Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Supreme Court endorses end of Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
In unsigned rulings, the justices said that rulings against mandates imposed by President Biden and the U.S. military have been vacated.
They also remanded the cases back to lower courts with instructions for the courts to vacate preliminary injunctions that had been in place against the administration as moot.
The decisions mean that the rulings won't act as precedent in future vaccine mandate cases.
“We believe the United States Constitution clearly does not permit the federal government to force federal workers—or any law abiding citizen—to inject their bodies with something against their will. In fact, the freedom to control your own body and your own medical information is so basic that, without those liberties, it is impossible to truly be ‘free’ at all," Marcus Thornton, president of Feds for Freedom, said in a statement. "We are disappointed that the Supreme Court dodged these important Constitutional arguments and instead chose to vacate our case on technicalities."
One case was brought by Feds for Freedom and involved President Biden's mandate for federal employees. The mandate was imposed in 2021, with the president claiming that vaccination was the "best way to slow the spread of COVID-19" and that requiring vaccination would "promote the health and safety of the federal workforce and the efficiency of the civil service.”
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown had ruled previously that the president lacked the authority to impose the vaccine mandate.
Another case was brought by a federal worker who recovered from COVID-19 and thus enjoyed some protection against the illness but was still being forced to receive a vaccination under President Biden's mandate because the government refused to formally recognize the post-infection protection. Jason Payne, the worker, said the mandate exceeded President Biden's authority.
In the third case, federal judges ruled that the U.S. Air Force's handling of its mandate was illegal, and prevented the branch from taking disciplinary action against members who had requested religious exemptions.
Government lawyers urged the Supreme Court to rule the decisions in these cases as moot, given that the vaccine mandates were ended.
"Consistent with this court’s ordinary practice under such circumstances, the court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand with instructions to direct the district court to dismiss its order granting a preliminary injunction as moot," the lawyers wrote in one petition to the court.
Mr. Payne's lawyers also asked for the decisions to be ruled as moot, after two courts ruled against him and following the rescinding of the mandate that affected him.
Lawyers for the other federal workers and for the military members opposed the request.
The government was asking the Supreme Court to endorse a "heads we win, tails you get vacated" version of a previous court decision, United States v. Munsingwear, lawyers for the federal workers wrote in one brief. If granted, the government would be able to "litigate to the hilt in both district and circuit court and—only if they lose—then decline to seek substantive review from this court and instead moot the case and ask this court to erase the circuit court loss from the books," according to the brief.
Lawyers for the military members noted that Congress forced the military to rescind its mandate, but that the legislation didn't prevent the Department of Defense from issuing another mandate.
Government lawyers said the mandates were rescinded because the pandemic situation had changed, not because they were challenged. They also argued that the mandates "cannot be reasonably expected to recur."
Lawyers for the military members said that the claim was "in serious tension" with the demand to vacate the rulings under the Munsingwear precedent, given that the purpose of such a move "is to clear the path for future re-litigation without res judicata concerns."
None of the Supreme Court justices except for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Biden, explained their decisions on the cases.
"Although I would require that the party seeking vacatur establish equitable entitlement to that remedy, I accede to vacatur here based on the court’s established practice when the mootness occurs through the unilateral action of the party that prevailed in the lower court," she said in regard to Mr. Payne's case.
In the two other cases, Justice Jackson said that the government hadn't "established equitable entitlement" to vacatur, but that she concurred with the overall judgment from her colleagues.
She cited a Dec. 5 decision in which the court ruled against a civil rights activist who sought a ruling that would force hotels to make information for disabled people publicly available.
Justice Jackson sided with the majority in that ruling but contested the majority's decision to vacate a lower court ruling, arguing that vacatur—or the setting aside of the judgment—shouldn't be granted automatically.
"Automatic vacatur plainly flouts the requirement of an individualized, circumstance-driven fairness evaluation, which, as I have explained, is the hallmark of an equitable remedy," she wrote.
It's also "flatly inconsistent with our common-law tradition of case-by-case adjudication, which 'assumes that judicial decisions are valuable and should not be cast aside lightly,'" Justice Jackson said, quoting from yet another ruling.
"As a general matter, I believe that a party who claims equitable entitlement to vacatur must explain what harm—other than having to accept the law as the lower court stated it—flows from the inability to appeal the lower court decision."
*********************************************
Covid has much more severe post vaccination symptoms than influenza
Many of my Op-eds have examined symptoms/diseases in VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) following COVID-19 vaccinations. Each Op-ed has focused on a different organ (e.g., renal, skin) or system (e.g., cardiovascular, neurological, musculoskeletal). These Op-eds have also included a section comparing frequency of symptoms that occurred following COVID-19 vaccinations and Influenza vaccinations. For some symptoms, the difference between COVID-19 symptom frequencies and Influenza symptom frequencies was quite large, COVID-19 always being larger. For other symptoms, COVID-19 relative frequency was noticeable, but not nearly as large.
Are there any patterns to those symptoms showing either 1) massive differences in their frequencies following these vaccinations or 2) modest differences following these vaccinations? To answer this question, it was decided to examine ALL the symptoms listed in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccinations and following Influenza vaccinations. The focus would be on the two extremes: massive differences between the symptom frequencies of each vaccine, and extremely small differences, including the ~1/3% of cases where Influenza post-vaccination symptom frequencies were larger than those of COVID-19.
METHODOLOGY
In late November 2023, the VAERS database was accessed, and all the symptoms following COVID-19 vaccinations and following Influenza vaccinations were downloaded, including those symptoms with zero entries. For each case, a total of 17716 symptoms was downloaded. The two sets of symptoms were combined, and the ratios of 1) symptom frequencies following COVID-19 vaccinations to 2) symptom frequencies following Influenza vaccinations were computed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The ratios were divided into five groups, and the extreme ratios from each group are shown in Appendices 1-5. The five groups are: 1) Symptom frequency post-Influenza vaccination zero (total of 12771 symptoms - see Appendix 1); 2), Symptom frequency post-Influenza vaccination one (total of 1809 symptoms - see Appendix 2); 3) Symptom frequency post-Influenza vaccination two (total of 720 symptoms - see Appendix 3); 4) Symptom frequency post-Influenza vaccination greater than two, and the COVID-19/Influenza symptom frequency ratio is one or greater (total of 2346 symptoms - see Appendix 4); 5) Symptom frequency post-Influenza vaccination greater than two, and the COVID-19/Influenza symptom frequency ratio is less than one (total of 66 symptoms - see Appendix 5). The symptom frequencies for all symptoms following COVID-19 vaccinations total 4,186,684 events, and symptom frequencies for all symptoms following Influenza vaccinations total 178,284 events. This yields an overall aggregate COVID-19/Influenza post-vaccination symptom ratio of 23.48........
Overall, the number of symptoms post-COVID-19 vaccinations that have massively higher frequencies than their influenza vaccination counterparts are over a thousand even when limited to the very high threshold ratios of thirty or more that were used as cutoff. It is difficult to see how any credible scientist or regulator can consider differences on the order of those shown in this study as anything other than signals of an extremely unsafe substance.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
All the symptoms listed in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccinations and following Influenza vaccinations were compared for numbers of events associated with each symptom. The analysis focused on the two extremes: massive differences between the two vaccines, and extremely small differences, including cases where Influenza post-vaccination symptom frequencies were larger than those of COVID-19.
The symptom frequencies for all symptoms following COVID-19 vaccinations totaled 4,186,684 events, and symptom frequencies for all symptoms following Influenza vaccinations totaled 178,284 events. Since the VAERS numbers strongly under-represent the real-world numbers, they need to be multiplied by an under-reporting factor (URF) to translate into numbers of real-world symptoms. Using my most recent URF value of 66, the real-world symptom frequencies for all symptoms following COVID-19 vaccinations totaled 276,321,144 events, and real-world symptom frequencies for all symptoms following Influenza vaccinations totaled 11,766,744 events. The ratio of these two event totals yields an overall aggregate COVID-19/Influenza post-vaccination ratio of 23.48.
Cardiovascular issues, blood issues, and cancer issues were some of the more noticeable sub-themes that displayed extreme differences between 1) post-COVID-19 vaccination symptoms and 2) post-influenza vaccination symptoms. However, neurological, immune/autoimmune, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal, infection, endocrine, auditory, vision, skin, musculoskeletal, and myriad other disorders had significant representation at the extremes as well. One disturbing feature of the results is the large number of “breakthrough COVID-19” cases that occurred post-COVID-19 vaccinations. What kind of vaccine increases vulnerability to the infection that the vaccine is supposed to prevent?
While all these disorders are concerning, perhaps the disorders of highest concern are the Cancer issues. Cancers are appearing within (sometimes well within) the three years since COVID-19 vaccinations started, far sooner than would be expected from their typical latency periods. This does not bode well for the future. Given the destructive nature of the mRNA platform on the surveillance and attack/destroy functions of the immune system, all the vaccines projected to operate on this platform for the future (e.g., RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), HIV, Zika, Epstein-Barr virus, tuberculosis, malaria, shingles, and flu) will only increase the likelihood of Cancers cumulatively with each injection.
********************************************************
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, December 11, 2023
CDC Reveals New 'Fastest-Growing' COVID-19 Variant in US
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated that the JN.1 COVID-19 subvariant is increasingly across the United States, comprising potentially a third of all cases.
The variant comprised about 0.1 percent of all COVID-19 cases in the United States as of late October, according to the federal health agency in a Dec. 8 update. But as of Dec. 8, it now makes up about 15 to 29 percent of cases, it said.
"CDC projects that JN.1 will continue to increase as a proportion of SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences," the CDC said. "It is currently the fastest-growing variant in the United States."
The CDC said in another update that the JN.1 level jumped from 8.1 percent to 21.4 percent in the past two weeks. JN.1 is now the second-most common variant in the U.S., behind only the HV.1 variant, according to the CDC.
Despite the fast growth of JN.1, there is "no evidence" at this time that it "presents an increased risk to public health relative to other currently circulating variants," said the CDC. There is also no signs of "increased severity" from the variant, the agency added.
Current COVID-19 treatments and tests are believed to be effective against JN.1, it said, adding that "the continued growth of JN.1 suggests that it is either more transmissible or better at evading our immune systems."
The CDC also said it's unclear to what extent JN.1 is contributing to hospitalizations in the U.S. but said that COVID-19 activity is likely going to increase during the winter months.
Researchers and the CDC say that JN.1 is a COVID-19 variant that descended from the BA.2.86 lineage, which is another Omicron sub-variant.
“BA.2.86 has more than 20 mutations on the spike protein and there was a concern when it was first detected a while back that, wow, this might be a real problem,” Thomas Russo, professor and chief of infectious diseases at the University at Buffalo in New York, told Prevention.
Symptoms
There is no data to indicate if JN.1 causes any new symptoms, said William Schaffner, a professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
“It’s an Omicron variant and looks to be similar,” he told the outlet.
The CDC says that symptoms include cough, shortness of breath, fever or chills, fatigue, muscle aches, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, runny nose, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, or nausea.
"It is not currently known whether JN.1 infection produces different symptoms from other variants," said the CDC update. "In general, symptoms of COVID-19 tend to be similar across variants. The types of symptoms and how severe they are usually depend more on a person’s immunity and overall health rather than which variant causes the infection."
Other Respiratory Illnesses
Separate data provided by the CDC show that while COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise in recent weeks, weekly COVID-19 hospitalizations have not reached the same levels as previous "surges" earlier on in the pandemic. As of the week ending Dec. 2, there were 22,513 recorded hospitalizations, which is significantly lower than the same weekly period in December 2022.
Flu hospitalizations are on the rise although the number of new admissions appears to be low with 5,753 admitted to the week ending on Dec. 2, which is an increase from 4,268 during the prior week, according to the most recent CDC data. The also data suggests that there have been 2.6 million influenza cases, 26,000 hospital cases, and 1,600 deaths during the flu season so far.
Earlier this month, the CDC said that despite reported spikes of pneumonia cases among children in several states, the CDC's director, Mandy Cohen, said earlier this month that transmission rates are considered "typical."
"As of today, we are not seeing anything that is atypical in terms of pneumonia-related emergency department visits," she told reporters.
It came amid concerns that a spate of pediatric pneumonia cases in mainland China could spread to the U.S., which drew an alert from the ProMed global surveillance system in late November.
**************************************
UK: Airforce intelligence officers joined Whitehall and Army in 'spying' on Covid lockdown critics - including David Davis and Peter Hitchens
RAF intelligence officers joined a shadowy Whitehall operation accused of spying on members of the public who criticised Covid lockdown policies, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Official military documents obtained by this newspaper show that analysts from RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire helped to scour social media posts by the public.
The MoS revealed in January how the Army's secretive 'information warfare brigade' was tasked with scrutinising online posts – an activity the Ministry of Defence, in public, repeatedly denied doing.
Now this newspaper can show that the military's assistance to Government cells, such as the Counter Disinformation Unit, based in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Rapid Response Unit in the Cabinet Office was far more extensive than previously thought.
These Whitehall outfits were tasked with tackling 'disinformation' and 'harmful narratives' during the pandemic. Their activities have faced fierce criticism after it emerged they also collected legitimate social media posts questioning Government lockdown policies.
Dossiers were compiled on public figures including Tory ex-Minister David Davis, who questioned the modelling behind alarming Covid death toll predictions, and The MoS's Peter Hitchens.
The documents reveal defence chiefs privately conceded the military's work for the Government could pose a 'potential presentational risk of Defence 'spying' or conducting 'Psyops' on the UK'. But the MoD feared that if the Armed Forces did not help the Government's online monitoring, then 'harmful misinformation and disinformation' could spread.
Jake Hurfurt, of the campaign group Big Brother Watch, last night branded Whitehall's use of military personnel as 'an attack on freedom of speech' and 'behaviour befitting an authoritarian state'. He added: 'The revelations that the RAF as well as the Army spied on the British people during the pandemic is yet more evidence that the MoD misled the public about the role of its psyops troops in 2020.'
'These documents prove that Whitehall officials knew deploying the military to monitor social media posts from politicians, journalists and the press would look like spying – but they carried on anyway.'
The RAF and Army's assistance to Whitehall is detailed in documents outlining official requests known as 'Military Aid to the Civil Authorities' (MACA). These are normally used by the Government when military help is needed to respond to natural disasters.
The papers also show how in 2020 the Government was considering a dramatic expansion of the Counter Disinformation Unit by ordering monitoring of online chatter about Brexit and the NHS.
Mr Hurfurt last night demanded that the Covid Inquiry also investigate how the Government 'monitored the British people'.
Peter Hitchens was monitored after sharing an article, based on leaked NHS papers, which claimed data used to publicly justify the lockdown was incomplete.
An internal Rapid Response Unit email said Mr Hitchens wanted to 'further [an] anti-lockdown agenda and influence the Commons vote'.
The Government said: 'Online disinformation is a serious threat, which is why in the pandemic we brought together expertise from across government to monitor disinformation about Covid.
'The units used publicly available data, including material on social media. They did not target individuals or take action that could impact the ability to discuss issues freely.'
*******************************************
Descriptive Analysis of Japanese Deaths Associated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vax: Troubling Data
A physician-researcher based at YASP Medical Information Laboratory for Dermatology in Aichi, Japan, 188 miles south of Tokyo, recently published in peer-reviewed Cureus the study “An analysis of the Association Between BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Deaths within 10 Days After Vaccination Using the Sex Ratio in Japan.” The study finding “indicates that the vaccination may influence the occurrence of death during the risk period and might be associated with death.”
An important study as mass vaccination necessitates a higher level of safety than pharmaceuticals used for treatment, and consequently, should have an exceptionally low vaccination mortality rate. It’s important to analyze vaccine safety using statistical methods able to detect significant differences even when the vaccination mortality rate is exceptionally low.
Background
The author reports that “the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations and deaths after vaccination has been investigated primarily through cohort and self-controlled case series studies. In the present study, the sex ratios of reported deaths were compared by period.”
The Study
In this descriptive analysis-based study, Dr. Yasusi Suzumura tapped into and extracted data on deaths reported after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine called BNT162b2. The data used were published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan.
For the study’s risk period, Dr. Suzumura’s study defined this parameter as within 10 days of vaccination, with the control period defined as 11 to 180 days post-administration of the COVID-19 jab.
Using sex ratios to calculate all-cause deaths, for each outcome the researcher divided the number of males by females all by 100. Then, the study author performed Fisher’s exact test (categorical data that results from classifying objects in two different ways; it is used to examine the significance of the association) for outcomes analysis. Thereafter, the author used graphs to present the data, including the number of days from vaccination to death, plus the reported death outcomes.
Study Findings
During the risk period (0-10 days) all-cause deaths among elderly persons (aged ≥65 years), Dr. Yasusi Suzumura reports a sex ratio of 92, which turns out to be “significantly lower than that during the control period (130) (p=0.0050).”
When analyzing the data for all-cause deaths of persons aged ≤64 years, the authors report the sex ratio during the risk period was 204, significantly higher than that during the control period (111) (p=0.044).
“Reported deaths were concentrated during the risk period in both groups. Sex ratios by period for each outcome were also examined. However, the differences were not significant across any of the outcomes.”
Takeaway
According to the Japanese study author the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccination for all-cause deaths among those aged ≤64 years, “vaccination may influence the occurrence of death during the risk period.”
The study finding here “indicates that the vaccination may influence the occurrence of death during the risk period and might be associated with death.”
TrialSite Breakdown
While a Japanese cohort study previously conducted led to no significant increase in all-cause mortality involving COVID-19 vaccination, the author points out, “This does not contradict the results of the present study.” While the previous cohort study points to support for COVID-19 vaccine safety, Dr. Suzumura points out that “This does not indicate that vaccine-related deaths are nonexistent; it only indicates that their number is not large enough to make a significant difference.”
On this occasion, it is difficult to determine whether a post-vaccination death is incidental or vaccine-related. A self-controlled risk interval design and a comparison of sex ratios by period may be useful in examining the association between vaccination and deaths after vaccination when a cohort study does not detect a significant difference due to a low mortality rate. The latter approach may be particularly useful for analyzing data with reporting bias. The author believes that this approach may not provide conclusive evidence, but it can offer valuable insights into assessing vaccine safety.
********************************************************
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
***************************************************
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated that the JN.1 COVID-19 subvariant is increasingly across the United States, comprising potentially a third of all cases.
The variant comprised about 0.1 percent of all COVID-19 cases in the United States as of late October, according to the federal health agency in a Dec. 8 update. But as of Dec. 8, it now makes up about 15 to 29 percent of cases, it said.
"CDC projects that JN.1 will continue to increase as a proportion of SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences," the CDC said. "It is currently the fastest-growing variant in the United States."
The CDC said in another update that the JN.1 level jumped from 8.1 percent to 21.4 percent in the past two weeks. JN.1 is now the second-most common variant in the U.S., behind only the HV.1 variant, according to the CDC.
Despite the fast growth of JN.1, there is "no evidence" at this time that it "presents an increased risk to public health relative to other currently circulating variants," said the CDC. There is also no signs of "increased severity" from the variant, the agency added.
Current COVID-19 treatments and tests are believed to be effective against JN.1, it said, adding that "the continued growth of JN.1 suggests that it is either more transmissible or better at evading our immune systems."
The CDC also said it's unclear to what extent JN.1 is contributing to hospitalizations in the U.S. but said that COVID-19 activity is likely going to increase during the winter months.
Researchers and the CDC say that JN.1 is a COVID-19 variant that descended from the BA.2.86 lineage, which is another Omicron sub-variant.
“BA.2.86 has more than 20 mutations on the spike protein and there was a concern when it was first detected a while back that, wow, this might be a real problem,” Thomas Russo, professor and chief of infectious diseases at the University at Buffalo in New York, told Prevention.
Symptoms
There is no data to indicate if JN.1 causes any new symptoms, said William Schaffner, a professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
“It’s an Omicron variant and looks to be similar,” he told the outlet.
The CDC says that symptoms include cough, shortness of breath, fever or chills, fatigue, muscle aches, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, runny nose, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, or nausea.
"It is not currently known whether JN.1 infection produces different symptoms from other variants," said the CDC update. "In general, symptoms of COVID-19 tend to be similar across variants. The types of symptoms and how severe they are usually depend more on a person’s immunity and overall health rather than which variant causes the infection."
Other Respiratory Illnesses
Separate data provided by the CDC show that while COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise in recent weeks, weekly COVID-19 hospitalizations have not reached the same levels as previous "surges" earlier on in the pandemic. As of the week ending Dec. 2, there were 22,513 recorded hospitalizations, which is significantly lower than the same weekly period in December 2022.
Flu hospitalizations are on the rise although the number of new admissions appears to be low with 5,753 admitted to the week ending on Dec. 2, which is an increase from 4,268 during the prior week, according to the most recent CDC data. The also data suggests that there have been 2.6 million influenza cases, 26,000 hospital cases, and 1,600 deaths during the flu season so far.
Earlier this month, the CDC said that despite reported spikes of pneumonia cases among children in several states, the CDC's director, Mandy Cohen, said earlier this month that transmission rates are considered "typical."
"As of today, we are not seeing anything that is atypical in terms of pneumonia-related emergency department visits," she told reporters.
It came amid concerns that a spate of pediatric pneumonia cases in mainland China could spread to the U.S., which drew an alert from the ProMed global surveillance system in late November.
**************************************
UK: Airforce intelligence officers joined Whitehall and Army in 'spying' on Covid lockdown critics - including David Davis and Peter Hitchens
RAF intelligence officers joined a shadowy Whitehall operation accused of spying on members of the public who criticised Covid lockdown policies, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Official military documents obtained by this newspaper show that analysts from RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire helped to scour social media posts by the public.
The MoS revealed in January how the Army's secretive 'information warfare brigade' was tasked with scrutinising online posts – an activity the Ministry of Defence, in public, repeatedly denied doing.
Now this newspaper can show that the military's assistance to Government cells, such as the Counter Disinformation Unit, based in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Rapid Response Unit in the Cabinet Office was far more extensive than previously thought.
These Whitehall outfits were tasked with tackling 'disinformation' and 'harmful narratives' during the pandemic. Their activities have faced fierce criticism after it emerged they also collected legitimate social media posts questioning Government lockdown policies.
Dossiers were compiled on public figures including Tory ex-Minister David Davis, who questioned the modelling behind alarming Covid death toll predictions, and The MoS's Peter Hitchens.
The documents reveal defence chiefs privately conceded the military's work for the Government could pose a 'potential presentational risk of Defence 'spying' or conducting 'Psyops' on the UK'. But the MoD feared that if the Armed Forces did not help the Government's online monitoring, then 'harmful misinformation and disinformation' could spread.
Jake Hurfurt, of the campaign group Big Brother Watch, last night branded Whitehall's use of military personnel as 'an attack on freedom of speech' and 'behaviour befitting an authoritarian state'. He added: 'The revelations that the RAF as well as the Army spied on the British people during the pandemic is yet more evidence that the MoD misled the public about the role of its psyops troops in 2020.'
'These documents prove that Whitehall officials knew deploying the military to monitor social media posts from politicians, journalists and the press would look like spying – but they carried on anyway.'
The RAF and Army's assistance to Whitehall is detailed in documents outlining official requests known as 'Military Aid to the Civil Authorities' (MACA). These are normally used by the Government when military help is needed to respond to natural disasters.
The papers also show how in 2020 the Government was considering a dramatic expansion of the Counter Disinformation Unit by ordering monitoring of online chatter about Brexit and the NHS.
Mr Hurfurt last night demanded that the Covid Inquiry also investigate how the Government 'monitored the British people'.
Peter Hitchens was monitored after sharing an article, based on leaked NHS papers, which claimed data used to publicly justify the lockdown was incomplete.
An internal Rapid Response Unit email said Mr Hitchens wanted to 'further [an] anti-lockdown agenda and influence the Commons vote'.
The Government said: 'Online disinformation is a serious threat, which is why in the pandemic we brought together expertise from across government to monitor disinformation about Covid.
'The units used publicly available data, including material on social media. They did not target individuals or take action that could impact the ability to discuss issues freely.'
*******************************************
Descriptive Analysis of Japanese Deaths Associated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vax: Troubling Data
A physician-researcher based at YASP Medical Information Laboratory for Dermatology in Aichi, Japan, 188 miles south of Tokyo, recently published in peer-reviewed Cureus the study “An analysis of the Association Between BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Deaths within 10 Days After Vaccination Using the Sex Ratio in Japan.” The study finding “indicates that the vaccination may influence the occurrence of death during the risk period and might be associated with death.”
An important study as mass vaccination necessitates a higher level of safety than pharmaceuticals used for treatment, and consequently, should have an exceptionally low vaccination mortality rate. It’s important to analyze vaccine safety using statistical methods able to detect significant differences even when the vaccination mortality rate is exceptionally low.
Background
The author reports that “the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations and deaths after vaccination has been investigated primarily through cohort and self-controlled case series studies. In the present study, the sex ratios of reported deaths were compared by period.”
The Study
In this descriptive analysis-based study, Dr. Yasusi Suzumura tapped into and extracted data on deaths reported after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine called BNT162b2. The data used were published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan.
For the study’s risk period, Dr. Suzumura’s study defined this parameter as within 10 days of vaccination, with the control period defined as 11 to 180 days post-administration of the COVID-19 jab.
Using sex ratios to calculate all-cause deaths, for each outcome the researcher divided the number of males by females all by 100. Then, the study author performed Fisher’s exact test (categorical data that results from classifying objects in two different ways; it is used to examine the significance of the association) for outcomes analysis. Thereafter, the author used graphs to present the data, including the number of days from vaccination to death, plus the reported death outcomes.
Study Findings
During the risk period (0-10 days) all-cause deaths among elderly persons (aged ≥65 years), Dr. Yasusi Suzumura reports a sex ratio of 92, which turns out to be “significantly lower than that during the control period (130) (p=0.0050).”
When analyzing the data for all-cause deaths of persons aged ≤64 years, the authors report the sex ratio during the risk period was 204, significantly higher than that during the control period (111) (p=0.044).
“Reported deaths were concentrated during the risk period in both groups. Sex ratios by period for each outcome were also examined. However, the differences were not significant across any of the outcomes.”
Takeaway
According to the Japanese study author the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccination for all-cause deaths among those aged ≤64 years, “vaccination may influence the occurrence of death during the risk period.”
The study finding here “indicates that the vaccination may influence the occurrence of death during the risk period and might be associated with death.”
TrialSite Breakdown
While a Japanese cohort study previously conducted led to no significant increase in all-cause mortality involving COVID-19 vaccination, the author points out, “This does not contradict the results of the present study.” While the previous cohort study points to support for COVID-19 vaccine safety, Dr. Suzumura points out that “This does not indicate that vaccine-related deaths are nonexistent; it only indicates that their number is not large enough to make a significant difference.”
On this occasion, it is difficult to determine whether a post-vaccination death is incidental or vaccine-related. A self-controlled risk interval design and a comparison of sex ratios by period may be useful in examining the association between vaccination and deaths after vaccination when a cohort study does not detect a significant difference due to a low mortality rate. The latter approach may be particularly useful for analyzing data with reporting bias. The author believes that this approach may not provide conclusive evidence, but it can offer valuable insights into assessing vaccine safety.
********************************************************
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, December 10, 2023
Now BIDEN'S ex-Covid advisor admits pandemic may have been caused by a Wuhan lab leak - and warns there's a 50% chance of another pandemic by 2050
President Joe Biden's former Covid advisor has admitted the pandemic may have been borne out of a laboratory leak in Wuhan.
Speaking at a New York City health conference this week, Dr Raj Panjabi, former Special Assistant to the President, described the lab leak theory as 'plausible' and called on Governments around the world to 'do more to keep labs safe.’
Biden called former President Donald Trump 'nakedly xenophobic’ in May 2020, for suggesting Covid was the result of Chinese experiments gone wrong.
But now the FBI, Department of Energy and many scientists and US government officials believe it is the most likely origin of the pandemic.
However, the official line from Biden's White House is that the origin of Covid remains uncertain — a view echoed by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who said there is 'no definitive answer' to the question.
But ex-Covid adviser Dr Panjabi appeared to veer away from the party line this week saying: ‘It is plausible that Covid originated in a lab accident in Wuhan...we have got to do more to keep labs safe.’
He also issued a chilling prediction: There's a 50/50 chance of another pandemic happening by 2050.
'The risk of a pandemic is only growing in the modern world,' Dr Punjabi said in a speech at the Forbes Healthcare Summit 2023 earlier this week.
'There is a 50 percent risk one will happen in the next 25 years. This is because of globalization, or what I call the three Ps.
‘These are: Pathogen spillover [when diseases jump from animals to humans]... planes [global travel], and poor public health systems that are shattered and lack investment.’
Dr Panjabi is a physician specializing in infectious disease and epidemiology. He has also been named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME magazine.
Panjabi worked for the Biden administration from 2021 to late 2023, playing a key role in two public health crises: the Covid-19 pandemic and the monkeypox outbreak that began in the Spring of 2022.
He also led the White House strategy for boosting Covid vaccine uptake in the US and abroad — a program that saw 1.1billion shots distributed to third-world countries.
Safety practices in US scientific laboratories are gaining increasing attention from Government officials, in a bid to prevent future pandemics.
Congress is currently considering tighter regulation of labs, with the House Energy and Commerce Committee currently holding hearings on the subject.
In September, Republicans escalated their Covid origins investigation, demanding the Biden administration and other politicians comply with their requests — or face being subpoenaed.
In a letter sent to HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra first obtained by DailyMail.com, the Republicans wrote they 'expect full and timely compliance' with their requests, which have gone unanswered since they launched the probe in February.
And Dr Anthony Fauci has finally agreed to testify to Congress on his involvement in the public cover up of Covid's origins.
The onetime White House doctor will be grilled on his former department's funding of dangerous experiments in Wuhan, as well as the stark difference between his public and private comments about the lab leak theory.
He is due to speak in front of the House in January, which will be the first time he has testified under oath since his infamous showdown in front of the Senate in July 2021.
The lab leak theory of Covid was dismissed as a conspiracy in the early days of the pandemic by leading figures including Dr Fauci.
Dr Panjabi is just the latest high ranking official to give credence to the lab leak theory, after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former top health official Dr Robert Kadlec and former national security director John Ratcliffe all came out in support of it.
Speaking to Sky News last month, Dr Ratcliffe said: ‘It’s more than just a possibility, it’s certainly a probability and it’s probably a certainty.’
Dr Rober Kadlec, who initially worked with Dr Fauci to hush the lab leak theory, has suggested in a report that Covid likely escaped during the work of scientist Dr Zhou Yusen at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
He filed a patent for a Covid vaccine in February 2020, which suggested he had been working on it for months.
Countless reports have revealed lax practices at US labs - including a military research facility Fort Detrik, in Maryland.
The lab is accused of leaking Ebola and Anthrax into local water supplies in May 2018 after a tank holding wastewater from labs became over-pressurized and sprayed infectious waste for three hours.
There are also suggestions that pandemics have been caused by lab leaks before, including the 2004 and 2005 influenza outbreak.
Researchers said the strain that caused it bore a remarkable resemblance to one that had been spreading decades earlier.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12828911/biden-covid-advisor-lab-leak-Dr-panjabi.html
*******************************************Children With Respiratory Illnesses at Pediatric Centers More Likely to Be Hospitalized if Vaccinated: CDC Study
Children who reported to pediatric center emergency departments with respiratory illness and were hospitalized were more likely to have taken COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
More than half of vaccinated children included in the study were admitted to hospitals as inpatients, compared to less than half of unvaccinated children.
The study examined children aged 6 months to 4 years who went to emergency departments at one of seven pediatric medical centers, including Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and Seattle Children's Hospital. Some of the children were admitted to hospitals. The encounters happened as early as July 1, 2022, and as late as Sept. 30, 2023.
The children needed to have one or more symptoms indicating acute respiratory illness, such as fever, cough, or shortness of breath.
The overwhelming majority of the young children in the study never received a dose of a vaccine. That group of 6,377 far outnumbered the 281 children who received one dose and the 776 children who received at least two doses. Across the United States, most young children are unvaccinated.
Of the unvaccinated children in the study, 44 percent were hospitalized. Of the vaccinated, 55 percent were hospitalized.
"This means that upon visiting hospital emergency departments, compared to unvaccinated children, vaccinated children had *increased* risks of inpatient hospitalization, very statistically significantly so," Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, who was not involved with the study, told The Epoch Times in an email.
Vaccinated children were also more likely to receive intensive care, need supplemental oxygen, and die, according to the paper, though just three deaths were recorded among the study population and some of the differences were not statistically significant.
The CDC's media office, which promoted the study, told The Epoch Times in an email: "Although proportionally more hospitalized children had received a COVID-19 vaccine than children enrolled in the emergency department (ED), this does not mean that vaccinated children were more likely to be hospitalized."
The CDC also said the paper showed that vaccination was "effective at reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations in children."
Dr. Eyal Shahar, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona who reviewed the study, noted that the vaccinated children had worse underlying health. "That largely explains worse outcomes," Dr. Shahar told The Epoch Times via email. "We cannot attribute the outcomes to vaccination."
The CDC published the paper in its quasi-journal. Papers published by the journal are typically not peer-reviewed but are shaped to align with CDC policy. The CDC currently recommends COVID-19 vaccination for nearly all Americans, regardless of prior infection or underlying health.
The study's authors, some of whom work for the CDC, said the study showed that "receipt of ≥2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses was 40% effective ... in preventing emergency department visits and hospitalization," referring to the Pfizer and Moderna modified messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines.
The authors reached that conclusion after separating out patients who tested positive for COVID-19. There were 387, with 94 percent unvaccinated. The unvaccinated were only 85 percent of the study population, indicating they were at higher risk of visiting an emergency department with respiratory illness and then testing positive for COVID-19.
"No one cares whether the vaccines reduce COVID-associated hospitalization if at the same time they increase non-COVID-associated hospitalization," Dr. Risch said.
The researchers estimated that the effectiveness of one vaccine dose against emergency department presentation or hospitalization was 31 percent, increasing to 40 percent for at least two doses.
Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, an epidemiologist in California who reviewed the paper, said that the authors inappropriately inferred causality despite the study being observational.
"They should have said 'was associated with lower rate of...' rather than 'was effective in preventing,'" Dr. Hoeg told The Epoch Times via email.
The researchers did not present separate estimates for protection against hospitalization and emergency department visits, nor did they track how the effectiveness estimates changed over time. Vaccine effectiveness has been shown to drop over time in other studies.
Regarding effectiveness, the authors referred to an earlier CDC-published study that estimated vaccination provided from 7 percent to 80 percent protection against COVID-19-associated urgent care counters and emergency department visits. A third CDC-published study estimated protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among young children was typically under 50 percent.
Vaccines are supposed to provide at least 50 percent protection, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization guidance.
Dr. Heidi Klein, who works for the CDC, and Dr. Eileen Klein, an emergency medicine doctor at Seattle Children's Hospital, did not respond to requests for comment. They were listed as the new study's senior authors.
The conflicts of interest described were lengthy, with three authors reporting funding from Pfizer.
Limitations of the paper, the authors said, included the low number of vaccinated children.
"This appears to be another substandard observational study of vaccine efficacy in children published without peer review by the CDC. The list of limitations is a mile long and understates the study's methodological limitations," Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University who reviewed the study, told The Epoch Times via email. "If the CDC wants to answer the question of COVID vaccine benefits and harms to children, it should commission a large, rigorous, randomized trial with meaningful clinical endpoints like prevention of hospitalization and death."
More on Methods
Researchers collected data for the study through interviews with parents, chart reviews, and immunization records.
All children included had signs of acute respiratory illness.
Children who tested positive for COVID-19 were considered case patients while controls were children who tested negative for COVID-19.
Exclusions included children whose illness lasted more than 10 days, children without verified vaccination status, and children with inconclusive COVID-19 test results.
Ninety-five percent of the children tested negative for COVID-19. Many tested positive for other viruses, such as rhinovirus. Out of 7,434 children, just 387 tested positive for COVID-19.
Those children fared worse by many measures than those who did not, including having a higher probability of needing supplemental oxygen.
********************************************************
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, December 09, 2023
Thursday, December 07, 2023
Next Generation mRNA COVID-19 Vax Shows Promise in Preclinical Studies
A novel mRNA vaccine developed by GreenLight Biosciences demonstrates significant potential in preclinical animal studies. Does the market need more COVID-19 vaccines? Well, while the market for the existing COVID-19 vaccines have collapsed for now, COVID-19 will likely be around ongoing. As surges may worsen in the future, next generation vaccines will be needed, ones that are more effective, including ones more durable and safer.
This experimental mRNA vaccine encodes for the full-length SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan wild-type spike protein.
What’s the candidate?
GLB-COV2-043, positioned to be a low-cost mRNA vaccine targeting COVID-19.
So how does this early-stage, investigational vaccine differ from say Pfizer-BioNTech’s BNT162b2 or Moderna’s mRNA-1273?
For starters, TrialSite has referred to the above vaccines as version “1.0” or first-generation mRNA vaccines. The current authors concur, however, and not surprisingly, are very careful with their language in the journal entry. Referring to those first mRNA vaccines as “the first-generation mRNA vaccines, encoding for a prefusion stabilized version of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (Wuhan-Hu-1) strain,” they insert the customary (and likely mandatory) reminder that these current vaccines are considered “safe and highly effective in preventing severe COVID-19 disease, hospitalization, and death in clinical trials,” and therefore authorized for emergency use in humans.
But the authors go on to discuss in pre-clinical research the promise for GLB-COV2-043-driven durability. That is the ability for the vaccine to induce long-term memory responses and durability of binding and neutralizing antibodies against homologous strain and several heterologous variants of SARS-CoV-2.
Also investigating a third booster jab, the data at least thus far suggests GLB-COV2-043 elicits short and long-term potent humoral and cellular immune responses in C57BL/6 mice.
They also point out the success of GLB-COV2-043 in protecting Golden Syrian hamsters in a challenge model against Omicron BA.1 virus.
What about safety?
Thus far tests (cGLP Toxicology study) in Sprague Dawley Rats suggest that GLB-COV2-043 is well-tolerated and effects attributed were consistent with the immunological and inflammatory changes associated with the intramuscular administration of an immunogenic mRNA vaccine.
What’s the delivery technology?
The delivery mechanism involves modified mRNA and lipid-nanoparticle (LNP) technology.
What are pre-clinical results to date?
Studying the vaccine in mice, the researchers from GreenLight finding that GLB-COV2-043 induces robust antigen-specific binding and virus-neutralizing antibody responses targeting both homologous and heterologous SARS-CoV-2 variants and a TH1-biased immune response, as reported by the study authors in a recent entry in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
The authors point out:
“Boosting mice with monovalent or bivalent mRNA-LNPs provided rapid recall and long-lasting neutralizing antibody titers, an increase in antibody avidity and breadth that was held over time and generation of antigen-specific memory B- and T- cells.”
Further study in hamsters found injecting GLB-COV2-043 led to lower viral loads, reduced incidence of SARS-CoV-2-related microscopic findings in lungs, and protection against weight loss after heterologous challenge with Omicron BA.1 live virus.
What’s the takeaway?
Results show that the “GLB-COV2-043 mRNA-LNP vaccine candidate elicits robust protective humoral and cellular immune responses and establishes our mRNA-LNP platform for subsequent clinical evaluations.”
****************************************************
UK Covid Inquiry Continues with New Testimony, Some Provocative Speakers Show Up
The ongoing Covid Inquiry in the United Kingdom continues this week with former prime minister Boris Johnson finally facing two days of questions about the British government’s actions during the pandemic. The Inquiry is being led by Baroness Heather Hallett in several locations in London. As TrialSite has reported the Inquiry aims to offer a review of the government pandemic response, lessons learned from mistakes with the goal of improving the next pandemic response. Some speakers considered proactive traveled across the pond to discuss problems with the COVID-19 vaccine response at the request of controversial MP Andrew Bridgen. The MP doesn’t trust the formal COVID-19 narrative.
Dealing with the Pandemic
So far, the inquiry has covered topics such as, Resilience and Preparedness, Core UK Decision Making and Political Governance, the impact of Covid-19 on the healthcare system and Vaccines and Therapeutics. On that note, one specific conference led by KC Anne Morris deals with the Vaccine Injured. The vaccine compensation system is a disaster, much like in the United States. According to Morris, the vaccine scheme doesn’t work, it’s not “fit for purpose….”
Apparently, the Inquiry has some influence and can determine if reform to the compensation scheme is necessary. According to the Daily Mail, at least 6,399 claims have been filed with over 500 individuals waiting over a year to get a decision. 166 are “stuck in limbo for more than 18 months,” lawyers told the Inquiry. And as mentioned previously, 127 claims have been approved, state-funded financial support totaling over $18.7 million.
A Different Narrative: COVID-19 Vax Critics Contribute
Yesterday, a panel of experts well known to openly question governments’ top down, rigid response to COVID-19—some even attacked and branded as “conspiracy theorists” testified in front of over twenty members of parliament.
The panel of experts included Dr David E. Martin, Dr Robert Malone, Dr Ryan Cole, Dr Pierre Kory, Professor Angus Dalgleish and Steve Kirsch, the latter being a particularly extreme anti-COVID-19 vaccine advocate. Steve Kirsch has gone on the record that far more people have been killed by the vaccines than saved. While the mainstream medical establishment evades Kirsch, the wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur continuously seeks to find smoking gun evidence to shut down the countermeasure program.
Dr. Robert Malone became relatively famous, or infamous, when he went on the Joe Rogan show, and is associated with at least one of the types of research workstreams involved in early mRNA laboratory work. Malone has branded himself as “the inventor of mRNA technology” and has established a substantial platform to call out and question governments’ responses to the pandemic.
Malone, who is now branded an anti-vaxxer by elements within the U.S. said about the Covid vaccine, “What we have here is a rushed product. A rushed technology. A failure to provide respect for humans in not allowing them to have informed consent. And furthermore, actively deploying the most massive propaganda campaign in the history of the modern world, to suppress the ability of the public to gain access-merely to have the knowledge- of what the adverse event risks are. I come to you with one request- open the books! Let’s see the data and let’s allow the data to be examined so we can actually get to the bottom of the most important question the world is facing: were these products actually safe and effective?”
They also mentioned the question of the origin of the Covid virus, and the cover up of early treatments for the disease. Malone also brought up the side effects of the Covid vaccine including myocarditis and the possibility of reproductive damage to women. While there is some peer -reviewed evidence for at least temporary altering of menstrual cycles, there is no direct evidence that the vaccines permanently damage the reproductive system. Malone also emphasized the importance of transparency and the need to access COVID-19 vaccine injury data.
Boris Johnson Expected
The British mainstream media acknowledges members of their Government are under examination and should be treated as severely as how Britons were treated by the Government during what is being referred to as “the Great Panic of 2020-21.” Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, is expected to appear at the inquiry and will be questioned.
The questioning will be a rare opportunity for Johnson to face close scrutiny about the decisions he made during the pandemic, a time when he breached the lockdown rules which he was urging others to follow. The ex-PM is also expected to apologize to the Covid Inquiry because he didn’t get everything right during the pandemic, but he was correct on the “big calls”. Apparently, Johnson has to do some reputation management.
Johnson’s Skill Set
According to Johnson’s former director of communications, Lee Cain, the pandemic was the wrong crisis for Johnson’s skill set, with Cain saying there was “dithering and delay”. This is not the only criticism coming from people who served in the UK government with Johnson. The former chief scientific officer, Sir Patrick Vallance claims Johnson was "bamboozled" by scientific data. Vallance has contradicted himself by also saying “we should have "Locked down harder, earlier.”
The chief scientific adviser to the government did a complete U-turn on what he said to start with! Vallance also revealed he was “reprimanded” by a couple of civil servants when calling for the lock down action by mid-March 2020. While Boris Johnson announced the Covid-19 response by March 23, Vallance shared he privately thought the lockdowns should commence on March 14 or 15. Another former advisor, Dominic Cummings, described the former prime minister as “the trolley” due to his tendency to veer around and constantly change his mind. Johnson’s sister, Sarah, claims the inquiry is just a “show trial” to scapegoat those who were in government during Covid.
Boris Johnson is expected to make an apology on behalf of the government over his early handling of the pandemic, but he’ll defend his personal behavior, obviously over the “party gate” scandal when the PM didn’t adhere to the rules he set for others. Ironically, in Sir Patrick Vallance’s diaries, he claims Johnson, when he was prime minister, pushed to “punish people who aren’t doing the right thing” and for “massive fines” when it came to lockdown rules.
Former Prime Minister to Face Tough Questions
Johnson may be asked specific questions like, “Was the UK too slow to impose lockdowns?” “Did the former PM really say, “let the bodies pile high?” and other similar statements when discussing the idea of a lockdown in 2020. It’s also claimed Johnson said, “Covid is nature’s way of dealing with old people.”
Families of Covid victims are expected to confront Johnson at the inquiry. The former prime minister will be quizzed under oath, and reportedly, Johnson is uncomfortable taking questions so much so, supposedly he once hid in a refrigerator in order not answer inquiries. However, as uncomfortable as Johnson is, the British public may finally get some answers.
********************************************************
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, December 06, 2023
Systematic Study Finds No Good Evidence for Masking Benefit for Children Inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 Transmission & Infection
A group of physician-researchers from the San Francisco Bay Area screened 597 studies culling that number down to 22 in a systematic analysis investigating the benefits of children masking during the pandemic. Adversely impacting the weight of the evidence is the fact that no randomized controlled trials involving children were used. So, any findings one way or the other in regard to its impact on SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission would benefit for more evidence. The six observational studies reporting an association between child masking and lower infection rate or antibody seropositivity had critical (n=5) or serious (n=1) risk of bias, according to the study’s authors.
All six of those studies are likely confounded by important differences between masked and unmasked groups. Upon reanalysis, two of the studies were shown to have non-significant results. Sixteen other observational studies found no association between mask-wearing and infection or transmission. The authors such as Dr. Tracy Hoeg, known to be critical of the government’s response to COVID-19, used this systematic review to assess the state of mask wearing in children, what are the outcomes? The authors report that based on the observation of real-world outcomes, the evidence for the benefit of child masking as a non-pharmaceutical intervention to reduce COVID-19 transmission or infection is weak.
During the pandemic, one of the most controversial interventions was the use of masking requirements to improve public health to protect against COVID-19. This research divulges that such requirements—to enforce masking in places like public schools, “appear to be entirely based on mechanistic and observational data, and a systematic review assessing the evidence has not been performed.”
This counters others meta-analysis studies showing masking actually helped. On the other hand, reviews of some of the evidence suggest dependence on “junk science.”
Here, the peer-reviewed systematic study published in The BMJ showed 16 studies point to a lack of mask efficacy, while six studies point to some associated protective outcome, but the limitations of these latter investigations cannot be ignored due to the risk of bias. had critical or serious risk of bias.
The authors point out, “Because benefits of masking for COVID-19 have not been identified, it should be recognized that mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”
*************************************************
The Epistle of Paul to the Americans: Exposing White Coat Supremacy
“Why would a virologist, who is also the head of the CDC not be included in discussions concerning the origin of COVID-19?” wonders Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the only member of Congress to call out Dr. Anthony Fauci in a conflict thoroughly chronicled in his latest book, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up.
That CDC leader is Dr. Robert Redfield, a veteran of the Army Medical Corps, co-founder of the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology, and vice chair of medicine at the University of Maryland. Dr. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, excluded Redfield from meetings because “[he] was open to the possibility that COVID-19 could have leaked from the Wuhan lab,” Sen. Paul tells his readers. For that position, Redfield received death threats.
“COVID-19 seemed to show up in Wuhan instantly pre-adapted to transmit easily in humans,” notes Paul, a medical doctor. His account shows, in an understandable way, how this can be achieved, and how gain-of-function research can make viruses more lethal and transmissible.
As Sen. Paul pointed out, Dr. Fauci funded that kind of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and then lied about it to Congress, which is a crime. Readers get full exchanges, and Dr. Fauci’s deception stands out in stark relief. Paul also exposes Fauci’s “yes-men,” who spotted the lab origin but changed their mind under pressure from the NIAID boss who controls their funding.
Sen. Paul Calls Out Fauci’s Lies
Fauci “commissioned and pre-approved” a paper titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” to back the position that the COVID virus arose naturally in the wild. To refute the paper, Paul taps scientists much more qualified than Fauci or Peter Daszak, the conduit for U.S. funds to the WIV. As Paul contends, “the viral backbone could simply have been one of the many unreported viruses held at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Many of them were in fact reported, right from the start.
In January 2020, Israeli molecular biologist Dr. Dany Shoman published China and Viruses: The Case of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu. According to Dr. Shoham, the “main culprit” in the transfer of deadly pathogens to China is Xiangguo Qiu, an “outstanding Chinese scientist” who came to Canada for graduate studies in 1996 and came to head the Special Pathogens program at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg. Since 2006, Dr. Qiu has been “studying powerful viruses—Ebola most of all—at the NML.”
The viruses that were surreptitiously shipped from the NML to China included Machupo, Junin, Rift Valley Fever, Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever, and Hendra. In 2017 and 2018 alone, Qiu made at least five trips to the Wuhan lab. This too was ignored by the establishment media, which hurled charges of “conspiracy theory” at anything less than worshipful of Dr. Fauci. As Paul notes, in the spring of 2021, CNN was still claiming that the lab leak hypothesis was “a controversial theory without evidence.”
Fauci and his men “had a conflict of interest,” and were fully aware that “the billion-dollar ‘business of science’ could be damaged if the public becomes aware that the pandemic may have originated in a lab.” At the time of his writing “not one Democrat committee chairman has consigned the release request for COVID records from the Biden administration.” As Paul learned from experience, “[N]ot only is the intelligence community hiding documents that implicate China in the origins of the pandemic, they are now directing social media companies to restrict speech across America.”
As Paul recalls, some people had little to no symptoms with COVID infection, “but as usual, Fauci was convinced that anything that gave hope to people, anything that might lessen the arguments for lockdowns, mask mandates and universal vaccines must be dismissed out of hand.” COVID vaccine mandates, “should not be dictated by anyone who stands to gain monetarily,” but Paul finds this simple principle “still not understood or accepted.”
During the pandemic, “fear gripped the nation, and where we needed calming and reasoned voices, alarming sirens of hysteria dominated the airwaves. A free people let down their guard and the impulse to authoritarianism sprouted and multiplied.” All true, but there was more to it.
White Coat Supremacy
In the pandemic, “we had entered a frightening new era of medicine, where the training and expertise of one’s physician are secondary to the rigid rules and edicts of government bureaucrats.” Sen. Paul charts the dangers and dynamics of white coat supremacy, and he hasn’t forgotten Fauci. The NIAID boss wielded executive-level power without ever facing the voters.
“Despite his extraordinary accumulation of power over nearly four decades,” Paul observes, “the Senate never once voted to confirm Anthony Fauci.” As readers of Deception should know, the reality is much worse.
Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but if he ever practiced medicine it was only for a short time. In 1968, to avoid service treating American GIs, Dr. Fauci took a cushy “yellow beret” job with the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fauci’s bio showed no advanced degrees in biochemistry or molecular biology but by 1984 he was heading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID).
Back in the 1990s Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), went on record to say that Fauci “doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in.” Fauci should never had the job in the first place.
The NIAID boss predicted that AIDS would ravage vast swaths of the population, which never happened. (See Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg and The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento.) Despite the failure, Fauci expanded his power in devious ways.
In 1995, NIH nurse Christine Grady authored The Search for an AIDS Vaccine: Ethical Issues in the Development and Testing of a Preventative HIV Vaccine. The author justifies dangerous drug trials on children and pregnant women and touts Dr. Fauci without revealing that she had been married to him for 10 years.
The NIH failed to reveal the relationship when they named Grady chief of the Department of Bioethics of the NIH Clinical Center in 2012. It was the mother of all conflicts of interest, justifying Fauci’s drug trials with black foster children in New York, as Robert F. Kennedy noted in The Real Anthony Fauci.
During the 1980s, Fauci fast-tracked approval of AZT (azidothymidine), a DNA chain terminator forced on the foster children with tragic results. Biologist Rebecca V. Culshaw, author of The Real AIDS Epidemic, finds a parallel with the rush to approve mRNA vaccines for COVID. That was “essentially a massive clinical trial was conducted in real time on the entire population,” including children, the group least vulnerable to the disease. Children also lost valuable school time due to Fauci’s lockdown policies.
Sen. Paul was the only member of Congress to challenge Dr. Fauci, a Lysenko figure wielding extraordinary power but never held to account. Invaluable for the general reader, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-up would be a fine Christmas gift for members of Congress. At first opportunity Congress, should slash the NIAID budget, limit the director to one four-year term, and above all investigate Dr. Anthony Fauci. The struggle against white coat supremacy is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
A group of physician-researchers from the San Francisco Bay Area screened 597 studies culling that number down to 22 in a systematic analysis investigating the benefits of children masking during the pandemic. Adversely impacting the weight of the evidence is the fact that no randomized controlled trials involving children were used. So, any findings one way or the other in regard to its impact on SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission would benefit for more evidence. The six observational studies reporting an association between child masking and lower infection rate or antibody seropositivity had critical (n=5) or serious (n=1) risk of bias, according to the study’s authors.
All six of those studies are likely confounded by important differences between masked and unmasked groups. Upon reanalysis, two of the studies were shown to have non-significant results. Sixteen other observational studies found no association between mask-wearing and infection or transmission. The authors such as Dr. Tracy Hoeg, known to be critical of the government’s response to COVID-19, used this systematic review to assess the state of mask wearing in children, what are the outcomes? The authors report that based on the observation of real-world outcomes, the evidence for the benefit of child masking as a non-pharmaceutical intervention to reduce COVID-19 transmission or infection is weak.
During the pandemic, one of the most controversial interventions was the use of masking requirements to improve public health to protect against COVID-19. This research divulges that such requirements—to enforce masking in places like public schools, “appear to be entirely based on mechanistic and observational data, and a systematic review assessing the evidence has not been performed.”
This counters others meta-analysis studies showing masking actually helped. On the other hand, reviews of some of the evidence suggest dependence on “junk science.”
Here, the peer-reviewed systematic study published in The BMJ showed 16 studies point to a lack of mask efficacy, while six studies point to some associated protective outcome, but the limitations of these latter investigations cannot be ignored due to the risk of bias. had critical or serious risk of bias.
The authors point out, “Because benefits of masking for COVID-19 have not been identified, it should be recognized that mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”
*************************************************
The Epistle of Paul to the Americans: Exposing White Coat Supremacy
“Why would a virologist, who is also the head of the CDC not be included in discussions concerning the origin of COVID-19?” wonders Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the only member of Congress to call out Dr. Anthony Fauci in a conflict thoroughly chronicled in his latest book, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up.
That CDC leader is Dr. Robert Redfield, a veteran of the Army Medical Corps, co-founder of the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology, and vice chair of medicine at the University of Maryland. Dr. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, excluded Redfield from meetings because “[he] was open to the possibility that COVID-19 could have leaked from the Wuhan lab,” Sen. Paul tells his readers. For that position, Redfield received death threats.
“COVID-19 seemed to show up in Wuhan instantly pre-adapted to transmit easily in humans,” notes Paul, a medical doctor. His account shows, in an understandable way, how this can be achieved, and how gain-of-function research can make viruses more lethal and transmissible.
As Sen. Paul pointed out, Dr. Fauci funded that kind of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and then lied about it to Congress, which is a crime. Readers get full exchanges, and Dr. Fauci’s deception stands out in stark relief. Paul also exposes Fauci’s “yes-men,” who spotted the lab origin but changed their mind under pressure from the NIAID boss who controls their funding.
Sen. Paul Calls Out Fauci’s Lies
Fauci “commissioned and pre-approved” a paper titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” to back the position that the COVID virus arose naturally in the wild. To refute the paper, Paul taps scientists much more qualified than Fauci or Peter Daszak, the conduit for U.S. funds to the WIV. As Paul contends, “the viral backbone could simply have been one of the many unreported viruses held at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Many of them were in fact reported, right from the start.
In January 2020, Israeli molecular biologist Dr. Dany Shoman published China and Viruses: The Case of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu. According to Dr. Shoham, the “main culprit” in the transfer of deadly pathogens to China is Xiangguo Qiu, an “outstanding Chinese scientist” who came to Canada for graduate studies in 1996 and came to head the Special Pathogens program at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg. Since 2006, Dr. Qiu has been “studying powerful viruses—Ebola most of all—at the NML.”
The viruses that were surreptitiously shipped from the NML to China included Machupo, Junin, Rift Valley Fever, Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever, and Hendra. In 2017 and 2018 alone, Qiu made at least five trips to the Wuhan lab. This too was ignored by the establishment media, which hurled charges of “conspiracy theory” at anything less than worshipful of Dr. Fauci. As Paul notes, in the spring of 2021, CNN was still claiming that the lab leak hypothesis was “a controversial theory without evidence.”
Fauci and his men “had a conflict of interest,” and were fully aware that “the billion-dollar ‘business of science’ could be damaged if the public becomes aware that the pandemic may have originated in a lab.” At the time of his writing “not one Democrat committee chairman has consigned the release request for COVID records from the Biden administration.” As Paul learned from experience, “[N]ot only is the intelligence community hiding documents that implicate China in the origins of the pandemic, they are now directing social media companies to restrict speech across America.”
As Paul recalls, some people had little to no symptoms with COVID infection, “but as usual, Fauci was convinced that anything that gave hope to people, anything that might lessen the arguments for lockdowns, mask mandates and universal vaccines must be dismissed out of hand.” COVID vaccine mandates, “should not be dictated by anyone who stands to gain monetarily,” but Paul finds this simple principle “still not understood or accepted.”
During the pandemic, “fear gripped the nation, and where we needed calming and reasoned voices, alarming sirens of hysteria dominated the airwaves. A free people let down their guard and the impulse to authoritarianism sprouted and multiplied.” All true, but there was more to it.
White Coat Supremacy
In the pandemic, “we had entered a frightening new era of medicine, where the training and expertise of one’s physician are secondary to the rigid rules and edicts of government bureaucrats.” Sen. Paul charts the dangers and dynamics of white coat supremacy, and he hasn’t forgotten Fauci. The NIAID boss wielded executive-level power without ever facing the voters.
“Despite his extraordinary accumulation of power over nearly four decades,” Paul observes, “the Senate never once voted to confirm Anthony Fauci.” As readers of Deception should know, the reality is much worse.
Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966 but if he ever practiced medicine it was only for a short time. In 1968, to avoid service treating American GIs, Dr. Fauci took a cushy “yellow beret” job with the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fauci’s bio showed no advanced degrees in biochemistry or molecular biology but by 1984 he was heading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID).
Back in the 1990s Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), went on record to say that Fauci “doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in.” Fauci should never had the job in the first place.
The NIAID boss predicted that AIDS would ravage vast swaths of the population, which never happened. (See Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg and The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento.) Despite the failure, Fauci expanded his power in devious ways.
In 1995, NIH nurse Christine Grady authored The Search for an AIDS Vaccine: Ethical Issues in the Development and Testing of a Preventative HIV Vaccine. The author justifies dangerous drug trials on children and pregnant women and touts Dr. Fauci without revealing that she had been married to him for 10 years.
The NIH failed to reveal the relationship when they named Grady chief of the Department of Bioethics of the NIH Clinical Center in 2012. It was the mother of all conflicts of interest, justifying Fauci’s drug trials with black foster children in New York, as Robert F. Kennedy noted in The Real Anthony Fauci.
During the 1980s, Fauci fast-tracked approval of AZT (azidothymidine), a DNA chain terminator forced on the foster children with tragic results. Biologist Rebecca V. Culshaw, author of The Real AIDS Epidemic, finds a parallel with the rush to approve mRNA vaccines for COVID. That was “essentially a massive clinical trial was conducted in real time on the entire population,” including children, the group least vulnerable to the disease. Children also lost valuable school time due to Fauci’s lockdown policies.
Sen. Paul was the only member of Congress to challenge Dr. Fauci, a Lysenko figure wielding extraordinary power but never held to account. Invaluable for the general reader, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-up would be a fine Christmas gift for members of Congress. At first opportunity Congress, should slash the NIAID budget, limit the director to one four-year term, and above all investigate Dr. Anthony Fauci. The struggle against white coat supremacy is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14751&omhide=true&trk=rm
********************************************************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, December 05, 2023
CDC Study of Young Children: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Bomb, Fail WHO Threshold--Agency Still Promotes Universal Immunization
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored the latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) focusing on the epidemiology of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine effectiveness concerning young children ranging in age from 6 months to 4 years. tracking vaccine effectiveness from July 2022, to September 2023.
Represented by epidemiologist and corresponding author Heidi Moline, M.D., Ph.D., a large study team acknowledges first and foremost, that “SARS-CoV-2 infection in young children is often mild or asymptomatic; however, some children are at risk for severe disease.” While agencies such as the CDC have promoted universal vaccination for children aged 6 months and up regardless, data as to the protective effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines developed as countermeasures by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have been limited.
The results here, while touted by the authors as reinforcing the universal vaccination position of the CDC, fail a standard World Health Organization threshold for vaccine effectiveness. In fact, Moderna’s vaccine effectiveness in preventing ER or hospitalization equals 29% for two-dose mRNA primary series. This is not preventing infection, but more severe outcomes.
To be approved, vaccines are required to have a high efficacy rate of 50% or above according to the World Health Organization (WHO). After approval, they continue to be monitored for ongoing safety and effectiveness. See link to the WHO.
In this CDC-sponsored study, the investigators use data from a prospective population-based surveillance system called the New Vaccine Surveillance Network.
Tapping into collecting, categorizing and analyzing this data led to estimates of vaccine effectiveness using a test-negative, case-control design. Including 7,434 children included, 5% received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and 95% received a negative test result; 86% were unvaccinated, 4% had received 1 dose of any vaccine product, and 10% had received ≥2 doses.
According to this observational class of study when comparing unvaccinated children with those children receiving ≥2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses the authors report a 40% effective (95% CI = 8%–60%) rate in preventing ED visits and hospitalization. The authors exclude any investigation into vaccine safety, suggesting a form of bias, as a true risk-benefit analysis would need such information.
What is the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN)?
NVSN conducts population-based, prospective surveillance for acute respiratory illness (ARI) in children at seven pediatric medical centers. The centers include Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri; Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; Golisano Children’s Hospital, Rochester, New York; Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington; Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, Texas; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
How many children received no vaccine?
86%
Were there racial and ethnicity differences in COVID-19 vaccination rates for this vulnerable cohort?
Yes. Compared with White children, Black children were about seven times less likely, and Hispanic/Latino children were approximately three times less likely to have received ≥2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.
What was the overall incidence of COVID-19?
Low. Only 5% of children with symptoms turn out to be COVID-19 positive. Also, the authors report co-detections of other respiratory viruses were present in approximately one-third of children who received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results.
So, what was the vaccine's effectiveness in preventing ED visits and hospitalization?
40%. It ranges as low as 8%. Moderna primary series equals 29%.
Do the CDC authors acknowledge the impact of previous exposure/natural immunity in reducing severity of COVID-19 in this young cohort?
Yes.
So, is 40% vaccine effectiveness sufficient for typical standards?
No, especially not 40% against ER or hospitalization. As TrialSite suggests above, WHO recommends 50%. See the link.
What is the rationale for the ongoing recommendation?
According to the authors' own logic, we are not certain. It appears that it's just a generic stance the CDC takes without critically vetting the data. The study authors point out that “Despite low vaccination coverage and the circulation of several Omicron subvariants, COVID-19–associated ED visits and hospitalization among children with ARI enrolled in NVSN were rare, suggesting most children in this age group experience mild illness from these subvariants or have immune protection from previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure (7). These findings indicate that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are protective and are consistent with other VE estimates for this age group, ranging from 29% for 2-dose Moderna coverage to 43% for 3-dose Pfizer-BioNTech coverage (5); however, low vaccination coverage and low incidence of medically attended COVID-19 limit precision in these VE estimates.”
What are some key limitations?
First and foremost, a vaccine’s efficacy is measured in a controlled clinical trial and is based on how many people who got vaccinated developed the ‘outcome of interest’ (usually disease) compared with how many people who got the placebo (dummy vaccine) developed the same outcome. This class of study does not indicate causation.
Other limitations provided by the authors include
1) seroprevalence of infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children and adolescents has increased over time, which might affect vaccine effectiveness estimates and assessment of severe outcomes, as more children have immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection
2) low vaccination coverage might indicate that vaccinated children are systematically different from unvaccinated children;
3) NVSN data might be subject to enrollment biases that might vary by site, such as number of enrollment days per week and availability of interpreters for non-English speakers;
4) low vaccination coverage and disease incidence limit the precision of the point estimates and were too low to analyze data by time since dose or to stratify by setting or product and
5) Moderna vaccine is administered as a 2-dose primary series whereas Pfizer-BioNTech requires 3 doses, and receipt of ≥2 doses might underestimate the protection afforded by the complete 3-dose Pfizer-BioNTech primary series.
*******************************************************
Skin Disorders Post-COVID-19 Vaccinations
The purpose of the present Op-ed is to identify the scope and number of occurrences of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (hereafter abbreviated as skin disorders) that occur following COVID-19 vaccinations.
What are skin disorders? “Skin diseases are conditions that affect your skin. These diseases may cause rashes, inflammation, itchiness or other skin changes. Some skin conditions may be genetic, while lifestyle factors may cause others”. For purposes of this Op-ed, skin disorders encompass Angioedema and urticaria, Cornification and dystrophic skin disorders, Cutaneous neoplasms benign, Epidermal and dermal conditions, Pigmentation disorders, Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders Not Otherwise Classified, Skin and subcutaneous tissue infections and infestations Not Otherwise Classified, Skin appendage conditions, Skin neoplasms malignant and unspecified, Skin vascular abnormalities.
While cardiovascular disorders, cancers, immune system disorders, and neurological disorders post-COVID-19 vaccination have been studied to a modest extent, skin disorders following COVID-19 vaccination have not been studied to nearly the same extent. This Op-ed will examine a very broad spectrum of skin disorders following COVID-19 vaccinations as reported by VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System). Additionally, the COVID-19 results will be compared to similar results following influenza vaccinations.
METHODOLOGY
Because of the extensive use of the MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) vocabulary in this study, the MedDRA vocabulary will be discussed before the specific methodology is presented. “VAERS uses the MedDRA vocabulary to represent each of the ~18,000 symptoms listed in VAERS. MedDRA consists of five hierarchical levels of symptoms/diseases: System Organ Class (SOC), High-Level Group Terms (HLGT); High-Level Terms (HLT); Preferred Terms (PT); Lower Level Terms (LLT). Only a subset of the bottom level (LLT) is used for the VAERS terminology”. There are 27 SOCS in MedDRA, one of which is Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders. In the present Op-ed, all the LLT terms that are contained within the Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders SOC in the full MedDRA database are used to query the VAERS database.
Also, as stated by Medalerts, “the full MedDRA has 87,592 LLT [lowest level terms) symptoms, but VAERS uses only 17,679 (20%).” The MedDRA terms in any category are determined by groups of experts, and are associated with subjectivities and uncertainties that accompany any group decisions.
Now, the specific methodology used to obtain the results will be described. On 23 November 2023, the VAERS database (current as of 27 October 2023), was accessed through CDC Wonder, and all the symptoms were retrieved for COVID-19 vaccines, including those with zero entries. The same type of retrieval was done for influenza vaccines. To obtain the VAERS results for post-COVID-19 vaccination skin disorders, the final list of 6033 MedDRA LLT terms (see Appendix 1 for the specific MedDRA query used to identify skin disorder-related symptoms in VAERS) was intersected with all the ~18,000 VAERS terms to identify VAERS symptoms related to skin disorders post-COVID-19 vaccination (see Appendix 2 for the VAERS COVID-19 results).
Selected VAERS skin disorder results post-COVID-19 vaccinations were also compared to selected VAERS skin disorder results post-influenza vaccinations, using similar numbers of vaccine doses administered. To generate these similar numbers of vaccine doses administered, the influenza VAERS results were retrieved for the period 2019-2023, while the COVID-19 VAERS results were retrieved for the period 2021-2023.
To obtain the VAERS results for post-influenza vaccination skin disorders, the final list of 6033 MedDRA LLT terms was also intersected with all the ~18,000 VAERS terms to identify VAERS symptoms related to skin disorders post-influenza vaccination (see Appendix 3 for the VAERS influenza results).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
VAERS Symptoms Related to Skin Disorders Post-COVID-19 Vaccination
The VAERS symptoms related to skin disorders that occurred post-COVID-19 vaccinations are listed in Appendix 2, Table 1. There were 766 symptoms with a non-zero number of events, and a total of 448,517 events. The parallel numbers for post-influenza vaccination are 317 symptoms with a non-zero number of events, and a total of 29,592 events.
To translate from VAERS numbers to real-world numbers, the VAERS numbers (which are strongly under-reported) must be multiplied by an under-reporting factor (URF), to produce real-world numbers. My latest Op-eds use a URF of 66. With that assumption, the total real-world number of skin disorder symptom events post-COVID-19 vaccinations is 448,517 x 66, which equals approximately 29.6 million skin disorder-related events post-COVID-19 vaccinations.
The skin disorders post-COVID-19 vaccinations cover a wide range of symptoms, some of which can be very serious. These latter symptoms include (but are not limited to) Pemphigus vulgaris (52 events), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (43), Toxic epidermal necrolysis (8), Toxic shock syndrome (5), Necrotising fasciitis (16), DRESS syndrome (30) and myriad Skin cancers that are addressed later in this study (168) (link#1; link#2).
Comparison of Skin Disorders Post-COVID-19 Vaccinations and Post-Influenza Vaccinations
Table 1 contains a comparison of selected high/mid-frequency VAERS-related skin disorders terms post-COVID-19 vaccinations and post-Influenza vaccinations. It has been subdivided into five groups. The first group shown in the table (HIGH #COV; ZERO #FLU) contains symptoms that occurred moderately frequently in VAERS post-COVID-19 vaccinations, but did not occur at all in VAERS post-influenza vaccinations.
The second group shown in the table (HIGH #COV; 1 #FLU) contains symptoms that occurred moderately frequently in VAERS post-COVID-19 vaccinations, and once in VAERS post-influenza vaccinations. As in the first group, the most frequent symptom relates to increased skin sensitivity.
The third group shown in the table (HIGH #COV; 2 #FLU) contains symptoms that occurred moderately frequently in VAERS post-COVID-19 vaccinations, and occurred twice in VAERS post-influenza vaccinations.
The fourth group shown in the table (HIGH #COV/#FLU RATIO) contains symptoms that occurred frequently in VAERS post-COVID-19 vaccinations, and occurred much less frequently in VAERS post-influenza vaccinations. As in the first three groups, many types of skin disorders are shown, and there appears to be no central theme.
The fifth group shown in the table (HIGH #COV; HIGH #FLU) contains symptoms that occurred moderately frequently in VAERS post-COVID-19 vaccinations, and occurred moderately less frequently in VAERS post-influenza vaccinations. It is a small group, with symptoms mainly related to injection site issues.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/skin-disorders-post-covid-19-vaccinations-23bc7188
********************************************************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, December 04, 2023
US Military Study on Postvaccination Myocarditis Released
A small U.S. military study on postvaccination myocarditis has been quietly released, with authors saying they found no overt or subclinical heart inflammation.
Outside experts said the study did show some concerning signs and that the military researchers failed to explore those signs further.
The U.S. military was one of the first entities in the world to detect myocarditis and a related condition, pericarditis, after COVID-19 vaccination. The military also mandated COVID-19 vaccination for the force.
With those facts in mind, "it is particularly important to understand the prevalence of subclinical myocarditis/pericarditis along with the potential for additional complications," the authors of the new paper said.
The researchers recruited people who received a Pfizer or Moderna modified messenger RNA (mRNA) shot, were between 12 and 40 years of age, and were enrolled in TRICARE, which provides health care for many service members and their family members. The people received a second or subsequent dose of a vaccine between June 2022 and June 2023.
Participants visited investigators within 24 hours of and three to seven days after vaccination. Their symptoms, troponin T levels, and C-reactive protein were measured. Researchers also used electrocardiograms on the patients.
Thirty people ended up being part of the study, with 23 being active-duty military members. Four had a jump in troponin T, an indicator of subclinical heart damage, from 1 to 16 nanograms a liter after vaccination. However, the researchers said none had subclinical myocarditis because they defined subclinical myocarditis as an increase of more than 20 nanograms a liter. A fifth participant reported chest pain and shortness of breath, two possible signs of heart inflammation, but did not have a rise in troponin T.
"This is the first study to report on signs or symptoms of myocarditis/pericarditis collected through active surveillance following administration of mRNA vaccination in a military setting," Dr. Richelle Homo, a pediatric resident at Madigan Army Medical Center and a fellow at Brooke Army Medical Center, and her co-authors wrote.
The authors acknowledged that the study was not large enough to estimate the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination "due to the unpredictable nature of the pandemic and delays in recruitment." By June 2022, many people, including military members, had stopped getting COVID-19 vaccines.
"Nonetheless, the absence of myocarditis/pericarditis in this study offers some reassurance. As mRNA technology continues to advance, a deeper understanding of the incidence and extent of these complications will be necessary to ensure populations are well informed on the risks, benefits and potential need for monitoring following administration," the authors added.
The paper was published by the British Medical Journal.
Experts Weigh In
Several experts who reviewed the paper said the study did not provide any reassurance due to its small population and the definition of subclinical myocarditis.
Rates of clinical myocarditis, or heart inflammation manifesting through symptoms, run around 1 in 3,000 to 6,000 in multiple previous studies.
Defining subclinical myocarditis as troponin raised to a certain level without cardiac MRI cannot rule out the condition, doctors said.
The levels recorded in some of the participants indicate that there was "some damage to the myocardium," according to Dr. Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist. He said he'd have liked to see cardiac MRIs performed on those participants.
"Why don't we look further and see what that is, as opposed to saying, 'well, since nothing was over 20, it was just ignored,'" he told The Epoch Times.
Dr. Sanjay Verma, a cardiologist in California, said that elevated troponin, especially at low levels, can have non-vaccine causes and that cardiac imaging helps differentiate between the causes.
Dr. Verma said the study population was important, noting that researchers only included people who received at least their second dose of a vaccine.
"This inclusion criteria by definition would exclude those who may have already had myocarditis after dose 1. Furthermore, 70% of the study population received a fourth dose (i.e., they did not have myocarditis after the first 3). The study therefore is a self selected population of those who didn’t have myocarditis from dose 1-3," Dr. Verma told The Epoch Times in an email.
"Therefore, the study doesn’t prove or disprove anything about the true rate of myocarditis or subclinical myocarditis in all comers who receive dose 1 and 2 of mRNA COVID-10 vaccination."
It's unclear why the researchers chose the 20 nanograms per liter definition. The first study from the military used a definition of 10-fold to 400-fold the upper limits of reference ranges, which, according to the Cleveland Clinic, can be as low as 0.01 nanograms per liter. The first study did require acute chest pain as well, as it looked at clinical myocarditis.
A newer study from Switzerland examining subclinical myocarditis used a minimum of 8.9 nanograms per liter in women and 15.5 nanograms per liter in men, although other requirements were also considered for the final diagnoses.
Dr. Homo did not respond to emailed questions, nor did the Defense Health Agency, which funded the study.
****************************************************
New Report Reveals Biden Admin Pressured YouTube To 'Crack Down On Vaccine Misinformation'
According to a new report, the Biden Administration pressured YouTube to target alleged misinformation relating to the draconian COVID-19 vaccines.
Documents obtained by the House Judiciary Committee show that the Biden White House forced the streaming platform to suppress any negative COVID-19 vaccine information to push more people to get the jab.
In April 2021, President Joe Biden's former Director of Digital Strategy, Robert Flaherty, emailed Google team members to "connect […] about the work you're doing to combat vaccine hesitancy, but also crack down on vaccine misinformation."
More from Fox News Digital:
Flaherty continued, asking for trends surrounding vaccine misinformation on the website while offering government assistance in the form of COVID experts at the White House to partner in product work with YouTube. Google, in an internal email, noted that after a subsequent meeting with Flaherty, the White House staffer "particularly dug in on our decision making for borderline content" — which is content that doesn't cross Community Guidelines but rather brushes up against it, according to YouTube. A week later, Google acknowledged that it sent the White House the total amount of videos removed for COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, while discussing the government's desire for even more data. The next day, YouTube's Government Affairs team emailed YouTube's Product team, flagging the interactions with the White House.
An internal email from YouTube revealed a "high degree of interest" coming from the White House regarding vaccine misinformation and hesitancy.
"Unfortunately, the role of tech in addressing vaccine hesitancy is about to come under a massive spotlight, particularly as the supply of the vaccine is soon to outpace demand," the email continued. "The White House is very interested in our work on borderline content, and more specifically vaccine-related content as well as our work to promote authoritative sources for vaccines."
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) told FOX Business that they knew the White House was working closely with Big Tech to censor the First Amendment and that "internal documents from Google obtained by the Judiciary Committee and Select Subcommittee show that their scheme extended to YouTube."
*******************************************************
Big Korean Study of Post-COVID-19 Vax Inflammatory Musculoskeletal Conditions
University researchers from Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Mokdong Hospital and University Guro Hospital, both in Seoul, Korea conducted a retrospective nationwide cohort study tapping into data at the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database. With a total of 2,218,715 patients from January 1, 2021, to 12 weeks post the second dose of vaccine for vaccinated persons and 12 weeks after September 30, 2021, for unvaccinated persons, the study team sought to investigate the incidence rates of inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders post COVID-19 vaccination, comparing to the unvaccinated cohort.
Among the two cohorts, the vaccinations included mRNA vaccine (Moderna/Pfizer-BioNTech), viral vector (AstraZeneca, J&J) and mixing and matching. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the risk factors of musculoskeletal disorders after adjusting for potential confounders.
The authors report in their still-to-be-reviewed study paper that individuals who received any COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to be diagnosed with inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders than those who did not. The authors believe that the information will be useful in clarifying the adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and informing people about their potential for inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders after vaccination.
The authors point out that earlier research on COVID-19 vaccines points to a range of adverse reactions related to proinflammatory actions that can lead to an excessive immune response and sustained inflammation. However, they claim no study has been conducted on the association between inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders and COVID-19 vaccines.
A strong study, the 2+ million individuals randomly selected from the Korean NHIS offers a substantial national cohort. Because Korea uses comprehensive medical databases for population-level analysis, overall, the reliability and representativeness bolsters these findings. The authors report that such large population-based databases, which are available only in Taiwan, Sweden, and Korea, offer “excellent resources for answering questions that are difficult to address using single-institution or small-scale studies.”
Conditions such as adhesive capsulitis, also known as frozen shoulder, an inflammatory condition characterized by shoulder stiffness, pain, and significant loss of passive range of motion, can debilitate individuals, interfering with work and quality of life. Long-term disability has been reported at 10-20% in patients, and the persistence of symptoms at 30-60%.
********************************************************
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, December 03, 2023
These Experts Advocated for Lockdowns; Now They Say They Were Wrong
As the dust settles from the COVID-19 pandemic and the fallout over lockdown policies becomes more pronounced, some lockdown proponents, like New York University Professor Scott Galloway, have admitted they were wrong for supporting lockdowns.
"I was on the board of my kid's school during COVID. I wanted a harsher lockdown policy. In retrospect, I was wrong," Mr. Galloway told Bill Maher.
"The damage to kids of keeping them out of school longer was greater than the risk. But here's the bottom line, myself, our great people at the CDC, I'd like to think the governor, we were all operating with imperfect information, and we were doing our best." he said, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
"Let's learn from it. Let's hold each other accountable, but let's bring a little bit of grace and forgiveness," he said.
Mr. Galloway isn't the only one to admit he was wrong for supporting lockdowns, especially for children.
However, some others aren't as quick to blame "imperfect information," and plead for forgiveness.
Dr. Ari Joffe, a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Alberta, Canada, and an attending physician in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, initially supported lockdowns.
So did Kevin Bass, a seventh-year medical student and researcher at a Texas medical school.
Both now say they were wrong because of "groupthink" and "fear-mongering," rather than imperfect information.
And both push back against Mr. Galloway's notion that the powers that be were "doing [their] best."
On March 16, 2020, the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team published modeling that showed without lockdowns enforced for more than two-thirds of the time over two years, "there would be 510,000 deaths in Great Britain and 2.2 million deaths in the United States by mid-April, surpassing ICU demand by 30 times," Dr. Joffe reported in his peer-reviewed paper, "COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink."
The Imperial College estimated that there would be "7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths" globally in the first year.
The result from that modeling was widespread fear, Dr. Joffe said, of which he was not immune.
Consequently, he fully supported government-imposed lockdown measures at the beginning of the pandemic because he believed "lockdowns would reduce viral transmission and deaths, as famously, inaccurately, and tautologically modeled at Imperial College," Dr. Joffe told The Epoch Times.
Mr. Bass, who said at the beginning of the pandemic he was a hard-core Covidian (someone who elevated COVID prevention and mitigation to an almost religious persuasion), said the Imperial College's modeling highly influenced his initial support for lockdowns, as did reports from the World Health Organization (WHO).
"They said it kills 3.4 percent of the people it infects—that was the World Health Organization's figure until early April—3.4 percent, that's way too many people! That's like one out of every 30 people is going to die," Mr. Bass told The Epoch Times.
"And then we had these Imperial College London models which modeled how many deaths there would be due to the pandemic in different scenarios, whether mitigated or unmitigated, with no lockdowns or measures taken.
"And there was essentially no other data. I think, because of the hysteria, the fear, the example of China perhaps, people had an excessive amount of confidence—scientists, social scientists—in the Imperial College of London models."
But as the pandemic unfolded, Dr. Joffe and Mr. Bass began to rethink their early lockdown support.
Recognizing Groupthink
"In the first few months of lockdown, I realized that my (and similarly trained medical colleagues) expertise was poorly suited to give advice during a pandemic," Dr. Joffe said.
He added that when he first saw the Imperial College's modeling, he failed to note that "the high-risk groups were those aged 70 years and older (especially in long-term care), and those aged 60 to 69 with severe comorbidities."
But that fact soon became apparent, and the infection fatality rate was more than 10 times lower than the reported case fatality rate.
"The modeling was flawed, and in general, modeling (forecasting) failed during the pandemic. This was because the models were based on flawed assumptions and non-transparent methods," Dr. Joffe said.
"If you put in inaccurate assumptions (e.g., the infection fatality rate was way too high; the population was modeled as homogeneous when in reality it is highly heterogeneous in terms of risk and exposure; the outbreak was modeled as never-ending exponential increase, unlike any epidemic in history; the herd immunity threshold was assumed to be far too high; and more), the model will show what you want it to show."
Dr. Joffe said that he also saw the effect of lockdowns on students at the university and came to recognize that his support of lockdowns was from a privileged position that "failed to recognize that loneliness, unemployment, and adverse childhood experiences are top risk factors for shortened lifespan, mental health problems, and chronic non-communicable diseases."
Plus, he'd "failed to recognize that missing school will affect an entire generation with reduced social development, executive function (i.e., decision-making ability), earning potential, and future lifespan, and lead to marked increases in adverse mental health outcomes."
Once he recognized those facts, Dr. Joffe began researching lockdowns and his paper was published on Feb. 26, 2021.
In his conclusion, Dr. Joffe states, "The economic recession, through austerity in government spending on the social determinants of health, can be expected to cause far more loss of life and wellbeing over the long-run than COVID-19 can.
"We must open up society to save many more lives than we can by attempting to avoid every case (or even most cases) of COVID-19. It is past time to take an effortful pause, calibrate our response to the true risk, make rational cost-benefit analyses of the trade-offs, and end the lockdown groupthink."
For Mr. Bass, the road to rethinking his lockdown support was more circuitous.
He said that in early 2022, he was trying to find new topics to discuss in health and, as a popular figure on social media, was becoming more skeptical of "things in general." Simultaneously, Mr. Bass realized his online audience was primarily peers, not the everyday person looking for health answers, so he decided to explore a "range of different issues."
"Even though I was very, very closely following the science, I was reading papers super closely, super carefully, and knew what I was talking about, I got a lot of pushback from the very same community that I had been a part of which used to cheer me on about debunking misinformation," Mr. Bass said.
"They started accusing me of misinformation! I started getting mobbed by my own team."
The pushback forced Mr. Bass to recognize the tribalism within his community and that they weren't following the facts but instead following conventional thinking and so-called experts with the most prominent online platforms.
"Once I realized that, I started to see it in many different things, and I started questioning," he said.
That questioning came to a head when, in 2022, Elon Musk bought Twitter, now X, and posted his pronouns as "Prosecute Fauci."
"I retweeted that, or maybe even heightened, quote-tweeted that, like approvingly, and I just got dogpiled," Mr. Bass said. "I was always a Covidian. I always thought that we should have lockdowns, we should have mask mandates, and vaccine mandates, and I was very authoritarian.
"Looking back on it now, it's embarrassing."
During that time, he was also listening to other luminaries who questioned the government response, and that gave rise to his own questions.
"They were saying things about COVID, and I thought, 'Well, that's very interesting. Maybe that's true. Maybe it's important for us also to keep an open mind about critical perspectives.' So, during this entire time, I was doubting and thinking about things," Mr. Bass said.
"And it became obvious that this whole zero-COVID narrative … was [expletive]. Like we weren't ever going to control COVID, and it just became obvious that lockdowns, in general, were a pipe dream, a fantasy. And to the extent that they could, you'd end up with a totalitarian nightmare."
Recognizing his error and wanting to acknowledge it, Mr. Bass posted to X on Dec. 12, 2022, "I was wrong about lockdowns and mandates. I was wrong and the reason I was wrong was my tribalism, my emotions, and my distorted understanding of human nature and of the virus. It doesn't matter much, but I wanted to apologize for being wrong."
Avoidable Mistakes
Dr. Joffe said, "governments put the wrong people in charge of advising and managing the public emergency of the pandemic.
"The public health medical officers were not trained nor experienced in managing a public emergency. The medical expert groups also were not trained nor experienced in managing a public emergency. All were susceptible to groupthink."
Dr. Joffe, along with David Redman, a retired lieutenant colonel at the Alberta Emergency Management Agency, said in a paper that emergency management agencies, with their specific procedures, should have managed the pandemic.
Instead governments controlled the response and focused only on things like "flattening the curve" and "protecting the healthcare system" and failed to calculate the impact that lockdowns would have on society against their true efficacy.
"A common mistake was to consider correlation as causation—meaning, when lockdowns were implemented, cases and hospitalizations sometimes decreased, and this was incorrectly interpreted as lockdown efficacy," Dr. Joffe said.
"The problem was, this was not due to causation … it was clear that regardless of lockdown, the trajectories of the pandemic were the same."
Mr. Bass agrees, "When the pandemic started, I was very aware of the downsides of this ideology, but still, I went along with it. My ultimate belief—and I think many people shared this—was that every human life is precious. I mean, nobody can argue with that, right?
"We thought, basically, 'Yes, we might have some economic devastation for a short period. Or yes, there might be some inconvenience,' as Fauci used to put it whenever he dealt with lockdown protesters or international leaders. But nonetheless, like these inconveniences, these slight mild economic recessions, they might not be all bad, and we'll rebound, was a thing we told ourselves. And so, we had this overwhelming focus on the positives."
More here:
********************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
