Sunday, February 18, 2024
Dispute over COVID-19 Vaccination & Children
A prominent British Immunologist and Professor in Biomedical Sciences and Public Engagement at the University of Manchester recently declared in an Op-Ed piece in The Guardian that British health authorities are deviating from the rest of the wealthy developed nations by not placing more emphasis on universal COVID-19 vaccination for children and young adults. Sheena Cruickshank argues that the risk-based approach to COVID-19 vaccination recommended by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI)---that the vaccines are generally only available for high-risk groups deviates from the norm of wealthy peer nations.
But is Cruickshank correct? Not really. The JCVI’s recommendations reflect more the norm among most developed nations. Even the New York Times would concur. Just read the recent “Covid Shots for Children.” David Leonhardt reports, “Much of the world has decided that most young children don’t need to receive Covid booster shots. The U.S. is an outlier.” Why is this the case? While the COVID jabs helped mitigate risk during the pandemic, now experts align for the most part that the benefits of these jabs for children in most cases “fail to outweigh the costs.”
Contrary to Professor Cruickshank’s stance, the U.S. is an outlier in this regard. And Britain’s JCVI actually follows most of the peer national COVID-19 vaccine policy, where healthy children are not included in the seasonal vaccination campaign.
Either Professor Cruickshank doesn’t understand very well COVID-19 vaccination policy among the rich nations, which we find hard to believe, or she is using her position and the media platform to promote a particularly biased agenda.
What prompts the British immunologists’ call for a new vaccine strategy? She is trying to force an argument, a case, to spark a movement to pressure the government to open up its “limited” vaccination recommendation by attempting to connect it to problems like long COVID. Allow children to get the vaccines, and first, parents will line up to volunteer their children to get the jab. And this will lower long COVID rates, although there is limited evidence that in the age of Omicron long COVID is materially reduced by vaccination.
“We know vaccination helps protect against long COVID, but we are still seeing new cases, so it’s uncertain how long protection persists from previous vaccinations.”
She cites no studies. And that’s likely because there are no studies anywhere that conclusively prove causation linking COVID-19 vaccination conclusively to reductions in long COVID.
Some observational studies suggest an association, but such investigations must be interpreted cautiously given their limitations. In one prominent recent population-based cohort study in Sweden published in The BMJ, Maria Bygdel and colleagues point out what they found to be “a strong association between COVID-19 vaccination before infection and reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of PCC (Post-COVID condition).
But all sorts of limitations in this Swedish study means such examples should not be used by experts to prove conclusively that the vaccine reduces long COVID.
Bygdel and colleagues point to studies looking into the impact of vaccination on existing PCC, “showing both no effect as well as alleviation and aggravation of PCC symptoms.” This means the science remains uncertain, the situation unfolding and therefore the responsible position of any scientist or doctor should be to acknowledge that reality.
Another reason Cruickshank gives for the UK to open up its COVID-19 vaccination recommendations to more groups such as healthy children and young adults: the “government already negotiated the purchase of millions of doses of COVID vaccines, to be delivered in stages between 2021 and 2024.”
Meaning that under the pretext of emergency the government made prior bulk procurement decisions and now such product would just go to waste because a large segment of the population is excluded from the vaccine category group established by JCVI.
What the University of Manchester professor doesn’t touch on however, are the data involving cost-benefit analysis.
Rather she implies that the JCVI could have some agenda. After all they are using a ‘bespoke, non-standard method of cost-effectiveness assessment” guiding priorities less any details.
Professor Cruickshank fails to make the case for opening up the COVID-19 vaccine category to include healthy children and young people.
She doesn’t’ produce any conclusive evidence of any kind, nor does she point to any morbidity or mortality numbers pressing the current JCVI position on the matter. In fact, she acknowledges the data involving COVID morbidity and mortality is better this year than last. Of course, this is the case, we are out of the pandemic, the emergency has been called off, and the Omicron variant is substantially milder in effect for the substantial majority of the population.
The professor ignores any safety issues, a considerable factor in the young healthy population given the higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis. While she points to the U.S. as an example the JCVI should consider, she considers what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) package insert states about children and the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for example.
Under Section 8.4 of this formal regulatory artifact:
“The safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals younger than 12 years of age have not been established. Evidence from clinical studies in individuals 6 months through 4 years of age strongly suggests that a single dose of COMIRNATY would be ineffective in individuals younger than 6 months of age.”
She also ignores whether someone has been infected or not. Natural immunity also can wear off given the mutating pathogen, but it’s a major contributing factor undoubtedly the JCVI and most other developed countries have factored into their analysis.
Professor Cruickshank cites a couple examples of developed nations making the vaccine universally available for healthy children and young adults--the U.S. and France. But as the New York Times now acknowledges, it’s the U.S that is an outlier, not the other way around, as Professor Cruickshank opines.
Finally, Cruickshank evades the topic of the market’s general rejection of the COVID-19 vaccines in the USA, despite continuous promotional energies across both public health authorities and industry. Less than one fifth of the eligible population stepped forward to get the latest monovalent booster (BA.4/BA.5), and the percentage of children that ultimately received a booster jab targeting Omicron BA.4/BA.5 was far less.
***********************************************
Long COVID can destroy your ability to exercise or do simple tasks — now we may know why
Extreme fatigue and difficulty exercising are common symptoms of long COVID — now scientists may finally have discovered why.
While most people who test positive for the coronavirus are over their symptoms within a week or two, more research is showing that some people continue to report symptoms — and even develop new ones — three months after their initial positive test, lasting for months or even years.
A new study, published in the journal Nature Communications, suggests that some of these symptoms may persist or worsen as those with long COVID-19 experience biological changes in their bodies after working out — most notably involving their muscles.
“We’re seeing clear changes in the muscles in these patients,” Michèle van Vugt, professor of internal medicine at Amsterdam UMC, said in a statement.
The study found that long COVID patients had extreme fatigue, changes in muscle composition and widespread muscle damage.
Researchers from Amsterdam UMC and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) analyzed data from 25 long-COVID patients with post-exertional malaise (PEM) — meaning their symptoms worsened after the minor physical exertion, causing them to crash from extreme fatigue — and 21 healthy control participants after cycling for 15 minutes.
As patients experience PEM, even daily tasks like carrying groceries and brushing their teeth can be exhausting.
After analyzing blood and muscle tissue samples, the researchers discovered that those with long COVID had various abnormalities in their muscle tissue.
“At the cellular level, we saw that the mitochondria of the muscle, also known as the energy factories of the cell, function less well and that they produce less energy,” Rob Wüst, assistant professor at the Department of Human Movement Sciences at VU University, explained in a statement.
“So, the cause of the fatigue is really biological. The brain needs energy to think. Muscles need energy to move.”
This biological decrease in energy is specific to those with PEM and not seen in other chronic illnesses.
“Normally we know from all the other chronic diseases that exercise is good for you, that exercise is medicine,” Wüst told National Geographic. “However, these patients do get worse.”
Long COVID patients were also found to have a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, which may also explain some of the fatigue.
These muscle fibers deplete energy faster, meaning they exhaust quicker.
“We know that it is difficult to change fiber types in people and that it doesn’t happen with inactivity,” Wüst told National Geographic. “Something else is changing the fiber types.”
The cause of this change is still unclear.
Along with changes to energy production and muscle composition, the research team also found those with long COVID had muscle damage — muscle scarring, inflammation and blood clots before and after working out.
Studies have shown that those with PEM struggle to recover from exercise, but this latest research showed that this may be caused by repeated overexertion — even from daily tasks — that prohibit the body from fully recovering.
The experts noted that this breakthrough will help guide more appropriate treatments for those with long-term COVID, though not everyone would necessarily benefit in the same ways.
“Keep in mind that every patient has a different limit,” Brent Appelman, a researcher at Amsterdam UMC, said in a statement.
*************************************************
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
*********************************************************
Thursday, February 15, 2024
Censored again
My post of 12th relating Covid to drug side-effects has been deleted by Google, who own Blogspot. The original story that I reproduced is here:
It is very iconoclastic
************************************************
Forced Vaccination In Australia Should Be A Crime
Fact 1 – Vaccines did not control the risk from infectious diseases. This is an historical fact that is being erased by big pharma funding.
Fact 2 – Childhood chronic illnesses and deaths have increased significantly in a direct dose-response relationship with the increased use of childhood vaccines for 30 years.
This correlation is being ignored yet is the strongest sign of a causal link when governments do not use scientific methodology to prove the vaccines are harmless before they market them to the public.
Conclusion: There is no empirical evidence that any vaccine is safe or necessary for controlling infectious diseases. Hence, the use of mandatory policies with coercive strategies is a crime against the population.
Individuals have the right to choose which ones they use and this does not make them an ‘antivaxxer’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist’. It makes them a critical thinker who is doing a proper risk analysis of the use of each vaccine (aka drug) in yourself or your child, according to your genetic make-up. (A summary pamphlet of the main arguments de-bunking mandatory vaccination in my PhD)
When government policies are built on fraud society begins to crumble and this is what we are seeing in Australia today. Most people can sense that lies are being told by the government and our institutions but so many people are paid to tell these lies, particularly our politicians and medical profession, that the Australian population is confused, anxious, depressed – and more and more divided. Our young people are struggling.
Australia is turning into a totalitarian state. Mental health and suicides are skyrocketing yet television portrays this country as a ‘paradise on earth’. The inversion of reality.
Does this remind you of 2020 when the television told you we were in a ‘pandemic’ but when you looked out your window nothing had changed – the sun was shining and no one was dropping dead or getting ill around you?
But then you watched the TV and saw those distressing pictures of hospitals and heavily gowned up staff.
Reality can be inverted by a biased media:
‘The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.’ (George Orwell).
Suffice to say you are being told what to think by a corporate-funded media and the lies become truths when history is erased and our government officials receive the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for telling these lies.
Meanwhile, your academics and health professionals get their reputations destroyed by the media for providing evidence of the truth. Speaking truth to power when money is power.
Totalitarianism is building globally as freedom of speech is curtailed by new laws to protect government lies. These laws are already being discussed in the Australian parliament and freedom is being lost by the increase in CCTV cameras and Centrally Managed Smart (CMS) Lights with 5g, in previously peaceful and natural spaces.
This infrastructure is being put up by our councils that are now called ‘The City of …..’ to fit in with the WEF’s Smart City agenda. Look up the UN Agenda 21 and 30.
The Medical Fraud in Government Vaccination Policies
Vaccination policies are promoted to the public as ‘health’ policies but like mainstream media, reality can be inverted when they are not based on empirical (observed) scientific evidence.
That is, when policies are based on claims of safety and efficacy without evidence, they result in the opposite outcomes in the population – sickness not health.
This is happening because of the influence of the medical-industry complex through funding, in every area of scientific methodology – scientific journals, research institutions, education, media and of course Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA) that is 96 percent funded by the industry whose drugs it approves AND monitors for safety.
Who’s interests do you think the TGA is protecting?
This huge conflict of interest in all our institutions results in a biasing of information on drug safety and efficacy, that is presented to the public in government policies. A situation that results in life or death consequences, as well as a decline in quality of life for many who develop chronic illnesses.
The published data clearly shows a significant increase in chronic illness in children that has occurred over the last 30 years in all developed countries, as the vaccination schedule expanded to multiple vaccines.
Young people are also unaware that most people over 30 years old, have NEVER had these vaccines. Why ? Because vaccines did not control the risk from infectious diseases. This is an historical fact that is being erased by big pharma funding and young people are being deceived.
This historical fact makes coercive and mandatory vaccination a crime against the population.
So when did the inversion of these facts start to occur in society? In 1986 the US Congress, under Ronald Reagan, removed all liability from pharmaceutical companies for any drug that they called a ‘vaccine’.
Why would you need to indemnify drug companies if their drug only had ‘rare’ adverse health outcomes?
When governments claim that adverse events (AEs) after vaccines are ‘rare’, an illusion can be created by the corporate-funded mainstream media by rarely reporting adverse events, and those that get compensated, are gagged by their legal contracts from speaking about their injury.
This has gradually been happening over the last three decades.
These public-private partnerships are creating the illusion that childhood vaccines are safe and necessary, through bias and framing of the facts. In a similar way that the illusion of a pandemic was created in 2020 in the media.
When government’s and media moguls work together in public-private partnerships you have fascism under Mussolini’s definition.
The definition of fascism by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed):
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
This centralised government is well advanced in Australia, and Australians have felt the violent suppression of the totalitarian Liberal and Labor governments over the last decade as we challenged the implementation of coercive and mandatory vaccination policies in Federal policies.
If a parent, researcher, doctor or politician speaks against the use of mandatory vaccination policies, then they are gas lighted and their reputations smeared. This is another strategy that is used to tell you what to think not how to think.
See my website Vaccination Decisions for the reality and why as a parent I put my reputation on the line.
In 2016 the promotion of the childhood vaccination program of 16+ vaccines with multiple doses of each, was reduced to the jingle No Jab No Pay/Play in the media. Anyone who challenged these policies was ridiculed and dismissed as an ‘antivaxxer’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist’.
Even academics and health professionals who were providing the evidence for the right to choose this medical intervention.
Choice is NOT antivaccination.
These are strategies used to tell you what to think about vaccines not how to think. The pro-vaxxers could not rely on evidence because there is NO evidence to support mandatory vaccination with any vaccine.
It is blind faith controlled by money.
This means the coercive vaccination policies in Australia are harming and dividing the population because they have not been supported by empirical (observed) scientific evidence. They are baseless claims.
This government policy is causing death and illness (democide) because the government is ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the destruction of health in the population – and it has ignored this evidence for 30 years.
My book Vaccination: Australian’s Loss of Health Freedom reveals many more of the political strategies used to invert reality for vested interests in government policy, big pharma’s influence and the control of populations.
“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force” (George Orwell)
Here is Elizabeth Hart’s latest substack revealing the time-line of how the Australian government destroyed voluntary informed consent that is a requirement under all doctors and health practitioners ethical guidelines – The Destruction of Voluntary Informed Consent via Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination.
Here is a moving song and video of the Forest of the Fallen showing the thousands of people that died prematurely or lost their quality of life after taking the COVID19 “vaccines” from 2021-2024 (genetically engineered products that were not tested to see if they prevent COVID-19 disease) – Forest of the Fallen by Kelly Newton-Wordsworth
Forest of the Fallen is being set up all over Australia and people are suffering mental health issues from being gas lighted and not acknowledged as as having a vaccine-injury.
https://principia-scientific.com/forced-vaccination-in-australia-should-be-a-crime/
*************************************************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
*********************************************************
Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients at Higher Odds for Long COVID—Large 3+ Million Patient CDC-Backed Study
This is not exactly surprising. If they were hospitalized,they were sicker to start with
A group of medical researchers targeting real-world data via electronic health records (EHR) known as PCORnet Network Partners sought to better understand post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), another term for long COVID by comparing the occurrence of specific COVID-associated symptoms against conditions as potential PASC 31-to 150-day following a SARS-CoV-2 test among both adults and children with positive and negative test results. The group conducted this retrospective cohort study by tapping into the EHR data from 43 PCORnet sites participating in a national COVID-19 surveillance program.
This study included 3,091,580 adults (316,249 SARS-CoV-2 positive; 2,775,331 negative) and 675,643 children (62,131 positive; 613,512 negative) who had a SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test during March 1, 2020–May 31, 2021, documented in their EHR. The investigators employed use of logistic regression to calculate the odds of having a symptom and Cox models to calculate the risk of having a newly diagnosed condition associated with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Represented by Harvard Medical School physician-epidemiologist Jason Block, MD, MPH, the authors report, “Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially those who were hospitalized, were at higher risk of being diagnosed with certain symptoms and conditions after acute infection.”
With the outcomes published in BMC Infectious Diseases, the entire study was part of PCORnet, the national research network of health systems set up to facilitate multi-site research using EHR data via a standardized common data model across all sites. The 43 PCORnet sites participating in the national COVID-19 surveillance program were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Findings
Once adjusting baseline covariates, Dr. Block and colleagues report, “Hospitalized adults and children with a positive test had increased odds of being diagnosed with ≥ 1 symptom (adults: adjusted odds ratio[aOR], 1.17[95% CI, 1.11–1.23]; children: aOR, 1.18[95% CI, 1.08–1.28]) or shortness of breath (adults: aOR, 1.50[95% CI, 1.38–1.63]; children: aOR, 1.40[95% CI, 1.15–1.70]) 31–150 days following a SARS-CoV-2 test compared with hospitalized individuals with a negative test.”
Those patients who were both hospitalized and tested positive for COVID-19 faced greater odds of diagnoses with ≥ 3 symptoms or fatigue compared with those patients testing negative.
“The risks of being newly diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio[aHR], 1.25[95% CI, 1.17–1.33]), hematologic disorders (aHR, 1.19[95% CI, 1.11–1.28]), or respiratory disease (aHR, 1.44[95% CI, 1.30–1.60]) were higher among hospitalized adults with a positive test compared with those with a negative test.”
According to the PCORnet Network Partners analyses, adult patients non-hospitalized but with a positive COVID-19 test face higher odds, or increased risk, of being diagnosed with certain symptoms or conditions.
Limitations
An observational study this study isn’t designed to conclusively prove causation. The authors identify several limitations included in the published output. For example, there are inherent limitations based on the specific set of medical records used for this study. All sorts of complex assumptions must be made to overcome various biases and the like. The findings must be interpreted cautiously.
********************************************
Ventricular Tachycardia Cardiac Arrest after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination
Researchers Fail to Assess Myocardial mRNA/Spike Protein and Loading Death Reports with Incongruous "Mild" and "Benefits Outweigh Risk" Statements
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
As the modern world is recognizing record numbers of unexpected deaths with no antecedent disease as a result of cardiac arrest, the medical literature is begrudgingly allowing sporadic case reports to be published. It is reasonable to conclude there must be tremendous resistance against publishing large series of cardiac arrests. The bias probably starts with the doctors who are receiving these cases in the emergency room with CPR in progress.
Minato et al, reported a fatal vaccine-induced ventricular tachycardia arrest in a man around age 40 years the day after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. As a cardiologist, I see this case as a straightforward myocarditis cardiac arrest. However the manuscript is laced with statements that seem to placate fellow authors, reviewers and editors on continued mass vaccination. For example, without presenting any data, the authors state “in most cases the symptoms are mild and tend to resolve on their own.” Later in the abstract “the benefits of vaccination appear to outweigh the benefits.”
These statements are juxtaposed to their description of a completely unnecessary death of a Japanese man in his forties. The authors fail to stain for mRNA or Spike protein or in heart tissue. When evaluated, both have been found in fatal cases such as this making it abundantly clear it was a vaccine death (Krauson et al, Baumeier et al).
This paper serves the purpose of 1) reporting a exemplary case of fatal COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis, 2) to show the biased psychology of researchers, reviewers, and editors who are still in mass formation and pursuing continued vaccination no matter how many more cardiac arrests occur among the vaccinated.
*************************************************
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, February 13, 2024
Was the Covid cure worse than the disease?
A lot of Australians are dying. Many politely say: We need to know why. …but really now, how long must polite company continue this faux naivety?
The Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), is the only body in Australia that undertook the task to investigate why Australian Excess Deaths continue to equate to about two jumbo jet crashes each week, and every week, since early 2021. That is two jumbo jets of dead Australians a week.
Why did AMPS step up thus?
Because the Australian Senate voted down a motion last year to hold hearings into why Australia has been experiencing this surge in Excess Deaths. Again this week, Labor and the Greens voted against investigating why Australia is experiencing continued excess mortality that began early 2021. Our elected officials turned their backs on us.
You see, the two major federal political parties were instrumental in motivating state governments to lock down Australians, confining essentially millions of people to their homes, with the only hope of release back into the general community being dependent on receiving a Covid vaccine, all to be recorded, of course, on vaccine passports. Millions of others had no choice – no jab meant no job. With bills to pay, mortgages to service, and kids to feed, many surrendered to this State-sponsored coercion.
With no equivalent Bill of Rights to protect the Australian people, and the almost complete abolition of human rights, many among the millions desperate to regain their fundamental freedoms succumbed to this disgusting and brutal authoritarianism. Australia’s political overlords had successfully revived our early penal colony history, where throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022, we became ruled by physical force and rubber bullets.
And it worked – by the end of 2021, somewhere between 85-95 per cent of Australians had fallen victim to the many tactics employed by our federal and state governments, to receive the ‘safe and effective’ gene-based injections.
Now, a lot of Australians are dying. People are asking, why?
To be clear, in 2020 Australia experienced below average All-Cause Mortality, despite apparently the presence of a highly infectious and deadly virus said to be circulating amongst us. In fact, deaths due to respiratory disease were 16.2 per cent lower, while influenza and pneumonia deaths were 36 per cent lower. Does that read like a pandemic to you? Covid deaths didn’t even break into our top 10 leading causes of death, and were at 832, far below the more than 3,000 suicides. So low were Covid deaths that Australia did not appear to have data to support the urgent cries from politicians, here and globally, to the effect that we all were facing imminent death from SARS-CoV-2. In truth, we faced and experienced a political theatre.
It is our opinion that this is why the Australian Senate continues to look the other way, now that it finds itself confronted by the fallout from a theatre of the absurd, the violent, and the dishonest.
In October 2023, AMPS released the investigative findings of over 30 science and medical authors into Australia’s Excess Deaths. In brief, we suspect that Australia may be suffering from an iatrogenic disaster potentially caused by the uptake of Covid vaccines.
The book is simply titled out of respect for the dead – Too Many Dead: An Inquiry into Australia’s Excess Mortality.
Some of the generous co-authors include Associate Professor Peter Doshi, Edward Dowd, Phillip Altman PhD, Andrew Madry PhD, Geoff Pain PhD, Wilson Sy PhD, Dr Monique O’Connor, Conni Turni PhD and Astrid Lefringhausen PhD, Jessica Rose PhD, Dr Tess Lawrie, Professor Norman Fenton, Dr Clare Pain, and Dr Aseem Malhotra, together with another 21 science and medical doctors of great distinction.
To say no stone was left unturned by such an esteemed ensemble of scientific and medical expertise would be an understatement. As the book notes:
This book has been assembled by an aggregation of highly-qualified and experienced doctors and researchers who take their ethics seriously. Here, information has not been withheld, or, worse, blocked.
AMPS did also fairly invite Australian medical regulators to contribute their analysis and synthesis of the Australian data, where it was hoped they would call upon the over 3,500 international case studies casting extreme doubt over the integrity of the Covid vaccines. Instead of a comprehensive contribution, there was silence; no response was provided. In correspondence to a previous letter, former head of the Department of Health, Mr Brendan Murphy, sent a rather brief letter, which read in part:
Regarding excess mortality statistics, there is no credible evidence to suggest that excess mortality is related to Covid vaccination either in Australia or internationally.
‘No credible evidence’?
In pondering these words from Australia’s (former) chief health bureaucrat, Too Many Dead observes:
For three years Australia succumbed to the will of corporate ideologues in big pharma, big media, big finance, and big government who seem to prioritise profit over people. This enslavement, and it is nothing less, may help to explain these high excess death rates being witnessed now at more than 15 per cent above baseline mortality. Put another way, AMPS and all ethical and informed doctors are horrified at the ten or twenty or thirty thousand excess deaths in this country in the time since March, 2021. Australian and other Western data show a mass casualty event; peculiarly, the higher figures are occurring in the countries that are highly injected, but our political and medical authorities seem to think there is nothing worth scrutiny. Now, with this book, it has been probed. This investigation has had to cut straight across the lockstep media messaging, the medical misinformation and the censorship.
Too Many Dead shall be seen through the years as a book of the age of Covid, a historic document gathering together meticulous facts that cause governments everywhere fear for what they have wrought and brought upon their people, death, and the pestilence of a thousand forms of injury brought and wrought by their ‘safe and effective’ solution to a non-pandemic.
I commend the authors of Too Many Dead for bravely stepping into the pages of history bearing the torch of Truth.
And to you good readers on far away shores I commend Too Many Dead as a systematic and disciplined account, and blueprint, for beginning the same journey into your Truth, for what has befallen every nation that opted to secure benefits for big pharma first, before the peace and health of their people … their mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, and our innocent infants.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/the-dying-of-down-under/
************************************************COVID-19 Likely Linked to Higher Risk of Dementia
Researchers from Columbia University, University of Oxford and Lancaster University conducted a thorough search across several prominent medical databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, medRxiv, and PQDT Global) for studies published in English from January 2020 to December 2023. The medical researchers sought to understand the risk of developing new-onset dementia (NOD) using the Risk Ratio (RR) for measurement.
Established control groups were segmented as (i) a non-COVID cohort with other respiratory infections [control group (C1)]; and (ii) a non-COVID cohort with otherwise unspecified health statuses [control group (C2)]. Ensuing follow-up periods were divided into intervals of 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-COVID. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023491714).
What was the study authors’ aim? The relationship between COVID-19 infection and the increased likelihood of older adults developing NOD, given this connection, remains elusive. Hence the study mostly sought to investigate the potential role of COVID-19 in leading to NOD among older adults aged 60 years and older over various time intervals.
While the study did not generate conclusive evidence, the study team does conclude that “COVID-19 infection may be linked to a higher risk of NOD in recovered old adults at the subacute and chronic stages following COVID-19 diagnosis. This risk appears to be on par with that associated with other respiratory infections.”
Recently accepted to Preprints with The Lancet, the study was represented by Dan Shan, Columbia University.
The Findings
The study team’s investigation included 11 studies, consisting of 939,824 post-COVID-19 cases and 6,765,117 controls.
Applying the pooled analysis pointed to “a significant link between COVID-19 infection and an increased risk of NOD (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.21–2.08). In subgroup analyses, NOD risk was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group compared to C2 at 12 months post-COVID (RR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.41–2.38), but not at 3 (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.46–1.65) or 6 months (RR = 1.73, 95% CI 0.72–4.14).”
When comparing to C1, “the risk increase was not significantly remarkable at 3 (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.35–2.57), 6 (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.07–1.20), and 12 months (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.91–1.38), and overall (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.92–1.38).”
The authors disclose that females are associated with a higher risk of developing NOD in the COVID-positive group (RR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.53–1.78) and C2 group (RR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.22–1.44).
Using definitions from the American Thoracic Society guidelines, patients with severe COVID-19 “were significantly much more prone to developing NOD than those with non-severe infections (RR = 17.58, 95% CI 10.48–29.49).” A striking finding was that “cognitive impairment was nearly twice as likely in COVID-19 survivors compared to those uninfected (RR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.52–2.43).”
*************************************************
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, February 11, 2024
House Oversight Panel to Assess Efficacy of Vaccine Injury Reporting, Compensation Systems
The continued fallout from the COVID-19 vaccines’ introduction has raised questions about the effectiveness of the United States’ existing vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems.
On Feb. 15, a panel of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee will hold a hearing to examine those systems and how they might be improved for future victims. Witnesses will include officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
“Vaccine safety systems were designed to protect public health. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic—and resulting vaccine mandates—appear to have exceeded the capabilities of these systems,” Subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said in announcing the hearing on Feb. 9.
“All the while, the Biden administration coerced healthy Americans into compliance with unscientific vaccine mandates, seemingly without having a sufficient system in place to protect and compensate individuals who were potentially harmed. This hearing is an important step to increase vaccine transparency and to ensure that victims of future vaccine injuries are properly compensated,” he said.
Caught Unawares
Since 1990, the nation’s early warning system for reporting vaccine injuries has been the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The system is co-managed by the FDA and CDC, but anyone can submit a report, regardless of medical expertise.
And report they have. As of Jan. 26, more than 1.6 million adverse event reports have been submitted to VAERS in connection with the COVID-19 vaccines, according to OpenVAERS, a private organization that compiles and publishes VAERS data online.
Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request also show that the sheer volume of those reports—though downplayed by health agencies—surprised officials in the months following the first vaccines’ rollout in December 2020.
More COVID-19 Vaccinations Linked to Higher Infection Risk: Study
“Two vaccines have been released since the last report. Since release the number of incoming COVID-19 reports has significantly exceeded the estimated maximum of 1,000 reports per day,” General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), a contractor hired to process VAERS reports, notified the CDC in a status report on Jan. 15, 2021. “As a result, GDIT is unable to meet processing and other timeframes (data processing, telephone inquiries, clinical [inquiries], etc.).”
A chart included in the report shows that the number of daily reports was substantially higher than predicted, even topping 4,500 on Jan. 10, 2021. The trend also continued for several months, resulting in a backlog of nearly 94,000 reports that took until the end of May to clear.
‘Don’t Want to Appear Alarmist’
At around the same time those reports began rolling in, the CDC was warned of a potential link between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and a “large number” of cases of myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation among healthy, young Israelis.
While the CDC initially planned to notify doctors and public health officials of that emerging link through its Health Alert Network (HAN), the alert was never sent.
The reason for the delay, according to an email recently obtained by The Epoch Times, was that officials did not want to incite a panic.
“The pros and cons of an official HAN are what the main discussion are right now,” wrote Dr. Sara Oliver in the May 25, 2021, missive. “I think it’s likely to be a HAN since that is CDC’s primary method of communications to clinicians and public health departments, but people don’t want to appear alarmist either.”
Other emails from that same week show that the FDA also played a role in canceling the alert in favor of issuing clinical considerations, which were published on the CDC website on May 28, 2021.
The considerations advised that “increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna),” but still recommended COVID-19 vaccination for everyone aged 12 and older.
Compensation Complications
Cody Flint, an agricultural pilot in his 30s, was young and healthy when he received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
That changed within an hour of getting the shot.
Mr. Flint soon began to experience intense head pressure—pressure that only worsened when he boarded a flight two days later.
“One second, I went from having burning in the back of my neck and tunnel vision to the very next second, I was slumped over in my airplane. The best way I know to describe it—it was like a bomb went off inside my head,” he said.
Four doctors diagnosed Mr. Flint as having a severe adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. But for the U.S. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which compensates those who can prove they have a COVID-19 vaccine injury, those diagnoses were not enough.
CICP administrators told Mr. Flint that “compelling, reliable and valid medical and scientific evidence does not support a causal association” between the Pfizer vaccine and the condition doctors diagnosed him with, perilymphatic fistula, which is a defect in the membranes separating the middle and inner ear.
They also wrote off his claim of having been injured by the vaccine as implausible “given the timeline of symptoms.”
“It’s just all comical to me,” Mr. Flint told The Epoch Times last April. “I get the shot, I’m injured within 48 hours, and they say that that makes it implausible.”
And Mr. Flint is not alone in his experience. Of the 2,214 COVID-19 vaccine injury claims the CICP had reviewed as of Jan. 1, only 40 were deemed eligible for compensation—just 11 of which have been compensated.
Decisions on CICP claims are made by the HRSA, which is housed under the Department of Health and Human Services—a fact some researchers have pointed to as a potential conflict of interest.
At its hearing next week, the House Oversight Committee will likely seek input from Dr. George Reed Grimes, director of the HRSA Division of Injury Compensation Programs, on whether that’s the case.
********************************************************
Adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccinations as reported in the Pubmed/Medline literature: Update and Expansion
Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff
On 24 December 2023, I published an Op-ed in Trial Site News titled “Adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccinations as reported in the Pubmed/Medline literature”. Its purpose was to demonstrate that, even with the extreme censorship of the biomedical literature (especially concerning papers that counter the official government narratives on Covid-19 issues), there exist sufficient papers in the premier biomedical literature that show the extent of myriad adverse effects following Covid-19 vaccinations. The query developed for this Op-ed retrieved ~6,200 Pubmed records.
The Gold Standard for biomedical publications focused on adverse effects following Covid-19 vaccinations is the REACT19 database. Currently, this database contains 3,580 records. My previous Op-ed (referenced above) analyzed the ~6,200 records that were retrieved from Pubmed/Medline as part of the study, and were focused on adverse effects from Covid-19 vaccinations. In the present Op-ed, I developed an expanded query to retrieve the relevant articles from Pubmed (based on lessons learned from the previous Op-ed). Use of the expanded query retrieved over 13,000 articles, of which over 90% were deemed relevant (by sampling) to adverse effects following the Covid-19 vaccinations.
The 12,000+ relevant articles retrieved for the present Op-ed and focused on adverse events following the Covid-19 vaccinations should be viewed as a very low “floor” of what exists in Pubmed. More articles could have been retrieved from a well-resourced study. Additionally, because of Pubmed proximity search limitations, the Abstracts were not searched to the full extent possible.
Because of the aforementioned censorship of the biomedical literature, credible papers on Covid-19 vaccination side-effects were retracted or rejected by the journal Editors. The number of Editorial rejections is unknown, since the public does not have access to what is submitted to the journals, and what fraction is accepted. Thus, the Pubmed published literature represents a fraction of the post-Covid-19 vaccination adverse events research has identified.
For additional background on this issue of Pubmed/Medline articles on Covid-19 vaccination after-effects, especially the limitations of the Pubmed/Medline database, see the previous Op-ed on this topic. The present Op-ed will focus on the structure of the expanded query that was developed to retrieve additional relevant articles, and will provide 1) estimates of numbers of Pubmed/Medline papers in different post-Covid-19 vaccination symptom/disease categories and 2) incidence frequencies of specific symptoms/disease terms that occurred following Covid-19 vaccinations. These results should complement the results from the text clustering categories that were generated in the previous Op-ed on this topic.
METHODOLOGY
Development of the query used to retrieve Pubmed/Medline biomedical articles on post-Covid-19 vaccination adverse effects is described in detail in Appendix 1. The 13,000+ articles that were retrieved from Pubmed were imported into Excel. Approximately 25 umbrella categories were identified by a combination of visual inspection and the text clustering categories from the previous Op-ed on this topic. A query was developed consisting of mainly root terms characteristic of each of the 25 umbrella categories, and applied to each category to extract the records from the total download that could be credibly assigned to that category. For example, if one of the 25 categories is Blood Clotting, then two of the query terms used to identify records related to blood clotting would be Thromb and Embol. If these terms are entered into the Excel filter “Contains” option, then all the records in the total download containing phrases that had a root of Thromb or Embol would be identified and selected for the Blood Clotting category. Assignment of records to multiple categories was allowed, if the records had multiple themes.
Using an excellent online N-Gram generator, Unigrams, Bigrams, 3-Grams, and 4-Grams of the Titles and Abstracts of the 13,000+ records were generated. Using visual inspection of these N-Grams, thousands of symptoms/diseases phrases in the downloaded records were identified.
The 25 categories are shown in the results, along with the titles of records in each category, the phrases used to generate these records for each category, and the main specific symptoms/diseases associated with each category (see Appendix 2, Tables 2A-1 to 2A-25, for each category). For the reader who wants to search the 13,000+ downloaded Pubmed/Medline articles for information not presented in this Op-ed, the Titles and Abstracts of the full download are contained in Table 3A-1 of Appendix 3)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 summarizes the 25 umbrella categories, and the number of Pubmed records in each category. The number of records in each category should be viewed as a “floor”. The queries were developed, and the records retrieved, before the N-Grams were generated (because of the timing of major upgrades to the N-Gram generator). Some additional terms from the N-Gram results could have been added to the queries for retrieving records, resulting in greater numbers of records in each category. However, the hundreds or thousands of records that were identified for each of the 25 categories are more than enough to demonstrate the breadth of adverse events in each category that occurred post-Covid-19 vaccination.
*************************************************
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
*********************************************************
Thursday, February 08, 2024
Real Driving Forces Behind the COVID Waves
“Stay 6 feet apart.” This unforgettable slogan was one of the first recommendations implemented when the world announced the first COVID-19 wave.
As the mysterious virus appeared and quickly spread throughout the world, countries sealed their borders, schools closed, travel was restricted, and people started working remotely. We were told to wear masks, social distance to “flatten the curve,” and get vaccines promoted as being “safe and effective.”
The COVID-19 waves have come and gone approximately seven to eight times during the last three years until May 2023, when the public health emergency and the national state of emergency for COVID-19 were officially declared over. What we experienced during that time will be etched in our minds forever.
Among a number of public health measurements taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, which factors affected the COVID waves? Social distancing? Masks? Vaccines? Or something else?
Researchers have analyzed these factors to determine their effectiveness.
Impact of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions
Many people attributed a reduction in COVID-19 cases to nonpharmaceutical health policies.
These included travel restrictions, stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, school closures, and social distancing measures. Since they have nothing to do with pharmaceuticals, they are classified as nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs).
More Than 400 Studies on the Failure of Compulsory Covid Interventions
However, a number of studies disagree and couldn’t find clear evidence that these interventions contributed to the decline in each COVID-19 wave.
For example, in terms of mortality, fatal cases were declining before the full United Kingdom lockdown on March 24, 2020.
A systematic review of 32 studies conducted in Europe and the United States concluded that lockdowns during the spring of 2020 had no substantial effect on reducing COVID-19 mortality.
A study that analyzed data across 169 countries covering 98 percent of the world population from Our World in Data between July 1, 2020, and Sept. 1, 2021, also did “not find substantial COVID-19-related fatality-reducing effects of the ten NPIs under investigation.”
A Nature study found no evidence that Japanese school closures significantly reduced the number of COVID-19 cases in the spring of 2020.
A randomized controlled study in Denmark indicated that mask use did not significantly reduce the infection rate compared to the control.
A newly published 2024 study analyzing COVID-19 data in six European countries (Ireland, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland) found no clear evidence indicating that NPIs effectively altered the course of the pandemic in these countries, despite common misconceptions about them.
Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine
Many have been forced to comply with overwhelming vaccine mandates, and the impact of vaccination on the pandemic has been extensively researched.
Vaccination recommendations started for people at high risk and now include everyone, even children. Initially, the expectation was to stop the virus from spreading. Later, the authorities admitted to the public that it was still possible to get COVID-19 after vaccination. We were later told it was important for reducing hospitalization rates.
Despite early promising results from clinical trials indicating significant effectiveness, it’s essential to consider that these findings were based on a relatively small number of COVID-19 cases in the vaccine trials.
For instance, the Pfizer/BioNTech trial had 43,548 participants, but only 170 confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 cases were identified across both the vaccinated and placebo groups. Although the relative risk reduction was reported as 95 percent, this was calculated from a modest sample size exerting little impact on the whole patient population, raising major questions about the reliability of the conclusions.
Countries such as Israel and the UK were leaders in rolling out vaccine campaigns during the pandemic. Yet the same nations have frequently faced new waves of the virus, often driven by emerging variants.
The previously mentioned study on six European countries concluded that despite initial high hopes, there was no clear evidence that the vaccine altered the course of the pandemic.
Impact of Seasonality
A 2021 Nature study shows that higher temperatures and higher relative humidity have consistently adversely impacted COVID-19 transmission across large geographic areas.
The European six-country study, while dismissing the role of NPIs and the vaccine in the COVID waves, concluded that the patterns of COVID-19 cases, hospital admissions, and the number of people in intensive care units were surprisingly consistent, forming a visible seasonal pattern.
SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to behave like other respiratory viruses—peaking in mid-winter and having a very low incidence during the summer.
A study on the survival of SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces found that the virus survives better in colder and drier environments.
Airborne transmission plays a significant role in spreading SARS-CoV-2. In winter, when the air is usually drier and colder, the virus is more likely to survive and spread easier.
The survival of other coronaviruses also depends on temperature and humidity, showing a clear seasonal pattern.
While seasonal patterns are a driving force behind the COVID waves, they are just one piece of the puzzle and not the entire picture.
Another Surprising Factor
There have been many unknowns with this microscopic virus that remain a mystery.
A breakthrough study in Japan published in Nature revealed an unexpected finding about the COVID-19 pandemic: how people’s changing behaviors, like isolation, might have influenced the virus’s evolution.
The researchers used detailed clinical data and complex mathematical models to understand the viral behavior during the past four years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was found that as the virus mutated into the Delta variant, the newer strains displayed higher and earlier peaks in the viral load within the body. However, the infection duration was relatively shorter.
This suggests that the virus mutates to become more transmissible, which counteracts the measures people take, such as self-isolation.
Researchers discovered that the virus transitioned from having a shorter incubation period to being more infectious without showing symptoms. A typical example of this is the Omicron variant.
This is the virus’s way of adapting to human behavior; it is intelligent and appears to know how to outsmart human intervention.
It’s not surprising that even the most intelligent scientists and virologists cannot predict mutations, as we have seen with recent strains like HV.1 and JN.1.
Unfortunately, this has resulted in a challenging battle between viruses and human intervention, and the variants’ microscopic tricks appear to be far superior.
Human Behavior Matters
There are other factors related to human behavior that are often ignored yet may be fundamental to driving COVID-19 waves.
In modern health care, Western medicine often fails to address the human soul, including a decline in moral values and behavior, which is linked to the root causes of disease.
Intriguingly, not everyone succumbs to viruses, even during a pandemic. This fact has been evident since the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak and has been further supported by recent COVID-19 human challenge studies. Many participants who were exposed to the virus remained infection-free.
This phenomenon points to the extraordinary capabilities of our God-given natural immunity. The real frontline where the battles between viruses and humans take place is at a microscopic level—our natural defense system, including mucosal epithelial cells on the surface of our nose, lungs, and gut.
A remarkable link exists between our thoughts, moral values and behaviors, and our body’s ability to fight viruses on this battlefield.
It’s not only about nutrition and exercise; our mental state also plays a crucial role. Science has shown that emotions such as stress, anxiety, and fear can impact our biochemistry.
Furthermore, our body, mind, and spirit interplay with each other. Positivity and purposeful living can actually boost our immune response.
A study reveals that striving for compassionate, noble goals can supercharge our body’s virus-fighting abilities. Honesty isn’t just a virtue, it strengthens our immunity by lowering stress hormones.
Embracing a positive, purpose-driven life can not only fill us with joy but can also arm us against illness. Traditional wisdom meets modern science—kindness, altruism, and calmness aren’t just good for the soul; they’re secret weapons for staying healthy.
A pivotal driving force for the virus waves may not be external but something within ourselves. In other words, our behaviors and values may have contributed to the spread of the virus.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/real-driving-forces-behind-the-covid-waves-5573822
********************************************************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, February 07, 2024
VAERS Data Reveals 223-Fold Increase in Myocarditis Reports Post-COVID-19 Vaccination
In the wake of the widespread distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, including Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Janssen across the United States, a surge in adverse event reports was documented through the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS).
VAERS tracks vaccine side effects by allowing patients and healthcare professionals to report any unexpected reactions, helping authorities at the CDC and FDA to scrutinize and monitor vaccine safety. Concerns over safety issues with COVID-19 vaccination came as early as the beginning of 2021. Loss of medical licensure threatened doctors from voicing dissenting opinions. Medical professionals or news media who questioned short-term, or long-term safety with the novel vaccines, and strayed from the official public health messaging, were often censored—including this news media.
An analysis was recently published in Sage Journals, titled “Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine-induced Myocarditis”. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, often caused by viral infections or other immune-related conditions, and it can affect the heart's ability to pump blood effectively.
The creators of the investigation aimed to delve into VAERS data, specifically focusing on myocarditis cases, and explore the potential correlation between COVID-19 vaccines and the occurrence of myocarditis.
Utilizing statistical methods, the study assessed the frequency of myocarditis reports with respect to sex, age, and dose number, comparing them with historical values and vaccine administration data from the Our World in Data database.
The researchers uncovered troubling indications in the data. According to their analysis, myocarditis reports in VAERS following COVID-19 injection in 2021 were 223 times higher than the average of all vaccines in the past 30 years. This marked a 2500% increase in reports, with youths and males being most affected. Emergency care and hospitalization were required in 76% of cases, and 3% resulted in death. Myocarditis was more likely after the second dose, and individuals under 30 were at a higher risk.
They concluded that “COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death. Further investigation into the underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis is imperative to create effective mitigation strategies and ensure the safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs across populations.”
Myocarditis and Vaccine-induced Myocarditis
Prior to the pandemic, four per million children were affected annually in the U.S., and it has been reported that 0.05% of all pediatric hospitalizations are attributed to myocarditis. This condition, more frequently identified in young males, has historical associations with various vaccines, including influenza and smallpox.
Myocarditis can present with symptoms such as chest pain, heart failure, or sudden death, posing a significant risk - especially among the young - making it the third leading cause of sudden cardiac death in children and young adults. In VAERS, myocarditis qualifies as a Serious Adverse Event (SAE).
The authors acknowledged that there were cases of myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection before the rollout of vaccines. During severe COVID-19 illness, studies noted heart issues using certain codes. However, many reports didn't thoroughly check symptoms or use detailed diagnostic procedures like ECG or MRI: meaning that important diagnostic details associated with heart problems in COVID-19 might be missed in these studies.
Regarding COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, the authors wrote: “The prevalence of myocarditis reports in the VAERS system was significantly higher in the context of dose 2, males, and individuals under 30 years of age…Dose 2 was generally administered 3 weeks following the first dose – assuming the individual survives dose 1 without any major complications, including death. Figure 4 reveals five times more reports of myocarditis for dose 2 in 15-year-old males and regardless of age, myocarditis cases were more frequent following dose 2.”
The observation suggests a dose-response relationship, indicating potential cumulative and more damaging effects with each additional dose. “In such cases, it is possible that myocarditis was subclinical after dose 1 and became symptomatic after dose 2. We found 70% of all reports of myocarditis were filed within 7 days and 43% were made within 48 hours. Following dose 2, 77% of reports were filed within 7 days and 48% within 48 hours, thus providing more evidence of clinical concern and a temporal relationship with the injections.”
If signs of myocarditis are present after the first dose, the vaccinations should end there, and clinical monitoring should begin. “Because the duration of action of genetic material coding for spike protein is unknown, long-term follow-up with cardiology consultation may be advised in cases with possible repeat imaging and biomarkers.”
Why the Young and Athletic Might Be at Risk
Based on numerous autopsy studies involving suspected vaccine-induced myocarditis deaths, a theory has been formed that may explain why young males and athletes are particularly vulnerable.
Worldwide expert in both Endocrinology and Sports Medicine fields, Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani, holds a unique endocrinological perspective to Physical Activity. In his Op-ed published by TrialSite News, Cadegiani examined multiple studies that provided evidence for a converging cause: that catecholamines, mostly represented by noradrenaline and adrenaline, are the “key triggers” of myocarditis and sudden deaths caused by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
This is more simply explained as an adrenaline surge feedback loop. With young males and athletes having the highest amount of catecholamines in their system, it’s likely the reason why this group experiences an overload after vaccination. This theory corroborates with the determination of Connecticut’s Medical Examiner who published a case-study on his autopsies of two teen boys who died in their sleep within days of COVID-19 vaccination.
Estimating the Bigger Picture
The article shared some disheartening information regarding “the spontaneous reporting nature of VAERS,” implying that the reported cases are likely not rare, but rather represent a fraction of the total occurrences. Acknowledging the significant under-reporting issue with VAERS, the study cautions against using it alone to estimate population incidence. With 3,078 reported myocarditis cases by August 11, 2023, and considering an under-reporting factor of 31, the study estimates the actual number of myocarditis cases in the United States to be around 95,418. If considering the under-reporting factor for the Foreign VAERS data-inclusive, this estimate becomes 564,696 since 83% of myocarditis reports are found in the Foreign VAERS data set.
*****************************************************
AstraZeneca is facing tens of millions of pounds in compensation claims from 35 alleged victims of the Covid jab in High Court legal battle
The pharmaceutical giant, which developed its jab in partnership with the University of Oxford, is set to face a High Court battle over claims the vaccine is 'defective'.
It has been linked to a newly identified condition called Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT) which causes blood clots.
At least 81 people have died due to complications linked to the very rare side effect while hundreds of others have also suffered illness as a result.
In what may be one of the biggest cases of its kind, more cases are expected to be lodged, meaning the vaccine manufacturer could face up to £80million in compensation payouts if it loses, according to The Telegraph.
The government indemnified AstraZeneca and other vaccine manufacturers as it sought to roll out vaccines during the pandemic.
Under Vaccine Damage Payment scheme, victims of certain vaccines, including ones used to beat Covid, are entitled to a one-off 'all-or-nothing' sum of £120,000 from the Government.
Tory MP Sir Jeremy Wright, whose constituent Jamie Scott suffered a 'significant permanent brain injury' from a blood clot after getting the job in 2021, has urged the government to take action.
The former Attorney General said: 'The public need the confidence to know they will be looked after if in the tiny, tiny minority of cases where the vaccine has gone wrong.
'And that confidence is damaged if the Government does not step in and settle these cases.'
The claimants are suing under the Consumer Protection Act, suggesting that the vaccine was not as safe as those who received it were led to believe.
AstraZeneca is fighting the claims, calling them 'confused' and 'wrong in law'.
The company has also pointed to the millions of lives the vaccine is believed to have saved in its first year of rollout.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is not being used as part of the UK's booster programme after experts recommended mRNA vaccines – such as the Pfizer or Moderna jabs – should be used instead.
Vaccine complications have been listed on the death certificates of a number of people who were administered the AstraZeneca jab.
Dr Stephen Wright, 32, died from a blood clot to the brain ten days after having his first dose of the AstraZeneca jab in January 2021.
In April last year, a coroner ruled the vaccine should be added to Dr Wright's death certificate.
In another case, a rock musician known as Lord Zion suffered a severe headache and was admitted to hospital eight days after receiving the jab.
His condition worsened and he passed away in hospital on May 19, with the preliminary death certificate listing a brain bleed caused by vaccine complications as the cause.
His partner Vikki said she is still 'pro-vaccine' following his death, but called on the Government to better educate medical staff on the side effects and rework the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.
********************************************************
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, February 06, 2024
COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Near Collapse in Europe--Market for mRNA Vaccines in Danger
The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) releases the COVID-19 vaccination coverage data for the 2023-24 season vaccination campaigns. The ECDC by September 2023, updated its COVID-19 vaccination coverage data analysis process. The latest data report is an interim description of COVID-19 vaccination in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) between September 2023 and January 2024.
What becomes clear is much like in America, a precipitous drop in COVID-19 vaccination rates. In fact, TrialSite suggests a collapse in market demand, such a collapse that the vaccine makers will consider their options as time progresses to the next vaccination season.
A handful of countries on the continent report high rates (Denmark for example) but the overall rates have plummeted. A pattern emerges in that eastern nations in Europe have all but dropped the mRNA vaccine product. Moderna is locked out of the lucrative European market, and while Pfizer’s partnership with Germany’s BioNTech ensured it the overwhelming lead position, its COVID-19 vaccine and antiviral sales all but collapsed.
During the reporting period, 24/30 EU/EEA countries reported data on COVID-19 vaccination coverage for at least one target group (people aged 60 years and above, people aged 80 years and above, healthcare workers, individuals with chronic conditions, pregnant women). Approximately 19.4 million people during this period, aged 60 years and up received one COVID-19 vaccine dose.
At least 5.5 million people aged 80 years and above opted to receive the jab. The median COVID-19 vaccination coverage among the most high-risk cohorts in Europe—persons aged 60 years and above equaled 11.1% (range 0.01-65.8%). This specific median indicates the rates skewed to the lower end. The even more high-risk cohort of 80 years of age and up were vaccinated at 16.3% (0.01-88.2%) with high variation among countries, but clearly among the whole content much like in America the demand for COVID-19 vaccination all but collapsed.
Only a handful of nations’ populations went out in force to get the COVID-19 jab during the 2023-2024 season. Of the 24 European countries reporting, three countries reported a vaccination coverage of ≥50% for the age group 60 years and above, while eight countries reported a vaccination coverage of ≥50% for the age group 80 years and above.
What was the most used vaccine brand? The Pfizer-BioNTech product was originally developed by Germany’s BioNTech. A majority of the 22.7 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the EU/EEA during this period in the overall population were the Comirnaty Omicron XBB.1.5 (Pfizer BioNTech) vaccine (around 22 million doses; 97% of the total doses administered). Moderna’s all but cut out of the European market which should have a profound impact on its vaccine sales forecasts.
The ECDC reminds all analysts that the preliminary results herein must be interpreted with caution. A higher degree of data consolidation and data completeness is expected in the coming weeks and months.
*************************************************
Australian Employer Ordered to Pay Compensation for Vaccine Injured in ‘Significant Precedent’
An Australian court has ordered an employer to pay weekly compensation and medical expenses to an employee after ruling that a vaccine injury that occurred from a workplace directive is compensable under the law.
Daniel Shepherd, 44, worked as a child and youth support worker with South Australia’s Department of Child Protection when he developed pericarditis after receiving his third Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in February 2022.
Pericarditis is inflammation of the pericardium, a thin sac that surrounds the heart. The condition is reported to be more common in males aged 18 to 49, with an estimated 27 cases per 100,000 doses.
Mr. Shepherd was told by his employer that his employment would be terminated if he did not receive the third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The directions for the mandate were made under Section 25 of South Australia’s Emergency Management Act in January 2022, which required support and healthcare workers to receive a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine to continue working.
Mr. Shepherd received two COVID-19 vaccinations on Aug. 19, 2021, and Sept. 9, 2021, respectively, according to documents submitted to the South Australian Employment Tribunal.
On the first dose, Mr. Shepherd experienced aching joints, cold, and flu symptoms, and minor chest pain for one to two weeks. He experienced similar symptoms on his second dose.
Mr. Shepherd then received his third booster dose on Feb. 24, 2022, after receiving a message from his employer saying that employees needed to have a third dose of vaccine within four months of having a second vaccine.
The following day, Mr. Shepherd experienced severe chest pain, which worsened over the next two weeks.
On March 11, 2022, the chest pain was so unbearable that he felt “like someone was kneeling on his chest.” Having thought he was experiencing a heart attack, Mr. Shepherd was taken by ambulance to the Ashford Hospital, where cardiologists diagnosed him with pericarditis.
The 44-year-old husband and father of a 5-year-old boy noted some improvement four to five months after the chest pain; however, further episodes of severe chest pain followed and symptoms returned.
Mr. Shepherd has not worked since March 2022, except for two months when he worked part-time in an administrative role.
Vaccine-Injured Files Claim Against the State
Mr. Shepherd filed a claim for compensation against his employer, the State of South Australia, which was initially rejected.
The state had initially contested the connection between the vaccine and the injury but later acknowledged that the third dose caused Mr. Shepherd’s pericarditis and subsequent incapacity to work.
Despite that, the state argued that the injury didn’t arise from his employment under the Return to Work Act, and that the injury was linked to the Emergency Management Act.
The state argued that if criteria under the Return to Work Act are met, they are exempt from liability in relation to the broader management of the pandemic under the Emergency Management Act.
But Tribunal deputy president Judge Mark Calligeros rejected those arguments.
“The injury was a direct consequence of an Emergency Management Act vaccination direction and of Mr. Shepherd’s employment,” Judge Calligeros said.
“The connection between employment and the injury is a strong one, given I have found that Mr. Shepherd would not have had a third dose of the vaccine if he had not been required to in order to continue working.
“The state required Mr. Shepherd to be vaccinated to continue working in a healthcare setting because it sought to protect and reduce the risk of infection to the public and general and those members of the public receiving healthcare services in particular.
“It would be ironic and unjust if Mr. Shepherd was denied financial and medical support by complying with the state’s desire to preserve public health.
“The rejection of Mr. Shepherd’s claim should be set aside, and it should be ordered instead that he receive weekly payments of income support and payment of medical expenses.”
Ongoing Pain
Currently, Mr. Shepherd tires easily, and becomes tired after walking his son to school, some 400 metres (437 yards) from his home. Prior to the injury, he was able to hike up and down Mount Lofty, walk, and do Chinese boxing, which he is now unable to do.
In an interview with 9News, Mr. Shepherd said he now has the heart of a 90-year-old. “Even today with just mild exertion [I get] chest pains and then it’s followed by fatigue, like severe fatigue,” he said. “It’s heartbreaking to have to say, ‘Sorry buddy, daddy’s tired’.”
In a social media post, Senator Gerard Rennick said the ruling is a “significant precedent.”
“[E]mployers are now going to think twice about forcing people to get a vaccine if they have to fork out for potentially significant medical costs if the employee then incurs a vaccine injury,” Mr. Rennick said.
“This is only one case, and I suspect it will be appealed.
“I hope the decision is upheld because it will then open up the option of employers suing governments who mandate vaccines or pharmaceutical companies for unsafe or ineffective vaccines.”
********************************************************
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, February 05, 2024
mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Saved: Study
With considerably lower efficacy rates, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause more deaths than save lives, according to a new study whose researchers called for a “global moratorium” on the shots and “immediate removal” from childhood immunization schedule.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the Cureus journal on Jan. 24, analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. These trials led to the shots being approved under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States. The study also looked into several other research and reviews of the trials. It found that the vaccines had “dramatically lower” efficacy rates than the vaccine companies claimed.
Moreover, based on “conservative assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”
“Given the well-documented SAEs (serious adverse events) and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”
The authors also recommended an “immediate removal” of the COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule. They pointed out that children were at very low risk from the infection.
“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available.”
Very Low Efficacy Rate
Following the first trials of Pfizer and Moderna, it was claimed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had a 95 percent reduction of symptomatic COVID-19. The study pointed out that this efficacy assumption was false
Pfizer’s claim was based on the fact that only eight out of 22,000 vaccine recipients contracted COVID-19 during the trial compared to 162 out of 22,000 people in the placebo group. In total, 170 confirmed COVID-19 cases were reported in both groups.
However, the researchers pointed out that a large number of infections fell under the “suspected” COVID-19 category, which was ignored. A total of 3,410 such suspected cases were identified in the trial, which is 20 times the 170 confirmed cases.
“There were 1,594 such cases in the vaccinated group and 1,816 in the placebo. When factoring in both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy against developing symptoms drops to only 19 percent, far below the 50 percent RR (relative risk) reduction threshold required for regulatory authorization,” the study said.
“Thus, when considering both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy appears to have been dramatically lower than the official 95 percent claim.”
The study’s authors declared no financial support from any organization for their work. A few conflict of interest disclosures were made.
One author received a grant from Quanta Computer Inc. Another author, cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, declared employment and owning stock/stock options in The Wellness Company. A third author is the founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF).
Lives Saved Versus Deaths
Researchers criticized the Pfizer and Moderna trial reports for “exclusive focus” on relative risk or RR measure while omitting absolute risk reduction. They argued that absolute risk reduction “gives a better indication of a drug’s clinical utility.”
“Both types of risk estimation are required to avoid reporting bias and to provide a more comprehensive perspective on vaccine efficacy. Omitting the absolute risk statistics leads to overestimation of the clinical benefits of the vaccines.”
In contrast with the 95 percent efficacy rate using the RR measure, absolute risk reduction for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were 0.7 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively, the study stated.
“An absolute risk reduction of approximately 1 percent for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations meant that a substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19.”
To prevent one case of COVID-19 infection, 142 individuals would need to be vaccinated with Pfizer’s shot, the study said. When it came to Moderna, 88 people had to be injected.
Taking into account these numbers as well as the infection fatality rates of COVID-19, the researchers concluded that roughly 52,000 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one COVID-19-related death.
This would mean two lives saved for roughly 100,000 injections of the Pfizer vaccine. However, there is a risk of 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer shot, the researchers calculated. As such, for every life saved by the jab, almost 14 lives would be lost due to the mRNA vaccine, the study stated.
Authors noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) “did not include absolute risk reduction measures” when reviewing vaccine data.
This action deviated from FDA guidelines “which state that both approaches are crucial in order to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceuticals.”
Serious Adverse Events
Researchers cited a September 2022 analysis to detail the pervasiveness of serious adverse effects (SAE) among the vaccinated group in the trials. The analysis looked at both Pfizer and Moderna trial data, discovering roughly 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients. This indicated one SAE per 800 vaccines.
“The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 percent higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group (compared to placebo) … The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 percent higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group,” the analysis stated.
“These findings stand in sharp contrast with the FDA’s initial claim that SAEs reported by the two pivotal trials were ‘balanced between treatment groups,’” researchers from the Jan. 24 study noted.
This discrepancy could be because the FDA only counted the number of individuals with serious adverse events rather than the total SAEs experienced by the trial subjects, they said.
Since a single person can have multiple SAEs, counting only individuals would produce a lower number than the total number of such adverse events.
“When the SAEs were viewed collectively, the risks in the vaccine group were substantially elevated beyond those previously determined by the FDA,” the researchers wrote.
The analysis found that the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) among the placebo group was 10.1 per 10,000 individuals. However, the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization in this group was only 2.3 per 10,000 people.
This meant that the subjects were at over four times the risk of suffering AESIs after getting vaccinated than they were of getting hospitalized from the infection. In the Moderna trial, subjects were more than two times at risk of experiencing AESI than being hospitalized.
“To put these findings in perspective, the official SAE rate for other vaccines is only 1-2 per million,” the Jan. 24 study said. The 2020 analysis’ “estimate based on the Pfizer trial data (1,250 SAEs per million) exceeds this benchmark by at least 600-fold.”
Rushed Vaccines
In the Jan. 24 study, researchers noted that the safety of mRNA products was “never assessed” in a manner consistent with scientific standards for vaccines or for gene therapy products (GPT), which they claim is “the more accurate classification” for these jabs. “Many key trial findings were either misreported or omitted entirely from published reports.”
The usual safety testing protocols and toxicology requirements were bypassed by the FDA and vaccine manufacturers. As the two trials were terminated prematurely, there was never an “unbiased assessment” of potential serious adverse events.
“It was only after the EUA that the serious biological consequences of rushing the trials became evident, with numerous cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, hematological, malignant, and autoimmune SAEs identified and published in the peer-reviewed medical literature.”
In addition, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced and evaluated in the trials were not the same ones that were manufactured and administered to people around the world. The global vaccination campaign used a vaccine produced by a different process, which has been shown to have “varying degrees of DNA contamination.”
The researchers pointed out that several excess deaths, cardiac events, strokes, and other serious adverse events have wrongly been ascribed to COVID-19 rather than the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines since early 2021.
Injuries from these vaccines overlap with both post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) and severe acute COVID-19 illness, which end up often obscuring the vaccine’s contribution to such conditions. “Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses.”
For the “vast majority” of adults below 50 years of age, the perceived benefits of the mRNA vaccines were dwarfed by their “potential disabling and life-threatening harm.” The study said older adults may be at higher risk of such harm.
CDC and FDA Criticized
Commenting on the study, Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of nonprofit Liberty Counsel, said that in the paper, scientists “confirm what sound scientific research has been showing for years, that these shots have never been safe nor effective.”
“The FDA and the CDC are supposed to protect the people, but they have become the lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry. This must change.”
The CDC is currently under scrutiny for suppressing an alert for myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle called the myocardium.
A document recently obtained by The Epoch Times shows that in May 2021, the CDC had prepared a draft alert for myocarditis related to the jabs.
The agency was supposed to send the alert to federal, state, and local public health officials and doctors nationwide through its Health Alert Network (HAN). However, the alert was never sent as some officials were worried about appearing “alarmist.”
********************************************************
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
*********************************************************
Thursday, February 01, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
