Immunosuppression Prevalence Doubled, Linked to Medication Use and COVID: Experts
Between 2013 and 2021, rates of immunosuppression in adults have doubled, according to estimates from a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) research letter.
In 2021, an estimated 6.6 percent of U.S. adults were immunosuppressed. “This rate of immunosuppression was higher than the previous national estimate of 2.7 percent using the 2013 [National Health Interview Survey],” the authors wrote in their paper.
The researchers estimated immunosuppression prevalence by analyzing National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) results.
Specifically, the authors analyzed responses to five questions. Over 29,000 individuals were asked if they had a health condition or were taking medication or treatments that would weaken their immune system. They were also asked if they had cancer or malignancy, the type of cancer, and their age at the time of cancer diagnosis.
In 2013, over 34,000 people were interviewed, garnering a response from 75 percent of households. In 2021, only about half of the households contacted responded to the survey.
Why the Rise in Immunosuppression?
“Given the documented increase in immunosuppression, studies are needed to understand the causes for this increase,” the authors wrote. However, they mentioned that the rise in self-reported immunosuppression may be due to increased use of immunosuppressive medications.
The use of adalimumab, a drug used to treat autoimmune conditions, has increased 3.5-fold between 2014 and 2021.
Immunosuppression carries significant risks, “including an increased susceptibility to infections, potential organ rejection, side effects of immunosuppressant drugs, elevated cancer risk, and pregnancy-related concerns,” Mohammad Razzaque, professor of pathology at the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, told The Epoch Times.
Immunosuppression occurs naturally with age, but it can also occur due to the individual being on various immunosuppressive therapies. People undergoing such therapies include organ transplant patients and those with autoimmune diseases or cancer.
Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of medicine and preventative medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, reasoned that the rising prevalence could signify progress in science and health.
“There are more and more people being kept alive and are being treated with immunosuppressant agents in the United States, and that treatment is extending life, which means that the proportion of the population that is immunosuppressed is increasing,” Dr. Schaffner said.
Crude data from NHIS have also shown a rise in self-reported rates of cancer. According to 2015 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, 8.7 percent of adults reported cancer. In 2021, it was estimated that 9.8 percent of adults had cancer.
NHIS' most recent survey in 2022 estimated that a slight decrease of 9.6 percent of adults had cancer.
The COVID-19 pandemic may have also made individuals more aware of their immune health and whether they are immunosuppressed, the research letter authors added.
COVID-19 and Immunosuppression
Studies have shown that the COVID-19 virus can disrupt the function and order of the immune system, leading to immune dysfunction and possible immunodeficiency.
One 2o23 study published in Nature Reviews Rheumatology found that people with a COVID-19 infection are at a greater risk of developing autoimmune diseases, which may be linked to potential immunodeficiencies.
The COVID-19 pandemic may have been particularly challenging to those already immunocompromised.
Immunocompromised people tend to have an increased disease severity if they become infected with COVID-19, and the vaccine appears to be less effective for them. Public health measures put in place during the pandemic may also have created obstacles for these people to access health care and therapies for their immunosuppression, said Mr. Razzaque.
Other researchers and physicians argue that the COVID-19 vaccines may also contribute to immunosuppression and deficiencies, though some research has opposite findings.
Research from Cleveland Clinic suggests that repeated boosting of COVID-19 vaccinations has been shown to put a person at risk of future COVID-19 infections. Another letter to the editor from Columbia University authors published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that people with higher vaccine antibody levels after vaccination were more strongly associated with breakthrough infections.
Most recently, an Australian review suggested that repeat COVID-19 vaccine boosting in immunocompromised individuals may impair immune activation within this population, possibly making them more vulnerable to infections and cancers.
In a research paper, Mr. Razzaque pointed to increased influenza infections reported in people who receive repeat influenza vaccinations, speculating if frequent boosting may be linked to immunosuppression.
Dr. Schaffner said whether increased infections linked to repeat vaccinations are a sign of general immunosuppression is debatable.
“It’s a very debatable issue,” he said, adding that even if there is an increased risk of COVID-19 infection linked to repeat vaccination, there does not seem to be “serious evidence” indicating a “general suppression of the immune system.”
However, works by Nordic researchers Drs. Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell Benn suggest that non-live vaccines, including COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, tend to make the immune system “lazy” and less equipped to fight an infection. In contrast, live vaccines train the immune system to become better fighters.
Gastroenterologist and CEO of ProgenaBiome, Dr. Sabine Hazan, has said that the COVID-19 vaccine may cause immunosuppression by reducing good Bifidobacteria in the gut. She showed that after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, Bifidobacteria levels dropped by half among her trial participants.
Bifidobacteria are essential for boosting intestinal immunity. Dr. Hazan’s earlier work showed that people with reduced Bifidobacteria in the gut were at risk of severe COVID-19 infections, and therapeutics that replenished the Bifidobacteria, such as vitamins C and D and ivermectin improved patient survival rates.
“The pandemic appears to have influenced what the public thinks about their immune system. There has been a big jump in perceived weakness in the immune system. More research is needed to determine if either SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccine indeed has impaired human immunity according to these perceptions,” Dr. Peter McCullough, renowned cardiologist and internist, told The Epoch Times.
******************************************************
Nova Scotia Health Authority Rescinds COVID Vaccine Mandate for Health Care Workers
The Nova Scotia Health Authority has announced it will be rescinding its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers due to the pandemic entering its endemic phase and its “commitment to respecting the choices and autonomy of our staff members.”
“Based on the current available evidence, Nova Scotia Health and IWK Health are amending their respective policies,” reads a joint statement released on Feb. 21 by the two health authorities, which was originally obtained by The Canadian Independent.
“Effective February 26, 2024, it will no longer be a requirement for employees, preferred candidates and on-site medical staff to submit proof of primary series COVID-19 immunization.”
The health organizations said the change represented the “evolving landscape of COVID-19 in its endemic phase.” They added that vaccination against the disease remained “highly effective” at preventing disease, hospitalization, and death, and encouraged all eligible residents to receive their boosters.
The organizations said the change in policy means health care workers who did not submit proof of vaccination and were subsequently let go from work would have the chance to “return to active employment.” Nova Scotia and IWK Health will be reaching out to those employees on administrative leave to discuss options for them to return to work.
Many Canadian provinces got rid of their vaccine mandates for health care workers in 2022, with Saskatchewan lifting the requirement on Feb. 14, Manitoba lifting the requirement on March 1, Ontario lifting it on March 14, New Brunswick ending it on April 11, Newfoundland ending it June 1, and Alberta lifting it on July 18.
The province of Quebec backed down from making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for health care workers back in November 2021, as a Superior Court judge ruled in favour of a group of unvaccinated health care workers.
British Columbia is the only province that still has a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place for health care workers. In September 2023, a vote was held at the Union of B.C. Municipalities about the mandate, which saw municipal leaders vote against a motion rescinding the policy.
The company Purolator suspended its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on April 13, 2023, asking employees who had been placed on unpaid leave to return to work by May 1. Following nearly a year of arbitration, Arbitrator Nicholas Glass ruled in a Dec. 14 decision that Purolator must compensate employees who were terminated for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
A recent survey conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada found that one-third of doctors and over half of nurses were reluctant to take the COVID-19 vaccine because they feared potential side effects. The research found that despite many health workers being reluctant, 89 percent received the vaccines, with the most commonly reported reason being a fear of job loss.
*************************************************
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 22, 2024
Wednesday, February 21, 2024
COVID Booster Shots Carry ‘Increased Myocarditis Risk’ for Young Adults: Nordic Study
Booster vaccination against COVID-19 is linked to a higher risk of heart inflammation among adolescents, according to a recent study using data from several Nordic nations.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the European Heart Journal on Feb. 15, evaluated the risk of myocarditis among 12- to 39-year-olds after receiving COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. Myocarditis refers to an inflammation of the heart muscle myocardium. The study analyzed data from 8.9 million young adults from four nations: Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
In total, 1,533 cases of myocarditis were identified with the study concluding that the “booster dose is associated with increased myocarditis risk in adolescents and young adults.”
Among males, a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was associated with an “increased incidence rate of myocarditis” within 28 days of inoculation compared to a longer period after the second dose.
The study noted that the association of myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has appeared “strongest in male adolescents and younger males and after the second dose.”
The study was authored by 12 experts from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Swedish Medical Products Agency, Statens Serum Institut, and the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.
Significant Spike in Cases
Cases of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals in the United States spiked within the first year of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, according to a study published in late January that looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
“We found the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination in 2021 was 223 times higher than the average of all vaccines combined for the past 30 years. This represented a [2,500 percent] increase in the absolute number of reports in the first year of the campaign when comparing historical values prior to 2021,” the U.S. study said.
Roughly 50 percent of myocarditis cases occurred among youths and 69 percent of affected individuals were males. Out of a total of 3,078 COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis cases as of August 2023, 76 percent resulted in emergency care and hospitalization, and 3 percent died.
New studies are being published looking at reducing myocarditis risk when vaccinating adolescents against COVID-19, appearing to confirm the fact that such a risk exists for the shots.
A Feb. 14 study in the journal Vaccines found that extending the interval between the first and the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines leads to a 66 percent “lower risk of incident carditis among adolescents.”
Carditis is the general term for inflammation of the heart.
The study referred to adolescents as a “vulnerable population” while pointing out that “previous studies indicate an increased carditis risk among adolescents following the two-dose messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine.”
COVID-19 and Myocarditis
There have been suggestions that COVID-19 infections cause more myocarditis cases than the vaccines.
For instance, a study published by the American College of Cardiology in 2022 said that “overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination.”
Dr. Daniel Jernigan from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently testified at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. In his testimony, Dr. Jernigan claimed that the risk of getting myocarditis is “much lower among those vaccinated than among those that are unvaccinated.”
However, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough disputes the claim that COVID-19 infections cause myocarditis.
In a post on his website, he described this argument as “a twisted rationale for giving out COVID-19 vaccines, and in a perverted manner, creating more myocarditis in the population. If SARS-CoV-2 infection caused myocarditis or inflammation of heart muscle tissue, then it would be seen on autopsy in fatal cases of COVID-19.”
Dr. McCullough cited an October 2022 study involving an autopsy of the hearts of COVID-19 infected individuals. The analysis “concluded the virus does not infect the heart,” he said.
The cardiologist called claims of the COVID-19 virus infecting the heart and causing myocarditis “false claims made from automated hospital data and not adjudicated, autopsy proven cases.”
“The COVID-19 vaccines install mRNA in the heart and the Spike protein directly damages and incites inflammation into the heart muscle causing the pathophysiology we see every day in cardiology practice,” he wrote.
Researchers from a Jan. 24 study who looked into the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines found that their estimated harms “greatly outweigh the rewards.”
They called on world governments to impose a “global moratorium” on the COVID-19 vaccines “given the well-documented [serious adverse events] and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.”
The authors also recommended an “immediate removal” of COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule, pointing out that children were at very low risk of infection.
****************************************************
Did lockdowns cause more harm than good?
The question of whether lockdowns caused more problems than they solved will be picked over for years to come, even if the official Covid-19 inquiry shows little interest in peering into the matter. The latest contribution, a paper from Lund University in Sweden, provides further evidence that this really is something that a UK inquiry needs to investigate. The paper, published by the Institute for Economic Affairs, seeks correlations between the severity of lockdown restrictions in 25 European OECD members and outcomes in terms of excess deaths, economic growth and public deficits. It seems to provide a fairly clear answer: lockdowns were associated with higher overall levels of excess deaths, poorer economic performance and higher public debt.
It starts by using a marking system for the severity of lockdown, which gives every country a figure of between 0 and 100 – where 0 would be no Covid measures at all and 100 a cessation of all economic and social life. On the this measure the UK comes out at 50, France 48 and Italy 60. Sweden was given a lockdown rating of 39. Interestingly, although Sweden was perceived as an outlier throughout the pandemic, and indeed it did plough a very different furrow in the early weeks, Norway and Finland were given slightly lower overall lockdown scores for the duration of the pandemic, owing to the greater relaxation of measures during the rest of 2020.
Overall, the study establishes a fairly weak positive correlation between severity of lockdown and excess deaths. It establishes stronger negative correlations between severity of lockdown and economic growth, and between lockdown severity and the fiscal cost of the pandemic (as measured by the size of the budget deficit in 2020 and 2021 divided by GDP in 2019).
In other words, lockdowns impacted negatively on the economy and the public finances, as might be expected, but they also appear to be associated with slightly higher rates of excess deaths. The study uses excess deaths rather than Covid deaths because it is trying to assess the total effect of lockdowns: how many lives they saved against how many lives they cost through poverty, loneliness, a failure of people to seek timely healthcare because they had been told to stay at home etc.
There are, however, a number of caveats to be put against these findings. Firstly, as the authors admit, the system for giving countries a lockdown score is largely subjective. This part was not in fact the work of the authors – they used a scoring system developed for an earlier study. Secondly, the study doesn’t account for the fact that different countries had different levels of exposure to the virus – which was bound to spread differently in a country like Britain, which has a high density of population and many interconnections with the rest of the world, than in say Norway, with a much lower population density, smaller urban areas and fewer international flights. Indeed, the pattern of excess deaths in Sweden reflects the number of people who had travelled to the Alps for skiing holidays in early 2020 – the areas where more people went to the Alps suffered higher death rates.
Thirdly, it overlooks the fact that lockdowns were often a consequence of high death rates rather than the other way about – Britain, for example, had two further lockdowns in the autumn and winter of 2020-21 precisely because death rates were high and rising.
Scandinavian countries got by with fewer restrictions because death rates were lower – but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would have ended up with more deaths had they made restrictions tougher. We will never know what would have happened had Britain, say, followed the Swedish approach. Fourthly, there are plenty of other variables which were not measured in this study. You could, for example, see what correlation existed between excess death rates and obesity rates, smoking rates or vaccination rates.
All this said, there is clearly a strong case to be made that severe lockdowns caused more misery – deaths included – than they averted. It is essential that this is properly debated before we plan for future pandemics.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/did-lockdowns-cause-more-harm-than-good/
*************************************************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 20, 2024
Largest Covid vaccine study ever finds shots are linked to small increased risk of neurological, blood and heart disorders - but they are still extremely rare
Covid vaccines have been linked to small increases in heart, blood, and neurological disorders, according to the largest global study of its kind.
An international coalition of vaccine experts looked for 13 medical conditions among 99 million vaccine recipients across eight countries in order to identify higher rates of those conditions after receiving the shots.
They confirmed that the shots made by Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca are linked to significantly higher risk of five medical conditions - including a nerve-wasting condition that leaves people struggling to walk or think.
But the study also warned of several other disorders that they said warranted further investigation, including the links between a brain-swelling condition and Moderna's shot.
Still, the team says the absolute risk of developing any one of the condition remains small. For instance, 13 billion doses of vaccines have been administered and there have only been 2,000 cases of all conditions.
Dr Harlan Krumholz, director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation and a lead investigator behind the study, said: ‘Both things can be true.
'They can save millions of lives, and there can be a small number of people who’ve been adversely affected.’
Covid vaccines are estimated to have averted more than 19 million deaths worldwide, including three million in the US alone.
Among their discoveries was a twofold increase in the risk of a neurological condition known as Guillain-Barre syndrome,an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the body's peripheral nervous system, leading to damage to the protective casing around nerve cells.
The report said that of the 23 million AstraZeneca shots administered worldwide, they would have expected 76 cases of GBS - but 190 events were observed, accounting for a 2.9-fold increased risk.
While it cannot be proven that the vaccine caused these events, there is some evidence the vaccine triggers the immune system to attack its own nerves.
Meanwhile, the study also confirmed a threefold higher risk for a type of heart inflammation called myocarditis, though researchers did not give the number of expected cases versus actual cases.
Myocarditis was seen most commonly in young men. It's believed to be related to immune response triggered my the mRNA vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna, which work by instructing cells to produce the same protein that sits atop the coronavirus.
This prompts the immune system to produce antibodies against the spike protein, providing protection against Covid. In rare cases, this immune response may lead to inflammation in the heart muscle.
Typically, the myocarditis instances have been relatively mild, leading to just 28 deaths.
Additionally, both the first and fourth doses of the Moderna vaccine had between 1.7 and 2.6 times greater number of instances of pericarditis, an inflammation affecting the protective sac encasing the heart.
They looked at more than 39 million Moderna vaccine doses administered.
Like the link between mycarditis and the vaccines, links to pericarditis are still under investigation. It is believed to be caused by the same mechanism, an overactive immune response that attacks the thin sac-like membrane.
There was a greater than 3.7 times risk of a condition called Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), which causes swelling in the brain and spinal cord that damages the protective covering of nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord, after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.
Seven instances of ADEM occurred following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, surpassing the anticipated count of two cases.
There were nearly 190 million shots considered in the study.
The study also found that after getting the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there were 1.9 and 3.9 times increased risks of transverse myelitis and ADEM, respectively.
Bell’s palsy, which causes temporary weakness or paralysis of the muscles on one side of the face, had an increased odds of 1.05 after a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
There was also a 1.3 to 1.4 times greater risk of having a seizure following the first and second doses of the Moderna vaccine, as well as the fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
Landmark study finds sudden cardiac deaths in sport fell over time
UK cardiologists say the findings from the 'landmark' Swiss and US study should reassure people about the safety of the mRNA Covid vaccines and the risk of myocarditis.
The researchers added a major caveat to this finding: ‘Chances of having a neurological event following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were up to 617-fold higher than following COVID vaccination, suggesting that the benefits of vaccination substantially outweigh the risks.’
After a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was a 3.2-times-greater than expected risk of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST).
The risks after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and after the second dose were 1.49 and 1.25 times higher.
CVST is a rare but serious condition characterized by the formation of blood clots in the large channels that drain blood from the brain and deliver it back to the heart after the AstraZeneca vaccine.
In total, 21 events were expected, while 69 events were observed.
Also after the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was a 1.07 times higher risk of thrombocytopenia, a condition characterized by a lower-than-normal number of platelets in the blood.
After a third dose of ChAdOx1, the risk notably rose to 1.95.
Their research was published in the journal Vaccine.
**********************************************
Oh, So Shutting Down Schools And Making Kids Dumber Wasn't Required to Stop COVID
When the COVID pandemic hit, we shut down the schools to protect the kids. Everyone got subjected to remote learning, which didn’t work. When schools tried to re-open, teachers’ unions rioted, claiming selfish parents were trying to kill them. Teachers once again overshot their mark for a profession that doesn’t work year-round and who constantly want raises for mediocre test scores, especially when the damage from remote learning was revealed.
Besides test scores being the lowest in decades, the mental health crisis caused by extended periods of isolation is going to be a generational issue. The number of suicides was one of the most tragic stories coming out of the pandemic. And now, we have this study out of Canada showing that we never needed to shut down schools in the first place (via CP24):
An “extensive,” two-year review of COVID-19 in schools and daycares has revealed that these settings were not a significant source of transmission of the virus when infection prevention and control measures were used, researchers at McMaster University have found.
The review was published Thursday in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health and examined more than 34,000 references, including databases, websites, and studies, related to transmission in child-care settings and schools across the globe.
The results of the review appear to cast doubt on the necessity of the repeated interruptions to in-person learning during the pandemic.
In Ontario schools were closed for a minimum of 135 days to prevent the spread of COVID-19, with disruptions in three successive school years.
“We found that after that initial shutdown where everything was locked down, schools did not appear to have much impact on community level transmission when infection prevention control measures were in place,” Sarah Neil-Sztramko, an assistant professor at the university and the lead author of the review, said in a written statement.
When the masking rules flopped around, followed by the science fiction that followed once the Omicron wave hit that upended the narrative about getting the COVID vaccine, we should have expected this outcome regarding the educational fallout from keeping kids away from each other.
Meanwhile, teachers’ unions have tried to gaslight who was behind and supported the classroom shutdowns. If this pandemic had hit ten years before the Trump presidency—would we have all lost our minds? Even Dr. Anthony Fauci initially took a blasé attitude to the virus until the 2020 election season blossomed. Would we not have reacted with such insanity? Who knows, but what is a fact is that the chasm in American education created by the lockdowns might be one too great to bridge, especially with the burgeoning bureaucracy associated with this sector.
********************************************
FDA Official Acknowledges VAERS Faced 'Avalanche' of Reports After COVID Vaccine Rollout
A top FDA official admitted Thursday during a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing that the government's vaccine safety reporting system was not prepared for the “avalanche” of submissions entered after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.
“As of February 2024, VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports for COVID-19 vaccines total significantly higher than all other vaccines combined since 1990 as reported,” said Chairman Brad Wenstrup of Ohio. “This is a surprising figure. Dr. Marks, was the government prepared for an avalanche of reports to VAERS?”
Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, acknowledged it wasn't.
“We tried to be prepared for that,” he said, "but the avalanche of reports was tremendous. And again, it required re-tasking people on the fly…we had to usually staff up and had many meetings working to increase our ability to go through these reports because as you already mentioned, what the public sees on the public VAERS page is just a small fraction of the information that we ultimately collect and sift through that is very important to determine whether an adverse event is truly related to the vaccine
“One of the things we often receive is that we do not make additional information available,” he added. “I would say to you that it's a challenge. What we have learned is that it is very challenging to make available, essentially, protected health information...”
VAERS is an early-warning system but does not "prove that a vaccine caused a problem," according to the CDC. The information submitted, however, can highlight patterns and important information the agency and FDA can then investigate. Reports can be submitted by anyone
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2024/02/16/hearing-on-covid-vax-n2635349
*************************************************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 19, 2024
Hearing on the Hill Puts Feds on the Spot--Enormous Mistakes, Overreach & No Readiness for the Masses of Injured
The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing titled “Assessing America’s Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 1” examined the effectiveness of vaccine safety reporting and injury compensation systems after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. Biden Administration officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) all testified that America’s vaccine injury and compensation systems have serious deficiencies related to inadequate staffing, lackluster surveillance, and overlapping programs.
Select Subcommittee Members were adamant of a false narrative: that rather than the safe and effective mantra touted over and over by health agencies, industry and the medical establishment, the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine was in question. They in some cases pressed witnesses aggressively to explain potentially politically motivated decision-making during the pandemic. In other ways, the event seemed like a COVID-19 kabuki.
TrialSite was one of the few media to announce the event in advance, one that Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman, D.P.M., helped to organize.
Importantly, the Republican-led subcommittee sought out representation of patient groups. For example, Brianne Dressen, founder of React19, the largest COVID-19 vaccine injury group in the U.S. was in attendance and allowed to submit questions.
This first hearing was deemed part one of a two-part series of hearings. The second hearing focuses on the importance of the doctor-patient relationship in order to obtain public trust in vaccines during a future public health crisis.
Summary
In a nutshell, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability reports that the Biden Administration made the reckless move of mandating the COVID-19 vaccine less any kind of working system in place to compensate individuals injured by the policy.
Highlighting just how badly inadequate the government was to deal with any sort of vaccine-related injury HRSA Director at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs CDR George Reed Grimes: “At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff.”
The hearing was also political kabuki for Republicans. They conveniently focus only on the Biden part of the COVID-19 history, excluding the Trump administration’s role in a reckless, relentless race to produce a vaccine first—TrialSite covered how various steps in the standard drug/vaccine development process were bypassed such as IND-enabling preclinical studies and the unreasonably compressed timelines (remember the AstraZeneca study) as examples.
In the hearing, the parties rather started with how the FDA accelerated the COVID-19 vaccine approval process to seemingly meet arbitrary mandate timelines set by the Biden Administration. This precedent was established by the Trump administration.
Executive branch officials from the CDC and FDA did express an accord that the federal government can never guarantee a vaccine is 100% safe. And of course, vaccines are public health tools involving tradeoffs, involving risk-benefit analyses.
Chairman Wenstrup asked: “Is any pharmaceutical 100% safe?”
FDA Director at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr. Peter Marks produced the honest answer: “No pharmaceutical is 100% safe.”
CDC Director at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Dr. Daniel Jernigan: “No medical intervention is risk-free.”
CDR Grimes: “There’s a reason we have a compensation program, and we’re dedicated to diligently carrying that out. I can’t say it any better than my colleagues sitting next to me have.”
Importantly, TrialSite has reported consistently how the U.S. federal government under both the Trump and Biden presidencies completely dropped the ball when it came to planning for the inevitable injuries that would present after the cranking out of a vaccine in such record time.
Is it a surprise to anyone that vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems were not prepared to handle what was described at the hearing as an “avalanche” of injury claims caused by the COVID-19 vaccine?
The FDA’s Dr. Peter Marks:“We tried to be prepared for that, but the avalanche of reports was tremendous. It, again, required re-tasking people on the fly…We had to usually staff up and had many meetings working to increase our ability to go through these reports.”
Not surprisingly, at times the politicians in the room used the forum for grandstanding, not intelligently delving deeper into what kinds of shortcuts the Trump administration allowed or looked the other way during Operation Warp Speed.
The Committee on Oversight and Accountability derived the summary: “Shortcomings in vaccine injury reporting and vaccine compensation systems, as well as ineffective government messaging during the pandemic, deteriorated public trust in vaccine safety.”
Dr. Peter Marks: “We probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus what’s in VAERS.”
Of course, not all reports in VAERS are related to the vaccines. However, the magnitude of problems associated with the system, given the “avalanche” of vaccine injury reports, necessitates its investigation plus call for reform.
Member Highlights
Brad Wenstrup organized this event and during the hearing, argued that advancing an accurate narrative about the COVID-19 vaccine through doctor-patient relationships during the pandemic would have decreased misinformation and disinformation.
Chairman Wenstrup: “I want everyone to understand, especially those serving on the government side that the public perception becomes reality. And because of that, words matter. Words matter that are coming out, you know. For those of us as Members of Congress or as physicians at home, we’re face to face with people. We are sitting face to face with somebody. We’re not just looking at data on a sheet and making decisions. It needs to be done, what you’re doing, but there’s a difference and that’s why I say words matter. Let me give you an example. When you say safe and effective, that’s relative in your mind. It’s relative in your mind, but it’s not to the person at home. They hear 100% safe and 100% effective. That’s what they hear. This is why words matter. Dr. Fauci, in his testimony, even said, you can never say that any treatment is 100% safe. Yet, in essence, that’s what people heard and are still hearing today. We’ve got to change that because the doctor on the ground or the Member of Congress on the ground is one one-on-one with somebody and explains that to them.
…
“Let me tell you, I’m grateful we live in a country that has these systems (vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems) in place because they’re there to protect the American people and to provide for better health in America. But there are ways we can do better.”
Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) pressed FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks to admit he ignored warnings from his colleagues about the dangers of accelerating the COVID-19 vaccine approval process. Chairman Comer further noted that the timing of the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate and the FDA’s rushed approval of the vaccine appear to correlate. See the link.
Chairman Comer: “Why were you pressuring the doctors and then removing them from the approval process when they disagreed?”
Dr. Marks: “The approval process was one that needed to move as rapidly as possible.”
Chairman Comer: “Do you recall any conversations regarding the need to approve the vaccines in order for it to then be mandated?”
Dr. Marks: “There was an acknowledgment that an approval could allow vaccine mandates to occur.”
Chairman Comer: “So, Dr. Gruber wrote that you and Dr. Woodcock expressed your opinion that absent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination. Do you recall this conversation?”
Dr. Marks: “I don’t know what you’re what you’re referring to, but there’s probably, it’s just a statement of fact that once you have a license, vaccine and mandate could be placed.”
…
Chairman Comer: “Do you recall seeing safety signals regarding myocarditis in young men during this time?”
Dr. Marks: “There were yes. There were safety signals known and they were placed on the label.”
A notable admission given Marks was for accelerating the approval by August 20; the eventual approval came three days later on August 23 and coincidentally the Department of Defense’s vaccine mandate occurred according to the exchange on August 20, 2021. On the timing Comer declared, “And that is interesting.”
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), M.D., argued that the federal government wrongly inserted itself in the doctor-patient relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic. In actuality the feds extended their reach much more than that, working to censor doctors indirectly via pressure on the National Association of Medical and Pharmacy boards as TrialSite chronicled.
Overall, this “overreach” created a lack of trust between Americans and their public health system.
Rep. McCormick: “When you insert yourself between a doctor and a patient, and some doctors contradict you and you censor them, even when you’re not a doctor treating patients, people are going to say, why does the government have authority to do that, to censor my doctor? And then secondly, when you start requiring people to do something instead of encouraging the natural resistance of a freedom-loving people that were founded on those principles, will be to resist what you’re requiring. So, it shouldn’t be any surprise to us when the people say, I’m not going to do what you’re telling me I have to do when my doctor may agree with me and not you. You’re the government. Why do they insert themselves in inappropriate ways?
“And really, when we talk about the evolution of science, when you have immunity and you’re still requiring a vaccination that can cause a hyper-immune response, which we’re all scientists, we can admit to, there’s risk versus benefit on every decision. When the government says we’re going to make a carte blanche requirement without taking science into account, it’s no wonder people are mistrustful of our recommendations.”
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) demanded FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks explain why the publicly reported data on vaccine injuries differs significantly from the confirmed death and injury count available to FDA officials. See the link.
Rep. Lesko: “We spoke over the phone back on August 10th of 2021, and I was asking about VAERS because I had lots of constituents reaching out to me saying there were tons of adverse effects, there were thousands of deaths, etc., and they were very concerned. And I asked how many were confirmed. And at that time, you said four. There were four cases that you confirmed deaths that were caused by the vaccine. I suggested, at that time, that the CDC and FDA do a better job of telling the public not just how many cases were reported, but how many were actually confirmed. And just if I heard you right, just recently, you said, well, we don’t want to give out too much information because of privacy rights. But certainly, we could put out how many were confirmed deaths, couldn’t we?”
Dr. Marks: “I fully agree with you that we probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus what’s in VAERS. In fact, we just nearly fell prey to it here at this hearing.”
Rep. Lesko: “It seems very logical to me that if you’re saying the public shouldn’t count on VAERS because anybody can report to that, which they can, why wouldn’t you as actively report to the public — well, we confirmed this really low number of cases that actually were caused by vaccines. I mean, it’s been years now. Why? Why haven’t you done it?”
Dr. Marks: “We did present that in various settings, including at, I believe, at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It was mentioned at our vaccine advisory committee. It perhaps did not go as broadly.”
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), M.D., uncovered evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine was mandated for healthy Americans and U.S. service members without a sufficient system in place to compensate those harmed by the coercive policy.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks: “I understand that there’s a current backlog of claims in CICP, by about more than 10,000. Why is there a backlog of claims for the COVID-19 vaccines?”
CDR Grimes: “At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff. When we received our first direct appropriation in fiscal year 2022, we were able to ramp up quickly and now we have over 35 staff who are assisting to adjudicate claims.”
What have we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic? As healthcare itself became politicized and used by warring factions over access to power and money, the people generally suffer as a result. In a democratic society usurped by pecuniary interests, one normalizing the power of money over all else, little will likely change.
*************************************************
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 Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing titled “Assessing America’s Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 1” examined the effectiveness of vaccine safety reporting and injury compensation systems after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. Biden Administration officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) all testified that America’s vaccine injury and compensation systems have serious deficiencies related to inadequate staffing, lackluster surveillance, and overlapping programs.
Select Subcommittee Members were adamant of a false narrative: that rather than the safe and effective mantra touted over and over by health agencies, industry and the medical establishment, the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine was in question. They in some cases pressed witnesses aggressively to explain potentially politically motivated decision-making during the pandemic. In other ways, the event seemed like a COVID-19 kabuki.
TrialSite was one of the few media to announce the event in advance, one that Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman, D.P.M., helped to organize.
Importantly, the Republican-led subcommittee sought out representation of patient groups. For example, Brianne Dressen, founder of React19, the largest COVID-19 vaccine injury group in the U.S. was in attendance and allowed to submit questions.
This first hearing was deemed part one of a two-part series of hearings. The second hearing focuses on the importance of the doctor-patient relationship in order to obtain public trust in vaccines during a future public health crisis.
Summary
In a nutshell, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability reports that the Biden Administration made the reckless move of mandating the COVID-19 vaccine less any kind of working system in place to compensate individuals injured by the policy.
Highlighting just how badly inadequate the government was to deal with any sort of vaccine-related injury HRSA Director at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs CDR George Reed Grimes: “At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff.”
The hearing was also political kabuki for Republicans. They conveniently focus only on the Biden part of the COVID-19 history, excluding the Trump administration’s role in a reckless, relentless race to produce a vaccine first—TrialSite covered how various steps in the standard drug/vaccine development process were bypassed such as IND-enabling preclinical studies and the unreasonably compressed timelines (remember the AstraZeneca study) as examples.
In the hearing, the parties rather started with how the FDA accelerated the COVID-19 vaccine approval process to seemingly meet arbitrary mandate timelines set by the Biden Administration. This precedent was established by the Trump administration.
Executive branch officials from the CDC and FDA did express an accord that the federal government can never guarantee a vaccine is 100% safe. And of course, vaccines are public health tools involving tradeoffs, involving risk-benefit analyses.
Chairman Wenstrup asked: “Is any pharmaceutical 100% safe?”
FDA Director at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr. Peter Marks produced the honest answer: “No pharmaceutical is 100% safe.”
CDC Director at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Dr. Daniel Jernigan: “No medical intervention is risk-free.”
CDR Grimes: “There’s a reason we have a compensation program, and we’re dedicated to diligently carrying that out. I can’t say it any better than my colleagues sitting next to me have.”
Importantly, TrialSite has reported consistently how the U.S. federal government under both the Trump and Biden presidencies completely dropped the ball when it came to planning for the inevitable injuries that would present after the cranking out of a vaccine in such record time.
Is it a surprise to anyone that vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems were not prepared to handle what was described at the hearing as an “avalanche” of injury claims caused by the COVID-19 vaccine?
The FDA’s Dr. Peter Marks:“We tried to be prepared for that, but the avalanche of reports was tremendous. It, again, required re-tasking people on the fly…We had to usually staff up and had many meetings working to increase our ability to go through these reports.”
Not surprisingly, at times the politicians in the room used the forum for grandstanding, not intelligently delving deeper into what kinds of shortcuts the Trump administration allowed or looked the other way during Operation Warp Speed.
The Committee on Oversight and Accountability derived the summary: “Shortcomings in vaccine injury reporting and vaccine compensation systems, as well as ineffective government messaging during the pandemic, deteriorated public trust in vaccine safety.”
Dr. Peter Marks: “We probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus what’s in VAERS.”
Of course, not all reports in VAERS are related to the vaccines. However, the magnitude of problems associated with the system, given the “avalanche” of vaccine injury reports, necessitates its investigation plus call for reform.
Member Highlights
Brad Wenstrup organized this event and during the hearing, argued that advancing an accurate narrative about the COVID-19 vaccine through doctor-patient relationships during the pandemic would have decreased misinformation and disinformation.
Chairman Wenstrup: “I want everyone to understand, especially those serving on the government side that the public perception becomes reality. And because of that, words matter. Words matter that are coming out, you know. For those of us as Members of Congress or as physicians at home, we’re face to face with people. We are sitting face to face with somebody. We’re not just looking at data on a sheet and making decisions. It needs to be done, what you’re doing, but there’s a difference and that’s why I say words matter. Let me give you an example. When you say safe and effective, that’s relative in your mind. It’s relative in your mind, but it’s not to the person at home. They hear 100% safe and 100% effective. That’s what they hear. This is why words matter. Dr. Fauci, in his testimony, even said, you can never say that any treatment is 100% safe. Yet, in essence, that’s what people heard and are still hearing today. We’ve got to change that because the doctor on the ground or the Member of Congress on the ground is one one-on-one with somebody and explains that to them.
…
“Let me tell you, I’m grateful we live in a country that has these systems (vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems) in place because they’re there to protect the American people and to provide for better health in America. But there are ways we can do better.”
Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) pressed FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks to admit he ignored warnings from his colleagues about the dangers of accelerating the COVID-19 vaccine approval process. Chairman Comer further noted that the timing of the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate and the FDA’s rushed approval of the vaccine appear to correlate. See the link.
Chairman Comer: “Why were you pressuring the doctors and then removing them from the approval process when they disagreed?”
Dr. Marks: “The approval process was one that needed to move as rapidly as possible.”
Chairman Comer: “Do you recall any conversations regarding the need to approve the vaccines in order for it to then be mandated?”
Dr. Marks: “There was an acknowledgment that an approval could allow vaccine mandates to occur.”
Chairman Comer: “So, Dr. Gruber wrote that you and Dr. Woodcock expressed your opinion that absent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination. Do you recall this conversation?”
Dr. Marks: “I don’t know what you’re what you’re referring to, but there’s probably, it’s just a statement of fact that once you have a license, vaccine and mandate could be placed.”
…
Chairman Comer: “Do you recall seeing safety signals regarding myocarditis in young men during this time?”
Dr. Marks: “There were yes. There were safety signals known and they were placed on the label.”
A notable admission given Marks was for accelerating the approval by August 20; the eventual approval came three days later on August 23 and coincidentally the Department of Defense’s vaccine mandate occurred according to the exchange on August 20, 2021. On the timing Comer declared, “And that is interesting.”
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), M.D., argued that the federal government wrongly inserted itself in the doctor-patient relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic. In actuality the feds extended their reach much more than that, working to censor doctors indirectly via pressure on the National Association of Medical and Pharmacy boards as TrialSite chronicled.
Overall, this “overreach” created a lack of trust between Americans and their public health system.
Rep. McCormick: “When you insert yourself between a doctor and a patient, and some doctors contradict you and you censor them, even when you’re not a doctor treating patients, people are going to say, why does the government have authority to do that, to censor my doctor? And then secondly, when you start requiring people to do something instead of encouraging the natural resistance of a freedom-loving people that were founded on those principles, will be to resist what you’re requiring. So, it shouldn’t be any surprise to us when the people say, I’m not going to do what you’re telling me I have to do when my doctor may agree with me and not you. You’re the government. Why do they insert themselves in inappropriate ways?
“And really, when we talk about the evolution of science, when you have immunity and you’re still requiring a vaccination that can cause a hyper-immune response, which we’re all scientists, we can admit to, there’s risk versus benefit on every decision. When the government says we’re going to make a carte blanche requirement without taking science into account, it’s no wonder people are mistrustful of our recommendations.”
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) demanded FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks explain why the publicly reported data on vaccine injuries differs significantly from the confirmed death and injury count available to FDA officials. See the link.
Rep. Lesko: “We spoke over the phone back on August 10th of 2021, and I was asking about VAERS because I had lots of constituents reaching out to me saying there were tons of adverse effects, there were thousands of deaths, etc., and they were very concerned. And I asked how many were confirmed. And at that time, you said four. There were four cases that you confirmed deaths that were caused by the vaccine. I suggested, at that time, that the CDC and FDA do a better job of telling the public not just how many cases were reported, but how many were actually confirmed. And just if I heard you right, just recently, you said, well, we don’t want to give out too much information because of privacy rights. But certainly, we could put out how many were confirmed deaths, couldn’t we?”
Dr. Marks: “I fully agree with you that we probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus what’s in VAERS. In fact, we just nearly fell prey to it here at this hearing.”
Rep. Lesko: “It seems very logical to me that if you’re saying the public shouldn’t count on VAERS because anybody can report to that, which they can, why wouldn’t you as actively report to the public — well, we confirmed this really low number of cases that actually were caused by vaccines. I mean, it’s been years now. Why? Why haven’t you done it?”
Dr. Marks: “We did present that in various settings, including at, I believe, at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It was mentioned at our vaccine advisory committee. It perhaps did not go as broadly.”
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), M.D., uncovered evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine was mandated for healthy Americans and U.S. service members without a sufficient system in place to compensate those harmed by the coercive policy.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks: “I understand that there’s a current backlog of claims in CICP, by about more than 10,000. Why is there a backlog of claims for the COVID-19 vaccines?”
CDR Grimes: “At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff. When we received our first direct appropriation in fiscal year 2022, we were able to ramp up quickly and now we have over 35 staff who are assisting to adjudicate claims.”
What have we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic? As healthcare itself became politicized and used by warring factions over access to power and money, the people generally suffer as a result. In a democratic society usurped by pecuniary interests, one normalizing the power of money over all else, little will likely change.
*************************************************
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 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
*********************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
