—that others have also been diagnosed with following COVID-19 vaccination.
Hyperbaric oxygen, which has relieved some of Dr. Hirschfeld's pain, helped bring Mr. Warner's energy levels back up.
But the cyclist, who didn't ride again until February 2022, still struggles with pain, especially when he exercises in the summer.
Mr. Warner utilizes a heart rate monitor, which he became familiar with in his racing career. During a recent ride, Mr. Warner pushed himself, trying his hardest for four minutes. That sent his heart rate up to 189 beats per minute—the highest since the injury.
"I did OK, but then the next few weeks, I had a kind of a lingering chest pain and tightness. And about four days after, it was pretty significant where I was having a hard time sleeping and my heart felt like it was palpitating every once in a while, and then—even more than a week later—I still had a little bit of chest tightness and pain," Mr. Warner said.
"It kind of scared me because it's been well over a year since my last treatment with hyperbaric and I'm still dealing with it. And when I do try to push myself harder, then I have to pay for the next few days to a week. "Back in the day, I would be able to do that with no problem at all."
Doctors who have spoken to Mr. Warner have told him that when his heart becomes stressed, it signals his immune system to attack and inflame it. He tries to keep his heart rate under 160 beats per minute.
14-Year-Old Rushed to Hospital
Aiden Ekanayake woke up in the middle of the night.
"Every breath deeper in was like knives in my chest," Aiden, who is from Georgia, said during a podcast appearance.
It was June 12, 2021, two days after Aiden received a second shot of Pfizer's vaccine. He was 14.
Aiden was able to fall asleep through shallow breathing, but was soon awakened. He went to his mother, who rushed him to the hospital.
Tests revealed abnormalities. Aiden was taken to the acute cardiac unit, where more tests confirmed that the vaccine was the cause. Aiden spent four days in the hospital. After being discharged, he was inactive for more than four months.
"I don't know where they get this 'two days and you're done, you're good.' That's a crock of [expletive]," Emily Ekanayake, Aiden's mother, told The Epoch Times.
Ms. Ekanayake had read early studies from Israel that found an elevated risk for myocarditis among young males who had received the Pfizer vaccine, but concluded with her son that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks. "I was really scared of COVID," Ms. Ekanayake said.
Aiden said he wanted to get vaccinated to help protect himself and his brother, both of whom have asthma.
Aiden's doctor also recommended the shot. Shortly before Aiden was vaccinated, the CDC director said the agency found no safety signal for myocarditis. U.S. officials cleared and recommended the vaccine to virtually all children aged 12 to 15, after initially only making it available to those 16 and older.
Aiden eventually resumed exercise after being cleared by a cardiopulmonary stress test.
The result of the test was "probably more like that of an old man," Ms. Ekanayake said. "His CO2 was low. He wasn't able to run much. He's got a lot of work in that way to go still. But he does like walking.
"I still worry about strenuous activity. I can't help it. I don't know that that will ever go away."
More here:
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
