No More COVID-19 Shots for Youth? A Bigger Politicization Agenda Behind COVID-19

“The real Covid jab scandal is finally emerging." A November 9 comment in The Telegraph provides a good introduction to the topic of why, when they faced little risk, we vaccinated kids for COVID-19. The conclusion is in the article’s subtitle: “The young and healthy, who were at minimal risk from Covid, should not have been told they had to take the vaccine.”

We learn that one Lisa Shaw, an award-winning BBC presenter, had her first COVID-19 vaccination on April 29, 2021. This 44-year-old mom thought she was doing her part to keep others safe. Within days, Shaw “developed a headache and stabbing pains behind her eyes which wouldn’t go away.” And by May 16, she was in hospital with blood clots in the brain. She could hardly speak, and a portion of her skull was removed to relieve pressure. Then, on May 21, Ms. Shaw died; the coroner found the death was due to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

“Ms. Shaw was previously fit and well,” yet it was “clearly established” that she died from a rare “vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).” VITT is “a new condition which leads to swelling and bleeding of the brain.” Back in 2021, UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, as part of “strenuous efforts” to ease the public’s concerns, had said the AstraZeneca product was “a great British success story.” Prime Minister Boris Johnson even tweeted that, “It is truly fantastic news – and a triumph for British science….” Fast forward to yesterday, and TrialSite reported on a large lawsuit against that same vaccine in the UK maker—the plaintiff: the VITT Litigation Group.

“Severe brain injury”

Our next perspective comes from the BBC, also on November 9, “AstraZeneca faces legal challenge over Covid vaccine.” They note that the father of two, Jamie Scott, received his jab in April 2021, and that he thereby “suffered severe brain injury.” His case is being brought under the Consumer Protection Act and alleges that the product is “defective” in that it was more dangerous than folks were led to believe. Another 80 vaccine victims are due to launch a suit later in 2023. All are involved with the aforementioned VITT Litigation Group.

According to AstraZeneca, "Patient safety is our highest priority, and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines---Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems--From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, Vaxzevria [the vaccine against Covid] has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects."

“Vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia”
Many victims have obtained one-time £120,000 payments via the UK’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. FOIA requests show that of 148 VDPS recipients, 144 had received that AstraZeneca product.

Scott’s wife Kate has told BBC, "Jamie has had over 250 rehabilitation sessions from specialists, he had to learn to walk again, to swallow, to talk. [He has had] memory problems---Although he has done very well with them, we are at the point now where this new version of Jamie… is the version that will go forward. He has cognition problems…he has aphasia. Severe headaches, blindness---We need the government to reform the vaccine damage payment scheme. It is inefficient and unfair…and then fair compensation." Within months of the AZ rollout, cases of post-vaccination blood clots began to arise. And the aforementioned “vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT) was eventually identified.”

Ironically, BBC is a target of a lawsuit TrialSite is participating in---a a key member of the Trusted News Initiative or “TNI.”

This media cabal consisting of top media and tech companies collaborated to ensure that critical message of the type TrialSite was reporting on was blocked from the public.

After presidential candidate Kennedy called TrialSite founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss the potential lawsuit, TrialSite joined to support what has been both censorship and a potential platform to destroy competition.

So, while the BBC has the green light to report on vaccine injuries now, back in early 2021, when TrialSite was one of the only media reporting on such events. They and the mainstream media followed national emergency scripts, chucking real journalism. So did the pharmaceutical trade press, TrialSite’s more direct competition. Not a peep to this day from the like about some of the more insidious externalities associated with COVID-19.

TrialSite reported on many of the front-line physicians who argued that the vast majority of COVID-19 cases were mild to moderate, especially among young people. This more independent, critical group of providers argued against the need for COVID-19 vaccination.

Put another way, the risks of vaccination outweighed the benefits, according to this cohort. The mainstream argument cited the surge in child hospitalization during Delta and the emergence of MIS-C as a reason for vaccination. Yet opinion contributors such as Geert Vanden Bossche have argued that this never justified mass vaccination of our youngest members of society.

TrialSite has repeatedly reported to the market that, to this day, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot verify the safety of Pfizer’s Comirnaty to the American public for both children and pregnant women.

Section 8.1 of the FDA packaged insert involving pregnancy:

“Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.” Section 8.4 for young children 12 and under states, “The safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals younger than 12 years of age have not been established.”

Why are U.S. health authorities still pushing this vaccine on society’s most vulnerable people other than the elderly with no emergency, a case fatality rate at a level of influenza or even lower, and seemingly overwhelmingly mild to moderate upper respiratory infections, given the reports of side effects and no ability to verify the safety on the label?

WHO deprioritizes youth vaccination

Some nations are starting to get it, including the collection of health representatives that is the World Health Organization (WHO). On March 29, 2023, CNN offered another look at the subject of COVID-19 vaccines for youth, “WHO experts revise COVID-19 vaccine advice, say healthy kids and teens low risk.” They note that “The World Health Organization’s vaccine experts have revised their global COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, and healthy kids and teenagers considered low priority may not need to get a shot.”

This updated “roadmap” aims to “prioritize COVID-19 vaccines for those at greatest risk of death and severe disease, according to the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE).” A SAGE press release offered that “The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children – such as the rotavirus, measles, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.”

TrialSite reported on prestigious academic medical centers such as Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which have studied the matter and all but concluded the push for COVID-19 vaccines should be used for the more traditional vaccine schedule now, given declining rates due to heightened hesitancy.

At the core of the problem is that the current COVID-19 vaccines’ efficacy and risk mix just don’t compel objective pediatric care and research inquiry.

Science and medicine have been completely politicized during the pandemic. We will not go back to a more sane and rational time when the professionals respected their respective lanes.

The Biden Administration’s mandates (some of which were ruled unconstitutional) were announced in 2021, when we already knew the COVID-19 vaccines failed to stop viral transmission and were associated with some dangerous side effects, albeit relatively rare. It doesn’t matter, given the ever-milder strains involving Omicron. Of course, there were still outlier severe cases, and the elderly continued to face higher risk.

This author suggests the Biden move was, behind the scenes, a power play meant to reign in on an emerging medical freedom movement that was identified by the Washington power structure as aligned with MAGA and Trump. After all, even before the outrageous September 6 actions, tensions between opposing political viewpoints were boiling over. It seems American society hasn’t been so divided since perhaps the Vietnam War, maybe even since the Civil War. Social media and changing cultural dynamics fostered an environment of tribal division based on lifestyles and self-identified clicks.

The Biden Administration continues to exploit the pandemic, even if it's over—there is no more emergency—with at least $5 billion in taxpayer funding used so bureaucrats in Washington can pick winning vaccines and other medicinal countermeasures. It’s as if we are in a continuous emergency, or put another way, a new politicized reality.

This isn’t to deny that Trump also politicized the pandemic. He did so as well, first trying to deny its risk, acknowledged in the Woodward interviews. Operation Warp Speed became a somewhat corrupted free-for-all with billions of taxpayer dollars changing hands.

Ominous Roots

Of course, we here at TrialSite cannot be 100% certain, but this author puts forth with 90%+ confidence based on the evidence we have secured that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the laboratory. We have government documentation that alleges it’s a homegrown (American) technology, and we speculate that it likely leaked inadvertently at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

We cannot be certain, and there is some evidence that the pathogen emerged before the Wuhan outbreak on both sides of the Pacific Ocean.

This is why it has been so difficult to discover the origin of this particular coronavirus, while the others (SARS-CoV/MERS) were discovered. All sorts of questionable actions have occurred. Even during the second investigation by WHO into the SARS-CoV-2 origins, the president of EcoHealth Alliance (Peter Daszak) was chosen to represent American interests. What? That’s the last person who should have traveled to Wuhan in early 2021.

This smelled as part of a broader coverup. EcoHealth Alliance has been all but proven to be part of a scheme to outsource gain-of-function to China on behalf of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the NIH. See TrialSite’s early timeline and concerns about origin in “Origins of the Pandemic are Elusive & Timeline Reveals Glimpse into Path to Better Tomorrow.”

Remember all of the back and forth between Rand Paul and Fauci? What ever happened? Why has Sen. Ron Johnson sent dozens of letters inquiring into this or that in these bureaucracies with no response? Like so many other inquiries, they are made more for show for the specific tribal following than anything else.

We suspect a cover-up that includes both the Chinese government but also elements in the American government, as well as others, with intelligence agencies used to run cover and interference.

Why did the Missouri legal case uncover a rat’s nest of government intelligence operatives on Twitter?

Likely, a government operation was ordered to run the cover, help shape the narrative, and incite division and conflict. Some evidence emerged that some elements in the Central Intelligence Agency sought to buy out analysts who would express their real concerns about origins.

And, of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci served a key purpose, but he is just one of many who are part of the coverup, should we be correct. And few individuals likely have a comprehension of the whole story.

Again, based on our educated estimates, there’s a 10% chance we are off the mark, and all of this is something different. This has to be understood. I must convey that this is an opinion piece and not the formal stance of TrialSite Inc., a Delaware and Utah corporation that officially takes a far more conservative stance.

Time to Wake Up—Positive Transformation

Regardless, we here at TrialSite suggest Americans need to become more informed, educated, aware, vigilant, and less tribal, as well as less subjective about the unfolding world of research and medicine.

We suspect pressures and momentum for permanent politicization now, hence the importance of well-designed research--of paramount importance for the generation of evidence, as are critical media outlets to interpret results, vet subtle and not-so-subtle bias (such as commercial bias), and the like.

That’s what TrialSite is about, translating and summarizing for a broader audience the results of biomedical and health-related research from preclinical through to post-approval marketing. Given investors’ influence in life sciences, we are embracing more based on subscriber requests for deep dives into investor-related news about research.

TrialSite remains committed to biopharmaceutical research and the amazing revolution now unfolding in medicine, such as the dramatic personalized-driven transformation of cancer care.

But industry and government have been too entangled, as was the case with Operation Warp Speed and now NextGen. Advanced capitalist societies show a tendency for more intermingling between government and industry in ingenious ways. This is especially the case when exposed to the competitive realities of government/industry models, such as with the People’s Republic of China.

But the very innovative breakthroughs that create exponential exchange value necessitate the individualism, market dynamics and, competition, and liberties that were created and need to be preserved in the West (here is more of a concept and not necessarily an actual place).

Yet only a more critically thinking, aware, rational, and educated public, organized based on common issues of concern, can demand and direct more insightful and healthier political leadership that will hopefully disentangle some of the more ominous advancements driving the American political economy.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/no-more-covid-19-shots-for-youth-a-bigger-politicization-agenda-behind-covid-19-c8320dce

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

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

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

British Covid Inquiry is exposing lockdown’s dodgy models

Did we lock down on a false premise? Yesterday was Ben Warner’s turn at the Covid Inquiry. He was an adviser, and one of the ‘tech bros’ brought in by Dominic Cummings to advise No. 10 on data. He was present at many of the early Sage – and other – meetings where the government’s established mitigation (herd immunity) plan was switched to the suppression (lockdown) strategy.

In Dominic Cummings’ evidence to the inquiry last week, he said that models didn’t play a big part in moving the government towards lockdown. Part of the written inquiry evidence supplied by his data man, Ben Warner’s, supports that too. The Inquiry KC was keen to highlight this early on and flashed it up on screen: ‘It is not necessary to perform large scale simulations of an epidemic to understand the main effects of a mitigation versus a suppression strategy. Simple calculations allow for reasonable approximations of the outcome.’ Those ‘reasonable approximations of the outcome’ were that the NHS was going to be overwhelmed. Unless the harshest measures were imposed. Unless we locked down.

But these simple calculations and extrapolations are models too. They should be examined as such. It also cannot be denied that the models were then used as a comms tool for compliance. They were a not so subtle ‘nudge’ for Brits to do the right thing. They nudged advisers too.

Look further into the written statements – not just the bits highlighted by the KC – and Warner repeatedly mentions models, including those produced by Neil Ferguson. Indeed, of the importance of models for the eventual decision to lockdown his statement reads: ‘I am not aware of any meeting where the Prime Minister was asked to choose between a mitigation and a suppression strategy. But if that meeting had happened before the 15 March, I am confident that the right information and evidence was not put before him to inform the consequences of this decision, simply because Neil’s work did not exist before then.’ For these reasons, the models are certainly worth examining.

Models drive two fundamental points the inquiry is taking as established truth: lockdown works and lockdown was the only thing that could stop the NHS becoming overwhelmed. Almost every question the inquiry asks of any witness centres on these assumptions. In large part because many of those advising the government at the time also hold this view. But does the evidence support them?

Firstly, that lockdown works, is something the inquiry should seek to answer definitively. Indeed Lord Stevens, former NHS Chief Exec, said as much in his evidence last week. The second point – that lockdown was the only option – seems a flawed assumption too. There’s a growing body of evidence that Covid cases peaked before lockdowns were implemented – and not just in the UK. Google mobility data shows people taking their own precautions pre-lockdown too. But even more compelling is Sweden. Look at their first wave deaths compared with ours for the first wave. Different peaks but near identical trajectories.

To understand how these beliefs arose, and why they may be wrong, we need to look at the flaws within modelling as a discipline, and the specific type of models that were used during the pandemic. The code running them is described as ‘spaghetti’ code – meaning it’s built up and added to by different people over years and years and becomes an unruly mess that’s very difficult to decipher and therefore scrutinise. They’re a black box. The people using the results – ministers and advisors – just say what comes out. They don’t understand what goes on inside them. And the models (or at least not the prominent ones) did not react to live data.

But the flaw that undermined them more than any other is their total blindness to human behaviour change. They are built with a fundamental assumption. Only restrictions will bring down infections, and will bring down the R number. It’s hardcoded. It was ministers’ lack of understanding of this issue – perhaps more than anything else – that tipped the scales towards lockdown. It wasn’t until Omicron came along 18 months after the first lockdown that this became publicly apparent – giving us the perfect case study (as The Spectator pointed out at the time).

‘Deaths could hit 6,000 a day’, reported the newspapers on 17 December 2021. A day later documents for the 99th meeting of Sage were released which said that, without restrictions over and above ‘Plan B’, deaths would range from 600 to 6,000 a day. A summary of Sage advice, prepared for the Cabinet, gave three models of what could happen next:

Do nothing (ie, stick with ‘Plan B’) and face ‘a minimum peak’ of 3,000 hospitalisations a day and 600 to 6,000 deaths a day
Implement ‘Stage 2’ restrictions (household bubbles, etc) and cut daily deaths to a lower range: 500 to 3,000.
Implement ‘Stage 1’ restrictions (stay-at-home mandates) and cut deaths even further: to a range of 200 to 2,000 a day
After a long and fractious cabinet debate, the decision was to do nothing and wait for more data. ‘Government ignores scientists’ advice,’ fumed the BMJ. But the decision not to act meant that the quality of Sage advice could, for the first time, be tested, its ‘scenarios’ compared to actual.

The results were stark. On hospitalisations, beds occupied and deaths the models had vastly exaggerated what went on to happen. Human behaviour had been completely ignored even though by then the modellers had seen it first hand, not least in the ‘pingdemic’ of the summer that had just gone. Graham Medley – chair of SPI-M the modelling group – later described it to a parliamentary committee as: ‘By far the most effective three days in reduction of transmission that we’ve seen throughout the whole epidemic. Much more effective than any of the lockdowns’.

Whilst it took Omicron for the government and the public to realise this flaw, the modellers had known about it for years. Professor Neil Ferguson, when questioned on the issue at the inquiry, made that clear himself. Asked about Sage’s default assumption that only drivers of behaviour change were government restrictions, Ferguson mentioned an essay he had written in Nature in 2007. That essay – penned 13 years before Covid struck – contains many of the criticisms of the models discussed yesterday. ‘Today’s models largely ignore how epidemics change individual behaviour’, reads the subhead. The key quote from the piece is instructive: ‘Yet fundamental limitations remain in how well they [models] capture a key social parameter: human behaviour.’ He went on: ‘Most glaringly, the effects of behavioural responses to epidemics are given short shrift.’ The whole essay is worth reading. It sums up the glaring omission of self-motivated behaviour change. But it also begs a worrying question: why did government place so much weight behind them, despite this flaw being known 13 years before?

Even more baffling was why this affected the UK response specifically. Sweden managed to ignore models almost entirely, having been burnt by them in the past. The Danes even managed to reflect behaviour change in their models resulting in much more accurate outputs. Denmark’s Expert Group for Mathematical Modelling produced scenarios for Omicron hospitalisations that mapped well to reality.

Dr Camilla Holten-Møller – who chaired the Danish modelling group – gave evidence to the select committee hearing Medley had. She explained that they were very conscious to factor in behaviour change into their models: when cases reached a certain level in a local area, people would mix less. So the model was designed to reflect that.

Beyond behaviour change there are three often quoted defences of modelling:

The models were scenarios not forecasts.

The media unfairly criticises the ‘worst case scenario’ models.

Sage could only model what the government asked it to. Hence no consideration of side effects or damage to education, the economy and health.

The first of these arguments has been dismissed by some of the modellers themselves. At a Royal Society conference chaired by Sir Patrick Valance in June last year, Professor Steven Riley of the UKHSA made the point: ‘We can’t redefine commonly used words. If we have a chart that’s got a time axis and the time axis goes past the current day and there’s a line going off to that side of the chart then we are making forecasts. Whether we like it or not.’

The second – that we in the press paid too much attention to what were worst case scenarios – was picked apart by Professor Ferguson. He told the inquiry: ‘I was always uncomfortable with labelling what I felt was our central estimate as being the reasonable worst case. Because calling it the reasonable worst case, even if in theory policymakers are meant to be planning to it, makes it sound like it’s an unlikely eventuality, whilst in my view it was the most likely eventuality if nothing more was done.’ So: worst case scenarios were not seen by all as unlikely.

The third: that government asked the wrong questions – is harder to answer. Perhaps Baroness Hallet will get to the bottom of that in the years to come. But what’s clear now is the state has learnt nothing about the peril of using the modelling discipline. Look at the modelling paper used to justify Rishi Sunak’s smoking ban. That model spits out four scenarios. Each of them show a reduction in smoking, with three out of the four seeing smoking completely eradicated by 2050. A brilliantly successful policy then? But then look at the modelling assumptions: ‘In all scenarios, the model assumes smoking instigation rates reduce year-on-year to reflect ongoing increases in the age of sale.’ They spell it out in black and white. The key assumption for the model – the input to the black box – is that the policy works. There is no data you could put into that model that would even allow you to consider the possibility of no reduction in smoking and a massively illiberal policy failure.

The smoking models are trivial compared to those produced during the pandemic years – but they highlight the need for security. As more and more evidence from the inquiry comes out it’s clear how influential models are too, even if just to confirm what seemed obvious from more basic data. It’s hard to blame advisors, ministers and scientists for decisions made early on. Locking down while we figure things out was a perfectly reasonable approach. To look at and build the evidence. But was that time used to scrutinise the models? Consider less harmful approaches? The inquiry should try to find out.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/the-covid-inquiry-is-exposing-lockdowns-dodgy-models

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

Australian Medical Society Reports on Excess Deaths: Claims They Are Linked to COVID-19 Vax

An Australian medical professional society formed to protect and promote the interest of members in matters concerning their respective employment or professional engagement has been actively looking into problems with the COVID-19 government narrative, namely, the delta between the goals of the mass vaccination response to COVID-19 and the real-world data suggesting ongoing excess mortality.

The Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) recently announced “Too Many Dead 2023: An Inquiry into Australia’s Excess Mortality,” a freely downloadable book investigating the troubling excess death rates Down Under, starting in 2021. They also held a conference late last month.

Political and medical authorities in Australia continue to evade the topic—perhaps even labeling activists investigating the disturbing trends as “anti-vaxxers.” In fact, the Australian Senate even held a vote to not have an inquiry into the excess deaths, which seems counter intuitive given their role as representatives of the people of Australia.

Regardless, AMPS and other concerned medical professionals initiated its own independent, dedicated investigation into the matter, the results of which accumulated in the data that was used to author the book.

AMPS reports that despite the severe limitations in some cases of current governmental regulatory pharmacovigilance systems, large numbers of adverse events, disability and deaths become continuously commonplace.

The claim: This group has come outright and declared that the vaccination programs meant to protect the people of Australia from SARS-COV-2, the virus behind COVID-19 are in fact, the cause of the excess deaths. An “iatrogenic” driven excess mortality, meaning these deaths according to these medical professionals are directly the result of the mass COVID-19 vaccination program.

How many excess deaths? AMPS alleges that after the extensive examination of the public health data, the excess mortality surges 12-17% above baseline averages, rates never seen since wartime. The apex of excess mortality surged in early 2021 and has persisted at what they group terms “unusual levels to this day.”

Of course, the mass vaccination program’s commencement did coincide with the start of 2021. TrialSite reported that by the end of the year, much of the Australian population was vaccinated yet in the first three-and-a-half months of 2022, twice as many people died in Australia from COVID-19 than in all of 2020 and 2021. In part, this can be explained by severe lockdowns in Australia. Inspired to some extent by Chinese “zero tolerance” COVID measures, Australia kept the virus at bay in much of 2020, and throughout parts of 2021.

Then, the majority of people got vaccinated, and restrictions and behaviors eased up, yet Delta and of course, the Omicron variants continued to circulate. Could it be that with waning vaccine durability and a lack of natural (preexisting infection) immunity in the population deaths then surged?

Regardless, the excess deaths are not only in Australia but observed worldwide. Back in Australia, AMPS has taken an active role to research and educate those interested in learning about this ongoing problem. In addition to the recently held conference they have held inquiries, communicated concerns with both politicians and regulators and various government agencies.

The recent conference last month featured some serious academic such as Professor Normal Fenton, a skeptical Professor Emeritus of Risk at Queen Mary University of London (retired as of Dec. 2022) and Director of Agena, a company that specializes in artificial intelligence and Bayesian probabilistic reasoning.

With several books and over 350 peer-reviewed articles, TrialSite has from time to time during the pandemic updated readers on some of his concerning analysis in the United Kingdom. Specifically for the UK, Fenton and colleagues have spent significant time and effort to show statistically how the COVID-19 vaccines appear to be associated with excess mortality.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/australian-medical-society-reports-on-excess-deaths-claims-they-are-linked-to-covid-19-vax-e0736840

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

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

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

Growth in COVID-19 Adverse Events in VAERS

A recent Op-ed on Cancer events (post-COVID-19 vaccination) reported in VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) examined in part the temporal increase of specific Cancer events from 2022 to 2023 post-COVID-19 vaccination. There were some Cancer events that experienced very rapid growth compared to the overall average. These results led to the conclusion that there would be value in identifying temporal increase of symptoms/diseases other than Cancer post-COVID-19 vaccination. The present Op-ed identifies temporal growth patterns of selected adverse events (from VAERS) that occurred post-COVID-19 vaccination. It does not identify post-COVID-19 vaccination long-term adverse events since these would take at least five years to emerge, and perhaps decades more.

METHODOLOGY

On 26 October 2023, CDC Wonder (a search engine for VAERS) was accessed, and searches were performed to identify symptoms (which in some cases are usually referred to as diseases) reported in VAERS for the periods ending in 2021, 2022,and third quarter 2023 (restricted to USA and Territories, COVID-19 vaccines). Selected symptoms were compared for the 2021, 2022, and 2023 periods, and patterns of temporal increase were discussed.

The symptoms were selected for specific broad disease categories based on key symptom findings from previous Trial Site News (TSN) Op-eds written by the author. These disease categories included Cancer (Link#1: Link#2), Cardiovascular, Neurological, Autoimmune, Endocrine, Reproductive-Pregnancy, Blood-Lymph, and Gastrointestinal. Symptoms from the Infections category were included as well.

RESULTS

Table 1A-1 shows the temporal increases in the selected symptoms/diseases. The column heading Code is:

Column 1 – CAT: the system/organ class for which the symptom is most appropriate. The category code shown for selected symptoms is 1) AUT=Autoimmune Disease; 2) BLD=Blood Disease;
3) CAN=Cancer; 4) END=Endocrine Disorder; 5) GAS=Gastrointestinal Disease; 6) HRT=Cardiac Disease; 7) INF=Infectious Disease; 8) NEU=Neurological Disease; 9) REP=Reproductive Problems.

Column 2 – SYMPTOM: the symptom as shown in VAERS;

Column 3 - #EV 2021: the number of cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2021 (the number of times a symptom is reported is listed as the number of events);

Column 4 - #EV 2022: the number of cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2022;

Column 5 - #EV 9-2023: the number of cumulative events in VAERS at the end of Sept 2023;

Column 6 - #EV 12-2023: the number of cumulative events in VAERS at the end of Dec 2023. This number was obtained by linearly extrapolating the number of events that occurred ONLY in the first nine months of 2023 to twelve months and then adding the twelve-month 2023-only number to the cumulative number of events recorded at the end of 2022;

Column 7 - RAT 2022/2021: the ratio of 1) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2022 to 2) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2021;

Column 8 - RAT 9-23/2022: the ratio of 1) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of Sept 2023 to 2) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2022;

Column 9 – RAT 12-23/2022: the ratio of 1) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of Dec 2023 to 2) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2022;

Column 10 – RAT 9-23/2021: the ratio of 1) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of Sept 2023 to 2) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2021;

Column 11 – RAT 12-23/2021: the ratio of 1) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of Dec 2023 to 2) cumulative events in VAERS at the end of 2021.

The entry INF in the ratio columns represents Infinity and signifies division by zero.

DISCUSSION

Integrity of the VAERS Database

The data used for analyses in the present study come directly from VAERS reports available to the public. Deficiencies in the VAERS data will translate directly to limitations and deficiencies in the results and conclusions. Thus, it is important to understand the integrity of the VAERS database.

The VAERS database is managed jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Federal Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS documents a small fraction of the adverse events that occur after any vaccine is administered. As of 29 September 2023, 989,033 adverse events were listed in VAERS (data obtained using CDC Wonder) for COVID-19 vaccines, whereas 810,033 adverse events (Symptoms, in VAERS terminology) were listed in VAERS for all other vaccines since ~1990. Thus, VAERS appears to have documented more adverse events post-COVID-19 vaccines (starting early 2021) than from all other vaccines combined (starting ~1990)!

VAERS uses the MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) vocabulary to represent each of the ~18,000 symptoms listed in VAERS. MedDRA consists of five hierarchical levels of symptoms/diseases: System Organ Class (SOC), High-Level Group Terms (HLGT), High-Level Terms (HLT), Preferred Terms (PT); Lower-Level Terms (LLT). Only a subset of the bottom level is used for the VAERS terminology.

There are questions concerning the integrity of VAERS itself. There is no chain-of-custody record for VAERS data available to the public. The substack “Welcome the Eagle” has been tracking the contents of VAERS since at least early 2021 and has been reporting myriad manipulations of data by the VAERS database managers. A useful summary of the “Welcome the Eagle”-based VAERS manipulations is presented in the linked viewgraph summary.

One of the many issues shown in this comprehensive viewgraph summary is the extensive delay period from receipt of the data by CDC to when it is reported in VAERS. In some cases, it was shown to be well over a year. This is of particular concern for the present study, where the time occurrence of events is central to the analysis. For some long-latency diseases, such as cancers, the latency period compounded by the long report processing time could extend the actual VAERS reporting date well beyond the study horizon and the full extent of the COVID-19 vaccines’ (administered from late December 2020 to end of September 2023, the study period covered by the present Op-ed) impact would not be shown.

What would motivate such manipulations? The VAERS database is co-managed by the CDC and FDA. These organizations have allowed Emergency Use Authorization of the COVID-19 “vaccines” despite lack of adequate testing/clinical trials (or, in some cases, absence of human clinical trials) and have declared these injections to be safe and effective despite copious evidence to the contrary. Because these co-managers of VAERS will have to take their share of responsibility for the massive numbers of adverse effects from the COVID-19 injections that have been reported, it is probably safe to assume that any manipulations of VAERS under their co-management would be in the direction of suppressing the scope and number of adverse events. Thus, for the above and many other reasons, the numbers reported in VAERS, even when corrected with Under-Reporting Factors (URF), should be viewed as a very low floor on the scope and number of real-world adverse events.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/growth-in-covid-19-adverse-events-in-vaers-f0cdc5cd

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

Biden’s COVID-19 Vax Mandates Spawn Lingering Bad Results

Last July, the highly productive House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, chaired by Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, conducted a hearing into the science and impact of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates.

Biden, his congressional allies, and many medical societies insisted that these unprecedented government mandates were benign and beneficial. As Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., opined during the hearing, “I believe the vaccine is safe and effective. I believe it is the role of public health to vaccinate as many people as possible to prevent the spread of the virus.”

Well, it turns out that the robotic repetition of the “safe and effective” mantra deserves some sober qualifications. Over the past two years, there has been mounting evidence of adverse health consequences from the COVID-19 vaccines.

The simple fact is this: the COVID-19 vaccines, aiming to prevent grave illness and death, nonetheless can carry serious risks. As The New York Times recently reported, even among the elderly population, the prime candidates for vaccination, there are risks.

Based on preliminary research from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there’s a heightened risk of stroke when older patients received the vaccine at “the same time” as the flu vaccine.

According to the New York Times account: “Those who received both COVID and flu vaccines saw a 20 percent increase in the risk of ischemic stroke with the Pfizer BioNTech bivalent shot, and an increase of 35 percent in the risk of transient ischemic stroke after the Moderna bivalent shot. (The bivalent shots were replaced in September with new formulations.)”

Since the Select Subcommittee hearing in July, new scientific reports reinforce the case for caution.

For example, researchers writing in the journal Biomedicines in August conducted a comprehensive literature review and confirmed that the spike protein found in both SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 vaccines is clearly pathogenic with a wide range of adverse effects, including cardiovascular and neurological consequences.

Likewise, researchers writing in the British Journal of Pharmacology in October found that the leading COVID-19 vaccines can increase cardiovascular risks. Confirming previous findings, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is still reporting a risk (although small) of myocarditis/heart inflammation among young adult males.

That finding is directly relevant to any vaccine-mandate policy, whether publicly or privately enforced, and that’s why many states have banned COVID-19 vaccine mandates for schoolchildren who are largely invulnerable to serious illness and death from the novel coronavirus.

House investigators also noted the deleterious effect of vaccine mandates on the doctor-patient relationship. Wenstrup observed that the determination about whether to undergo a medical treatment or procedures is usually made between a doctor and a patient, but instead, he noted, “the Biden administration inserted itself and defiled this sacred relationship that we as Americans have always treasured.”

It’s standard ethical practice for a doctor to provide a patient undergoing a medical intervention with information on the risks and benefits of a given procedure, and the patient responds by signing and dating a form certifying his or her informed consent.

Whenever a patient is confronted with a personal risk, his or her personal consent (not public coercion) is the only ethical imperative.

The problem of vaccine coercion, however, has not been confined to the public sector. Allison Williams, a reporter with ESPN, was a Select Subcommittee witness. On the advice of her personal physician, because she was taking fertility treatments, she refused the COVID-19 vaccine. That refusal, she testified, cost Williams her job.

Physicians, too, have been subject to coercion. While questioning Williams, Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, a doctor, related his conversations with fellow physicians who were likewise threatened with dismissal: “Hospital CEOs, mostly non-physicians, came after doctors and nurses that didn’t parrot the government’s vaccine talking points, and state medical boards threatened to take licenses away.”

Today, only 3.6% of Americans thus far have gotten the new COVID-19 shot. There has also been a decline in other vaccinations.

While Biden’s congressional allies, among others, attribute this decline to “misinformation,” Dr. Kevin Bardosh of the University of Washington in his subcommittee testimony blamed coercive COVID-19 vaccine policies:

Our analysis strongly suggests that mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policies have had damaging effects on public trust, vaccine confidence, political polarization, human rights, inequities and social well-being.

We question the effectiveness and consequences of coercive vaccination policy in pandemic response and urge the public health community and policymakers to return to nondiscriminatory, trust-based public health approaches.

Exactly.

Mandates are blunt instruments. Because they inflict a lot of collateral damage, blunt instruments make bad policy.

Biden’s attempted imposition of these mandates two years ago largely failed, but the damage they inflicted survived their demise. They compromised the doctor-patient relationship, further undermined public trust, and based on emerging scientific evidence, overrode legitimate safety concerns. That’s a hard lesson.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/01/bidens-covid-19-vax-mandates-spawn-lingering-bad-results

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

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

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

Nearly 1 In 3 Covid Vax Recipients Suffered Neurological Side Effects

Almost a third of individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine suffered from neurological complications including tremors, insomnia, and muscle spasms, according to a recent study published in the journal Vaccines.

The study analyzed 19,096 people who received COVID-19 vaccines in Italy in July 2021, out of which 15,368 had taken the Pfizer vaccine, 2,077 had taken the Moderna version, and 1,651 took the AstraZeneca version.

While both Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines, AstraZeneca, being an adenovirus vaccine, uses a different mechanism to trigger the immune response.

The study found that about 31.2 percent of vaccinated individuals developed post-vaccination neurological complications, particularly among those injected with the AstraZeneca jab. Different vaccines had a different “neurological risk profile.”

The neurological risk profile of the AstraZeneca vaccine included headaches, tremors, muscle spasms, insomnia, and tinnitus, while the risk profile of the Moderna vaccine included sleepiness, vertigo, diplopia (double vision), paresthesia (a feeling of numbness or itching on the skin), taste and smell alterations, and dysphonia (hoarseness or loss of normal voice).

None of the subjects were hospitalized or died.

As to Pfizer vaccines, researchers found “an increased risk” of cognitive fog or difficulty in concentration.
AstraZeneca Risks

More than 53 percent of individuals who took an AstraZeneca shot suffered from headaches, which usually lasted for one day. Over 13 percent developed tremors, which typically reverted after a day as well.

Insomnia was reported among 5.8 percent of AstraZeneca recipients. However, the study notes that researchers were unsure whether the individuals actually developed insomnia or had a “misperception of their sleep quality due to vaccination stress.”

Tinnitus was reported by 2.7 percent of the people who took AstraZeneca shots. Tinnitus is a condition in which an individual hears ringing or other noises which are not caused by an external sound.

All these health complications had a higher risk of occurring after taking the first dose of the vaccine.

The study speculated that complications related to the AstraZeneca vaccine are attributable to two factors. “Firstly, the nature of the vaccine, which is a modified adenovirus vector that results in significant and persistent systemic immune activation; secondly, individual vulnerability related to a predisposing biology.”

Moderna And Pfizer Risks

Sleepiness was found in 39.7 percent of those who took Moderna jabs, with the condition usually lasting for a week. It suggested that there “could be a strict relationship between the development of sleepiness and immune responses to vaccine/infection.”

The study cited a “fascinating hypothesis” which suggests that influenza vaccines may lead to “the selective immune-mediated destruction of orexin-producing neurons, which is T-cell-mediated neuronal damage, thus triggering narcolepsy.”

Narcolepsy is a condition in which the brain is unable to control the ability to sleep or stay awake.

“Considering that the same can occur for COVID-19 vaccines, future investigations monitoring the new-onset hypersomnia findings in vulnerable individuals are urgently needed.”

Hypersomnia is the inability to stay awake and alert during the daytime, even though the person may have had plenty of sleep during the night.

About 15.9 percent of people who received Moderna shots had vertigo, a sensation which makes the individual feel that they or their surrounding environment is moving or spinning. It typically lasted for a day.

Paresthesia—a feeling of numbness or itching on the skin for no apparent reason—was reported in 14.5 percent of Moderna vaccine recipients, which went away after a day.
Among the people who received a Moderna jab, 2.7 percent reported diplopia, also known as double vision, which also lasted for about a day. “Symptomatic people showed an increased risk to develop diplopia after the second dose, as if a reactivation of the immune response was necessary to trigger diplopia.”

Meanwhile, about 6.4 percent of Pfizer vaccine recipients reported suffering from cognitive fog, with the condition usually reversing in a week.

“Brain fog is a type of cognitive impairment that presents as a ‘foggy brain state’, including a lack of intellectual clarity, difficulty with concentration, mental fatigue and anxiety,” the study said.

“Hypotheses including systemic inflammation crossing the blood–brain barrier, neuroinflammation after viral infection leads and microglial activation are emerging as explanations of this phenomenon in COVID-19 patients. An alternative speculation is that symptomatic people may have a subclinical cognitive dysfunction before vaccination, and that vaccination is a trigger.”

Females Highly Affected

The study found that females faced an “increased risk of developing neurological complications” following COVID-19 vaccination. “Our findings are in line with those of a recent study that revealed that several factors, including the female sex, were associated with greater odds of adverse effects,” it said.

The researchers suggested that greater female susceptibility to the vaccines’ neurological complications may be due to “genetic and hormonal factors.”

Females have two X chromosomes while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. As the X chromosome “contains the most prominent immune-related genes in the human genome,” it can also cause “stronger inflammatory immune responses,” the study said.

Moreover, a primary female sex steroid called estradiol triggers a specific immunity process to produce “antibodies against infections.”

The study also raised concerns about comorbidities. In medical parlance, comorbidity describes the existence of more than one disease or condition in a body at the same time, which may or may not interact with one another.

“The evidence that immune system dysfunctions (allergies/immunodeficiency disorders) are frequently reported in our symptomatic group is more than a chance occurrence,” researchers said.

Comorbidities were present in 47.6 percent of the AstraZeneca vaccine recipients, 38.8 percent of those who took Moderna jabs, and 41.5 percent of individuals who received Pfizer shots, the study said.

In the AstraZeneca group, both allergies and non-neurological diseases were reported. “A history of antitumoral and anticoagulant drugs was more frequent in this population,” the study said.

Among Moderna and Pfizer recipients, allergies were “more frequently” observed. While some people who took Moderna had a prior history of neurological diseases and transfusions as well as previous COVID-19 infection, those who received Pfizer vaccines had a history of immunodeficiency disorders.

Even though the study detailed neurological complications arising from COVID-19 vaccination, it admitted to certain limitations.

“Firstly, our results should be interpreted with caution because of a possible overestimation of neurological events resulting from the self-reported symptoms,” it said.

“Secondly, we evaluated the risks associated with the first and second doses of the vaccine; however, the data concerning the second dose were limited, thus representing a potential bias in the study.”

While admitting its limitations, the study concluded that “clinicians should be aware that several neurological complications may commonly occur after COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Caution should be used when administering COVID-19 vaccines to vulnerable people, such as to those who suffer from allergies,” the study stated. “We strongly believe that our findings are relevant for public health regarding the safety of vaccines in a large cohort.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca for comment.

Additional Neurological Findings

Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough wrote about the study discussing neurological effects following COVID shots in an article on Substack.

“A shocking 31.2 percent of respondents to this large dataset sustained neurologic injury after two injections with verified data in health registries,” he wrote. “Most of the risk estimates indicate the safety profile is unacceptable. It is alarming that all neurological societies to date still recommend COVID-19 vaccines and none have issued safety warnings on the products.”

Dr. McCullough explained that an excess risk of 20 percent or greater is considered “clinically important.”

Multiple other studies have found evidence of COVID-19 vaccines being linked to neurological complications. Back in October 2021, a study published in the Neurological Sciences journal stated that the “most devastating neurological post-vaccination complication is cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST).”

CVST occurs when a blood clot develops in the venous sinuses of the brain. This blocks the blood from draining out of the brain, eventually resulting in the blood leaking into brain tissues and forming a hemorrhage, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

The study found that CVST was “frequently reported in females of childbearing age,” generally among those who took an adenovector vaccine. Individuals who received mRNA vaccination were reported to have Bell’s Palsy, in which facial muscles weaken or enter into paralysis.

A November 2022 study in Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports made similar findings, stating that there is “a greater than expected occurrence of severe neurological adverse events.”

Dr. McCullough cited this study in an article the following month. “Because the vaccines contain lipid nanoparticles loaded with genetic material that code for the damaging Spike protein, each patient faces a Russian Roulette of whether or not the nervous system will be hemodynamically showered with the damaging vaccine particles,” he wrote.

Despite studies suggesting the risk of medical complications, some experts continue to advise people to get COVID-19 jabs. According to John Hopkins Medicine, both Pfizer and Moderna are “highly effective in preventing serious disease, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19.”

It recommended people to get a COVID-19 shot as “we believe that their benefits outweigh their risks,” Johns Hopkins Medicine said.

According to a position statement from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued in 2021, the organization recommended COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care employees and supported vaccinations for children under the age of 12.

https://principia-scientific.com/nearly-1-in-3-covid-vax-recipients-suffered-neurological-side-effects/

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

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

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

Psychosis, Panic Attacks, Hallucinations: Bizarre Psychiatric Cases Among the COVID Vaccinated

Dr. Patrick William Slater is a 60-year-old neurotologist. A few years ago, he had a full-time medical practice in Austin and enjoyed hunting and fishing in the mountains during his downtime.

Then, in October 2021, Dr. Slater came down with cerebellar ataxia, a disease affecting movement. He couldn’t eat or go to the bathroom without help.

While his ataxia could be managed using drugs, it wasn’t always effective against his biggest complaint: unprecedented panic attacks.

Almost every night, Dr. Slater would experience panic attacks that left him in “abject terror.” He thought about killing himself many times, he told The Epoch Times.

No one could provide a satisfactory answer about why he had developed these symptoms. Nothing abnormal showed up on his laboratory reports, and his neurologists and psychiatrists dismissed his symptoms as anxiety.

But Dr. Slater is convinced that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are the culprit.

Dr. Slater was suspicious when the symptoms first appeared within about two weeks of getting the second dose of the COVID shot. The second—and worse—wave of career-ending symptoms had coincided with his third shot.

After taking the booster, “there was no question in my mind,” Dr. Slater said.

Psychiatrist Dr. Amanda McDonald noticed a wave of psychiatric destabilization among her stable patients. They experienced flare-ups, often manifesting with worsened or new psychiatric symptoms.

"I couldn't figure out why," Dr. McDonald told The Epoch Times. "My patients typically stay stable." But many stable patients were suddenly arriving at her office with insomnia, depression, and anxiety "without any sort of rhyme or reason."

She increased some patients’ medication doses or added new drugs to their regimen, but it had little effect.

A recurring pattern Dr. McDonald sees is atypical panic attacks, which can feel like having a heart attack. Brought on with no apparent trigger, symptoms typically escalate as the evening progresses and climax at night. A typical panic attack can occur anytime throughout the day but often has triggers, and it is easy to treat if patients can avoid these triggers.

After spending over a year following her patients, Dr. McDonald realized that COVID-19 vaccines may be linked to their psychiatric illnesses.

"I already had an existing patient population when the pandemic hit that I knew very well. What I saw was manifestations in that patient population,” Dr. McDonald added.

Dr. Diane Counce, neurologist and neuroradiologist, observed an increase in severe anxiety and worsened mood.

"People also talk about how their personality has changed," she told The Epoch Times. In cases where a family member has brought in a patient, "[The family] will say, ‘they're just different.’"

Nurse practitioner Scott Marsland, who has treated hundreds of long-COVID and vaccine-injured patients at the Leading Edge Clinic, added that debilitating anxiety, depression, and insomnia are among the most common symptoms he has seen. However, some patients have also developed hallucinations and suicidality.

The Evidence

Unlike myocarditis, no conclusive proof exists that COVID-19 vaccinations cause psychiatric illness. A multitude of studies, however, have linked COVID-19 vaccines with psychiatric symptoms, including depression, anxiety, panic attacks, psychosis, and suicidality.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a self-reporting database co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), used to surveil for early warning signs of potential adverse reactions. VAERS has documented over 9,400 and 1,600 cases of anxiety and depression, respectively, in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccines comprise, respectively, over 60 percent and up to 50 percent of all anxiety and depression reports on VAERS.

Other less common adverse reactions include 1,500 reports of panic attacks (over 80 percent of VAERS reports), over 1,100 cases of hallucinations (over 65 percent), and 975 cases of irritability (10 percent).

Some researchers argue that the rare and fatal cases reported on VAERS may be a sign the system is being abused. In contrast, others believe they suggest a potential link to the vaccine and are worth investigating.

Psychosis

Psychosis includes both hallucinations and paranoia. Acute episodes after taking the shots have been reported in case studies.

In Brazil, a previously healthy woman in her late 30s developed refractory psychosis within 24 hours of getting the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. She was aggressive, had disorganized thoughts, and believed she was being persecuted in the hospital.

Doctors treated her with antipsychotics and mood stabilizers, but four months of hospitalization later, only her behavior had improved. Her psychosis remained.

In Taiwan, a 15-year-old boy was sent to the hospital with agitation and uncontrollable limb stretching and screaming two days after his second Pfizer shot.

He exhibited bizarre behaviors in the hospital, including sitting up and lying down frequently with mannerisms like praying in the bed. He was prescribed antipsychotics, but the behavior persisted for over a month after discharge.

Doctors then put him on a steroid regimen. Steroids are anti-inflammatory and can help calm an overactive immune system. The boy's symptoms improved.

In India, a 17-year-old girl who received an inactive COVID-19 vaccine developed psychosis within 48 hours. She became restless and suspicious, talked to herself, and had insomnia for a month.

She had no neurological abnormalities, and all her lab tests came back normal, including a COVID-19 test. Two weeks after being given psychoactive drugs, her symptoms resolved.

Symptoms onset shortly after vaccination, exclusion of other likely causes, and absence of genetic predisposition "indicate the psychiatric adverse event may be related to the vaccine," researchers from All India Institute of Medical Sciences and District Hospital wrote in the case report.

Cases of psychosis lasting several days, weeks, and months have also been reported in the literature.

Suicides and Suicidality

According to React19, a nonprofit advocacy group supporting people with postvaccine symptoms, suicide is a present risk for people with vaccine injuries. However, often, it is hard to determine whether people become suicidal due to their injuries becoming too unbearable or due to a primarily physiological reaction to the vaccine.

The CDC's review of deaths reported after Pfizer vaccines found 14 deaths among vaccinated teenagers, two of whom died by suicide, with reasons unknown.

A study on 250 dental staff in Pakistan found that nearly 12 percent reported suicidal thoughts for a few days after vaccination. Around 1 percent had thoughts of suicide every day.

Individual case studies identified a Turkish man in his late 50s with no prior mental illness who arrived at the emergency department due to an attempted suicide within three days after taking a second shot. He was irritable, insomniac, and talking to himself.

A Japanese man's case was vividly detailed by doctors from Wakayama Medical University (pdf). He experienced fatigue after the first booster shot and, upon his fourth shot, developed a mild headache and a floating sensation.

Four days after vaccination, however, he became highly talkative with grandiose delusions, "saying that he had won 2 billion yen in horse racing. He also presented with emotional instability, such as crying when saying 'Everyone would be happy.'"

The neurologist he saw found no neurological disorders, such as possible encephalitis, nor signs of infection. Over a week after vaccination, he jumped from the second floor of his house and was returned to the hospital by ambulance.

Suicide cases have been rising in the United States since the pandemic. In 2020, the CDC reported up to 46,000 suicides (pdf). This number increased to over 48,000 in 2021, and in 2022, nearly 50,000 people died by suicide. While pandemic restrictions like lockdowns and long COVID have been linked with suicides, no studies currently link increasing suicide rates with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Overlap With Cognitive Impairments

Psychiatric symptoms can also overlap with cognitive impairments like reduced memory. Dementia, for example, can manifest symptoms like depression.

Dr. McDonald treated a vaccinated patient who developed dementia-like depression. The patient, despite being in her 90s, was highly independent and lived by herself. After getting the booster, she was diagnosed with dementia and placed in a nursing home.

Taking ivermectin reversed her symptoms.

Neurologists like Dr. Suzanne Gazda, however, are concerned about untreated cases. "There are so many people that don't even realize that they're injured."

Dr. Gazda has an integrative practice that treats thousands of patients with neurodegenerative diseases, and many report symptoms of cognitive decline with psychiatric symptoms.

Dr. Counce also has several vaccinated patients who developed brain atrophy. One patient had hippocampal atrophy with symptoms of memory loss and personality changes.

Dr. Counce reasoned that if the hippocampus, which serves as the brain's memory center, atrophies, the adjacent limbic system, which processes emotions, may be similarly affected.

But how exactly can vaccines lead to a person's change of mental status and personality?

According to doctors who treat both postvaccine and post-COVID conditions, the two syndromes are quite similar in their symptoms.

Both the COVID-19 virus and the vaccines expose patients to the viral spike protein, which could cause inflammation. Depression is the disease best known for correlating with inflammation, though bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety are also linked.

mRNA technology has long been studied, and pre-2020 research clearly shows that mRNA vaccines are highly inflammatory, holistic psychiatrist Dr. Aruna Tummala told The Epoch Times.
Dr. McDonald has found that anti-inflammatory drugs and therapeutics, such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, often help patients stabilize their moods.

She prescribed ivermectin for her psychiatric patients who were destabilized after taking the vaccines and saw significant improvement.

As a doctor who treated hundreds of vaccine-injured and long-COVID patients, one day, she herself developed long COVID after infection. She woke up with unexplainable negative thoughts. "I put myself in a hyperbaric machine," she recalled, and 10 minutes after, "my mood symptoms had disappeared.”

Blood clotting, a common harm caused by spike protein, reduces the oxygenation of tissues and renders them unable to function at optimum levels, forcing them to age.

Blood clotting in the brain can cause cognitive impairments and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and psychosis as neurons become stressed and damaged.

Dr. Counce had one patient who reported anxiety, erectile dysfunction, and visual impairment. Upon taking medication for his erectile dysfunction (vasodilator drugs that increase blood volume), his visual problems improved. Realizing that the patient had microclotting, Dr. Counce put him on aspirin and nattokinase and saw positive effects.

Spike protein can also directly harm the brain, possibly leading to a disturbance in brain activity and psychiatric problems.

It can also infiltrate immune cells, causing them to release histamine. Histamine can enter the brain and inflame and irritate the nerves.

Neuroinflammation has been linked to suicidality, and a type of anti-histamine medication has also been linked to reduced suicide.

Mr. Marsland has a postvaccine patient who only had physical symptoms. One day, the patient suddenly became suicidal.

After a painstaking conversation, Mr. Marsland figured out that the only change the patient made was switching from black tea to pu-erh tea.

"Pu-erh has incredibly high histamine content," Mr. Marsland explained. "So he stopped drinking it, and guess what, within two days, he was back to baseline.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/psychosis-panic-attacks-hallucinations-bizarre-psychiatric-cases-among-the-covid-vaccinated-5500128

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

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

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

What Made COVID-19 Vaccines 'Safe and Effective?

By Clare Pain

I am an Australian medical journalist with over a decade’s experience, who is also a UK citizen.

In September and October 2022 I tried to pitch this story raising concerns about the level of information given to the public when the COVID vaccines were rolled out in December 2020 and early 2021.

I submitted it sequentially to the conservative Sunday papers: The Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Sunday Express, and the Sunday Mail.

Obviously, I did not expect that these world-famous newspapers would automatically publish anything I write! However, as a seasoned journalist, I do expect an acknowledgement and polite rejection of my pitch.

For all four newspapers there was no acknowledgement of my email, despite follow up. It was as if I had never sent it.

The aim of the story at that time was to inform people that, even at the beginning of the rollout, a reading of the UK Public Assessment Reports should have raised serious concerns about these new genetic vaccines. But it seems people were not ready for this information then.

But now the mood is changing. Many people know someone who has been injured by the vaccines, and we all know they do not stop transmission. Maybe they will be open to reading this story now?

Here's What I Wrote in 2022

The COVID-19 vaccines have been part of our lives for over 21 months, yet few people realise how different they are from vaccines we have used before.

During the first two years of the pandemic, I was a medical journalist writing for GPs and specialist doctors. I had not come across an mRNA vaccine and I had not heard of a DNA viral vector vaccine.

Nevertheless, like most of us, I was very relieved when the vaccines arrived in December 2020, because my dad was 87 and vulnerable.

Now, almost two years later, I think that the government should have been more transparent about the technology they were rolling out.

Some of us had Pfizer or Moderna injections, for instance, not knowing that a vaccine using mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) technology had never been approved for use in humans before COVID.

AstraZeneca (AZ) used a different technology, based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Only two similar vaccines for humans had been approved in the world prior to the AZ vaccine. These were in 2019 and 2020 for the rare and deadly disease, Ebola.

The three COVID injections differ from conventional vaccines because they use gene technology. A small piece of genetic code—in either mRNA or DNA form—is packaged and injected into our arms.

That genetic code tells our bodies to make the spike protein that protrudes from the virus particle. This protein is then recognised as foreign, and our bodies learn how to mount an immune response to it.

That should make us better prepared if we encounter a coronavirus bristling with spike proteins later in our lives.

So, why take this roundabout route of getting our bodies to make the spike protein instead of simply injecting a small amount of the protein as you might with a conventional vaccine?

It’s all about the ease and cost of vaccine production.

First, making DNA and mRNA is relatively easy and can be done quickly. It’s much simpler to do than making a conventional vaccine—that is normally done either by making an inactivated form of the virus or by isolating a protein from it.

Both viruses and proteins are delicate things that must be kept in a precise shape to be useful, so manipulating them to make a conventional vaccine can be tricky.

Unknown Unknowns?

It’s clear that genetic vaccines may be attractive to pharmaceutical companies because they provide a cheaper and more rapid route to market. And making vaccines to tackle new threats more quickly has obvious advantages for us all.
But, of course, we must be sure genetic vaccines are as safe and effective as conventional ones.

With any new technology, there may be new risks, some of which might be “unknown unknowns.”

The biochemistry of the human body is complicated, and a wise medical researcher expects surprises.

What’s more, people differ, so a drug or vaccine that has no side effects for most people may seriously harm a few. This is the reason safety trials include large numbers of participants.

Science is all about asking questions and then doing experiments to answer them. Here are just five of many questions about the genetic vaccines now being raised by people around the world.

First, how much spike protein do people make after a shot? And do different people make different amounts?

Second, how long is the DNA or mRNA active in our bodies? One thing we do know is that both Pfizer and Moderna use a synthetic mRNA that contains N1-methylpseudouridine. This makes the synthetic version last longer than normal mRNA.

Third, it would be nice to be sure that the genetic vaccine stays in the arm muscle and doesn’t reach other parts of the body. There could, for instance, be some organs in the body where making spike proteins would not be a good idea.

Fourth, could this new type of vaccine be harmful in ways that a normal vaccine would not be?

And fifth, when they were rolled out, did we have evidence that the vaccines stopped people from transmitting the virus to others? This is important because we were encouraged to get the injections so that we wouldn’t put other (vulnerable) people at risk.

Is the Devil in the Details?

To try to answer these questions I turned to the public assessment reports (PARs)—a weighty 352 pages in all!
These reports are produced by the UK's Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) when it approves a drug or vaccine, and they give the evidence behind the approval decision (the PAR for the Moderna vaccine was produced by the European Medicines Agency).

All three PARs have been publicly available on the UK government’s website since early in the rollout. Pfizer's was first published on Dec. 15, 2020, AstraZeneca's on Jan. 5, 2021, and Moderna's on Feb. 19, 2021.

None of the PARs show how much spike protein is made in a person's body or how long the DNA/mRNA remains active, so, unfortunately, we draw a blank in answering questions one and two.

The PARs did provide some information from animal “biodistribution” studies that suggest the vaccines may not just stay in the arm muscle.

We are told, for instance, that “low levels” of DNA from the AZ vaccine “were detectable in bone marrow, liver, lung and spleen” of laboratory mice (pdf).

For Moderna (pdf), no biodistribution studies were reported with the COVID vaccine itself, but a study of a similar vaccine was reported.

This showed that in rats, “low levels of mRNA could be detected in all examined tissues except the kidney.” We are told this included the liver, heart, lungs, testes, and brain and that higher levels were seen in the spleen and eye. We don’t know about ovaries because no female rats were tested.

A mouse study for the Pfizer vaccine suggested it reached the liver (pdf). We are told that information on “potential distribution” to other sites had been submitted to the MHRA, but it was not reported.

On the fourth question, whether the vaccines could do harm, we must remember that safety monitoring of people who were injected in the trials was carried out for just two months after the second dose. No long-term safety data was available.

No animal studies were done to see whether the mRNA/DNA in the vaccines could damage our genes (genotoxicity), according to the Pfizer and AZ documents.

For Moderna, a standard genotoxicity test of a similar mRNA vaccine in rats was done that showed raised levels of micronucleated red blood cells. This can be a signal of genotoxicity,but it can also be caused by other things. It was mentioned that genotoxicity data had been submitted for the COVID vaccine itself, but that did not seem to be reported.

Meanwhile, none of the genetic vaccines were tested to see whether they might increase the risk of cancer (carcinogenicity).

Indeed, for our latest approved “Autumn booster” vaccine, the Moderna bivalent Spikevax, the information leaflet for healthcare professionals (pdf) says “Carcinogenicity studies were not performed.”

By the way, the regulators mentioned a “theoretical risk” of Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) for all three vaccines. In other words, the MHRA and EMA were alert to the possibility that vaccination might make people get COVID more severely.

There was no evidence from the trials that this was occurring, but all three PARs say that the vaccine makers were instructed to keep monitoring for VAED.

Moving on to efficacy.

It’s important to be clear about what the word “effective” meant when the vaccines were rolled out.

Strictly, a vaccine can only be described as effective if it works in a real-world situation.

The original trial data could not show that the vaccines would be “effective” at promoting immunity in people such as the very sick and frail, people with immunodeficiencies, pregnant women, and young children, because people like this were not included.

Furthermore, the trials told us only that the vaccine was effective for two months against the strains of the virus that people encountered during 2020 (the year in which the trials were done). Anything else was a hope.

So when the government said they were effective, what exactly were the vaccines effective at doing? Stopping transmission of the virus; preventing people from getting COVID; or preventing severe disease and death?

Here’s what the trials showed.

If we amalgamate the data across the three vaccines, nearly 41,000 people in total were given two doses of a vaccine, while the same number received a placebo.

In the two groups—those vaccinated and those given a placebo—the number of people who developed symptomatic confirmed COVID was measured over a defined period. This window began one or two weeks after the person had received their second dose and ended two months after that dose.

While about 600 people in the placebo groups got COVID, only 100 did so in the vaccinated groups.

Symptomatic or confirmed COVID was defined slightly differently for each vaccine but boiled down to having one or two COVID symptoms (such as a temperature above a stated level, a new cough, loss of smell, etc.) plus a positive PCR test.

The Moderna trial data also indicated protection against severe COVID, with 30 of the 185 cases in the placebo group being classed as severe versus none of the 11 cases in the vaccinated group.

Could We Pass COVID on to Granny?

Turning now to the question of transmission, none of the trials were designed to test whether the vaccines could reduce the passing of the virus from one person to another. Indeed, the Pfizer PAR makes no mention of transmission.

The AstraZeneca PAR describes how rhesus macaque monkeys were vaccinated and then exposed to the virus. The vaccinated monkeys had a reduced viral load in their lungs but were still shedding the same amount of virus from their noses.

“These data support an interpretation that [the AZ vaccine] may not prevent infection nor transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but it may reduce illness,” the PAR authors wrote.

Later in the AZ document, it is said that data looking at the broadest definition of COVID infections in the human trials “suggests” a possible effect of the vaccine on transmission. However, the reasoning behind this statement is unclear, and more data was requested by the regulator.

Meanwhile, the Moderna PAR states that the effect of the vaccine on viral transmission cannot yet be determined, and “therefore the possibility for achieving herd immunity has not been demonstrated at the present time.”

So, it seems fair to say that when the vaccine rollout began and we bared our shoulders to protect granny, evidence that we would indeed protect her was scant.

A Trojan Horse?

Looking back to December 2020, when many of us rejoiced at the arrival of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “scientific cavalry” that would rescue us from COVID-19, was it made clear to us and our doctors that we were rolling out a new genetic approach to vaccination? Or was that perhaps—keeping the equestrian theme—a Trojan horse?

To ask about this, I emailed the UK Health Security and Protection Agency. There has been no response to date, so I turned to the information currently provided on www.gov.uk .

In the government’s guidance for health professionals (pdf), I have been unable to find mention that the mRNA vaccines were a world first.

And for the rest of us, assuming the current consent forms (pdf) for adults have not been materially changed, there was no explanation of how the injections worked, nor was there an alert that a completely new approach to vaccination was being rolled out.

I wonder, now, whether our doctors and nurses knew enough to properly inform their patients about these genetic vaccines. And I wonder, too, how many people’s informed consent consisted of knowledge of just three words: “safe and effective.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/what-made-covid-19-vaccines-safe-and-effective-5520808

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

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

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

Should vaccines be adjuvenated with alum?

For a long time vaccines were adjuvenated (made more effective) by adding aluminium salts to them. Eventually, however, sufficient concerns about the practice emerged for the practice to be dropped and Covid vaccines did not contain such adjuvants.

But was something lost by that? Might the Covid vaccines have worked better with adjuvants? The study below used mice to suggest an answer to that. They found that breakthrough infections were much worse with adjuvants.

While COVID-19 vaccines have generally remained effective in stopping more severe illness associated with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, significant concerns emerge regarding vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory diseases (VAERD) post breakthrough infections. This means even though people get vaccinated, because the COVID-19 vaccines are not of the sterilizing type, they fail to protect against infection, especially over time, less intermittent boosters to bolster protection. Importantly, this recent animal study reveals spike protein subunit vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 induce VAERD in hamsters, where aluminum adjuvants promote a Th2-biased immune response, leading to increased type 2 pulmonary inflammation in animals with breakthrough infections.

Other research such as a study funded by China’s Beijing Science and Technology Plan and Emergency Key Program of Guangzhou Laboratory, found that both novel low-dose and high-dose adjuvanted inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine with CpG and Alum induced high levels of specific IgG antibodies as well as neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and the continuous stability of high-level neutralizing antibody titers over time demonstrates long-lasting immunity.

The prominent study team was represented by Weishan Huang, Ph.D. Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, as well as Cornell University’s Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine.

With a focus on virology and immunology, Huang’s lab studies the development and functions ­­of regulatory immunity and immune memory during vaccination, infections, and cancers.

With this infrastructure and expertise in place, plus support in the form of grants by the National Institutes of Health, and a “Big Idea Research Grant” from the Provost’s Fund at Louisiana State University, Huang and colleagues from Louisiana State University sought to gain a more comprehensive understanding of possible risks and the underlying mechanisms of VAERD designed a study involving the immunization of ACE2-humanized mice with SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein adjuvanted with aluminum and CpG-ODN.

After the immunization, the scientists challenged (intentionally infected) the mice with SARS-CoV-2 to establish the breakthrough condition.

What were the findings?

In this case, the authors report that their experimental vaccine A) elicited robust neutralizing antibody responses, B) reduced viral titers and C) enhanced host survival. Yet upon breakthrough infection, the vaccinated animals presented “severe pulmonary immunopathology, characterized by a significant perivascular infiltration of eosinophils and CD4+ T cells, along with increased expression of Th2/Th17 cytokines.”

Th2/Th17 cytokines are groups of signaling molecules produced by specific subsets of T-helped cells (Th cells) that play an important role in the immune system. These cytokines are involved in regulating responses and inflammation, and they are often associated with various immune reactions.

The study team conducted intracellular flow cytometric analysis (a technique used to identify cell types plus analyze signaling and functional responses within cell lines and heterogenous cell samples), revealing a systemic Th17 inflammatory response, especially intense in the subjects’ lungs.

The study authors report in the uploaded preprint server manuscript that the generated data demonstrate that aluminum/CpG adjuvants induce strong antibody and Th1-associated immunity against COVID-19 but also prime a robust Th2/Th17 inflammatory response, which may contribute to the rapid onset of T cell-mediated pulmonary immunopathology post breakthrough infection.

Food for Thought

There are no easy vaccine fixes for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. These authors reaffirm that especially important principle. They declare in this yet-to-be peer-reviewed paper, “In conclusion, this research underscores the complexity of COVID-19 vaccination and the need for a comprehensive understanding of vaccine-induced immune responses. While vaccines remain a vital tool in combating pandemics, the potential for VAERD highlights the importance of ongoing research, surveillance, and careful vaccine development to achieve broad protection and maximal safety.”

Next Steps

Do these findings underscore the necessity for further research to unravel the complexities of VAERD in COVID-19? Does the study output point to the necessity to enhance vaccine formulations for broad protection and maximum safety? The study authors believe so.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/spike-protein-subunit-vaccine-adjuvanted-with-alum-and-cpg-elicits-t-cell-mediated-pulmonary-immunopathology-upon-breakthrough-infection-a8919e13

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

DeSantis: Overhaul National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 & Impose More Oversight over FDA Staff

In a recent podcast interview, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis went on the record that he supports changing the current vaccine liability laws promulgated by the Reagan administration back in 1986. Those laws have helped spawn a robust vaccine sector targeting more diseases in the name of public health. Or, that’s what the public is told by a wealth-generating vaccine industry. What were at first, pragmatic measures meant to incentivize vaccine manufacturers, according to DeSantis, have turned into a vaccine development free-for-all, a race to generate the next blockbuster not as concerned with safety and quality but for economic return. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) represents the world’s apex of drug and vaccine regulators. Yet about half of the agency’s budget now derives from Prescription Drug User Fees. This means that the FDA is highly dependent on the very industry it is tasked with regulating. Of the $5.9 billion budget, 45% derives from user fees, and 65% of the funding for human drug regulatory activity comes from user fees.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. of 1986, or “the Vaccine Act,” offers vaccine manufacturers a form of universal liability providing “no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings.”

While DeSantis acknowledges at the time the intention was needed to ensure the pharmaceutical companies needed incentives to invest in public health-related vaccines, the politician said on the Shannon Joy podcast, “I think what has happened now it is has shifted incentives actually away from safety.” He takes a controversial stance, markedly opposed to general sentiment from Washington that emphasizes the comprehensive rigor that goes into regulatory approvals.

The Florida Governor continued, “The incentives are now to produce anything you can get to the market and then make money off it because you aren’t going to be held accountable for the safety. So yes, I would support legislation to fix that because I think we want incentives that are going to be positive for the ultimate health outcome.”

While it’s most certainly true that the number of vaccines has exploded since the 1986 Act, it’s likely, not clear if the standards in regulatory oversight have declined generally, and if that is the case, that it’s due to this legislation.

Vaccine opponents believe regulators are “captured” by industry. But that’s a more complex, nuanced issue that DeSantis at least acknowledges.

On the problem of the intertwined nature of the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory body in the U.S., DeSantis chimed in, “Of course, a lot of the people who work for the FDA end up going to work for Big Pharma after, so we are going to end the revolving door. We are going to put a grace period in there: five to ten years, whatever would be appropriate so that you can't just keep bouncing back and forth.”

Should the revolving door end? This doesn’t sound very pragmatic, given the real-world circumstances—constraints and realities on the ground. After all, an ongoing shortage of the talent needed to run regulatory bodies, industry, academic, and the growing nonprofit research machine, not to mention the private equity firms now investing in drug development, means that placing further constraints on this limited pool of labor likely would lead to a series of other more severe problems. Much legislation, while well-intentioned, often leads to other even worse problems.

Plus, this sounds like substantial federal regulatory oversight of the type that goes well above and beyond what standard Republican and Democrat politicians would be willing to back. Would that truly be a Republican priority should DeSantis be the winner? Or more political talking points to exploit animosity, fear, and anger due to COVID-19-related pandemic government overreach?

Perhaps what’s needed first is solid research into the problem. Have the regulatory standards declined since the 1986 Act? How could evidence be generated to prove that point? Some of the answers may lie in the real-world data.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/desantis-overhaul-national-childhood-vaccine-injury-act-of-1986-impose-more-oversight-over-fda-staff-476a9264

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

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

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