Four Million People Have Received One of the New COVID-19 Vaccines: CDC

Some four million Americans have received one of the new COVID-19 vaccines, U.S. officials say.

"Already four million Americans have rolled up their sleeves," Dr. Mandy Cohen, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told reporters during a briefing this week.

More than 10 million vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been shipped to various locations, including pharmacies, according to CDC officials.

About 56.5 million people, or 17 percent of the population, received one of the bivalent vaccines, which were available from the fall of 2022 until recently, according to CDC data. The shots mostly went to people aged 65 and older.

Some people have reported struggling to find doses of the new vaccines at their local pharmacies and doctors.

Jen Kates, a senior vice president at KFF, said on X in late September that her vaccine appointment was canceled because the pharmacy at which it was scheduled did not have enough vaccines.

Others were able to find a shot but were charged more than $100. Insurers and government insurance were supposed to cover shots for the insured, while people without insurance can still receive one without paying under the CDC's Bridge Access Program.

"The Biden-Harris Administration, through HHS, has been working directly with manufacturers and distributors to ensure that the vaccines are getting to pharmacies, hospitals, clinics, and other vaccination sites, including long-term care facilities as quickly as possible," a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the CDC, told Reuters.

Dr. Nirav Shah, the CDC's deputy director, said the agency is aware that people have gone to receive a vaccine, or taken their child to receive one, and that there were not any available.

"My message for folks who have had that experience is twofold. The first is, please don't give up on the vaccine. Please know that vaccine is available," he said. "And ... more and more vaccine is getting out there every single day, every single week. And so please check back in with your provider with your pharmacist, because it's likely if they didn't have vaccine two weeks ago, they will have it."

CDC officials said they tried to cut down on barriers in the supply chain to quicken the delivery of doses. Distribution has shifted to businesses instead of the government, which helmed the network for prior versions of the vaccines.

Recommendations

The CDC recommends at least one dose of the new vaccines, which were authorized and approved on Sept. 11 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with virtually no clinical trial data, for Americans 6 months of age and older regardless of prior vaccination or infection.

The widespread recommendations are in contrast to many other countries and Florida, which has advised against vaccinating many younger, healthy people due to how many have previously been vaccinated, contracted COVID-19, or both.

Observational data for the bivalent vaccines, or the previous versions, found weak initial effectiveness that quickly waned.
CDC officials made unsupported claims during the briefing, part of a trend for the agency. "These vaccines will prevent severe disease for COVID-19," Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, told reporters. There's no evidence that's true.

The only clinical study data for the new shots is from a study Moderna ran that included injecting 50 humans with the company's updated formation. The result was a higher level of neutralizing antibodies. Officials believe antibodies protect against COVID-19.

Moderna did not provide any clinical efficacy estimates for infection, severe disease, or death.

Pfizer said it was running a trial but has not reported any results.

Novavax's vaccine was authorized later without any new trial data. CDC officials said the agency also recommends that shot.
"This is a great vaccine for anybody, but particularly for individuals who didn't want to take one of the mRNA vaccines," Dr. Shah said.

Cost

Manufacturers are charging the federal government more than ever for the new vaccines. Pfizer and Moderna charged around $20 per dose for the original vaccines. They are charging around $85 per dose for the new vaccines for people aged 12 and older, and up to $97 for the new vaccines for younger children.

The companies were charging the private sector up to $128 a dose. Pfizer's shot was lower priced for adults, while Moderna's came in higher for most children.

Novavax charged $16 for its initial vaccine but is now charging the government $58 a dose for adults and children.

Novavax is charging the private sector $130 a dose.

"You don't have to pay out of pocket for your vaccine, but it is not cost free. There are costs to making a vaccine available," Health Secretary Xavier Becerra said while getting a shot in Washington in September.

Officials have said they expect the vaccines to be updated annually, similar to the framework for influenza vaccines. There's also some work on so-called next-generation vaccines or shots that work better. That includes a trivalent vaccine that targets measles, mumps, and COVID-19.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/four-million-people-have-received-one-of-the-new-covid-19-vaccines-cdc-5505251?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=top-news-health-0-large-top-news-health-title-0

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

California scraps 2022 law punishing doctors who dissent from COVID consensus

California quietly repealed a law making a doctor spreading state-determined COVID-19 misinformation guilty of unprofessional conduct that could cost a doctor his or her medical license.

AB 2098, signed into law in 2022, allows the Medical Board of California to revoke the license of doctors who share any information with a patient that is contrary to the state-defined “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID-19. The law focused on "false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines."

AB 2098 remains into effect until January 1, 2024, when a new law, SB 815, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, invalidates action against doctors for sharing COVID-19 information.

The Liberty Justice Center, which engaged in litigation to prevent the law from taking effect, claimed that the organization's oral arguments drove the state legislature to amend SB 815, an existing bill reauthorizing the Medical Board of California, and argued that AB 2098 violated the First Amendment.

In oral arguments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, attorney Jacob Huebert, president of the Liberty Justice Center, made the case that AB 2098 would harm patients, doctors and free speech alike.

"A medical professional can have a good faith disagreement with the government about appropriate medical treatments. It's very dangerous for the government to prescribe one appropriate view, and particularly for the government to do so in the name of regulating conduct," Huebert said. "AB 2098 imposes strict liability for speech and punishes advice even if the patient doesn't follow the advice, or follows the advice and has a good result."

An injunction was granted in January of 2023, when AB 2098 took effect, to block punishment under the law until a trial could be held. Even the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief against the law, calling it a “blunt instrument.”

“It took a federal lawsuit for California legislators to reverse course and repeal an unconstitutional attack on free speech and the doctor-patient relationship,” said plaintiff Dr. Mark McDonald in Liberty Justice Center’s case against California, in a public statement celebrating the measure’s repeal. “We need real accountability, or this will happen again.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/california-scraps-2022-law-punishing-doctors-who-dissent-from-covid-consensus/ar-AA1hSUsx

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

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

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

A mistaken Nobel

This week, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine ‘for their discoveries… that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19’. The ‘efficacy’ of their vaccines was illustrated by a photograph of the pair at a prize-giving event wearing large face masks, a medieval method of reducing viral transmission in the absence of any protection from their award-winning vaccine.

The Nobel Foundation wrote that ‘The laureates contributed to the unprecedented rate of vaccine development during one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times.’

This is false on two counts. First, a vaccine was developed in the US in only four months in response to the 1957 Asian flu whereas the mRNA vaccines took almost a year. Second, the notion that Covid poses one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times is absurd. The virus poses a threat to the elderly and the ill and the vaccines have done little to mitigate that reality. Sweden, home of the Nobel, had no lockdowns in 2020 and didn’t use repurposed drugs to treat Covid yet still had only half the excess mortality (7.7 per cent) of fully vaccinated Australia in 2022 (15.3 per cent).

The Nobel comes with prize money of more than a million dollars but Karikó at least shouldn’t be hard up since she was senior vice-president until 2022 at BioNTech which generated 36 billion euros in vaccine sales in 2022 and 2021. The timing of her departure was fortuitous. Demand for vaccines is down and BioNTech faces hundreds of claims for compensation for vaccine injuries in its home country, Germany.

The long-term safety of the vaccines was raised at the announcement by a Chinese journalist. The committee members looked gob-smacked but they shouldn’t have been. BioNTech’s Chinese partner was never allowed to sell the Pfizer vaccine in China presumably due to safety concerns.Professor Richard Sandberg said 13 billion people had got the virus before correcting himself and saying the vaccine. It was not so much a Freudian slip as a statement of fact since virtually everyone who has got the vaccine has got the virus. He then said there had been very few adverse events so he didn’t think safety was a major concern. In reality, there have been more serious adverse events and deaths reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines than for all non-Covid vaccines combined.

Professor Olle Kampe followed Sandberg saying the mRNA ‘can’t be integrated into the nucleus, into the DNA, and that’s a safety precaution’. Worryingly, this may not to be true.

Thanks to Kevin McKernan, who previously worked on the Human Genome Project at MIT, we know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are both contaminated with DNA plasmids, tiny fragments of DNA that were produced as part of manufacturing process. Six independent laboratories around the world have confirmed this.

The DNA may be transported, along with the vaccine, into any cell in a vaccinated person. From there, at least five features of Covid mRNA vaccines may facilitate the transport of the DNA into the nucleus of the cell and its integration into a vaccinated person’s DNA. (An excellent substack by the pseudonymous Dr Ah Kahn Syed titled ‘5 ways to skin a (genetically modified) cat’ sets out the details.)

DNA contamination is very serious. It may be responsible for a range of serious adverse events including death as well as potentially harming the descendants of vaccinated people.

Professor Philip Buckhaults, a cancer geneticist who was one of those who independently confirmed the presence of the DNA, has called for vaccinations to stop until the DNA has been removed.

Others, such as Dr Janci Lindsay, a toxicologist who, together with Buckhaults, testified in a South Carolina Senate hearing on the vaccines, have joined McKernan and a throng of doctors and scientists calling for the complete withdrawal of the Covid vaccines while a full safety audit is conducted.

But it gets worse. Professor Retsef Levi of MIT Sloan and Dr Josh Guetzkow of the Hebrew University wrote to the British Medical Journal in May warning that the vaccine used in the Pfizer clinical trials was not the same as the vaccine given to the public. The DNA contamination was introduced in the process of mass production and only 252 people in the trial were injected with the mass-produced version of the vaccine. Pfizer has so far not released any details about the adverse events in people who received the mass-produced vaccine but the adverse event rate for those in the placebo group, who were vaccinated after the trial ended, was 2.5 times higher than for the rest of the trial participants. Did they get the mass-produced vaccine?

In a final response to the Chinese journalist about long-term safety, Professor Kampe said that adverse events are ‘mostly myocarditis and pericarditis, mainly affecting young males, but that normally resolves without any long-term effects’.

This is an outrageous claim because it is impossible to know the long-term effects of mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis after only 2.5 years but there is no reason to think there will be no long-term effects. A Danish study published in 2021 found that even in younger healthy patients who were free of adverse events and medication one year after discharge, myocarditis was associated with a long-term excess risk of heart failure, hospitalisation, and death.

A paper published in Nature on 27 September shows that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA spike protein routinely persists up to 30 days after vaccination. In autopsies of people who died after mRNA vaccination, the mRNA-generated spike proteins are present in the heart surrounded by immune cells trying vainly to kill them. Commenting on the recent revelations, Dr Bluemke Professor of Radiology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine said they show that ‘mild asymptomatic myocardial inflammation could be more common than we ever expected’ and patients who present with myocarditis may have more severe systemic inflammation related to mRNA vaccination.

None of this should be a surprise. In a 2018 paper, Drew Weissman warned that mRNA vaccines could provoke autoimmunity, blood coagulation, and pathological thrombus formation.

This year’s Nobel for Medicine isn’t the only one riven with controversy. In 1949, António Egas Moniz won the Nobel for inventing the lobotomy. The butchery of the prefrontal cortex was intended to treat mental illness but as Soviet psychiatrist Vasily Gilyarovsky said it simply turned the insane into idiots. To his credit he got the procedure banned in the Soviet Union in 1950. In the West, however, the Nobel added cachet and thousands of lobotomies were performed, particularly on women, gay men, even on children, despite side effects which included severe brain damage, seizures, suicide, and death. Lobotomies eventually fell out of favour in the West but the Nobel Foundation still defends the award.

The scientist who invented mRNA vaccine technology (and holds the patents, with others) is Dr Robert Malone. He was asked this week if he should also have been given the Nobel. His reply? ‘Probably not because the technology has not been proven safe’.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/10/not-nobel/

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

Would Australians have consented to vaccinations if they knew the potential risks?

Julie Sladden

The bombshell discovery of DNA contamination in mRNA Covid shots has shocked and alarmed scientists around the globe. They are calling on regulators to urgently stop the injections and conduct a full safety evaluation.

Following Kevin McKernan’s initial discovery earlier in 2023, his findings have been independently verified by several internationally recognised labs around the world including Dr Philip Buckhaults and Dr Sin Lee. These results were again confirmed most recently in Germany when biologist Dr Jurgen Kirchner tested various batches of the Pfizer product (Comirnaty) at his laboratory in Magdeburg and discovered DNA contamination that he claims exceeds regulatory levels by a factor of 200-350. Dr Kirchner followed up with a letter to Health Minister Karl Lauterbach on 20 August 2023, attaching the results of the findings. The official reply from the ministerial office was unimpressive, to say the least:

’(…) the Federal Ministry of Health has no evidence of possible DNA contamination in the Covid-19 vaccine Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) that has been marketed in Europe and Germany (…) From a local perspective, there is therefore no need for further action.’

This lack of alarm has frustrated members of the scientific community who ask, ‘Under what regulatory system doesn’t this lead to immediate withdrawal from market?’

In the US, testimonies from Dr McKernan to the FDA, Dr Phillip Buckhaults, and Dr Janci Lindsay to the South Carolina Senate seem to raise alarm from all except the therapeutic regulator, the FDA.

You might think ‘well this is all overseas’ and therefore not relevant to Australia. Well, dear reader, you may change your mind when you learn that the Covid mRNA injections are manufactured in just a handful of facilities around the world, and none of them in Australia. This concerns us too.

Many worry that DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines could bring with it a truckload of serious risks and potential adverse outcomes, including the possibility of genomic integration. That is, the DNA in the injection becomes a part of the DNA of a person’s cells.

The repeated and verified finding of DNA contamination has alarmed scientists from different disciplines and, as McKernan notes, ‘It is important for readers to see where various divergent voices agree.’ Despite being a proponent for the mRNA platform, Buckhaults describes his alarm at the finding, ‘…and the possible consequences of this both in terms of human health and biology.’ In testifying to the Senate he adds, ‘But you should be alarmed at the regulatory process that allowed it to get there.’

World-renowned Professor Wafik El-Deiry, Director of the Cancer Centre at Brown University and known for his work in identifying genes associated with cancer, added his voice to the conversation stating Buckhaults’ testimony was ‘good science raising concerns about contamination of Covid mRNA vaccines with DNA’. He adds:

‘[Buckhaults] explains how pieces of naked DNA allowed in protein vaccines at a certain threshold was not so problematic in a different era but that with encapsulation in liposomes they can now easily get into cells. If they get into cells they can integrate into the genome which is permanent, heritable, and has a theoretical risk of causing cancer depending on where in the genome they integrate. There is a need for more research into what happens in stem cells and I would add germ-line, heart, (and) brain. I am also concerned about prolonged production of spike for months with the pseudouridine in the more stable RNA.’

‘Blood clots, myocarditis, cardiac arrests, and other adverse effects are documented,’ adds El-Deiry. Many believe there’s an urgent need to quantify this problem as DNA is itself prothrombotic and could be the cause of some of the rare but serious side effects like sudden death from cardiac arrest.

Dr Janci Lindsay, a biochemist and molecular biologist, agrees with these concerns and has spent months calling for the shots to be suspended. Alongside the identified risks of genomic integration, autoimmunity, and cancer, Lindsay says other possibilities include gut bacteria (E. coli) taking up DNA plasmids and becoming ‘perpetual spike factories’ or incorporating the antibiotic resistance gene. There is another potential issue Lindsay highlights, ‘If there’s that much (DNA) plasmid in the shots, there’s a very good chance that there’s bacterial endotoxin in the shots… bacterial proteins which can cause anaphylaxis and even death.’

You may wonder, how the DNA and other potential contaminants got into some of these products. Well, it all comes down to the manufacturing process, as discussed in a recent BMJ article. The clinical trials involving around 40,000 people were conducted using injections manufactured via ‘Process 1’ which involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA. This is essentially a ‘clean’ process. However, this process is not viable for mass production, so the manufacturers switched to ‘Process 2’ which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids. Getting the plasmids out of the E. coli. can be challenging and may result in residual plasmids, and possibly bacterial endotoxin, in the vaccines. Australian Professor Geoff Pain provides extensive details on these endotoxins.

With the highest rates of adverse events and injuries we’ve ever seen for a ’provisionally approved’ product, you would think any regulator worth their salt would be jumping in to ensure that what has been discovered overseas isn’t so in Australia. But it seems the burden of proof is falling on everyone but the regulator.

From the very start, countless medical and legal professionals have called out the ethical disaster of ‘un-informed’ consent and these experimental injections. Informed consent requires a full discussion of the known and potentially unknown risks of any medication or treatment. This, and the coercion, manipulation, and mandates applied to the Australian people, made informed consent impossible.

How many Australians, I wonder, would have agreed to receive an injection that potentially contained DNA with all the inherent risks described?

None, is my guess.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/10/what-the-shot/

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

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

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

Another Friday hiatus

A combination of medical matters and social matters kept me too busy to blog today. A pic of one of the very pleasant ladies concerned below

Covid guru Sir Patrick Vallance claims experts were used as 'human shields' for British Government and officials 'cherry-picked' science to justify decisions

Experts were used as 'human shields' for the Government, whose officials 'cherry-picked' science to justify Covid decision-making, Sir Patrick Vallance's pandemic diaries claimed.

The Chief Scientific Adviser, who regularly addressed the nation alongside ministers during press conferences, wrote that Downing Street sought to justify its actions by claiming they were 'following the science'.

And he accused an unnamed official of 'completely rewriting' scientific advice on social distancing, the Covid-19 Inquiry in London heard today.

Sir Patrick's previously undisclosed contemporaneous notes described the intervention as 'extraordinary'.

And he described No 10 as being 'at war with itself', leaving then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson 'caught in the middle'.

Others accused Mr Johnson, who was admitted to intensive care after falling ill with Covid in April 2020, of 'flip-flopping', and of poor and delayed decision-making.

Meanwhile Dominic Cummings, the former Downing Street senior adviser, is said to sent a message to one colleague saying the Cabinet Office was 'terrifyingly shit' as the Government pondered introducing the first, unprecedented lockdown measures in March 2020.

Hugo Keith KC, lead counsel to the Inquiry, told the first day of the probe's second module into Government action that 'the WhatsApp messages between ... Johnson, Cummings and others betray a depressing picture of a toxic atmosphere, factional infighting and internecine attacks on colleagues'.

And he said Mr Cummings claimed Cabinet was 'not the place for serious discussion or decisions'.

Mr Keith said: 'It was a rubber stamp, the main function of which was to function as political theatre.

'Perhaps more importantly, he says Cabinet committees were scripted – ministers were given scripts to read out, and conclusions were drafted in advance, so problems were simply not grappled with.'

Mr Keith suggested Mr Cummings, who left No 10 in November 2020 after a series of internal rows, was 'himself a source of instability'.

Mr Keith also referred to several entries in Sir Patrick's daily notebooks, revealing frictions at the heart of Government.

In one, Sir Patrick said: 'Morning PM meeting, (Mr Johnson) wants everything normal by September... he is now completely bullish.'

In another, from May 2020, he wrote: 'Ministers tried to make the science give the answers, rather than them making decisions.'

Sir Patrick, a member of Sage (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies), added: 'I am worried that a "Sage is trouble" vibe is appearing in Number 10.

'There is a paper from No 10 Cabinet Office for one metre, two metre review (into Government's social distancing measures).

'Some person has completely rewritten the science advice as though it's the definitive version. They've just cherry picked – quite extraordinary.'

Mr Keith said the diaries 'speak of Sage, of the CMO (Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty) and the CSA being positioned as human shields'.

He added: 'Sage was a scientific advisory body, it produced the science.

'It couldn't integrate economic and societal considerations. So who did? The Government of course.'

And he said then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak's 'eat out to help out' scheme designed to support the hospitality sector went ahead without the approval of the most senior scientific advisers, nor was it informed by evidence on the impact it would be likely to have on infection transmission.

Mr Keith said inquiry chairman Baroness Heather Hallett would have to determine the extent to which the Government may have dawdled while Covid cases began ramping up internationally in the start of 2020.

He said: 'Some argue that had the Government reacted with greater urgency and to greater effect in January and February, it might not have been forced into making the extraordinary, far-reaching decisions that it later found itself obliged to take.'

He said: 'Never again can a virus be allowed to lead to so many deaths and so much suffering.'

The hearing opened with a 20-minute film featuring testimonies from those bereaved and affected by Covid.

One widower, Alan Handley, whose wife Susan died with Covid, hit out at government officials for flouting restrictions on the day less than a dozen people were permitted to gather for her funeral.

He said: 'To compound the grief of my wife's passing, on the day of her funeral — only eight people were allowed to attend — and then to find out the day of my wife's funeral, under those draconian restrictions, that government officials were holding parties on the very same day... My wife deserved better.'

Baroness Hallett appeared moved by the footage, and said she needed to reach conclusions and make recommendations to reduce suffering in the future 'when the next pandemic hits the UK is pressing'.

She said: 'I say "when" the next pandemic hits the UK because the evidence in module one suggested it is not if another pandemic will hit us but when.'

More than 230,000 people have died with Covid-19 in the UK.

The inquiry, which has already cost in excess of £40million, is set to conclude in 2026.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12589393/Covid-guru-Sir-Patrick-Vallance-claims-experts-used-human-shields-Government-officials-cherry-picked-science-justify-decisions.html

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

Facing the Highly Mutated Variant BA.2.86

Vaccinations may not help

Following EG.5, the latest highly mutated COVID-19 variant, BA.2.86 (also known as Pirola), is spreading in multiple countries. BA.2.86 is a subvariant of omicron, with over 35 genetic mutations on its spike protein, making it more capable of immune escape. Medical experts recommend increasing the intake of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients to boost immunity.

BA.2.86 was first discovered in Denmark in July, and it has since been detected in human or wastewater samples from the United States, Canada, Denmark, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, and Thailand.

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated at the end of August, approximately 97 percent of Americans have developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies due to prior infection, vaccination, or a combination. However, the significant number of mutations in BA.2.86 raises concerns about whether the immunity acquired from vaccines and previous infections is adequate to combat it.

According to the CDC, it is currently unclear whether the BA.2.86 variant will lead to more severe illness, but these highly diverged lineages may arise in immunocompromised individuals with prolonged infections.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the world has experienced multiple waves of pandemic peaks caused by virus strains like alpha, delta, and omicron. The various variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that have evolved continue to alter the virus' transmissibility and pathogenicity, presenting challenges to medical treatment and prevention measures.

In August, the CDC stated that the existing tests used for COVID-19 detection and the medications used to treat the disease appear effective against BA.2.86. Updated COVID-19 vaccines are set to be released before the end of September, with the expectation of significantly reducing the risk of severe illness and hospitalization.

However, will that be the case? A recent study analyzed the impact of vaccination and natural immunity on COVID-19 infection rates. The research team conducted this study with 96,201 male inmates across 33 California state prisons, analyzing their data from January to July 2023.
The research findings showed that the infection rate in the bivalent-vaccinated group was 3.24 percent, whereas the infection rate in the entirely unvaccinated group was 2.72 percent. When the data were filtered for individuals aged 50 and above, infection rates were 4.07 and 3.1 percent, respectively. Among individuals aged 65 and above, the bivalent-vaccinated group had an infection rate of 6.45 percent, higher than the 4.5 percent rate observed in the entirely unvaccinated group.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/facing-the-highly-mutated-variant-ba-2-86-strategies-to-strengthen-your-innate-immunity-and-guard-against-infection-5495980

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

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

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

Australian Medical Doctors May Need to Arm Themselves with a Law Degree

Australian doctors have expressed displeasure with medical regulatory bodies like Ahpra and the TGA, stating that doctors with different views are being targeted and suspended. TrialSite interviewed some doctors who served in the system and who were suspended unfairly for expressing differing opinions. They emphasized that to be fully protected in the Australian health system, doctors may need to be well-versed in the law before they start practicing.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) regulates medical practice in Australia. Some doctors fear that people anonymously use Ahpra as a weapon against them. There are also concerns that external bodies in the United States like the Federation of State Medical Board (FSMB) may influence the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA). The IAMRA is responsible for effective medical regulation worldwide. They achieve this by providing guidance to the medical profession and bolstering scientific, educational and collaborative activities in the field.

What does the FSMB do?

Founded in 1912, the FSMB is a body or association representing state medical licensing in the U.S. Its CEO, Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, is regarded as one of the most influential physicians in the U.S. He released healthcare policies that were approved by the American Medical Association and authored research papers on how to boost vaccine usage. In April 2022, the FSMB adopted a misinformation policy and released a manifesto to be heavy-handed with doctors spreading misinformation. This raised suspicions, especially among vaccine-hesitant doctors, as there appeared to be a seeming connection between Dr. Chaudhry's effort to influence the vaccine-hesitant and “boost vaccine usage” and his strict approach towards doctors expressing hesitancy or spreading opposing information about the vaccines.

Pressured by regulatory bodies

Interestingly, medical authorities from different countries, including Australia, formed an international arm in September 2000, IAMRA. The IAMRA– a non-profit–supports medical regulatory bodies globally. In June 2004, the IAMRA said that it was separate from the FSMB. However, Chaudhry was IAMRA secretary and FSMB CEO at the same time in 2020.

Before the FSMB's adoption of the misinformation policy, the IAMRA had hosted webinars in 2020, to address ethical concerns among doctors and educate them on ways to combat COVID-19 misinformation. An Australian doctor, who would prefer to stay anonymous, said, "... in 2021, as I said, their agenda was to be heavy-handed with all doctors who spread misinformation."

Ahpra wields a strong authority in Australia. As such, a few doctors were concerned that the FSMB may have influenced decisions at Ahpra because its current CEO, Martin Fletcher, was a director at the IAMRA until the end of 2022. He was one of the panelists in a global webinar educating regulators on how to respond to the challenge of vaccine-hesitant doctors.

Were these concerns justified?

The Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) and Ahpra are at the forefront of fighting COVID-19 misinformation, and they continually advocate for the dissemination of the right information on vaccine safety.

In 2023, Ahpra released a 2021 survey result reflecting the distrust among doctors of its regulatory services. Doctors in Australia had the most negative views compared with other health practitioners, and only 35% of doctors had positive reviews of Ahpra.

Part of the result said, "Distrust was undercut by practitioners’ personal views of how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled, but also related to perceived unfairness and injustice of Ahpra and the Boards’ processes."

In October 2021, the TGA suspended a medical doctor for using ivermectin on a patient with severe COVID-19 symptoms. The patient had initially sought treatment at another hospital but had only been told to wear a mask and isolate, without receiving any early treatment. As the patient’s condition had worsened after returning home, they had sought treatment from the doctor instead of going back home due to concerns about being unable to say goodbye to their family if they were to pass away.

A junior doctor in that hospital then made a complaint, stating that there was a case of polypharmacy and encephalopathy.

Speaking with TrialSite, she said, "I wanted to find out what happened to my patient, so I called this doctor up… She basically said to me that she didn't know why she made a complaint against me and that her boss was the one who actually told her to make the complaint."

The junior doctor’s supervisor was Associate Professor Naren Gunja, a toxicologist at the Westmead Hospital. She mentioned that she’d tried speaking to him, but he didn’t listen to her.

"So, I did a bit of research and discovered that he actually went to the media and spoke about a case of ivermectin overdose in a patient that he had treated at casualty," she continued.

“I couldn’t understand why Dr. Gunja, a toxicologist, chose to warn the public about the risk of ivermectin. It is well known that taking ivermectin in combination with other medications can effectively treat COVID-19, and the occurrence of ivermectin overdose is rare.”

The ivermectin overdose case went viral from September 1 to September 3, 2021, after Gunja had spoken to the media, advising the public to ignore online claims that ivermectin was a cure for COVID-19. And on September 10, 2021, the TGA banned ivermectin as an off-label treatment for COVID-19.

According to our source, a second complaint came from an anonymous source with the pseudonym – John Smith. Eventually, the evidence presented in the complaint was traced back to Ahpra. All these contributed to her suspension in October 2021.

Additionally, in February 2021, the COVID Medical Network came under intense scrutiny from the TGA for endorsing the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 infection.

The COVID Medical Network (CMN) is a group of doctors in Australia who have reservations about COVID-19 vaccines and have voiced their dissatisfaction with the government's pandemic response. Instead of recommending vaccines, they prescribe alternative medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to address and curb the effects of COVID-19 infection.

This may explain why a doctor had to publicly renounce and dis-endorse the group within seven days to regain medical registration after being urgently suspended for having a link on her website to the CMN website.

A case of corruption among regulatory bodies

In October 2022, the Australian government made over 30 changes to the national law guiding the regulation and registration of doctors. This also included disciplinary action against doctors who had broken the law. It was called the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2022.

This law gave Ahpra the power to release a public statement regarding a practitioner who is under assessment or investigation if there was a "reasonable belief" that the practitioner's behavior, performance or health could seriously endanger public safety. Some doctors fear that Ahpra or the TGA could use this law as a means of bullying.

According to our first anonymous source, Ahpra weaponized the reasonable belief concept to take down medical doctors with different beliefs.

She implied that Ahpra could influence the subjective state of mind of the medical board by making statements about a doctor with no medical basis. "It has so much power. They can target any doctor they like. All it needs to do is to have an anonymous complaint against a particular doctor, and that doctor could be urgently suspended without verification of the facts."

People have complained that Ahpra bullies and has numerous scandals. After three Senate, a state inquiry into Ahpra’s conduct and according to recent polls, many doctors, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and the Australian Medical Association (AMA) remain unhappy with Ahpra’s framework. Ahpra is an agency with a five-year contract with the National Board to carry out administrative duties like notifications and collection of subscriptions.

The regulatory power lies with the Board, not Ahpra, and one anonymous doctor said that the Board was negligent in renewing its contract with Ahpra, knowing the level of incompetence of Ahpra officials. She added that perhaps the Board liked this arrangement, as most complaints are deflected away from the Board and directed against Ahpra.

The TGA was also accused of hiding vaccine side effects like myocarditis from the public, making people doubt its authenticity. They also allegedly concealed the death of several previously healthy children from vaccine side effects, as they were afraid it would promote vaccine hesitancy.

To curb corruption among regulatory bodies like the TGA, the Australian government introduced the National Anti-corruption Commission (NACC) in July 2023. Ahpra and the Medical Board are not answerable to either the state, federal parliament or the NACC. Many doctors believe they should be accountable.

Do doctors need a law degree for protection?

During TrialSite's conversation with the sources, they hinted that the insurance company lawyers meant to protect doctors were actually supporting the medical council and Ahpra. If this is true, doctors may need to become experts in law to make the right choices when getting advice from lawyers, especially if they end up in such a situation.

When TrialSite inquired if the medical board's actions would make doctors anxious about reporting adverse effects and other related matters, they firmly responded that the board's actions had caused underreporting. Apparently, doctors were afraid of saying or doing anything that would earn them a suspension.

Even so, some doctors have challenged the system and are legally smart about it. An example is Dr. William Bay, an Australian doctor in Queensland and the leader of the Queensland People’s Protest (QPP). TrialSite has previously reported on Dr. Bay's protests against the COVID-19 vaccines in Australia. He had previously received a suspension for disrupting an Australian Medical Association conference. He then took legal action against the medical board and Ahpra, aiming to have the suspension revoked. At the time of authoring this article, Dr. Bay was still waiting for the final verdict from the Court.

Dr. Gary Fettke, an orthopedic surgeon, also faced a four-and-a-half-year legal case initiated by Ahpra starting in 2014 for giving nutritional and weight loss advice to his patients. The case was challenged along legal and procedural grounds, and then, using the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman’s Intervention (NHPO), was reviewed independently.

Speaking to TrialSite, Fettke said, “Nonetheless, we had to become 'expert' in the National Law, as the Indemnifiers are not supportive of preserving your practicing rights, nor reputation.” Additionally, he added that because these insurance company lawyers were mainly responsible for financial liability, they found it safer and cheaper to side with Ahpra.

These are examples of people who may have understood their legal rights as doctors.

Final thoughts

To treat patients in the best way possible, doctors in Australia may need to learn to navigate the legal system strategically. While this may not apply universally, Ahpra's survey indicates decreased confidence in the system among practitioners. So, beyond relying solely on medical defense insurance providers in Australia, doctors may require additional safeguards to function effectively within the healthcare system. Of course, from another perspective—the top down, government and medical establishment’s point of view doctors should simply line up and follow the guidance.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/australian-medical-doctors-may-need-to-arm-themselves-with-a-law-degree-eec4a375

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

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

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

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.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/do-covid-19-vaccines-link-to-oncogenesis-34-reviewers-accept-but-frontiers-in-oncology-reject-manuscript-55bc7a4e

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

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.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/10/childrens-health-defense-australia-saving-our-kids-after-covid-lockdowns

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

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

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

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.”

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/uk-qualitative-study-long-covids-adverse-impacts-on-childrens-health-education-overall-quality-of-life-d2b2afe2

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-vaccines-causally-linked-to-increased-mortality-resulting-in-17-million-deaths-scientific-report-5499001

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

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."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2023/09/27/musk-would-rather-go-to-prison-than-do-this-n2629007?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&recip=6139244

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

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

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

Another health Hiatus

Not up to blogging today but good hopes for tomorrow