Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Covid-19 cover-up exposed – at last
SHARRI MARKSON
It’s astonishing to consider that Anthony Fauci stood on the White House podium in early 2020, beside the president of the United States, and resolutely told the world that Covid-19 was a natural virus.
Curiously, he failed to mention that his agency had funded coronavirus experiments in Wuhan so dangerous that they had been banned in the US by the Obama administration. Fauci knew, too, that eminent scientists privately harboured concerns Covid-19’s genetic sequence had unusual features inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Yet he reassured the public that there was no reason to suspect a laboratory incident in Wuhan and, as he did so, Fauci cited as evidence a new scientific paper.
Far from being a conclusive, rigorous scientific study, it was, in fact, a piece of commentary that had been rejected from a prestigious medical journal.
This is not to blame Fauci for the pandemic, although his agency may have funded the research which created Covid-19.
The culpability truly lies in Wuhan where scientists were pushing the boundaries of acceptable experimentation on coronaviruses to make them more infectious and transmissible to humans.
For years the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been playing God, and had grown increasingly bold and, as it turns out, shockingly careless, conducing their almost existential experiments in low-security laboratories.
But Fauci’s role in claiming the virus was natural, when he had no incontrovertible evidence to make such a claim, goes to the very heart of the cover-up over the origins of Covid-19. Instead of advancing the world’s understanding of what was unfolding, he was deliberately covering it up and, in doing so, creating confusion that crippled the world for years.
He also led desperate and diabolic anti-scientific efforts to shut down investigation into the origins of Covid-19; so anxious was he to divert attention from a lab leak and what would surely follow – accountability of him and his agency.
The early insistence of zoonosis from a such an esteemed and trusted figure saw the lab leak theory assigned to the conspiracy pile, censored by tech giants and ridiculed by the media.
Unravelling the web of cover-ups, conflicts of interest and false narratives surrounding the origins of Covid-19 has been a large part of my life over the past 3½ years.
I’ve written an investigative book, created a documentary and a podcast and written dozens and dozens of newspaper articles, features and television reports.
I’ve interviewed hundreds of scientists, government officials, investigators, intelligence agency insiders and whistleblowers from all over the world. They each share a common determination; to discover the truth of the origins of Covid-19.
Piecing together information from these individuals has helped to form a more complete picture of what we know about how the first pandemic in 100 years began.
As we near the fourth anniversary since Covid shook the world, there’s a new chapter in this investigation – a documentary airing on Tuesday night on Sky News called What Really Happened in Wuhan, the Next Chapter.
For the first time, Fauci’s boss, the former assistant secretary for preparedness and response, Dr Robert Kadlec, fronts the cameras to divulge their confidential conversations where they decided it would be best if they downplayed the possibility of a lab leak.
Ostensibly, this was to encourage co-operation from China, but Kadlec believes Fauci had reason to protect his own reputation and that of his institute which had funded research in Wuhan.
Haunted by the downstream effects of the decision they made to divert attention away from accusations of a lab leak, Kadlec says he still lies awake at night, reflecting on what they did.
So eager were scientists to shield China from any suggestion its scientific research had started the pandemic, and to protect their own research from being subject to new regulations, there was complicity among international scientists in downplaying or rejecting the lab leak theory.
As a result, there have been no moves to regulate or ban gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses or other pathogens with pandemic potential globally.
Yet scientists from the four groups within the US intelligence community that engage in scientific analysis all concur that SARS-CoV-2 was most likely genetically engineered.
In our new documentary, Kadlec warns that another pandemic could easily eventuate because the lessons haven’t been learned from Covid-19.
For all the excessive government intervention during the pandemic, the most fundamental step of having a conversation about whether scientists should stop dangerous experiments on coronaviruses hasn’t taken place.
It’s also incomprehensible that an event that killed seven million globally would not be deemed significant enough for our world leaders to raise at a diplomatic level with China.
It’s bewildering that there has been no serious investigation into the origins of Covid-19.
It speaks to the lack of courage and political conviction of our world leaders that it’s been left to congressional subcommittees, journalists and internet sleuths to investigate the most consequential period of our lifetimes.
And so, this latest Sky News documentary on Tuesday night plays a role in moving the public debate on this topic forward, providing fresh information about the scientific research that may have started the outbreak in Wuhan, and airing more staggering claims of how public debate was silenced at the highest levels.
**************************************************
Government Deceit
John Stossel
“Experts” were confident that they knew what America should do about COVID-19. They were wrong about so much.
Officials pushed masks, including useless cloth ones. Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “Don’t wear masks”—then, “Do wear them.”
Some states closed playgrounds and banned motorboats and Jet Skis. Towns in New York banned using leaf-blowers. California pointlessly closed beaches and gave people citations for “watching the sunset.” The list goes on.
Sen. Rand Paul’s new book, “Deception,” argues that government experts didn’t just make mistakes; they were purposely deceitful. A few weeks ago, this column reported how Paul, R-Ky., was correct in accusing Fauci of funding virus research in Wuhan and lying about it.
In my new video, we cover other government deceit.
Paul says, “There’s been one set of truths in private and another set of truths for the people who aren’t smart enough to make their decisions.”
He points out that Fauci, in private, told fellow bureaucrats that masking is pointless. Fauci wrote in one email: “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”
But in public, complains Paul, Fauci would sometimes wear multiple masks.
“Things that have no scientific basis in fact. … There’s two sets of information going out, one privately and one publicly.”
“Why?” I ask.
“They think that there could be hysteria. They’re in government. They need to do something. … So let’s get everybody occupied with wearing masks. … But in the end, the Cochrane analysis looked at 78 randomized studies and found that masks didn’t work at all.”
“N95 masks may work,” I say.
“The Cochrane analysis looked at the N95 and found they didn’t work very well,” Paul replies.
Another mistake: The virus is 500 times more likely to kill people ages 65 and up than kill kids. But our government told parents: Mask your children. Some states kept kids out of schools for two years.
Also, “When they approved the third vaccine for children,” says Paul, “the first committee was the [Food and Drug Administration] committee. … They came out with the advice: 65 and older. Nobody else. The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] had another vaccine committee. … They said the same thing … [but] Rochelle Walensky, a political appointee of [President Joe] Biden, overrode both scientific committees and said the vaccine booster should be given to six months and up.”
“Why? What’s the motivation?” I ask. “Get more people frightened, and then they’ll take the vaccine and that will save America?”
Paul says, “I think most of them are not very smart and they just blindly think, ‘Take the damn vaccine, shut up and take it. It’s good for you.’”
Has he been vaccinated?
“God gave me my vaccine.” He tells me. “I was naturally inoculated. But members of my family, my wife, got vaccinated. We’re not against the advice.”
I clarify, “‘Naturally inoculated,’ meaning you got COVID?”
“I had COVID, so I have immunity,” he replies.
At the start of the pandemic, Sweden’s health officials did not shut down restaurants or other businesses. They also announced that they would not close schools for younger children.
For doing that, Sweden was repeatedly trashed by American government officials and the media. Time magazine called Sweden’s plan “a disaster.”
But the Swedish approach was right! Not only did Sweden escape the economic and social harm of lockdowns, but its COVID-19-related death rate was lower than that of most other countries.
“It turns out they did as well, or better, than most parts of Europe,” says Paul.
“Better,” I point out.
“They also didn’t mandate masks in schools [or] close the schools. Everything we did in this country was wrong.”
I push back. “On balance, vaccines were a good thing. They work for older people, people my age.” In fact, Republican anti-vax “messaging may have killed people!” Before the vaccine came out, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats died. But once the anti-vax messages spread, Republicans had a higher death rate.
Paul replies, “Vaccine hesitancy comes from people’s disbelief in government.”
He adds, “I think people learned from this … [learned] what to trust and what not to trust. People will be smarter the next time around.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/15/government-deceit/ ?
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Monday, November 27, 2023
Interesting Swedish study
Lots of vaccinated people got Covid but vaccination did tend to protect them from long Covid
A large, population-based cohort study-- part of the project SCIFI-PEARL, a nationwide linked multi-register, observational study of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden—was organized to investigate the effectiveness of primary COVID-19 vaccination, defined as the first two doses plus the first booster dose (3 doses) within the recommended schedule targeting post-COVID condition (PCC) another term for long COVID. The study included all Swedish adults aged 18 years and up with COVID-19 first registered between December 27, 2020, and February 9, 2022, totaling 589,722 persons across the Scandinavian nation’s two largest regions. Capitalizing on a health system with rich data collection and management, the study team monitored the study participant data from one of the following data points whichever came first: COVID-19 infection until death, emigration, vaccination, reinfection, a PCC diagnosis—based on ICD-10 diagnosis code U09.9, or end of follow-up period which was November 30, 2022. In the study, persons receiving at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine prior to infection were deemed vaccinated. The study authors represented by corresponding author Maria Bygdell, a research fellow and Doctor of Medicine with the University of Gothenburg, and colleagues established a primary endpoint of PCC (long COVID) clinical diagnosis, while the team employed use of Cox regressions adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities (e.g. diabetes, cardiovascular, etc.), number of healthcare contacts during 2019 and other socioeconomic factors plus virus variant prevalent at time of infection for the study. While this observational study cannot prove causation, and the study has some glaring limitations (don’t factor in reinfection) the outcomes demonstrate a robust association between COVID-19 vaccination prior to infection and lower risk of PCC (long COVID) diagnosis.
**********************************************
Excess mortality and Covid vaccination: is there a correlation?
Since the introduction of Covid vaccines, the official narrative in Australia (and other parts of the world) is that these vaccines are safe, efficacious, and working well. However, this claim is considered to be untrue, as demonstrated by both the science and the statistics.
There is compelling evidence that the official narrative promoted by politicians and health bureaucracies, and enforced by politicised police forces, is misleading and even irresponsible in the light of the demonstrable side-effects of mRNA vaccines.
The Australian government effectively treated any reasonable concern about the safety of Covid vaccines as a form of domestic terrorism. From 2017 to 2022, the Department of Home Affairs petitioned social media sites to censor information about these matters no less than 13,646 times. This included suppressed Covid posts from doctors who disagreed with, or even questioned, official public health and vaccine information.
Especially egregious was the admonishment and de-registration of Australian medical doctors who attempted to provide vaccine exemptions or prescribe alternative medicine to alleviate or prevent Covid. ‘The conclusion taken from the collective authoritarian decisions is that medical choice is no longer a prerogative of the doctor-patient relationship in Australia,’ said Robert Clancy AM, a clinical immunologist and emeritus professor of medicine.
We now know that mRNA vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission of the Covid virus. For example, a recent study by Cleveland clinic researchers concluded that people who received two or more doses of the vaccine were more likely to get infected with Covid. They found that, among 48,344 working-aged clinic employees, those not ‘up-to-date’ on vaccination had a lower risk of Covid than those ‘up-to-date’.
‘If a vaccine fails to stop disease transmission, then the idea that you need to vaccinate other people so that I’m protected is just false,’ said Dr Jayanta Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine and health research and policy at Stanford University.
To make it worse, a comprehensive comparative research analysis has found that Covid vaccines are directly associated with the disturbing rise in the mortality rate among countries of the Southern Hemisphere.
Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Maurine Baudin has a PhD in microbiology from the Université Paris Sud (Paris XI). Joseph Hickey is a data research scientist with a PhD in Physics. Jérémie Mercier is a chemist and health educator with a PhD in environmental research. Together these researchers have recently produced an empirical research paper entitled Covid vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere.
17 countries were studied by these researchers: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, and Uruguay). Together these countries comprise 9.10 per cent of worldwide population and 10.3 per cent of worldwide Covid vaccinations (vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per persons, all ages) through virtually every vaccine type and manufacturer.
According to these researchers, ‘All-cause mortality by time is the most reliable date for detecting and epidemiologically characterising events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.’ In these 17 countries, they found no evidence of any beneficial effect of Covid vaccination on all-cause mortality, nor any proportional reduction in the mortality rate. On the contrary, the opposite is true.
In that research paper, the authors also showed that every country with sufficient mortality data (Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, and Uruguay) invariably exhibited an unprecedented and relatively sharp peak or surge in all-ages deaths during or after January-February 2022, which was synchronous with or immediately preceded by a rapid rollout of a Covid vaccine booster, dose 3 or 4, depending on the country.
Regarding the evidence provided in support of causality and toxicity, the authors of this research paper include examples where no detectable excess mortality occurred until the vaccines were rolled out, thus concluding that ‘it is well-established that Covid vaccine injections have caused and are likely to cause the deaths of individuals’. These researchers, in their own words:
‘…have found no evidence in [their] extensive research on ACM [All-deaths Cause Mortality] that Covid vaccines had any beneficial effect. If vaccines prevented transmission, infection or serious illness, then there should have been decreases in mortality following vaccine rollouts, not increases which were observed in every elderly group subject to rapid booster rollouts. And, mortality would not have increased solely when vaccines were rolled out, where no excess mortality occurred prior to vaccine rollouts, as we have documented in 9 countries across 3 continents.’
These researchers previously reported several instances in which anomalous peaks in all-cause mortality appear to be associated with rapid Covid vaccine-dose rollouts, as well as instances where the start of the vaccination campaign coincided with a new period of sustained elevated mortality. These are countries in which, for approximately one year after the WHO’s 11 March 2020 declaration of a pandemic, ‘there were no net extra deaths that could be attributed to a pandemic or to pandemic-response medical or government measures’.
Since the excess mortality in these countries occurred only after vaccine rollouts, the authors conclude that these vaccines certainly did not reduce serious illness (as claimed by manufacturers) enough to reduce any risk of death. On the contrary, according to them, there is strong evidence for a causal correlation between rapid first-doses and booster rollouts and immediate peaks in all-cause mortality, including peaks of mortality in seasonal cycles when peaks never occur. These findings appear to be conclusive and indicate that such vaccines lead to the deaths of individuals, which the researchers then remind us has already been demonstrated by:
Many detailed autopsy studies (reference provided)
Adverse effect monitoring (reference provided)
Studies of vaccine-induced pathologies (reference provided)
An established causal link to vaccine-induced pathology, by histopathology and immunohistochemical staining of skin biopsy specimens (reference provided)
Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in placebo-controlled, industry phase III randomised clinical trials (reference provided)
More than 1,250 peer-reviewed publications about Covid vaccine adverse effects (reference provided)
The known vaccine injury compensation programs of states worldwide, which include death resulting from the Covid vaccines (reference provided)
All 17 countries in their comparative research analysis had transition regimes of high all-cause mortality after the vaccines were deployed and administered. Accordingly, unprecedented peaks occurred precisely in January-February of 2022, which are synchronous with rapid booster-dose rollouts of Covid vaccination. The clearest example provided is the sharp all-cause mortality peak occurring in January-February 2022 in Australia, which is concomitant with the rapid rollout of dose 3 of the vaccine in the country.
Like Australia, countries such as Chile and Peru had a sharp all-cause death peak occurring over that same period, which is concomitant with the rapid rollout of Chile’s dose 4 and Peru’s dose 3 of the vaccine. In fact, the authors found the same phenomenon everywhere that data was available, thus making these findings rather conclusive. ‘There can be little doubt that the mass Covid vaccination campaigns caused the temporally associated excess mortality in the 17 countries of the present study, and in other countries studied to date.’ Accordingly, ‘There occurs an onset or increase of a large excess ACM on rolling out the Covid vaccines, in every country and state or province, studied to date, on virtually all continents, including for initial rollouts…’
Rancourt et al are therefore satisfied that the information available extensively demonstrates that Covid vaccines can cause death and that they did not save lives. On the contrary, these vaccines appear to be lethal toxic agents ‘with a high degree of certainty’. This leads the authors to state that adverse-effect monitoring, clinical trial reports, and death-certificate statistics have greatly underestimated the fatal toxicity of Covid vaccines.
These concerns are too serious to ignore. The suspicion that some people have been misled about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines has been further strengthened by the empirical data. The potential for severe injury by these vaccines is a matter that deserves more serious reflection. None were more instrumental in causing this tragedy than the Australian government and their loyal mouthpieces in the media. According to Professor Clancy,
‘The media has a concerning role in the propagation of misinformation, preferring to support an ideologic narrative, rather than to engage in responsible journalism. Misinformation driven by pharmaceutical companies to protect their vaccines, and strongly reinforced by academic, government and health authorities, leads to many unnecessary hospital admissions and deaths’.
So, the question is: Have the Australian governments and the mainstream media colluded in order to ensure an increase in Big Pharma’s corporate profits, which however, does not prioritise the protection of public health?
Be that as it may, it is increasingly difficult to hide the fact that people have died from these vaccines. The tragic consequences of mandatory vaccination are now all too visible in our society.
Above all, we are convinced that it is important to open up this type of conversation, lift the media suppression, and eliminate the muzzling and penalties imposed on those with alternate views or with a desire to promote further discussion. Then society will have to work out the issues of blame and penalties.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/excess-mortality-and-covid-vaccination-is-there-a-correlation
********************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Sunday, November 26, 2023
Britain's Covid Inquiry has unmasked the flaws in trusting ‘the science’
There is something therapeutic and healing in watching Professor Chris Whitty give evidence to the independent public inquiry into the Covid pandemic – the sense of calm emanating from the man, his occasionally Panglossian self-satisfaction, his refusal to become anything more than barely ruffled even when his interlocuters gently venture forth the suggestion: ‘Overreaction?’ The impression one gets, or perhaps is supposed to get, is of a very clever, terribly rational man in a world full of thicko scumbags.
This lack of debate was exacerbated in the country at large by that curse of our age, political polarisation
I watch a little daytime TV at the moment as part of my rest and recuperation programme following that car crash I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. More usually it is one of the quiz shows, such as Tipping Point, where the contestants are from the very opposite end of the intellectual scale to Chris and can only enrage with their stupidity. No, Shenille – sadly, Tony Blair was not prime minister at the time of the Battle of Trafalgar. Listening to Whitty’s comforting emollience, I can almost feel my hitherto distraught muscles knitting back together, repairing themselves, filling with blood and blooming. He is like a very expensive balm.
What we learn from this inquiry – that the scientists are convinced we should have imposed lockdown earlier and harder, for example – is maybe less interesting than what one might read between the lines. Or, as those scientists would disdainfully put it, speculation. The first and most obvious thing is the withering contempt in which the scientists held the politicians, which must surely have made the management of the pandemic more problematic than it needed to be.
We can infer this from the testimony of the former chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, for example. With scarcely disguised scorn, Vallance suggested that science was not Boris Johnson’s ‘forte’ and that the then prime minister needed to have fairly simple graphs explained to him over and over again until he finally grasped the point. This contempt occasionally broke cover during that long, rather wonderful summer of 2020, not least over Rishi Sunak’s fairly ridiculous Eat Out to Help Out scheme, with newspapers reporting disquiet among the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) at one or other governmental misstep. In fairness to the scientists, they were dealing with a government which had chosen the intellectual titan Matt Hancock to be in charge of the country’s health, which he did with a kind of messianic idiocy.
The second is the make-up of that very committee, Sage – the people who for a year or so effectively became our unelected government. Its membership was rather closely confined and, during cross-examination, Whitty admitted that at first it was probably too narrow in its membership. According to him it later became much broader, but when asked more specifically about who might have been co-opted to give a differing view, he channelled Dr Pangloss again and suggested that in theory an infinite number of scientists might have been invited to provide their expertise, but that too many voices would have made consensus more difficult to achieve. Hmm – this is rather the problem, the nature of that consensus. Whitty admitted – indeed stated almost with pride – that no economists had been consulted, for example.
The issue here is that too great a proportion of the scientists had intellectual skin in the game. Science is perhaps mankind’s greatest achievement, but we sometimes forget that it is practised by humans, with all their frailties and inclinations. The point being that Sage may have been providing the government with advice with which all or most epidemiologists might concur – but without the corrective advice that might be provided by an economist or, for that matter, an oncologist. The advice was always about the immediate, and while Whitty insisted that he and his colleagues were at pains to alert ministers to the potential downsides of action taken to prevent the spread of the virus, we might infer that those downsides were flagged up with rather less avidity than would have been the case if the committee had heard from one or two dissenting voices from different scientific disciplines.
This lack of debate was exacerbated in the country at large by that curse of our age, political polarisation: many of those who might have raised a warning about the long-term effects of sequential lockdowns – the teachers, for example – were too often ideologically committed to what became the leftish view that no lockdown could possibly be sufficiently stringent and they should continue ad infinitum. We have seen more recently the effect this has had on schoolchildren.
Faced with this, one understands a little better the mindset which seems to have established itself in our politicians, including the mindset which led them to enjoy riotous parties when everybody else was confined to barracks. They were given advice which was far, far too narrow and, put simply, they didn’t entirely trust it. Vallance remarked that Johnson had particular difficulty understanding the consequences of government interventions (such as lockdowns) on the spread of the virus. My suspicion is the former PM was at heart deeply sceptical – for ideological as well as perfectly rational reasons – about these interventions and needed convincing that he was being told the
unvarnished truth.
In short, it was a government that had pledged to ‘follow the science’ but was always doubtful about its veracity. The final break came when Johnson refused to impose a lockdown during the Christmas of 2021, a decision which history suggests was unquestionably correct: the scientists at the time begged to differ and of course the Scots went their own way. The lesson to be learned, I reckon, is that it is no use following the science if the science comes from only one direction and there is no open debate about its efficacy or otherwise./>
**************************************************
Virology poses a far greater threat to the world than AI
Matt Ridley
Sam Altman, the recently fired (and rehired) chief executive of Open AI, was asked earlier this year by his fellow tech billionaire Patrick Collison what he thought of the risks of synthetic biology. ‘I would like to not have another synthetic pathogen cause a global pandemic. I think we can all agree that wasn’t a great experience,’ he replied. ‘Wasn’t that bad compared to what it could have been, but I’m surprised there has not been more global coordination and I think we should have more of that.’
He is right. There is almost no debate about regulating high-risk virology, whereas the world is in a moral panic about artificial intelligence. The recent global summit at Bletchley Park essentially focused on how to make us safe from Hal the malevolent computer. Altman has called for regulation to stop AI going rogue one day, telling Congress: ‘I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong… we want to be vocal about that. We want to work with the government to prevent that from happening.’
Bad actors worldwide know how easy it would be to use virology to bring the world economy to its knees
In contrast to that still fairly remote risk, the threat the world faces from research on viruses is far more immediate. There is strong evidence that Covid probably started in a laboratory in Wuhan. To summarise: a bat sarbecovirus acutely tuned to infecting human beings but not bats, which contains a unique genetic feature of a kind frequently inserted by scientists, caused an outbreak in the one city in the world where scientists were conducting intensive research on bat sarbecoviruses. That research involved bringing the viruses from distant caves, recombining their genes and infecting them into human cells and humanised transgenic mice; three of the scientists got sick but no other animals in the city did.
Yet calls to regulate this frankly idiotic corner of virology – gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens – are met with libertarian shrieks of outrage from scientists that even the new President of Argentina would be embarrassed by: leave us alone, we know what we are doing! Most of us were blissfully unaware that a small handful of virologists were being handed huge sums by the US and Chinese governments to see if they could find a virus capable of causing the next pandemic and bring it to a big city, then juice it up in a low–biosafety lab. Only governments, by the way, would fund that kind of work: no venture capitalist would touch it.
Yet now, compared with four years ago, the risk from such research is bigger, not smaller. Even if the recent pandemic did not begin in the Wuhan lab, the fact it could have done has alerted bad actors worldwide to how easy it would be to use virology to bring the world economy to its knees. From Pyongyang to Tehran to Moscow, ears have pricked up. The research proposal writes itself: ‘Dear Kim/Khamenei/Vladimir, if we don’t do this research our enemies will. Please can we hire some virologists and start sampling bats?’
It’s not just rogue regimes thinking this way. So are criminals. Last month, in Fresno, California, police arrested a Chinese national, who had changed his name multiple times, on charges of selling misbranded Covid-19 tests. That allegation is the tip of the iceberg. According to a report from a congressional committee, the man – part of a transnational criminal enterprise funded from China and on the run from a court ruling in Canada – was operating a large, chaotic, secret laboratory in which were found samples of viruses including Covid, HIV, hepatitis B and C, dengue and rubella, plus, according to a label on a freezer, ebola. Oh, and a thousand genetically engineered mice.
When the story first surfaced, after a council officer in the small town of Reedley in California spotted a garden hose leading into the warehouse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seemed remarkably uninterested. The CDC declined to test some of the samples before they were destroyed, so we do not know whether there was ebola in that freezer or not. The media moved to damp down ‘conspiracy theories’ that this was a Chinese government operation to start another pandemic. All those transgenic mice, the Associated Press told us, were ‘simply used to grow antibody cells to make test kits’. Right.
Even if he was just a rogue criminal with no connection to the Chinese government, it is alarming because, as the congressional committee put it, ‘a disturbing realisation is that no one knows whether there are other unknown biolabs in the US because there is no monitoring system in place [and] the US currently does not conduct oversight of privately funded research, including enhancement of potential pandemic pathogens’. There could be labs like this all over America, let alone Asia.
I find myself in a strange position here. I usually argue that regulation stifles innovation far more often than it encourages it, and that tying things like genetically modified crops up in impossible red tape has done great harm. Golden rice – genetically enhanced with vitamin A precursor – could have saved half a million lives a year in the 24 years since it was invented by the Swiss biotechnologist Ingo Potrykus, for example. But Greenpeace campaigned relentlessly against it, pushing governments to impose impossibly tight regulation, a stance that more than 150 Nobel Prize winners have condemned in strong words: ‘How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a “crime against humanity”?’
Yet when a genuine risk is posed by one small part of virology, those of us calling for more regulation are somewhat lonely. Led by Bryce Nickels of Rutgers University, a group of scientists have founded an organisation called Biosafety Now but they are getting scant support from the scientific establishment. Greenpeace has, as far as I can tell, said nothing about that irresponsible research in Wuhan.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/virology-poses-a-far-greater-threat-to-the-world-than-ai
**********************************************New Zealand Government to End All COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
The incoming New Zealand government, under Prime Minister-elect Christopher Luxon, has brokered a historic deal with New Zealand First, led by Winston Peters, to terminate all COVID-19 vaccine mandates and establish an inquiry into the pandemic.
Although Employment New Zealand currently reports no government vaccine mandates at present, it acknowledges that some employers may still require vaccinations based on health and safety legislation.
During COVID-19, while Jacinda Ardern was prime minister, New Zealand introduced vaccine mandates for workers in certain settings and a vaccine pass for the public.
Chris Hipkins, who was a health minister during COVID-19, took over from Ms. Ardern as Prime Minister in January.
During the election campaign, he sparked a massive reaction online when he claimed "there was no compulsory vaccination."
In addition to ending vaccine mandates, an urgent and comprehensive independent COVID-19 inquiry will be conducted, featuring both local and international experts. The inquiry will look into how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled in New Zealand, including the use of multiple lockdowns and the efficiency of vaccine procurement.
Ahead of the election, Mr. Peters campaigned for possible vaccine compensation for those who lost their jobs or were proven injured by the vaccine.
********************************************************
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
***************************************************
Saturday, November 25, 2023
Another Friday hiatus
Both medical and social matters once again kept me too busy to blog. Sabbath tomorrow so back Sunday
Thursday, November 23, 2023
An Open Letter To The Lancet
The Lancet is prestigious and publishes some good studies but it is under heavily Leftist influence. It published, for instance, an article that criticized the American invasion of Iraq. And Leftists like the authoritarian responses to Covid. They took the heavy-handed Chinese Communist approach as their model
A Lancet paper has made outrageous claims that Covid vaccines are highly effective in reducing Covid and all-cause mortality for older Australians. This paper, used by the Australian Government to support more boosters for the elderly, is debunked in the following open letter:
Open letter to Bette Liu, Sandrine Stepien, Timothy Dobbins, Heather Gidding, David Henry, Rosemary Korda, Lucas Mills, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Nicole Pratt, Claire M. Vajdic, Jennifer Welsh, and Kristine Macartney, authors of “Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19 specific and all-cause mortality in older Australians: a population based study”. The Lancet, Vol. 40, 100928, November 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2023.100928
also to Richard Horton (editor of the The Lancet)
and Paul Kelly (Australian Chief Medical Officer)
Concerns Regarding Data Integrity And Analysis
The retrospective, observational study of 3.8 million Australians of over 65 years, during eleven months of 2022, has reached the following broad conclusion:
“COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective against COVID-19 mortality among older adults although effectiveness wanes with time since the last dose.
Our findings emphasise the importance of continuing to administer booster doses, particularly to those at highest risk.”
This paper and its conclusion have been cited by the Australian Chief Medical Officer in an Australian Senate Estimates inquiry [1] to support government policy of continued vaccination for older adults.
The research has been funded by the Australian Government through various government agencies and by pharmaceutical companies.
As it stands, the conclusion of the paper is unclear, if not invalid, because it states that vaccination is “highly effective”, but “wanes over time”. Can a vaccine be “highly effective” only for a limited time? How limited?
The time limit to effectiveness is one of the key issues to be discussed below.
Data Integrity Issues
Most of the paper, consisting of four large tables occupying most of a printed page each, is a presentation of dosage statistics of the Australian population, which, while not irrelevant, are not germane to the main subject of the paper.
The space could be better used. The main subject and conclusion of the paper depend critically on analysis of the data relating dosage to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality shown in Figures 1 to 3.
These “death by vaccination status” data, central to the study, are largely absent from the paper. Importantly, the conclusion quoted above requires analysis of accurate Australian COVID data which are well-known to have serious integrity issues, which have errors originating from data collected from disparate sources and from flawed data recording procedures.
For example, someone who dies soon after being vaccinated with one dose may be recorded as the death of an unvaccinated person [2].
Also, COVID-19 mortality is intrinsically an unreliable statistic, because attribution of a COVID death may be erroneous. A death (ICD 10 code U07.1) could be with COVID (defined by a positive PCR test) rather than from COVID (the disease).
Sometimes, COVID deaths (ICD 10 code U07.2) have been assigned by judgement without doing any tests.
Raw COVID-19 mortality data by dosage, essential to the paper have not been disclosed in the paper, even in a summary form. How did they select and validate COVID-19 mortality data? The authors need to discuss the data of Figure 1 and 2 and should publish their compilation of the raw data, so that readers can replicate the results of their paper.
A further deficiency is: that measuring vaccination effectiveness (VE) by survival rates against only COVID-19 mortality is inadequate because it assumes falsely that vaccination does not have lethal side effects. Even the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has admitted [3] that there were 14 COVID vaccine-induced deaths to March 2023.
With mass vaccination, non-COVID excess deaths have reached about double COVID-19 deaths [4], which should be investigated for association with vaccination. Yet, with only a brief discussion suggesting how vaccination may reduce all-cause mortality, the authors have inserted “all-cause mortality” in the title of the paper, insinuating vaccination is also effective against all-cause mortality.
Method And Analysis Issues
Even ignoring data integrity issues, ignoring non-COVID excess deaths and supposing VE is validly measured against only COVID-19 mortality, the paper still suffers seriously from methodological and analytical defects. Vaccination, COVID-19 mortality and all-cause mortality data are available since 2021 and well into 2023.
Why does the paper select and analyze only eleven months of 2022? There were surges in deaths in 2022 accompanying the rollouts of the first and second boosters, but the paper does not consider that they may be related to vaccinations, rather than only to the COVID disease.
Instead of analyzing 2022 data as a whole, COVID and all-cause mortality data are analyzed in two separate periods: one five-month period and one six-month period. For different dose groups, vaccine effectiveness (VE) is evaluated by COVID-19 survival effectiveness for three windows: less than three months, three to six months and more than six months.
Such divisions of time periods need to be discussed, because analyzing survival over multiple fixed time periods involves unstated assumptions about the time taken for vaccines to have their effects, and the delay effects should be discussed.
The risk of errors increased due to survivorship bias, where deaths may “fall between the cracks” between survival windows. With two data periods, three dosage groups and three survival windows, there are 18 different vaccine mortality rates to compare to two unvaccinated mortality rates.
As may be expected, there are 18 different VE measures with a wide range of results depending on the various combinations. Importantly, the results appear random with no consistent VE pattern across the two time periods or between the dose groups.
In their main findings, the best and most convenient cases were selected for reporting. For example, from Figure 1 in the first period, the main finding reported was “VE of a 3rd COVID-19 vaccine dose within 3 months was 93 percent (95 percent CI 93–94 percent) whilst VE of a 2nd dose >6 months since receipt was 34 percent (26–42 percent)
Among unfavourable findings (see below), the most favourable finding has been cited by the authors to show COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective, but only relatively and “wanes with time”. Some of those unfavourable findings are masked by what appear as glaring anomalies, probably serious errors collected in table below.
From Figure 1 of the paper, the “Dose3>180 days” group has higher mortality rate (per 100 person-year) than the unvaccinated, yet they have positive vaccine effectiveness of 63.4 percent (COVID-19 VE (percentage) column below).
This and few other examples are shown in the table below, where a “Relative Risk Reduction (percentage)” column (should be the same as COVID-19 VE (percentage)) has been added here with shaded cells, simply calculated from the mortality rates given.
In the June to November period of Figure 1, the “Dose2 8-90 days” group had 1.218 mortality rate per 100 PY, compared to 0.49 for the unvaccinated. This shows that even in the short-term of less than three months, that vaccinated group (second shaded cell from the bottom) had 2.5 times higher risk of dying from COVID than the unvaccinated.
How could the authors claim for that case (second last column in the above table) a positive VE of 13.9 percent in their paper?
The paper needs to disclose the sorts of adjustments used to achieve positive “COVID-19 VE (percentage)” for those cases where the vaccinated groups had higher mortality rates than the unvaccinated. Those negative relative risk reduction results calculated here for those cases, if unexplained, would invalidate the main conclusion of paper that COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective.
Similar criticisms can be raised against the analysis in Figure 2 and Figure 3, where the method of adjustment for obtaining VE results for all-cause mortality is also not transparent, even though the raw all-cause data would be more accurate than COVID-19 data for reasons explained and discussed above.
On all-cause mortality the authors made unsubstantiated comments such as “COVID-19 vaccines also appeared effective against other specific causes of death…those who are more likely to get multiple vaccine doses, or to be vaccinated earlier are healthier and less likely to die from any cause…”. Emphasis added.
On Pfizer/BioNTech’s COMIRNATY vaccines alone, the TGA’s DAEN database [5] recorded (subject to underreporting) over 82,000 adverse events associated with many different diseases. Moreover, those comments are contradicted by the authors’ own analysis.
Figure 3 of the paper shows clearly that the authors’ own calculated VE against all-cause mortality (rates not shown) are all negative for those cases shown in the above table (last column).
Therefore, COVID-19 vaccination was ineffective and had increased all-cause mortality among some groups of older adults. Their evidence of ineffectiveness is consistent with Australian macro-data where all-cause mortality have increased significantly for older Australians vaccinated since 2021 [4].
Summary Of Critique
The approach of this study depends on official COVID data which have integrity issues, which the paper does not acknowledge.
Only 11 months in 2022 of official data out of possibly more than 24 months have been selected for the study.
The “death by vaccination status” data which link dosages with mortality data have not been discussed or disclosed. The key data used need to be publicly available for replication of the findings.
The unseen key data collection has been selectively analyzed, by dividing into separate time periods, dose groups and survival durations, producing 18 comparisons. The method of analysis is unsound and has led apparently to random results, without identifiable regularity.
The vaccination effectiveness results were not simply calculated, but adjusted. The details of the adjustments need to be disclosed.
The unadjusted results contradict the general conclusion that “COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective against COVID-19 mortality among older adults”.
Out of 18 comparisons of adjusted results, the most favourable and convenient findings have been selected and presented to draw the main conclusion which is not generally valid.
Conclusion
As it stands, the paper has serious deficiencies in data integrity, data selection bias, flawed methods of analysis, undisclosed adjustments of results, selective reporting of findings and the drawing of invalid conclusions.
The Australian Government has chosen to take this paper as authoritative evidence to justify its health policy, which has been associated with many excess deaths particularly in older Australians, but those deaths have been brushed off without investigation as coincidental, unrelated to vaccination.
The paper, in its currently published form, has serious methodological and analytical defects, resulting in errors and misleading conclusions.
Therefore, the paper needs substantial revision to address the issues raised or it should be retracted.
https://principia-scientific.com/an-open-letter-to-the-lancet/
********************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Wednesday, November 22, 2023
Study Reveals Most Common Chronic Symptoms After COVID-19 Vaccination
A new study shows some of the most common chronic symptoms among people who began experiencing the problems after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
The most common symptoms were exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, and neuropathy, researchers reported in the paper.
Insomnia, palpitations, myalgia, tinnitus, headache, burning sensations, and dizziness were also experienced by at least half of the participants in the study, which was funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Participants reported a median of 22 symptoms, with a ceiling of 35.
The study focused on people "who report a severe, debilitating chronic condition following COVID-19 vaccination" that "began soon after COVID-19 vaccination and persisted in many people for a year or more," the researchers said.
The study was led by Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Internal Medicine at the Yale School of Medicine and Yilun Wu of the Yale School of Public Health's Department of Biostatistics.
It was published on Nov. 10 as a preprint ahead of peer review.
Methods
The paper comes from Yale's Listen to Immune, Symptom and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) research, which examines both so-called long COVID and post-vaccine adverse events.
Researchers began recruiting participants in May 2022. Participants filled out a survey, and researchers had access to their health records.
The study featured adults who reported post-vaccination problems from May 2022 through July 2023. The 388 people who also reported so-called long COVID, or lingering symptoms after COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Another 146 people who didn't completely fill out the survey were also ultimately left out.
The median age of the participants was 46, and 80 percent were female. Approximately 88 percent live in the United States.
The design of the study means no causality could be confirmed, the researchers said. While they acknowledged the chronic symptoms could be caused by the vaccines, they alleged they could also be unrelated and have occurred by change, but also said the clustering of symptoms soon after vaccination "suggests a potential relationship."
Known side effects of the vaccines include heart inflammation, severe allergic shock, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.
Other issues have been linked to the vaccines by some but aren't recognized as widely as confirmed side effects.
The symptoms could be quite painful. Participants reported a median of 80 on a scale of 100 when asked how bad their symptoms were on their worst days.
Lingering Symptoms
In the week before completing the survey, 93 percent of participants said they felt unease at least once.
More than eight out of 10 reported feeling fearful, and 81 percent reported feeling overwhelmed by worries.
Feelings of helplessness, depression, hopelessness, and worthlessness were also commonly reported.
Nearly the entire group said they felt rundown and 91 percent said they suffer from sleep problems.
On the other hand, half of participants reported being in good, very good, or excellent condition. Still, the rest reported fair, poor, or unknown status.
The symptoms started for many people soon after vaccination. The median time of symptom onset was three days. Seventy-seven percent of people experienced the symptoms after their first or second shot.
The study followed an NIH-authored paper that detailed 23 people who experienced persistent symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination.
A number of participants in the new study received new diagnoses after receiving a vaccine, including anxiety, neurological conditions, gastrointestinal issues, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.
Problems Before the Pandemic
Nearly half the participants had allergies before the pandemic, according to the study. About three quarters of the participants in total had at least one comorbidity, such as allergies.
Behind allergies, the most common comorbidities were gastrointestinal issues, with acid reflux as an example; anxiety disorders; depressive disorders; and asthma.
Arthritis, an autoimmune disease, high cholesterol, hypertension of high blood pressure, and migraines were also reported each by more than two dozen people.
Treatments Tried
Many participants tried multiple treatments for their symptoms. Nearly all tried probiotics, which help boost good bacteria in the body.
Vitamins and supplements were also frequently turned to, with vitamins b12, c, and d and ibuprofen being the most popular.
Anti-inflammatory drugs, including ibuprofen, were used by a majority of participants.
Oral steroids such as dexamethasone were used by about half of the group.
Lifestyle changes were also common, with 51 percent limiting exercise or exertion, 44 percent cutting alcohol or caffeine, and 44 percent increasing or decreasing how much salt they consumed. Another approximately four in 10 changed their diet.
***************************************************
U.S. Army Begs Soldiers to Come Back After They Were Forced Out for Not Getting the COVID Vaccine
Soldiers who were forced out of the U.S. Army because they refused to follow the Biden Administration’s draconian COVID-19 mandates are being asked to come back as a potential war looms.
This week, the United States Army sent letters to service members inviting them back to their branch despite being ousted over their refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
In February, the U.S. Army rescinded its order requiring service members to be vaccinated in order to fight for their country.
The letter reads:
Dear Former Service Member, We write to notify you of new Army guidance regarding the correction of military records for former members of the Army following rescission of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement. As a result of the rescission of all current COVID-19 vaccination requirements, former Soldiers who were involuntarily separated for refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccination may request a correction of their military records from either or both the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). Individuals may request a correction to military personnel records, including records regarding the characterization of discharge. Individuals who desire to apply to return to service should contact their local Army, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), or Army National Guard (ARNG) recruiter for more information.
At the height of the Left’s COVID hysteria, the Biden Administration claimed that unvaccinated soldiers “present risk to the force and jeopardize readiness.”
*******************************************
More Than Half Of Vaccinated People Feel Ill A Year Later
Why to do many people feel sick nowadays? A recent study from India suggests the COVID-19 vaccine is causing prolonged symptoms in over half of unwary recipients
Shrestha and Venkataraman published a study of data collected from September 2021 and May 2023, in a descriptive, follow-up cohort study that was conducted, having enrolled participants who were 18 years of age or older, met the vaccination requirements established by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and had completed the primary immunization series with the AZD1222® (adenoviral) or BBV152® (whole-virion inactivated vaccine).
The prevalence of post coronavirus vaccine syndrome (PCVS) and the QoL measured using EQ-5D-5L were assessed at one month, six months, and 12 months post-COVID-19 vaccination.
The authors found more than half of subjects at 12 months were reporting symptoms of PCVS.
These data fit what I am seeing in clinical practice.
This study provides a strong rationale for most vaccinated individuals to undergo McCullough Protocol Base Spike Detoxification for 3-12 months with:
-Nattokinase 2000 FU (100) bid
-Bromelain 500 qd
-Curcumin 500 mg bid (nano, liposomal, or with piperine)
These are starting doses which can be increased if well tolerated.
No therapeutic claims can be made since there are no large, prospective, randomized double-blind clinical trials completed.
Unfortunately, no such trials are planned or registered at this point in time.
https://principia-scientific.com/more-than-half-of-vaccinated-people-feel-ill-a-year-later/
********************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Tuesday, November 21, 2023
Long Covid is a vaxx injury
The ‘midwit’ really came into their own during Covid and what a curse on the world they all were, these individuals of above average intelligence, but not too far above, who nevertheless liked to think of themselves as far wiser than the common pleb. Every state Chief Medical/Health Officer in Australia was, in my opinion, a classic midwit, diving into complex, multi-faceted public health issues with simplistic notions and infantile policies.
The CHOs/CMOs appeared to be entirely unaware of the limits to their public health omniscience, but their omnipotence was, alas, very real. They could issue legally enforceable, but patently absurd, Public Health Orders of great scope. Cheered on by media flattery, they went about stuffing up entire economies and ruining or degrading many people’s lives with bull-in-a-china-shop effectiveness.
Most of the Covid midwits have receded into the intellectual swamp they came from because no one is listening to them anymore. In America, for example, only 2 per cent of the population have availed themselves of the latest ‘bivalent’ booster that is supposed to protect against two new horror strains. In Australia, a mere 8.1 per cent of Australians aged 18-64 were ‘fully immunised’ at September 27 and less than half (44.3 per cent) of people aged 75+ (those allegedly most vulnerable to the Worst Disease Ever) have bothered to seek out the recommended up-to-date jab. We are over it.
Some Covid midwits, however, are still valiantly fighting a rearguard action. They are like that Japanese soldier, second-lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, who did not surrender and who hung out as a guerrilla fighter for 29 years in the Philippines after the end of the war in the Pacific. He must have been an inspiration for Australia’s own ‘Never Surrender’ Covid warriors who are manning the ‘Long Covid’ redoubts, masks in hand and boosters at the ready. These include some doctors who staff Australia’s 80-odd ‘Long Covid’ clinics where the lost war against Covid is still being fought.
An enthusiast from one of these clinics recently took to the trenches of social media to come to the aid of the Canadian branch of the Ever-Covid Resistance, one of whose fighters had complained of having twice ‘gotten Covid’ in the last month. Their Downunder ‘Long Covid’ clinic comrade, and fellow Covid magnet, agreed that recurring Covid infections are real and how three times in a year, in March, June and August of 2022, they had contracted Covid despite being ‘fully-immunised’ with each infection as grim as the last.
It seems that all their friends are getting Covid about every five weeks, leading them to conclude that it is now possible to be infected, not just frequently, but even by more than one Covid variant at the same time. Covid doesn’t even wait for the last infection to end anymore. That’s one dangerous viral enemy out there!
It had to be Covid that was responsible because, like Caesar’s wife, the Covid vaccine remains above suspicion. The possibility that, booster by booster, people have been trashing their immune systems in addition to picking up a host of other vaccine injuries, is not considered. One Australian Long Covid champion alleges the following gems on social media:
100 per cent of the clinic’s ‘Long Covid’ patients have microclots in their blood (nothing else could be causing that, doctor?).
Covid increases your risk of heart attacks, strokes, and clots (see above).
Covid can persist in tonsils, the brain, the lymph nodes, the heart, generally anywhere.
‘Generally anywhere’! This pretty much sums up what happens when a toxic spike protein travels throughout the body, courtesy of the blood vessels, and transfects millions of cells through the LNP cell-penetrating delivery system (whilst a respiratory virus stays put in just the respiratory system – the clue is in the name).
19 per cent of Long Covid patients have myocarditis. (Which other group of the population is getting myocarditis which used to be quite rare until something new and toxic came on the scene?)
The clinic’s patients include 14-year-olds who present with fast heart rate and chest pain, contributing to ‘mass disablement – especially of young people’. (Seek Covid and ye shall find Covid; do not seek vaccine injury and ye shall not find vaccine injury…)
It is further claimed by some doctors that unjabbed people are also getting Covid all the time but they just don’t know it because they aren’t testing for it! How will anyone know they are sick with Covid if they don’t test for it? They probably think they are perfectly fine, or have a common cold or something… Those complacent fools! ‘So, please stop saying Long Covid is just a cold when it really, really isn’t!’ Or so they insist. Well, that is kind of correct. What would have been ‘just a cold’ for almost everyone may have been turned into something far, far worse following vaccination.
Online defences of ‘Long Covid’ are notable for what they don’t say. By now, it appears that even medical midwits are losing faith in the vaccine. As some lament, despite their repeated grim infections they have stopped mumbling the once-routine phrase, ‘Thank goodness I was fully vaccinated because otherwise it would have been so much worse!’ Indeed, that flimsy last line of vaccine defence has faded from the entire narrative except at government headquarters where it still gets an increasingly desultory run as the sole remaining virtue of the dud vaccines.
Even though the top generals of the Covid war effort have shown cowardice in the face of the viral enemy, according to the remaining midwits (who are particularly cross about the World Health Organisation ending the formal ‘global health emergency’) there is still a war to be won because ‘someone is dying every three minutes [from Covid] and 10 per cent of all those infected will get Long Covid’.
All is not lost! For the midwits, there is still The Mask, that insignia of the Covid midwit army. The Mask represents midwittery at its most moronic.
The media allies of the Covid Midwits are lending vital auxiliary support in the never-ending defence of Covid hysteria. In South Australia, there is another dogged pocket of resistance to Covid sanity – ‘South Australians suffering debilitating symptoms from Long Covid are being forced to wait up to ten months to see experts in one of the state’s Long Covid Assessment Clinics at the Royal Adelaide Hospital’, reports InDaily.
‘Long Covid’ is the new virus ogre in town these days, superseding the now frankly toothless and boring old ordinary Covid ‘case’ count. Despite the odd article emerging to scare us about ‘cases’ (which ‘continue to plague the state with weekly reported cases of 645’) this sort of dodgy statistic doesn’t turn a hair these days (remember when we shut the state down for a handful of ‘cases’?). Now it’s the turn of ‘Long Covid’ and its myriad discontents.
Covid of the ‘Long’ variety can leave you wiped out for months or years on end and everyone who gets Covid is potentially at risk of Long Covid. ‘SA Health estimated 35,000 South Australians can expect to contract long Covid’. Cue the alarm bells because the Covid astrologers have spoken. Mind you, it may be yet more worthless Covid modelling but, despite that, it gives us some sort of bargain basement government estimate for the number of serious Covid vaccine injuries to come but no alarm bells will be rung for that and no Long Vaxx clinics will ever be established.
Demand for the ‘Long Covid’ clinics in South Australia is already through the roof from people who, for more than 12 weeks, have been experiencing ‘complex symptoms and significant functional impairment, with symptoms ranging from severe fatigue to brain fog and breathlessness’, drastically ‘impacting their return to work, study or social roles’. The clinics have been forced to triage the wave of patients so that those with the most severe symptoms are seen first, leaving those with less chronic symptoms waiting for nearly a year to be seen.
I think, in retrospect, what the Long Covid midwits are fretting about isn’t just a cold, or even post-viral syndrome (which is possible after any viral infection), but vaccine injury. The harms of the Covid vaccine are being swept under the rug of ‘Long Covid’. Long Covid is Long Vaxx Injury. It really really is.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/last-of-the-covid-midwits/
******************************************************NY Times says school COVID closures may be ‘most damaging disruption’ to kids’ education in U.S. history
The New York Times editorial board penned a new editorial on Saturday stating that the school closures enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic "may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education."
The editorial provided a reflection on the "significant" learning losses stemming from keeping around 50 million kids out of the classroom because of the virus, and urged elected officials and the education community to move quickly to heal some of the damage.
The paper came to these points after certain mainstream media outlets supported these same closures. Some media figures have continued arguing they were good decisions.
The editorial opened with a dire assessment of what COVID-19 closures did to America’s schoolchildren. It stated, "The evidence is now in, and it is startling. The school closures that took 50 million children out of classrooms at the start of the pandemic may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education."
"It also set student progress in math and reading back by two decades and widened the achievement gap that separates poor and wealthy children," it added.
To compound the issue, the board noted that learning losses "will remain unaddressed when the federal money runs out in 2024."
As such, this generation of students "will experience diminished lifetime earnings and become a significant drag on the economy," The Times added, citing economists.
The editorial lamented that school administrators and politicians are not mobilizing the country to meet this issue, noting that combating it requires a "multidisciplinary approach," starting with "getting kids back on solid ground," and replacing "the federal aid that is set to expire."
It also detailed how an "epidemic of absenteeism" is compounding the challenge of rehabilitating these students.
The board wrote, "students who grew accustomed to missing school during the pandemic continue to do so after the resumption of in-person classes. Millions of young people have joined the ranks of the chronically absent — those who miss 10 percent or more of the days in the school year — and for whom absenteeism will translate into gaps in learning."
The piece also mentioned how these kids are "also vulnerable to mental health difficulties that worsened during the pandemic."
Citing the CDC, the Times said, "more than 40 percent of high school students had persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness; 22 percent had seriously considered suicide; 10 percent reported that they had attempted suicide."
The editorial concluded, "The learning loss crisis is more consequential than many elected officials have yet acknowledged. A collective sense of urgency by all Americans will be required to avert its most devastating effects on the nation’s children."
Despite its current concern over the closures’ harm to American students, New York Times reporting in 2020 advocated for school closures despite the risks.
In a March 2020 piece, the Times wrote, "More and more schools have chosen to close in the past few days, reflecting a growing consensus that the benefits of closings outweigh the harms, especially since many of the harms can be mitigated."
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Monday, November 20, 2023
Covid lockdowns were NO more effective than Swedish-style softer approach, major Oxford University-backed study suggests
Covid lockdowns were no more effective at controlling the pandemic than letting people adapt their own behaviour to the threat, a major Oxford University-backed study suggests.
Researchers modelled virus death and unemployment rates in response to different pandemic policies.
Results showed imposing blanket shutdowns, which forced people to stay home and closed essential shops, squashed fatality rates for the virus.
However, leaving people to adapt their own behaviour — similar to the controversial approach used in Sweden — was just as effective, data revealed.
Experts concluded that both policies led to 'similar trade-offs' for people's health and the economy, with both approaches triggering huge job losses.
The researchers said strict non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) — lockdowns, social distancing and face masks — were 'critical' to reducing the spread of Covid.
However, they noted that individuals changing their behaviour of their own accord — such as by minimising contacts and less frequent trips to shops or restaurants — could have also minimised deaths.
To determine the effects of both approaches, the researchers created an economic model based on the first wave of the pandemic.
They used data from around 416,000 people in New York City.
Researchers inputted a range of scenarios, including varying levels of restrictions and changes to behaviour.
The model then estimated how many infections occurred as a result, as well as which occupation, income and age group were most affected.
Results, published in the Nature Human Behaviour Journal, showed that both strict lockdowns and high rates of behaviour change led to a rise in unemployment and fewer Covid deaths.
For example, if lockdowns were imposed, virus deaths fell 35 per cent while unemployment jumped 64 per cent.
In comparison, if people were left to their own devices in a 'high fear' situation, deaths fell 50 per cent, while job losses increased by 40 per cent.
The team said this showed there is a 'similar trade-off between epidemic and economic outcomes' regardless of whether Covid restrictions are imposed or if people are left to change their behaviour.
'Both substantial behavioural changes and stringent closures lead to similar patterns of rising unemployment and fewer infections,' they wrote.
The researchers found that this trend still stands, even if older people make bigger changes to their behaviour than younger people.
'While it is intuitive to expect stricter mandated NPIs to increase unemployment and decrease Covid-19 deaths, it is less apparent that heightened behavioural adaptation would yield similar results,' the team added.
They also found that forcing the closure of sectors that aren't people-facing — such as construction and manufacturing — triggers a large spike in job losses with 'only a marginal decrease in fatalities'.
Additionally, bringing in pandemic restrictions late when people have already adapted their behaviour 'leads to a dual blow of increased deaths and unemployment'.
The researchers noted that their results are only based on data from one area of the US during the first lockdown and do not take testing, Covid variants or vaccination into account.
However, the findings address 'key policy debates' of the Covid pandemic and will enable future governments take tough decisions, they said.
Professor Doyne Farmer, director of the complexity economics programme at Oxford University's Institute of New Economic Thinking, said the paper is 'timely' given the ongoing Covid inquiries around the world.
He said: 'We are seeing governments across the globe begin their "moments of reckoning", reviewing the effectiveness of a great variety of policies brought in during Covid.
'According to some, lockdowns were not imposing any trade-off between health and the economy because, if the virus got out of control, the economy would be equally damaged.
'According to others, letting at-risk individuals spontaneously reduce their risk of infection would have led to the best epidemic and economic outcomes, with no trade-off.
'These debates have remained contested and unresolved.'
Professor Farmer said: 'Our quantitative research helps provide evidence-based answers to these questions, suggesting that both lockdowns and spontaneous behaviour change lead to similar trade-offs between health and the economy.
'Those that claimed that there was no trade-off between health and the economy were not basing their belief in a quantitative model.'
The UK imposed its first lockdown in March 2020, with then Prime Minister Boris Johnson telling the nation 'you must stay at home'.
It saw schools, shops and hospitality close, social distancing come into force and Brits only allowed to exercise outdoors once a day.
Experts largely accepted that the economically-crippling measures were vital to control the spread of the virus, as there was no vaccine to prevent severe illness and stunt hospital admissions at the time.
But other epidemiologists and public health scientists shared 'grave concerns' about the collateral damages of such policies on the NHS and other parts of society in future.
Sweden became an international outlier in 2020 when, instead of shutting down society, it relied on citizens' sense of civic duty to reduce the spread of Covid.
Authorities advised residents to practice social distancing, however schools, bars and restaurants remained open and it never required people to wear masks — they were only recommended on public transport during the second wave.
Among its stricter measures included a ban on visits to elderly care homes and limits on the number of people attending public gatherings.
The approach gave rise to a heated debate abroad, and was at times held up as a cautionary tale, or on the contrary, hailed by opponents of lockdowns.
**************************************************
Top doctor Nick Coatsworth delivers a brutal reality check for Aussies who still wear face masks
One of Australia's top doctors has issued a brutal message to those still wearing face masks - and hit out calls from the Australian Medical Association to bring back Covid masks.
Australia reported 6,550 new Covid cases last week. This surge has led health officials, including AMA Queensland president Maria Boulton, to advocate for the reinstatement of mask mandates in high-risk settings, such as on airplanes, in large crowds, and within medical facilities.
However, former Australian deputy chief health officer Dr Nick Coatsworth said Aussies shouldn't be overly concerned about the recent spike during an interview with 2GB'S Ben Fordham.
'The Australian Medical Association has quoted 245 hospitalisations of COVID-19 with this (current) wave in Queensland, but there are over a million admissions to Queensland hospitals every year,' he said. 'The suggestion that this is a wave is probably incorrect.'
He also believes reinstating mask mandates would have little impact. 'That's not going to make any difference at the moment,' Dr Coatsworth explained.
'If you say 'Look, wear masks in some situations but not others, don't socially distance and go about your business', then all the masks are doing is polluting the environment.' 'We need to be smarter about how we manage this.
He also slammed advice from scientists recommending 100,000 concertgoers to mask up when Coldplay performs in Perth this weekend. 'That's just a crazy thing to do,' he said.
'We got to remember just how infectious Omicron is. Just sticking a mask on at a Coldplay concert is unlikely to be protective.
'And number two, the vast majority of people have had Covid, even the people who claim they've never had it. The vast majority of people are also vaccinated.
'COVID-19 is now a milder disease because of what we call herd immunity, we have all been exposed to it. 'Our need to take a chill pill with Covid is getting even greater.'
Dr Coastworth isn't overly concerned about the latest spike but conceded it puts a strain on hospitals. 'The reason why health departments have put this out is because when we do get an increase in Covid or any respiratory virus, it does puts a strain on hospitals,' he said.
'I work in an hospital and you do see the strain but not because people are getting sick from Covid. 'Very few people are actually getting sick from Covid but it creates an infection control problem where you have to isolate the patients and it created bed pressure.
'But that's going to happen for the next 5-10 years with Covid and respiratory viruses and we have to find ways to cope with that.
'Frankly I was on shift yesterday and we had not a single patient with COVID-19 in our acute medical unit.
Dr Coatsworth emphasised that despite a minor increase in hospitalisations, there has been a decline in intensive care admissions from Covid.
'There's creative, innovative ways that will allow the community to get on with its business without constant talk of bringing back things that realistically, public health officials aren't going to bring back.'
Dr Coatsworth echoed the health advice to catch up outdoors where the risk of getting Covid is 'extraordinary difficult, if not impossible.' 'It's always been the right advice, I'm not sure why we didn't give it at the start of the pandemic,' he said. 'You would really have to be on top of someone to catch Covid outdoors.'
Meanwhile, infectious diseases specialist Professor Peter Collignon has made it clear he opposes people being forced by law to wear masks. 'If at increased risk, or concerned, yes wear a mask. But no mandates.'
Professor Collignon, who is a microbiologist at Canberra Hospital, said there was 'little or likely no point' wearing a mask outside.
He added that masks will give 'some short term protection' to those who are concerned about short term exposure indoors, but eye protection is also needed. 'What lands in your eyes goes into your nose,' the professor said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12759217/Nick-Coatsworth-slams-calls-bring-masks.html
********************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Sunday, November 19, 2023
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.
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
