Wednesday, February 22, 2023
Are covid-19 vaccine-induced adverse cardiovascular events rare?
When compared with Flu vaccines, Covid vaccines are much more dangerous
COVID-19 vaccine-induced adverse cardiovascular events (ACEs) have been judged as “rare” (and many times as mild and temporary) by the major promoters of these vaccines (caveat: these injections prevent neither infection nor viral transmission, so they are not vaccines in the classical sense). To ascertain the frequency of COVID-19 vaccine-induced ACEs, we have examined the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database for reports of ACEs. Since some ACEs can have latency/incubation periods of a decade or more, we have also addressed the issue of Early Warning Indicators that could identify COVID-19 vaccine-induced ACEs on or over the horizon. Finally, we have compared ACEs reported following COVID-19 vaccines with those reported following influenza vaccines for similar numbers of vaccine doses delivered. In Appendix 1, we have also addressed the relevance of human clinical trials to the issues addressed in this OpEd.
While imperfect (as are most publicly-available vaccine adverse events reporting systems), VAERS is a reasonable system for identifying safety signals related to vaccines. One major VAERS deficiency is that only a small fraction of vaccine-related adverse events is reported to VAERS. A study by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, using electronic tracking, showed that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”. This is an average value over all adverse events; it may be worse for some ACEs.
The Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study tracked reporting habits to VAERS for thirty days. Therefore, the 1% number should be termed a thirty-day reporting fraction. For adverse events that tend to occur rapidly, like headache, fever, chills, rashes, anaphylactic shock, blood clots, etc., a thirty-day study may offer a reasonable window. Some ACEs, however, may take a decade or more to emerge, and a thirty-day window would be grossly inadequate for accurate reporting. The numbers shown in the present analysis should be viewed as a “floor” of what the real-world numbers are. To get a more complete picture of the total ACEs of the COVID-19 vaccines, these numbers should be supplemented by ACE Early Warning Indicators whose abnormal values could emerge shortly after the injection, and allow some prediction of what lies on or over the horizon.
METHODOLOGY
The VAERS database was initially accessed on 20 December 2022. The vaccines were limited to COVID-19 vaccines from all manufacturers, and the VAERS reports were for the USA. All adverse event types (termed Symptoms in VAERS) were retrieved. There were ~17,000 adverse event types retrieved, including ~5,000 with zero entries (the latter were not analyzed, although when scaling from VAERS entries to real-world numbers, they could possibly amount to tens of events for each symptom). A comprehensive query (consisting of myriad synonyms of ACEs) was used to search the VAERS database, and retrieve ACE-related adverse events.
On 10 February 2023, the VAERS database was accessed to get similar information for the influenza vaccines from all manufacturers, and the VAERS reports were for the USA. The time period for the latter was selected to cover similar numbers of doses for the flu vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccines.
On 14 February 2023, the VAERS database was accessed to obtain parametric proximity data for assessing the fraction of ACEs that were reported seven and fourteen days past injection.
RESULTS
Before presenting the numbers, we need to define what is an ACE event reported in VAERS. Is it 1) a biomarker associated with the eventual emergence of ACE, 2) a group of biomarkers reflecting pre-clinical ACE, 3) a newly-diagnosed ACE, 4) an ACE that has been exacerbated, or 5) an ACE death? While all five are valid candidates, the present study concentrates on items 3) and 4), with the one exception that Troponins were included (since they were listed as a possible event).
This restriction to items 3) and 4) substantially under-reports the COVID-19 vaccine adverse events that may eventually result in ACEs, because it excludes abnormalities in ACE risk biomarkers (with the exception of Troponins). These abnormalities in the appropriate ACE risk biomarkers would provide an Early Warning Indicator for potential ACEs to emerge in the near or far future. A few potential Early Warning Indicators for ACEs are shown in the following: myocardial injury (Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and T (cTnT), High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), Heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP)); inflammation (High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Growth-differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), Fibrinogen, Uric acid (UA)); plaque instability/rupture (Pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A), Myeloperoxidase (MPO), Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)); platelet activation (Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2), Secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2), Soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L)); neurohormonal activation (Copeptin, Mid-regional-pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM)); myocardial dysfunction or stress (Natriuretic peptides, ST2, Endothelin-1 (ET-1), Galectin-3 (Gal3), Neuregulin-1 (NRG-1)); microRNAs (miRNAs). A broader group of ACE biomarkers, which includes most of the biomarkers listed above, can be found in Figure 1 of the following link, and a broader group can be found in Table 1 of the following link.
Most of the ACE risk biomarkers listed above did not appear in the VAERS output for Symptoms, even for the events that have zero entries. Assessment of abnormalities in these risk biomarkers would provide a more accurate picture of what can be expected in the mid and long-term from the injections given already.
The results for items 3) and 4), and Troponins, follow. There were ~1020 different ACEs reported in VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines, with ~156000 total number of events. Converting these VAERS entries to real-world numbers of COVID-19 vaccine-induced ACEs requires three major assumptions, and some minor ones. The major assumptions are 1) the ACEs reported in VAERS following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines are in fact caused in part or in whole by the COVID-19 vaccines, 2) the under-reporting factor (URF) to be used for ACE scale-up to real-world numbers can be approximated for very conservative estimation purposes by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare thirty-day URFs, and 3) the fraction of the VAERS ACE entries to which the URF should be applied can be approximated by autopsy results for fraction of post-COVID-19 vaccine deaths that can be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Assumption 1)
Assumption 1) is based on four sources of evidence: i) the biological mechanisms responsible for cardiovascular damage; ii) the autopsy results confirming the operability of the biological mechanisms; iii) a comparison with similar influenza vaccination data to estimate the cardiovascular damage expected (based on extrapolations of pre-pandemic adverse cardiovascular events); and iv) a parametric study showing the fraction of symptoms that occurred within seven and fourteen days of onset from the injections.
i). Biological Mechanisms
The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are injected in the deltoid muscle, and a fraction enters the bloodstream directly or indirectly (link 1; link2). The mRNA that enters the bloodstream is able to survive because of protection by the LNP encapsulation. As the Pfizer pharmacovigilance studies showed, the LNP package concentrates in a number of organs.
The damage to the blood vessels in the circulatory system, and then to the tissues and organs, has been described most eloquently in a video by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a world-renowned microbiologist: “the vaccines cause cells deep inside our body to express the viral spike protein, which they were never meant to do by nature. Any cell which expresses this foreign antigen on its surface will come under attack by the immune system, which will involve both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. This may occur in any organ, but the damage will be most severe in vital organs. We are seeing now that the heart is affected in many young people, leading to myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death.”.
Thus, while all tissues and organs in the body will be potential targets of this induced autoimmune process, those of the circulatory system will be prime targets because of their proximity to the circulating LNP-enclosed mRNA. The spike proteins expressed on the surface of the endothelial cells (those that line the interior of the blood vessels and are in closest proximity to the innate immune system components flowing by in the bloodstream) are able to interact with the platelets flowing by and initiate the clotting process. So, the net effect is coagulation and clotting of the blood, destruction of the endothelium, and subsequent destruction of the tissues and organs as the LNP package transitions from the bloodstream through the ruptured endothelium into the surrounding tissues and organs.
Given this mode of action, the question we should be asking is not why we are experiencing such large numbers of ACES, but rather why wouldn’t we expect a massive number of ACEs resulting from these vaccinations? In some sense, why doesn’t almost every mRNA vaccine recipient experience one or more ACEs?
The answer may lie in the existence of so-called “hot lots”. Some analysts have correlated VAERS vaccine lot numbers with serious adverse events, and have found some of the vaccine lots are responsible for far more serious adverse events than other lots (link 1; link 2). Explanations for this are manifold, but shoddy manufacturing processes are one credible explanation. Many/most of the vaccines produced are not fully functional, and their potential for damage is muted. If this turns out to be true after further validation, it means the toxicity of the mRNA vaccines per functional dose are higher than have been calculated.
The ACEs represented in the peer-reviewed literature have focused on myocarditis (e.g., link 1; link 2; link 3; link 4; link 5). Because of the censorship that exists in the biomedical peer-reviewed literature today, many other ACEs have not been addressed. However, as Appendix 2 shows, the different types of ACEs are monumental, as one would expect from the operational mechanisms of the injectant, and some ACEs are large compared to myocarditis. The alternative biomedical literature is a much more credible source of real-world information on the causes and extent of ACEs.
ii). Autopsy Results
Autopsies have been the most credible source of information about the extent of the COVID-19 vaccine-induced damage, although they have been discouraged by governments around the world. Some that have been made available show the extent of the damage in detail, and confirm the theory of damage expressed by Dr. Bhakdi and many others. While different organs may receive the bulk of the damage in different individuals, most autopsies show the heart to be a major target. Typically, the autopsies show the spike protein infiltration into an organ (or tissue), the rupture of the endothelium, and the infiltration of the lymphocytes (which attack the cells that express the spike protein on the surface and thereby damage the organ (or tissue)). This infiltration of spike protein appears to be a classic convection-diffusion process, with convection mainly through the bloodstream and diffusion through the tissues/organs. As long as the body continues to function like a spike protein factory, which appears to be one consequence of the injection, the infiltration of spike protein and associated damage will continue. With the addition of periodic boosters, the spike protein “factory” is replenished, and the damage will continue to spread. It is difficult for me to see how anyone who has been injected with a functional mRNA vaccine can avoid this damage, and the associated adverse effects on lifespan.
iii). Comparison with Similar Influenza Vaccination Data
The VAERS entries for ACEs can be viewed as consisting of two parts: the numbers expected for any ACE based on extrapolation of historical pre-pandemic trends, and the numbers for the ACE due to the COVID-19 vaccines. Since the numbers expected would be about the same for influenza and COVID-19, these background numbers can be bounded based on the influenza data. We did a simple comparison of some of the highest frequency ACEs reported here with their counterparts for the influenza vaccines reported in VAERS. We selected influenza, since it is a respiratory viral disease and has a number of features in common with COVID-19.
There have been about 670 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the USA since late December 2020, and about 717 million doses of influenza vaccines administered in the USA since the beginning of 2019. Thus, the number of doses is relatively similar for the influenza vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccines over the time periods selected. Table 1 compares VAERS entries for selected ACEs (those with high entry numbers for COVID-19 vaccines) between influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines.
Thus, for similar dose numbers, and an even longer average tracking times for the flu vaccines, the VAERS ACEs entries for the flu vaccines are almost two orders of magnitude less than for the COVID-19 vaccines. While the number of ACEs induced by the vaccines could be vastly different for the two cases, one would expect the background levels of ACEs (the numbers of ACEs expected based on extrapolation of historical trends) to be roughly similar. If anything, they would be larger for the flu vaccines because of the increased time period over which they were administered relative to the COVID-19 vaccine administration period.
The small number of ACEs (<2% of COVID-19 numbers) reported for the flu vaccines would suggest 1) most of the COVID-19 ACE entries were vaccine-induced, and 2) the ACE onsets following injection were accelerated sufficiently by the COVID-19 injections that the ACEs could be linked to the shots and would motivate reporting to VAERS by the healthcare provider! Conversely, in the case of the flu vaccines, almost all ACEs that occurred post-vaccine may have been sufficiently far removed in time from the injection that the healthcare provider was not motivated to report them to VAERS.
Additionally, I have seen many videos of testimonies by healthcare providers that they were heavily discouraged from reporting post-COVID-19 vaccine adverse events to VAERS, while I have never seen or read of similar discouragement for flu vaccine reporting. This deliberate suppression of reporting post-COVID-19 vaccine adverse events to VAERS lends further argument for increasing the URFs of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events.
***************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
The Covidians
There seems to be a growing resignation to the fact that the Covid vaccines wane much sooner than initially hoped. At first, of course, the hope was that one shot - or double-shot - would do the trick. That soon devolved to every year, like the flu shot. Now, the understanding seems to be that the boosters ‘last’ about 3-4 months, and someone who wants to stay ‘up to date’ is going to have to get - count ‘em - four shots every year. The more knowledgeable Covidians don’t seem to think anymore that these ‘vaccines’ prevent them from catching Covid in the first place, but they still consider they are protected from getting severely ill or dying. (The vaccinated people who do get severely sick and die from Covid? Well, they were probably going to die anyway.)
With that realization has come growing pockets of concern about the volume of the mRNA spike protein. That was surprising to me since these lemmings tend to trust Big Pharma and anything it wants to put into their bodies most of all. If anything, injecting bucketloads of mRNA spike protein into their systems should be a sacrament as holy to these people as anything a religion could provide to any of us. But, as it turns out, even Branch Covidians are noticing and pointing out uncomfortable side effects, even if they still fail to acknowledge the many deaths and permanent impairments Covid vaccines are likely responsible for (those are always just ‘coincidences,’ don’t you know). I noticed several tweets pointing out concern at this many mRNA shots and even stating how uncomfortable their last shot was because of this or that side effect they experienced. Many in this camp have expressed a desire to switch to a non-mRNA vaccine like the recently approved Novavax, and some even stated that they have already gone out of their way - even crossing state lines - to do so.
Masking, unfortunately, but not surprisingly, maintains its revered status as an Icon of the Covidian religion. Except, while worshippers continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that any face covering is better than no face covering, the shift to at least an N95 or better as a standard of quality and protection is complete. A true Covidian won’t go indoors near people in any setting without a mask, preferably an N95. For those who want to ‘protect’ themselves as much as possible, the cadence seems to be ‘updated vaccine plus masking.’
Covidians on Twitter love hashtags like #CovidIsntOver and #LongCovid. They consistently use them to point out that the virus is still out there, waiting to strike them dead at any point or give them a lifetime of medical issues - a.k.a. #LongCovid. The latter is how they keep the fear alive among the few still willing to listen. Of course, everyone knows or seems to know that Covid has become a cold for most people. Still, if hard-core Covidians can keep the base scared of unknown weird maladies that could last a lifetime, they can keep them ‘masked and vaxxed’ in perpetuity.
Finally, despite all the measures they are still entirely in favor of, Covidians seem to be grudgingly resigning themselves to the fact that they will likely continue getting Covid over and over again in perpetuity. Still, that doesn’t keep them from strictly adhering to their religious dogma of masking and vaccines. It’s a paradox, but they don’t seem to notice or care. Through it all, like any religion, there’s an apocalyptic tenor, a sense that they would love for the virus to return in some deadly form where they are proven right, and the doubters (us) are proven wrong once and for all.
If any of that sounds familiar, remember, it’s a religion.
****************************************************
The major mistake Australia made during the Covid-19 lockdowns: Top professor describes hated rule as 'absolutely atrocious'
Peter Collignon - one of Australia's most trusted voices through the Covid crisis - has said restrictions on outdoor activities during the Covid-lockdown was 'absolutely atrocious' and a major mistake.
The infectious diseases doctor tweeted on Monday that 'restrictions on outdoor activities (during Covid lockdowns) was a major mistake'.
He said his warnings from the start of the pandemic that preventing people from going out to exercise had been proven right - 'We should never in the future stop people from being outdoors.'
Professor Collignon told Daily Mail Australia that 'No matter how hard you look, you can not find (much Covid) transmission outdoors.
'There was some - there was a report in the US of someone talking to somebody for 15 minutes outside and getting Covid, and there were some building workers in Singapore who probably got it outdoors.
'But basically, outdoors, there's very little transmission of Covid. The effective R (the rate of passing Covid on to another person) was much less than one.
'In other words, you didn't transmit it much,' he said.
The doctor, who lectures at the Australian National University's medical school in Canberra, said restrictions on outdoor exercise 'was a real mistake'.
'There was a lot of hysteria about people going to beaches and to parks, and you could only be out for an hour a day and closing parks for children.'
He said while it could not have been guaranteed that no transmission would have occurred outdoors, 'it would have been minimal and should have easily been handled by contract tracing and testing'.
Prof Collignon said this is not a conclusion he has come to with the benefit of looking back, that he had been 'saying that three years ago too'.
Photos on social media showing crowded beaches during lockdowns - implying that people were breaking the law - were misleading, he said.
'They did it with telephoto lenses which made it look like people were really close together.
'But when you looked at aerial views from drones, people were more than two metres apart.'
Prof Collignon said at the time that lockdowns such as closing national parks so people couldn't go walking were 'not sensible'.
'And in retrospect, it looks an absolutely atrocious mistake to have made those rules,' he said.
The issue of travelling in a crowded space to get to a beach or park during lockdowns complicated matters, though.
'If you had to travel by train or bus or a crowded car to get there, that's a risk. But it's being indoors that's the big risk.
'If you can go in your own transport to an outdoor venue, you had no more risk of acquiring Covid from anybody not in your household.'
Prof Collignon also addressed the issue of the increased number of drownings this summer being blamed in part on children not having been able to learn to swim in pools due to lockdowns.
'I am under the impression, and it's based on hearsay, but there have been less children learning to swim over the last few years than in the years beforehand,' he said.
'It all depends on the data ... on how many children aged two to six have drowned and how different that is (from pre-pandemic numbers).
'Because that is the age group that would have been affected by not being able to learn to swim (due to lockdowns).'
************************************
Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies
The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a “legally binding” accord with the World Health Organization (WHO) that would give this Geneva-based UN subsidiary the authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic.
Despite widespread criticism of the WHO’s response to the COVID pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September 2022 to announce “the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.” Together, they developed a “platform to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.”
These discussions and others spawned the “zero draft” (pdf) of a pandemic treaty, published on Feb. 1, which now seeks ratification by all 194 WHO member states. A meeting of the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for Feb. 27 to work out the final terms, which all members will then sign.
Written under the banner of “the world together equitably,” the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.
Centralized Pandemic Response
“They want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,” David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer specializing in epidemic policy, told The Epoch Times. “They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare.”
The WHO pandemic treaty is part of a two-track effort, coinciding with an initiative by the World Health Assembly (WHA) to create new global pandemic regulations that would also supersede the laws of member states. The WHA is the rule-making body of the WHO, comprised of representatives from the member states.
“Both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,” Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times. “Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.”
Physician Meryl Nass told The Epoch Times: “If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency. So they can tell you you’re getting remdesivir, but you can’t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they’re also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it, whether or not you’re already immune.”
Regarding medical treatments, the accord would require member nations to “monitor and regulate against substandard and falsified pandemic-related products.” Based on previous WHO and Biden administration policy, this would likely include forcing populations to take newly-developed vaccines while preventing doctors from prescribing non-vaccine treatments or medicines.
Circumventing America’s Constitution
A key question surrounding the accord is whether the Biden administration can bind America to treaties and agreements without the consent of the U.S. Senate, which is required under the Constitution. The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the right of their citizens to consent. However, the draft also includes a clause that the accord will go into effect on a “provisional” basis, as soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.
“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said. In addition, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress, and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals and health officials.”
In July 2020, then-President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from membership in the WHO. Citing the WHO’s dismal performance in responding to the COVID pandemic and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Trump said that U.S. funding of approximately half a billion dollars per year would also cease.
In response, then-presidential-candidate Joe Biden vowed: “On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage.” Biden kept his promise and took it one step further, negotiating the pandemic accord.
***************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Monday, February 20, 2023
COVID Vaccine Allergies: What We Know So Far
“Excipients” are likely responsible for allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, according to a 2022 review article published in the Journal of the National Medical Association. At least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine has been administered to 69.5% of the global total population, as of Feb 16, 2023, and over 750,000 doses continue to be administered each day. Vaccine reactions are on the rise, although hypersensitivity reactions are rarely observed. In 2020, TrialSite reported that an ingredient in the COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech may have caused severe allergic reactions in at least eight people within two weeks.
Excipients are ingredients added to drugs or vaccines for the purposes of long-term stabilization, protection, and more. They include everything other than the active pharmaceutical ingredient and are ideally inert.
Hypersensitivity is a situation in which the immune system overreacts or reacts abnormally to an antigen. In a lifetime, a person can experience a wide range of allergic reactions. Many of these responses end spontaneously, but some might cause catastrophic consequences, although this is rare. An allergic reaction can be triggered by any material introduced into the body, whether through inhalation, topical application, oral ingestion, or vaccination.
To investigate the allergic effects of globally administered COVID-19 vaccines, Haq et al. gathered findings from 72 articles by using 11 keywords such as "SARS-CoV-2," "COVID-19," and "hypersensitivity". They also examined different types of hypersensitivity reactions, allergic reactions to different COVID-19 vaccines, clinical aspects, and prevention of vaccine-induced hypersensitivity reactions.
Highlights of Hypersensitivity Reactions
Various kinds of hypersensitivities can occur. These different reactions can be classified into four main types:
Type I is an IgE antibody-mediated hypersensitivity that can occur within minutes to a few hours following allergen exposure through a vaccination, wasp, or toxin. This allergen can cause the release of biochemical messengers such as histamine, prostaglandins, and leukotrienes, leading to anaphylactic shock, which can be fatal.
Type II is mediated by IgE or lgM antibodies. This type of allergy causes cell malfunction and cell death. It's responsible for most autoimmune disorders, such as lupus or Goodpasture syndrome that cause antibodies to damage the organs such as kidneys and lungs.
Type III causes a complex reaction of immune complements. Immune complexes, consisting of accumulated antigen and antibody molecules, mediate inappropriate immune reactions. These immune reactions cause damage to vessels skin, and joints.
Type IV, or delayed-type hypersensitivity, is a cell-mediated immune response that occurs after allergen exposure. This response takes place over the course of several days and is triggered by T cells rather than antibodies. T cells that have been sensitized in advance trigger an immunological response that eventually causes dermatitis.
Those who have a history of allergic reactions are more likely to experience anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations. These reactions often take place less than 30 minutes after immunization and are caused by an acute IgE-mediated mechanism.
What Causes Vaccine Hypersensitivity?
The cause of a vaccine-induced hypersensitivity reaction is frequently difficult to pinpoint. Allergies are caused by the excipients added to preserve the drug's density, uptake, or solvability. However, these compounds can produce a variety of detrimental reactions, from dermatitis to hypotensive shock. Unfortunately, vaccinations must contain excipients to sustain vaccine potency, generate a robust immune response, and prevent contamination.
Vaccines that contain egg protein, gelatin, virus-inactivating proteins, mercury-based protective agents, or specific antibiotics such as neomycin can cause common type 1 hypersensitivity. Researchers also point out that the polyethylene glycol (PEG) molecule present in vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, could activate the complement system.
PEGs are polyester-based chemicals that are widely utilized as additives in medicine, cosmetics, and the food industry. PEG allergy is uncommon, although it is becoming more common and can be serious. PEGs are utilized for the stabilization of biomedicine formulas, however, conjugating PEGs with other compounds found in vaccines, such as proteins, might boost their immunogenic response.
Different Excipients in Different Vaccines
There are various types of COVID-19 vaccines that use different mechanisms. However, Haq et al. reviewed vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S), and Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV). They found the following:
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, contain many excipients. Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines contain mRNA and excipients such as potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride (salt), dibasic sodium phosphate, and sucrose (type of sugar). Minerals such as potassium, chloride, and phosphate are commonly found in foods and medicines. All these chemicals are usually used in vaccines to deliver the vaccine in a liquid solution and also to preserve stability and pH values.
New mRNA vaccines, unlike previously existing vaccines, deliver mRNA to your body using multiple lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA and contribute to the formation of immunity. These mRNA vaccines also contain PEG molecules, which were previously mentioned as an allergen.
Oxford/Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson's vaccines insert the COVID-19 S-protein gene into the chimpanzee, gorilla, and human adenovirus vectors. These vectors are used to transport viral genes into a human cell to make it lose its ability to replicate. Excipients like polysorbate 80 or Tween 80 can be found in AstraZeneca's and Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccines. The chemical structure of polysorbate 80 is similar to that of PEGs and these can also cause allergic reactions.Most individuals who experience allergic reactions do so as a result of these excipients.
Sinopharm is a more traditional vaccine that is generated from the inactivated COVID-19 virus. Thimerosal and aluminum are used as adjuvants in this type of vaccine in addition to the active ingredient. Thimerosal is a mercury-based antiviral agent that is added to vaccines to kill viruses and bacteria. Aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate is used to boost the immune system. Thimerosal and aluminum are metals and are considered contaminants. However, whether they induce allergies or not is still debatable.
Detection and Prevention of COVID-19 Vaccine Hypersensitivity
Almost all vaccination components may cause allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Allergies can be caused by living or non-living main ingredients, protective agents, additives, or antibiotics. Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines do not have latex rubber stoppers or cultured proteins made from eggs, yeast, or gelatin, which can cause hypersensitivity. Almost all COVID-19 vaccinations, however, can induce IgE-mediated Type-I hypersensitivity. Although vaccine protective agents and additives can produce particular reactions by boosting the effects of a strong immune system and the vaccination's protection, the vaccine's capacity to trigger reactions is frequently unpredictable.
These reactions can be triggered by vaccine-induced allergies as well as by vasovagal syndrome, which is caused by an inability to regulate blood pressure. Vasovagal syndrome might cause nausea, blurred vision, and a feeling of lightheadedness. Furthermore, anxiety, fear, and tension can promote vasovagal activity and be misinterpreted as an allergic reaction. Tremors, palpitations, dizziness, and breathing problems caused by anxiety may appear to be allergic reactions.
Screening for hypersensitivity reactions before the COVID-19 vaccination is not mandatory. However, it is recommended by the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI). Many health professionals also advise monitoring allergic reactions for 30 minutes after the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. If a severe reaction occurs after the first vaccination, it is recommended not to take a second dose without consulting a medical professional. Allergy sufferers should take precautions and have a clear understanding of their allergic sensitivities.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/covid-vaccine-allergies-what-we-know-so-far-8b638a9d
**********************************************Vaccine Activist Group Sues to Get VAERS Analyses: “Incredible Level of Harm”?
In a February 17 legal update, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), a nonprofit activist group considered “anti-vax” by the mainstream but one of the most active groups forcing information disclosures from the U.S. government in association with the COVID-19 countermeasure response reports on the status of two lawsuits seeking disclosure of legally required VAERS analyses.
Although considered “anti-vaxers,” ICAN’s efforts may well lead to increased transparency which will benefit the public. They note that on June 30, 2022, they submitted about 20 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to both the FDA and the CDC seeking analyses they were required to do based on VAERS’ Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for SARS-CoV-2. To date, ICAN has filed two lawsuits over three of the FOIA, and they allege that they have already uncovered damning data: “They reflect that the CDC’s own pre-determined analysis of VAERS data showed COVID-19 vaccines were causing an incredible level of harm.” CDC’s response is that a separate FDA analysis demonstrates that the CDC’s identification of widespread injuries is “not concerning.” Yet FDA is still fighting to keep its data out of the public realm.
FDA Denies Possession of Records
One key request sought all, “reports of possible concern based on [] data mining results” that FDA had been required to share CDC according to the SOP. After a denial by FDA and its appeal process, ICAN sued FDA on January 13, 2023. A separate request sought records relating to “Empirical Bayesian data mining” which is mandated by the SOP. Asserting that these records are “opinions, recommendations, and policy discussions,” FDA denied the request. Eventually, ICAN filed yet another suit on January 25, 2023. Per the SOP, Propositional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analyses were to be done, “to identify AEs [adverse events] that are disproportionately reported relative to other AEs.” To ICAN’s surprise, FDA responded that it did not have any records that would be covered by the request.
House of Cards?
Yet a letter from CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky to Senator Ron Johnson said otherwise by stating that, “CDC performed PRR analysis between March 2022 through July 31, 2022, to corroborate the results of EB data mining.” And after ICAN sued for PRR-related materials, the Epoch Times reported that, strangely, the outlet did get the PRR analyses from CDC based on its own FOIA—and this is data that ICAN had been told did not even exist. According to ICAN, “the analyses show alarming safety signals.” Dr. Walensky’s letter to Sen. Johnson included that, “Notably, results from PRR analysis were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA]….” ICAN supposes that the Bayesian data mining records are being withheld as they likely support the “shocking” PRR data. So, CDC is relying on FDA information to claim that its own PRR data is not of concern, yet the latter agency won’t release this information. To quote ICAN, “If FDA’s Empirical Bayesian analysis also shows the same level of harm, then the entire CDC/FDA house of cards regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety will come crashing down.”
***************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Sunday, February 19, 2023
Natural immunity is best
From the outset of the pandemic the usefulness of natural immunity was pooh-poohed by all those in power. One would normally assume that once you had a viral illness, that would protect you from catching it again. For some reason --presumably political -- Covid was said to be an exception to that.
Naturally-acquired immunity was said not to matter. You still had to get vaccinated to be protected from the illness. That was always rubbish and a very comprehensive study just out in The Lancet really knocks the nonsense on the head. After examining all the research now available in the medical literature, they conclude:
"Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants"
So if you had already had the disease you didn't need vaccination. We were all lied to by those in power. Some of them may have meant well but all should have been aware that what they were saying was unlikely to be true.
Journal summary below:
Summary
Background
Understanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection.
Methods
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850).
Findings
We identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3–76·1) and 44·0% (26·5–65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8–93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4–51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7–97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7–90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks.
Interpretation
Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext
******************************************************Breaking the silence: do vested interests stifle medical discussions?
Julie Sladden
Previously we examined the story behind UK Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra’s call to ‘stop the shots’.
In this follow up piece we explore potential factors stifling open discussion by medical professionals around this important issue. There are two broad categories: blind spots and roadblocks.
Blind spots
All vaccines are safe, therefore these vaccines are safe. This is something we have all heard before.
One of the biggest blind spots is the foundation of apparent ‘universal vaccine safety’ upon which this new technology rests. Dr Aseem Malhotra admits that even he ‘could not have expected or conceived of the possibility that these vaccines, these new vaccines, could cause harm’.
Assumptions were made. Malhotra explains:
‘Vaccines… have got this special place in medicine, they’re untouchable. (They’re) “only good”, so don’t even go there. Combine that with the fact the regulator approved it, and the fact (these vaccines were) originally invented… by smaller groups of scientists. (Pfizer and Moderna) just scaled it up. So, there was the benefit of the doubt here.’
However, no drug, medication or intervention is completely safe. Not even vaccines – why else would vaccine injury compensation schemes exist around the world?
In addition, these mRNA products are not like every other vaccine that we’ve seen. Just ask world-renowned virologist, immunologist, and mRNA technology developer, Robert Malone.
With any new technology caution is paramount and the focus should be on demonstrating that benefits outweigh harms. For this to happen, the ingredients are time (usually around decade for new drug development), and an attitude of ‘prove to me it’s safe’ rather than ‘prove to me it’s unsafe’ – the inverted reality we currently seem to have.
There is also a widely held assumption that pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart. They don’t.
A medical colleague recently stated, ‘Oh, I don’t think (insert drug company name here) would do anything like that!’ I was gobsmacked. My colleague was talking about a member of the industry well known for corruption and lawsuits resulting in convictions that run to the billions.
In the case of the Covid mRNA injectables, reports of compromised data integrity, attempts to withhold raw data (for 55 years!), and data reanalyses raising serious safety concerns, have done nothing to convince us otherwise.
Malhotra agrees:
‘I find it difficult to believe that scientists at these companies didn’t know what that data showed… and the harm it would do. But (the companies) are not interested in that because they are legally protected from liability of injury. The legal obligation … of pharma companies is to profit their shareholders. Ethics don’t mean anything to them.
‘Big Pharma and Big Corporations often behave, in the way they conduct their business, like psychopaths: deliberately deceiving others for profit with callous unconcern for the safety of others. This is essentially what we are seeing.‘
Another misunderstanding is the idea that the government provides a current, individualised, and unbiased source of medical information.
Government information is generally slow to appear, impersonal (for the patient in front of you), and driven by fiscal and political motives. Every year doctors are issued with pages of ‘guidelines’ aimed at populations, not individuals, presenting a minefield for the discerning doctor and the patient in front of them.
Some doctors have come to rely heavily on guidelines. In this over-litigious and over-regulated space, guidelines present a safe, and easy, way to practice for time-poor professionals. The by-product of this is there is a less perceived necessity for doctors to seek the evidence for themselves, combined with a mindset that ‘if I stick to the guidelines all will be well’.
Roadblocks
‘In answering why aren’t more doctors speaking out, (partly it) is that most doctors are not aware that the vaccines are causing all these harms,’ says Malhotra.
‘If you are not aware of a possibility of something causing harm or a side effect, then you never diagnose it. You will miss it.
‘The WHO endorsed an official list of potential serious adverse effects when the vaccine was rolled out and the list is huge.
‘Doctors have not been aware of these (potential) side effects and so they are not diagnosing. They are looking around for other causes when people are having heart attacks and (they are) not even thinking of the vaccine.’
The co-director of Coverse, an Australian organisation run by, and for, those who have suffered a significant adverse reaction following their Covid jab, says this is a vicious cycle:
‘If the doctor doesn’t think (something) is caused by the vaccine they may not report it… By not reporting it, the government doesn’t have the full picture so they don’t put out safety notices and then doctors don’t know that they should be looking out for it, so they don’t report it.’
There is also an ongoing information war.
When the pandemic started so did the daily government-endorsed updates into my email and in tray. Added to this, as the vaccines rolled out, was an information stream from professional, regulatory, and ‘pharma-funded’ doctors’ media. It was relentless.
It is hard not to drown in all that info and instead choose to do individual research rather than be spoon-fed. Many doctors are working so hard they simply don’t have the time. Malhotra agrees:
‘The chair of the BMA, when I spent two hours on the phone with him last December said, “Aseem, nobody seems to have critically appraised the evidence … most of my colleagues are getting their information on the vaccines from the BBC.”’
Understanding ‘the science’ is not straightforward.
If a doctor does undertake individual research, it’s important they understand the current landscape of the literature. It’s a long story, probably best summed up by Lancet editor, Richard Horton:
‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue… science has taken a turn towards darkness.’
There are many drivers of this problem, but front and centre is (you guessed it), the ‘pharma elephant’ in the room. Pharmaceutical interests are responsible for much of the funding for research grants and academic institutions, and also influence the journals in which such research is published.
A doctor also needs to have the ability to critically appraise the evidence in a way that they can then communicate it to patients. This takes time and expertise. Many end up relying on the regulator (for example the TGA) to give them the information (read: guidelines, see above) in the way that they should communicate it. But even this path is subject to potential pharmaceutical influence, as highlighted recently in the BMJ: ‘Of the six regulators, Australia had the highest proportion of budget from industry fees (96 per cent).’
Finally, if a doctor can critically appraise the data, they may become afraid to go against the establishment or to speak out due to likely censorship and pushback.
Malhotra surmises, ‘As you narrow it down, you end up with only a handful of people that; 1) can critically appraise the evidence; 2) can articulate it, and; 3) have the platform to do it. That then becomes a very small number of people.’
‘We are up against a juggernaut in terms of the capture of the medical establishment and media, repetition of “safe and effective”, and the gaslighting that’s gone on,’ summarises Malhotra.
To break free will not be easy.
***************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Saturday, February 18, 2023
Republicans Launch Next COVID-19 Origins Inquiry---Lab Leak Theory Becomes Likely Suspect
What is the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19? An important question, it has yet to be answered. The Chinese government doesn’t seem keen on helping the world figure this vexing problem out, and neither does the World Health Organization (WHO). In fact, when the WHO first investigated, they sent the head of EcoHealth Alliance as the sole representative of America and not surprisingly, found nothing.
As reported recently by Smriti Mallapaty, writing for Nature, the WHO has abandoned any initiative to further investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in China. Just at a critical time to further the investigation, the prominent medical journal reports that WHO has “quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The reason for the not-at-all-surprising cancellation, difficulties of such an investigation in China---not an open place to do a deep investigation into potential government conspiracies.
But the GOP with its slight majority continues to push forward. Both Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman and James Comer (R-KY), House Committee on Oversight and Accountability now request senior Biden Administration officials including Dr. Anthony Fauci as well as Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, to provide sufficient information to the Select Subcommittee and Oversight Committee’s investigation into COVID origins.
This effort at obtaining information to support the investigation isn’t new. To the GOP’s credit, they seem to be the only party that cares about this critical topic. For example, the most recent actions follow up on a request on December 13, 2022, for the same materials (documents, information, and testimony). How can so many politicians, health-focused agencies and authorities, academic medical centers, and health systems not be interested in pursuing this absolutely vital question? Could the topic have been politicized on purpose by underlying forces, part of some deeper more nefarious agenda?
As reported by the Congressional Committee, the 117th Congress Oversight Committee Republicans sent numerous letters to officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The Committee’s investigation has already uncovered three facts driving further investigation:
Growing evidence shows COVID-19 likely originated from the Wuhan Lab and the Chinese Communist Party covered it up
U.S. taxpayer dollars were being funneled into the Wuhan Lab to conduct risky gain-of-function research on novel bat coronaviruses
Dr. Fauci was aware of this information at the start of the pandemic and may have acted to conceal the information by intentionally downplaying the lab leak theory.
Of course, more information is needed to not only probe this critically important matter but also to inform legislative activity.
TrialSite has accumulated substantial information in the form of emails, data, documents, and insights from experts to suggest the lab leak theory is likely.
Interestingly enough, the censorship apparatus put in place during the pandemic (or perhaps, intensified since then) is real, and hence why the agreement to join the lawsuit targeting the Trusted News Initiative. See the coverage of that lawsuit. The basis of the lawsuit isn’t freedom of the press but rather antitrust violations.
While there most certainly is plenty of misinformation, disinformation, and frankly, loony information circulating about, that all serves as a convenient cover, distracting those that track such matters from pursuing the real important evidential pathways.
Chairman Comer recently got right to the point on this historical matter: “Understanding the origins of COVID-19 is essential to providing accountability and protecting Americans in the future.” Given TrialSite’s global focus as well, we would add all people around the world given 6.8 million people worldwide died due to this virus according to WHO. Comer continued:
“Evidence continues to mount pointing to the virus leaking from an unsecure lab in Wuhan. We know EcoHealth Alliance acted as a go-between, improperly funneling thousands of taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan lab to conduct risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses which could have started the pandemic. Dr. Fauci was alerted early on that COVID-19 had markings of a manipulated virus yet may have chosen to cover it up instead of blowing the whistle. We will continue to follow the facts to determine what could have been done differently to better protect Americans from this virus and hold U.S. government officials that took part in any sort of cover-up accountable.”
According to Select Subcommittee Chairman Wenstrup:
“The American people deserve real answers after years of suffering through the Coronavirus pandemic and related government policies. This investigation must begin with where and how this virus came about so that we can attempt to predict, prepare, or prevent it from happening again. Government scientists and government-funded researchers have so far been less-than-forthcoming in their knowledge and actions, including work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and potential pandemic pathogens. We can’t accept more years of stonewalling; the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is committed to conducting a proper investigation that the American people have demanded.”
Could the Chinese cover-up hypothesis be the correct pathway of investigation? It most certainly is the top candidate. The first known outbreak occurred right in Wuhan, right near the Wuhan Institute of Virology which has benefited from U.S. funding via the EcoHealth Alliance intermediary. TrialSite has covered that consistently even when a mere mention of this topic would get one censored on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. An independent media platform with its own technology stack, TrialSite was able to continue investigational coverage into biomedical research-related topics despite what is clearly a massive censorship operation involving the U.S. government.
The first investigation into the origins, sponsored by WHO didn’t seem serious. They found nothing, and who was sent representing the United States? They sent Peter Daszak, head of EcoHealth Alliance! See multiple entries in TrialSite.
What about the DARPA memo? Originating from one of Project Veritas’ endeavors, nonetheless, the internal DoD memo declaring SARS-CoV-2 to be an American-originated technology appeared authentic. TrialSite reached out directly to DARPA and a top communications officer there responded promptly, declaring that they could not either verify or deny the allegation as to the document’s authenticity. Interestingly, however, the spokesperson did elaborate that they have not funded EcoHealth Alliance studies which we at TrialSite found quite interesting.
We have reported on troubling matters generally related to the topic. Recently, TrialSite reported a U.S. HHS Office of Inspector General audit finding that the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance failed to appropriately monitor U.S. taxpayer-funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The mainstream media avoided this highly relevant and timely topic, again interesting. In 2021, TrialSite reported on other evidence that EcoHealth Alliance and NIH acknowledged supporting some forms of gain-of-function research. By July 2021, TrialSite’s “Origins of the Pandemic are Elusive & Timeline Reveals Glimpse of Path into Better Tomorrow” probed the matter of SARS-CoV-2 origins, including breakthrough research of players like Ralph Baric, and collaborators in Wuhan, China.
But the answers are elusive, especially when it comes to matters touching on deep national security interests.
*****************************************************
Misleading Trial Site Article Concerning Guillain Barre Syndrome Following mRNA Vaccinations
Neil Spielholz
The J&J vaccine was associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome but the mRNA vaccines were not
An Opinion Article entitled, “CDC Reports Hundreds of Guillain-Barré Cases with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination” recently appeared in Trial Site News. Let’s review what this opinion article says, but more importantly, what it does not say.
The opinion article “summarizes” a paper by Abara et al, “Reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome After COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States”. The opinion article’s title trumpets that “hundreds” of GBS cases have been reported. The actual number reported by Abara et al, is 211. These occurred from December 2020 through January 2022, and they occurred within 42 days of receiving either the BNT162b2 (n=104) or the mRNA-1273 (n=107) vaccine. (Note that for this communication, I am using just the cumulative number of GBS cases reported 42 days after vaccination. Abara et al, report number of cases 21 and 42 days after vaccination.)
But note that the opinion article omits mentioning that the main thrust of the Abara et al paper, was to compare the incidence of GBS in these two mRNA groups to a third group of 82 GBS patients that had received a non-mRNA vaccination, the Ad26.COV2.S [J & J] vaccine. This head-to-head incidence comparison was based on the total number of vaccine doses delivered between the start and stop dates of data collection in terms of “per 100,000 doses”. See the original paper for details.
So what did Abara et al, report, but was omitted in the opinion article?
The non-mRNA group had an incidence rate of 4.07 compared to 0.34 and 0.44 for the two mRNA groups. In other words, despite the "hundreds" of cases in the mRNA groups, these vaccines had a lower incidence rate of GBS than did the non-mRNA vaccine!
But this lack of information in the opinion article goes on. It neglects to tell readers that Abara et al, also performed an observed-to-expected ratio, where the incidence of GBS prior to the coronavirus pandemic was compared to the incidence found in these three groups. Indeed, Abara et al, report that the O-E ratios “were significantly increased” in the non-mRNA group, but NOT in either of the mRNA groups. Abara et al write, “These findings suggest that Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with GBS and that GBS after BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 may represent background incidence.” No mention of this in the opinion article.
In their Discussion section, Abara et al, summarize these findings as follows: “In this retrospective cohort study, we identified 295 verified GBS cases among VAERS reports submitted from December 2020 through January 2022. GBS reporting after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was approximately 9 to 12 times more common than after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination within 21-and 42-day post-vaccination intervals. Similarly, observed GBS cases after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination were 2 to 3 times greater than expected based on background within 21- and 42-day post-vaccination intervals. There was no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”
Elsewhere, Abara et al, write, “No association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations and risk of GBS were observed.” (Emphasis mine).
None of this is mentioned in the Opinion Article.
One other point concerns the different death rates between the non-mRNA group and the two mRNA groups. Two deaths occurred in the non-mRNA group, and 8 (4 in each of the mRNA groups). Therefore, the death rate in the non-mRNA group was 2/82, or 2.4%, while in the two mRNA groups, the death rate was 8/211, or 3.8%. Does this 1.4% difference herald the death-knell for mRNA vaccinations? Not without more data.
***************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Thursday, February 16, 2023
Australian health agencies are inspiring misinformation on Covid vaccine injuries
The issue of Covid-19 vaccination injuries and deaths have been largely ignored by the media. It’s a dangerous business which allows misinformation to flourish.
There have been some notable exceptions.
Last month, Christine Middap’s sensitive article in The Weekend Australian included profiles of people who had suffered serious Covid-19 vaccine injury. And Chris Kenny recently drew attention to the problem in a thoughtful way on his program on Sky News.
The figures on vaccine related injury should be widely available, published by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to the point where even the incurious will have a broad understanding.
The compensation scheme, known as the Covid-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme is administered by Services Australia. The scheme was announced by then health minister Greg Hunt as the vaccines were rolled out in the first half of 2021. Therein lies an acknowledgment that Covid-19 vaccines were likely to cause injury and death in rare cases.
Less than 10 per cent of 3206 claims have been approved. Most of the remainder are still being considered.
These are Australians who have suffered injury as a result of taking the Covid vaccine and they should not be forgotten or cast into a bureaucratic abyss.
Even obtaining an official figure on vaccine related deaths is fraught. My understanding from the often tortured TGA’s reports is that 14 Australians have died from severe adverse reactions to Covid vaccines, nine from Astra-Zeneca and five from mRNA based vaccines, including Pfizer and Moderna. One of those five is an extraordinarily harrowing story of the death of a 21-year-old Melbourne woman in March 2021.
Those who suffered injury, and often extended periods of incapacity have been left to deal with the usual bureaucratic exercise that requires medical evidence, which may include but not be restricted to proof of hospital admission, sending the forms in, then sitting and waiting. And waiting. And waiting.
In the United States, a similarly convoluted compensation scheme is in place. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program is known to be a well-intentioned office but under-resourced and not fit for the purpose of dealing with thousands of claims and determining outcomes in a timely fashion.
At the end of 2022, there were more than 7500 claimants to the scheme. Some have been waiting for compensation for more than a year. I’ll leave it to the mathematicians to figure out the percentages of claims for Covid vaccine injury against the more than 600 million doses of the Covid vaccine administered in the US.
A void of information is filled with misinformation and the people perpetrating are armed and ready, bristling with falsehoods and deceit.
Stew Peters is a Minnesotan former bounty hunter who has developed a business model to achieve fame and fortune from the pandemic. He refers to Covid vaccines as “bioweapons”. Peters contends Covid vaccines are a means of global depopulation.
Peters’s pseudo-documentary, Died Suddenly, has been described as a “tsunami of anti-vax misinformation and conspiracy theories” by Science Based Medicine magazine. It has been viewed over 250,000 times on Rumble. The documentary makers were allowed to post the entire 69 minutes on Twitter.
The ersatz doco includes the appropriation of news items reporting on people who had suddenly died, many of which were probably not vaccine-related. Some of the sudden deaths exploited in Died Suddenly occurred before the pandemic.
Retired teacher turned writer in Los Angeles, Dolores Cruz, published an article in the Huffington Post about the grieving process she had undergone and written extensively about in two books. Her youngest son, Eric, had died in a car crash in 2017 at 24-years of age. The fake doco used a screenshot of the headline in the film, portraying his death as vaccine related.
It would be difficult to imagine more ghoulish behaviour. I reached out to Cruz recently, asking how she felt seeing Peters appropriate the death of her son.
“I want people to know that the suggestion that my son died from the Covid vaccine is completely false. I was angered to see that the title of the article I wrote for HuffPost was used in the documentary Died Suddenly. My article was about my grief and healing journey after my 24-year-old son died in a car accident in May of 2017 which was years before the pandemic began and has nothing to do with the Covid vaccine. The documentary has misappropriated how my son died and it hurts to have my son’s story used in this way,” she wrote.
But she was not surprised that it happened. “Though this has made me angry and caused hurt, sadly, false information runs rampant in the world today by way of news media, social media, and film and television.”
This fake documentary watched by a relatively small audience in global terms has now taken on a life of its own as a hashtag that runs across every possible social media platform, republishing every newspaper headline, every media article, small or large, where the phrase ‘died suddenly’ is mentioned and aggregates them to infer people have died suddenly from vaccine-related injury.
Liberal MP Russell Broadbent is advocating on behalf of the thousands of Australians who have experienced an adverse reaction after getting a… COVID-19 vaccination. “They feel … they are not being heard, they don’t feel like they are being justly treated by governments,” he told Sky News host More
On Saturday February 13, a Belgian goalkeeper, Arne Espeel, died suddenly while playing in the second division league in Belgium for Winkel Sport B. According to reports, Espeel made a save and then collapsed. He was attended to by a doctor at the ground and a defibrillator was used. The attempts to save his life failed and he was pronounced dead at a local hospital.
And there it was again. A flurry of Died Suddenly hashtags amid anti-vax comments on social media.
Espeel’s sudden death comes after a bogus review announced that 108 footballers had died suddenly in 2021. The original report was published in Hebrew but was subject to a Reuters Fact Check that found that, of the 108, only a few died playing soccer. There were archers, American footballers, hockey players – both on ice rinks and on fields, rugby league and union footballers. Some were not playing at all, including a cricket coach, and a golf caddie.
What the misinfo shouters didn’t account for is that FIFA established a sudden death register in 2014 due to concerns that had risen over decades that men and women playing soccer were dying on the pitch at a fairly high rate.
In the five-year period 2014-2018, the sudden deaths of 617 footballers were registered with FIFA, on average 123 in any year. Elite players were less likely to suffer sudden cardiac arrest due to elevated fitness levels and were more likely to survive these events due to the increased likelihood of being attended to by skilled first aid practitioners and the presence of defibrillators. Nevertheless, the study published in the British Medical Journal and peer reviewed found that five per cent of the 617 deaths came from the elite level.
Misinformation is easy to create and requires ten times the energy to refute. ‘Died suddenly’ should not be a loaded term but that’s where we are now.
The issue of proper and prompt redress to people who have suffered Covid vaccine injury and those who spread misinformation is deeply entwined. Morally, those who have suffered injury should not be pushed into the shadows, collateral casualties of a rush to vaccinate. But more so, the vacuum created by bureaucratic babble and evasion will always be filled by misinformation. The truth gets left dazed and bruised by the roadside.
***************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Medicaid has expanded by 20 million during Covid
Keeping a lot of people out of the workforce
By Robert Romano
Since Feb. 2020, thanks to the “continuous enrollment” in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which prohibited states from disenrolling Medicaid patients when they no longer qualify on the basis of income, Medicaid enrollment has skyrocketed by 20.2 million to more than 91 million since Feb. 2020, according to the latest data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The mechanism for the expansion was temporary Covid unemployment, when 25 million jobs were lost in the blink of an eye, resulting in lapses in private insurance. When patients got Covid and went to the hospital and other medical providers, this resulted in automatic enrollment so providers could get paid.
The largest increases came from California (2.3 million), Texas (1.5 million), New York (1.3 million) and Florida (1.2 million). With 2.7 million in Texas and Florida alone, were Republican governors Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis ever made aware of this provision? What about state Republican lawmakers?
Reviewing the gubernatorial websites in Texas and Florida, as well as the official Twitter feeds of both governors, I cannot find a single statement either opposing the “continuous enrollment” provision—which left recipients in state Medicaid programs long after they had returned to work—or even acknowledging it or the rapid expansion of their state’s Medicaid programs.
In fact, the 20 million added during the Covid Medicaid expansion was even larger than the expansion that ultimately occurred under the Affordable Care Act from 2010 to 2019, when the number went from 56 million before the Affordable Care Act was passed, to 71 million in 2019. In 2020 the economy tanked, unemployment skyrocketed and Medicaid enrollment exploded.
That would have happened anyway. The consequential provision was the “continuous enrollment” that prohibited states like Texas and Florida from recertifying patients’ income as was required under prior law.
How is that possible? Maybe someone should ask them. I personally only discovered it when I learned of the disenrollments that are set to begin after March 31 thanks to a provision in the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.
And yet the federal government wasn’t hiding it. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were publishing Medicaid enrollment snapshots under the provision dating back to June 2020.
A Jan. 19 piece from Orlando Sentinel appears to show Florida State House Republicans were similarly not made aware of Medicaid expansion in Florida until the Medicaid disenrollments began, with House Health & Human Services Chairman Randy Fine, (R-Brevard County) stating after being briefed in committee: “The federal government during the pandemic said once you are on, it’s like being on the Supreme Court — you can’t get kicked off… And so we have people who qualified at one moment in time but do not qualify today.”
But they weren’t alone. In my prior look at the issue, I couldn’t find a single statement by House or Senate Republicans specifically about the continuous enrollment provision. There was a House Republican Oversight Committee letter about potential improper payments to Medicaid during Covid in Aug. 2021, but with no mention of the program’s expansion. By then, the program had already expanded by 13 million.
The problem appears to be an apparent lack of information and institutional knowledge by Republicans in Congress, legislatures and state governor’s mansions. In the old king’s cabinet in Great Britain, there was the saying that “the king could do no wrong.” That, if something went wrong, it could not be because of his own failures, but because he had been given poor advice. But that might be too charitable in this case.
The data was there to be found, but you had to know to go look for it.
Moreover, Republicans were complaining about many of the other governmental expansions in the health system during Covid. They opposed Medicaid expansion for more than a decade under the Affordable Care Act, and here was a backdoor expansion of socialized medicine that dwarfed the program’s prior expansion.
Are the GOP elected branches so disconnected from the professional, permanent, administrative state that during Covid they appear to have been asleep at the switch?
And now, states will have to come up with plans to begin disenrollment, which the Department of Health and Human Services says could impact up to 15 million recipients, assuming they went back to work and no longer qualify.
What preparations were made to disenroll these patients from Medicaid at the state level? This is a question for all 50 state governors, not simply Republican governors who you think would have opposed this.
The fact is, even the Medicaid disenrollments will tax state public health systems, too, as resources will have to go to tracking down eligibility. The amount of fraud in the disenrollments alone could be gargantuan, as now there is a perverse incentive to conceal income, but red states might have been ready for it — if they knew about it. The question is, did they know?
*******************************************************
Substantial Meta-Analysis Reveals COVID-19 Vaccine Waning Effectiveness—Further Decline of Performance During Omicron
Canadian researchers affiliated with Concordia University in Montreal conducted a systematic meta-analysis covering what they refer to as living evidence synthesis tracking COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and durability data associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.
But what is this “living review?” The study team represented by corresponding author Prof. Simon Bacon, PhD, FTOS, FCCS, FABMR, an expert in health behavior report they first search for studies published until September 10, 2021, and thereafter updated the ongoing search on November 19, 2021. Then, beginning on February 25, 2022, the French-Canadian study team updated the synthesis each four weeks until the 13th synthesis when they reported final results.
The group did add additional information including data from the booster studies as well as variant updates. Their work was sponsored by both Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada. The evolving findings reveal vaccine effectiveness decreases over time against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, and mortality. This shows durability challenges are a real factor.
Importantly, the overall vaccine quality as measured as effectiveness against Omicron further degraded as compared to other variants of concern as has been evidenced in dozens of other studies chronicled by TrialSite.
The study authors all but concede that the COVID-19 vaccination program as a means by itself isn’t sufficient due to waning effectiveness
What did the authors find?
Out of 16,696 records at the title and abstract level, the group studied 832 full texts, ultimately including 72 (0.4%) studies and excluding five of them for a risk of bias, a total of 68 studies were extracted for analysis.
But the above numbers are across previous variants of concern. What about the Omicron variant which has been in circulation in one form or another for late 2021 and all of 2022 and into 2023?
The study authors report they had not been able to accumulate sufficient data to track mortality data during the Omicron period.
Summary
This study team embraced three-level meta-analytic models which evidenced “marked decreases over time in vaccine effectiveness for SARS-CoV-2 infections for both primary series and booster, and a smaller decrease for hospitalizations and mortality.”
Overall vaccine performance degraded against Omicron due to the mutational changes and ability to better evade vaccine-induced antibodies. The authors extend the necessary statement that “vaccination continues to be an effective measure over time to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations and mortality,” but they do acknowledge the case doesn’t look great for infections.
The vaccines did help reduce the sharp edges of the pandemic’s deadly knife by temporarily boosting antibody defense in humans, thereby in surges reducing hospitalization and death rates.
But this doesn’t last long and the prospect of boosts every half a year with these vaccines is unlikely—the long-term health effects haven’t been studied. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are recommending that they go on the standard immunization schedule meaning they become comparable to the recommended influenza vaccine once per year.
It’s known that the present SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not sterilizing and already Dr. Anthony Fauci and cohorts published a piece declaring the need to advance beyond the current vaccines to consider intranasal mucosal vaccine development among other activities.
*************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Tuesday, February 14, 2023
Booster Shots May Trigger Stroke Incidents, According to CDC and FDA
In addition to cardiac events, another life-threatening side effect has been associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. When is the risk period? Does the flu shot play any role in these events? What actions should we take to better protect ourselves?
Summary of Key Facts
An increased risk of stroke events has been identified with the Pfizer COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, according to a joint statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The onset time in people aged 65 years and older was 1–21 days after the booster, with a significant cluster of events observed 11–21 days after the booster.
Sixty-four percent had received the flu vaccine on the same day as the COVID-19 booster.
The bivalent booster contains the code of the spike protein, contributing to the increased risk of blood clots. High-risk people should avoid the boosters.
Solution: Remember the five “suddens” of stroke warning signs.
Advice on preventing other risk factors of stroke is also provided in this paper.
On Jan. 13, 2023, the FDA and CDC issued a joint statement that a new “safety signal” for ischemic stroke had been detected in one of the agency’s vaccine safety surveillance systems.
The statement read, in part: “CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a near real-time surveillance system, met the statistical criteria to prompt additional investigation into whether there was a safety concern for ischemic stroke in people ages 65 and older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine bivalent.”
The VSD system monitors the electronic health records of 12.5 million Americans served by nine integrated health systems.
The CDC stated that no other safety databases had detected this signal (including the Medicare and Veterans Affairs data sets). Pfizer released a statement that it had not detected this signal in its databases, and no other countries have found a similar signal in their monitoring systems.
The clot risk appears to be greater on days 11–21 after receiving the booster, especially for those who received a high-dose or adjuvant flu vaccine on the same day.
A follow-up meeting was held on Jan. 26, 2023. Despite the identified risk, the CDC continues to recommend booster shots for all people over six months of age.
Increased Risk of Stroke Mostly Found 11 to 21 Days After Booster
The findings presented on Jan. 26, 2023, suggest that more stroke events occurred during days 1–21 post-vaccination than days 22–42 after receiving the shot.
People aged 65 or older who received the Pfizer bivalent booster experienced 130 events during the “risk interval” (1–21 days after the booster) and 92 events during the “comparison interval” (22–42 days after the booster). There was a 47 percent increased risk of ischemic stroke during 1-21 days post-booster, compared to those events occurring during 22-42 days post-booster, with a p = 0.005. In studies, when the P value is less than 0.05, it means the difference is statistically significant.
It is important to note that stroke events occurred throughout the entire 42-day follow-up period after the booster; a cluster of stroke events occurred between 11 and 21 days after receiving the booster.
In a preliminary review of 22 stroke cases in people 65 years or older on days 11–21 after receiving the booster, none of the individuals had a previous history of transient ischemic attack (TIA). Sixty-four percent received the flu vaccine on the same day as the COVID-19 booster (13 high-dose flu vaccines and one adjuvant flu vaccine).
Outcome data of these events shows that 59 percent of the people who experienced a TIA were discharged home, 18 percent were discharged with home health, nine percent were discharged to a skilled nursing facility, and 14 percent (three of the 22) died. The CDC notes that one death was likely related to a stroke.
No safety signal was detected in the VSD database for Moderna; however, the VAERS reported stroke cases related to the Moderna booster. The difference could be due to the number of booster doses administered for the two vaccines. Nearly twice as many Pfizer booster doses had been given as Moderna (549,943 vs. 285,706) as of Jan. 7, 2023.
As of Jan. 8, 2023, 40 ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack cases after the bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccination were detected in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). The median age was 74 years. Nineteen were males, and 21 were females. The median time to onset was four days. Twenty-five cases occurred after the Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccine, and 15 occurred after the Moderna bivalent vaccine.
Receiving a Flu Shot on the Same Day as the Booster Increases Risk
VSD data analysis showed that three people experienced a stroke after receiving the Pfizer booster and a standard dose of flu vaccine on the same day. By contrast, 40 people who received the Pfizer booster and a high-dose or adjuvant flu vaccine on the same day experienced a stroke. Sixty older adults experienced a stroke after receiving only the COVID-19 booster.
Receiving a high dose or adjuvanted flu shot on the same day seemed to double the risk of stroke.
The spike protein in the SARS-CoV-2 virus can significantly increase the risk of arterial and venous clots. A database analysis of 48 million individuals in the United Kingdom found an increased risk of ischemic stroke, especially in the first weeks after COVID-19 infection.
The mRNA vaccine also produces the spike protein. The bivalent booster contains the code for two strains of the spike protein (original Wuhan strain and BA.4/BA.5).
Your blood contains platelets, which form clots to stop bleeding after an injury. The S1 unit of the spike protein hyperactivates these platelets. This can cause the blood to form tiny clots after infection or vaccination. These blockages in blood flow can cause problems throughout the body’s tissues and organs.
The flu shot increases the risk of stroke, possibly because the vaccine provokes an inflammatory response. This increases the risk of ischemic stroke, especially in people with pre-existing coagulation abnormalities. A report from Taiwan indicated that a 75-year-old male patient suffered posterior circulation ischemia after an influenza A/H1N1 vaccination.
Remember the ‘FAST’ Rule
Ischemic stroke occurs when a blood clot blocks or narrows an artery that leads to or is inside the brain. A blood clot often forms in arteries damaged by the buildup of plaques (atherosclerosis). It can occur in the carotid artery of the neck as well as in other arteries.
After vaccination—at a very rare rate—if an adverse stroke event does appear, what signs can alert you in time?
There are five “suddens” of stroke warning signs. If you observe one or more of these signs of a stroke, don’t wait; call a doctor or 911 immediately!
Sudden numbness, weakness, or tingling of the face, arm, or leg, especially on one side of the body
Sudden confusion, drowsiness, or trouble talking or understanding speech
Sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes, or double vision
Sudden trouble walking, dizziness, or loss of balance or coordination
Sudden severe headache, nausea, or vomiting with no known cause
Sometimes the signs may last only a few moments and then disappear. These episodes, known as transient ischemic attacks or TIAs, are called “mini-strokes.” Paying attention to them can be life-saving.
Remember the FAST (face, arm, speech, time) rule.
F ace drooping? Can’t smile
A rm weakness? Can’t raise above head
S peech difficulty? Can’t repeat simple nursery rhyme
T ime to call 911.
One or more of these signs—face weakness, arm weakness, and speech difficulty—are present in 88 percent of all strokes and TIAs. Getting to an emergency room quickly can save your life or the life of a loved one.
An intravenous injection of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is the gold standard treatment for selected patients with ischemic stroke. An injection of TPA is usually given through a vein in the arm within the first three hours after a stroke.
Arriving at an emergency room as quickly as possible after noticing symptoms is critical to reducing the odds of disability. A successful rescue of stroke patients includes early identification of signs of stroke and medical care within the first hour of acute stroke.
Recommendations on Vaccinations
It may not be advisable for individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 and who experienced a stroke to take extra COVID-19 jabs such as boosters.
For now, this safety signal looks like a worrisome association with vaccination. Elderly individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19 should check with their physicians for the most appropriate guidance tailored to their risks, given that COVID-19 also increases the risk of stroke and other cardiovascular events for months after infection.
Carefully monitor individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine or flu vaccine, especially those with high ischemic stroke risk.
*************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Monday, February 13, 2023
Unmasked: the failure of Covid mandates
No nation forced masks on people with as much zeal as the US, whose libertarian reputation belied pockets of maniacal health authoritarianism unknown in Australia or even Europe.
The US, uniquely among advanced nations, forced masks on children aged two and up, something not even Victoria countenanced at the height of the great madness.
Today, still, after the vast bulk of Americans has sheepishly consigned masks to the bin, school students in Michigan and Massachusetts are required to mask up in class, despite mounting evidence that masks stunt childhood development.
In that context, a new, rigorous study that found masks did nothing to slow Covid-19 might have made the news. But no; a 305-page Cochrane analysis published globally on January 30 that assessed 78 high-quality scientific studies that included more than 610,000 participants has yet to rate a single mention in The Washington Post, The New York Times or on CNN, for instance.
Even passionate maskers, such as Baltimore epidemiologist Jennifer Nuzzo, conceded Cochrane reviews were the “gold standard” of evidence-based medicine and its latest mask study “a very serious undertaking”.
Cochrane found that surgical masks, the kind doctors wear in operating theatres to avoid accidentally sneezing into an open wound, did nothing to stop Covid-19.
More embarrassing for Team Mask, those even more uncomfortable N95 masks made little to no difference either. Only hand washing seemed to work to prevent the spread of corona and influenza-like viruses.
“There is just no evidence masks make any difference. Full stop,” University of Oxford associate tutor Tom Jefferson, one of the study’s 12 authors, told Australian journalist Maryanne Demasi last week.
“In the absence of evidence, you shouldn’t be forcing anybody to do so,” he said, describing advocates of forced masking as “activists, not scientists”.
It turns out the billions upon billions of masks that were manufactured in response to government mandates and now are floating in oceans or piling up at rubbish tips were likely to have been a colossal waste. American multinational 3M alone produced 4.5 billion N95 masks in 2020 and 2021, according to Statista; the mind boggles at what the global total for all masks might be.
“Governments completely failed to do the right thing and demand better evidence,” Jefferson says. “At the beginning of the pandemic there were some voices who said masks did not work and then suddenly the narrative changed.”
Thankfully, the narrative is changing again, in part to a US House of Representatives Republican majority that is determined to probe some of the madder aspects of the great madness.
“I had doctors who spent years in medicine telling me masks were not effective, and yet these were being forced on people and school kids,” Republican congressman Gary Palmer said last week at a congressional hearing that included US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky. “We’re seeing a devastating impact on their educational attainment, so it surprises me that the CDC didn’t do any follow-up testing even while this was going on.”
Surprisingly, no government health agency in the US or elsewhere bothered to conduct any randomised control trial of what was a highly divisive intervention that pre-2020 science had counselled against.
Walensky said she didn’t rate the latest Cochrane study because it analysed only the highest quality mask studies. “I’m not sure anybody would have proposed a clinical trial because so many studies demonstrated time and time again … masks were working,” she said in reply, referring to studies that would have been deemed junk before 2020.
Indeed, none of the findings in the latest Cochrane review should have been a surprise. The overwhelming consensus among scientists pre-Covid-19 was that forcing healthy people to wear masks, let alone outside, was pointless and potentially harmful. Minuscule viruses would slip through the tiny holes in the masks or simply go around them.
As late as March 31, 2020, the World Health Organisation was sticking to the old science.
“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,” WHO health emergencies program executive director Mike Ryan told journalists.
But a few weeks later, following a total of zero new studies, “the science” had emerged in all its authoritarian glory, deeming masks effective and forcing them on hundreds of millions of people against their will for up to two years. Masks might have failed totally at stopping Covid-19 surges in every nation that implemented them, but they were highly successful on one metric: stoking fear, providing an in-your-face, everyday reminder of the pandemic that might increase compliance with other measures.
At the same time the incentive structure for researchers, who previously had toiled largely in obscurity, changed dramatically in the first half of 2020. Fame, speaking fees, academic promotion – all were in the offing for the canny researcher who could help demonise anyone who pointed to pre-2020 science or simply preferred to risk getting a bad cold rather than wear a mask.
Governments and their media cheer squad were eager to promote studies that vindicated mandatory masking.
That’s what explains the contemptible silence following the latest Cochrane review.
Wearing a mask sent a powerful message throughout the pandemic: I follow the science. Increasingly, it’s sending a different one: I’m a credulous goose. Or perhaps even, following new research in Frontiers in Psychology published last month: I’m not very attractive.
“Our results consistently demonstrated that self-perceived unattractive individuals were more willing to wear a mask, as they believed it would benefit their attractiveness,” the authors concluded.
To be sure, it wasn’t a randomised control trial but it reveals at least as much truth as any post-2020 study telling you masks worked.
***************************************************
Covid’s devastating impact on the heart as lockdowns take a triple toll on the health of the nation
New heart research confirms fears COVID-19 has taken a devastating toll on the health of Australians after confining them indoors, deprived of opportunities to exercise and exposed to poor diets and sleep routines.
Almost half of more than 6000 people who have undergone Victor Chang Heart Health Checks since the start of the pandemic have recorded results considered outside the healthy range.
A specialist team which conducts a mobile testing service across Australia has found cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure levels all significantly higher since COVID arrived.
The number of people having at least one test result outside the healthy range since March 2020 increased from 33 per cent to 47 per cent - a relative jump of more than 40 per cent.
Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute Program manager Anastasia Dounas says for many the COVID effect was real and of serious concern. 'They got out of the habit of going to the gym during lockdown and ate and drank more because they were worried and stressed, leading to weight gain,' she said.
'Working from home also led to less incidental exercise and the fear of COVID saw more people choosing to drive to work than catching public transport which resulted in people taking fewer steps each day. 'That all adds up.'
Since the launch of the heart check program in 2011 until the onset of COVID in 2020, more than 76,000 participants have been tested with just over a third having one or more results outside the normal healthy range and advised to follow up with a GP.
Within this group, eight per cent were beyond the healthy limit for blood pressure and blood sugar, and almost 30 per cent for cholesterol.
Since March 2020, 6182 participants have been tested with just over 47 per cent having one or more results outside the healthy range and advised to see their doctor.
Of these, 15 per cent were on the wrong side of healthy for blood pressure, 10.5 per cent for blood sugar and 32 per cent for cholesterol.
Heart check nurse Clare Lennon said it was more important than ever to be assessed and start re-engaging with exercise and a healthy diet.
'Heart health checks are vital in revealing if you are at risk of heart disease but can also help prevent it,' she said.
'Lifestyle changes or medications can make a huge difference to risk factors but you need to be aware of whether you have high cholesterol, blood pressure, or blood sugar to begin with.'
*************************************************
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) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
**************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
