Farewell 2022: the year of vindication for Covid skeptics

If 2020 and 2021 were a living nightmare, 2022 was the beginning of the awakening. After two years of being labelled every name under the sun, the time has finally arrived when the dissidents can say that they were right, in large part due to information being released by Elon Musk.

On the Covid front, the initial criticisms about vaccines appear sound. Statistically, they are some of the most ineffective and inefficient vaccines released to market with side effects that many consider unacceptable, especially to children. The full extent of the health risk they pose is not yet known.

A recent study undertaken on over 260,000 individuals in the State of Indiana demonstrated that vaccinated individuals are 2-3 times more likely to be infected with Covid than unvaccinated individuals with natural immunity (from prior infection), a concern that was dismissed as conspiracy.

Natural immunity, initially discounted and laughed at, has won out against Covid vaccines for re-infection, particularly regarding new mutations. ‘Conspiracy theorists’ have been saying this all along, including those in the medical profession.

One of the starkest admissions of the year came from Pfizer executive Janine Small, president of international developed markets. It came in response to a question raised by Dutch Member of the European Parliament Rob Roos: ‘Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?’

Small answered:

‘Did we know about stopping immunisation [sic: should read transmission] before it entered the market? No … we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.’

Her answer presented an admission that the vaccine Pfizer manufactured was initially never tested to see if it prevented transmission, yet prevention of transmission was the premise on which governments and unelected bureaucrats justified arbitrary Covid measures, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Remember when medical authorities told us that we needed to get vaccinated to keep everyone else safe? Remember when they said that if we didn’t take the vaccine we were literally killing grandma? That was all based on (at best) debunked guesswork and (at worst) a fabrication. Our health representatives and government ministers did not know if the vaccine prevented transmission when drafting health directives. And, as it turns out, it never did.

While most mandates have since been dropped, some remain in place, despite being completely devoid of logic or reason. Those who were forced to take the vaccine have been left duped. Many have come to regret taking it, venting their frustration on the (now liberated) social media platform Twitter. Others who had their first two or three doses have sworn off getting any further doses, a declaration that is reflected in low fourth and fifth dose figures.

The vaccines have also been side-eyed in connection with an increase in heart conditions, including myocarditis. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) knew this early on, and has quietly pulled the Moderna vaccine off the market in Australia months behind other countries. What was the reason for this delay?

Former MP and vaccine advocate Dr Kerryn Phelps recently revealed that she and her partner both suffered significant neurological side effects after taking the Pfizer vaccine. Phelps noted these adverse effects were reported to the TGA. Phelps subsequently claimed that her concerns were never followed up, although the TGA have not commented. She also raised concerns that doctors have been prevented from speaking up about adverse effects presenting in their patients due to fears of being reprimanded.

Failure to live up to transmission claims and ongoing investigations into the #DiedSuddenly medical phenomenon of statistically significant unexplained deaths, is only the beginning of what is increasingly being dubbed a scandal.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who has traditionally sat slightly Left of politics, emerged as the unlikely unmasker of Big Pharma.

Some joke that Elon Musk paid $44 billion just to blow the whistle on the absolutely horrifying actions of Twitter under its previous management. Detailed were the complex entanglements with federal agencies that formed a web of genuine collusion to the detriment of free speech and undermined the sanctity of free and fair elections.

Over the past couple of months, Elon has enlisted several independent journalists to help release inside information from the Twitter archives. This has included the dissemination of private conversations between Twitter employees and government officials. Also released were email correspondence and evidence of conversations with federal agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and ‘Other Government Agencies’ (eg. the CIA), and evidence of conversations with the government.

These are known as The Twitter Files.

What has come to light thus far has demonstrated that Twitter was actively working with the government and federal agencies to potentially violate the First Amendment rights of Americans who chose to speak out against the accepted narrative. We have been shown, in considerable detail, how Twitter executives, including former head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth and former head of Legal and Policy Vijaya Gadde, made critical decisions that former CEO Jack Dorsey may not have even been aware of. The tools they used to censor and silence individuals, in particular Conservative accounts, have been confirmed as real despite former Twitter spokespeople denying their existence.

These revelations have highlighted a number of truths that were cast off as ‘conspiracy theories’.

Alex Berenson, who was skeptical of the Covid vaccine, was specifically targeted by the Biden administration, who put pressure on Twitter to take action on his account among other ‘anti-vaxxer accounts’. This ultimately led to his suspension. Only after bringing a lawsuit against Twitter did Berenson have his account restored.

According to the Atlantic:

This was not the end of the drama, though. Last week, Berenson published a Substack post that included screenshots of a conversation on Twitter’s internal Slack messaging system from April 2021, obtained during the course of the lawsuit. The images show employees discussing a recent White House meeting at which members of the Biden administration were said to have posed a “really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” as one Slack message put it. Another alleges that Andy Slavitt, who was at the time a senior adviser to Joe Biden on the administration’s COVID-19 response, specifically mentioned a “data viz that had showed [Berenson] was the epicenter of disinfo.”

Berenson has since declared that he will sue the Biden administration for infringing upon his free speech by compelling Twitter to take action against his account.

Once again, legal experts say that his case is unlikely to succeed. Berenson faces a “very high bar” in proving that a private company behaved as a state actor, Evelyn Douek, an Atlantic contributor and assistant professor at Stanford Law School, told me. According to both her and Goldman, the Slack messages that Berenson published don’t amount to proof that the government pressured Twitter to remove Berenson’s account. But Douek is generally perturbed by the evidence of informal pressure by government officials to constrain speech. “It does strike me as unusual,” she said. “It’s certainly unusual to get records of it.”

Other medical experts were targeted, including Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Dr Martin Kulldorff, who tweeted that vaccines should only be taken by those who were most at risk, including the elderly and their care-takers, and that children and those who had already been infected should not have it. His tweet was hit with a ‘misleading’ label.

Dr Andrew Rostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended for ‘misinformation’, including a tweet referring to a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines. Other accounts that pointed out the truth on the matter of Covid and vaccines were also hit with ‘misleading’ labels, even if they were merely tweeting findings released by the CDC.

As we move into 2023, more revelations will come to light and the ‘conspiracy theorists’ will likely continue to be proven right over and over again.

While it would be easy to look back on this year as one giant ‘I told you so’, it would be better to take heed of what we have learned and use it as justification to push back against those who would wish us to just move on with our lives as if none of it happened. Yes, these revelations are a good thing, but I cannot help but feel as if this conversation is not over yet.

We cannot become complacent about past abuses because the truth is finally coming out. We must continue to pursue that truth and ensure that it is spread far and wide, if only to ensure justice for all those who have been wronged.

2022 was the year of vindication. 2023 must be the year of accountability. The tangled web of darkness that has been constructed around The Science must be eradicated for good and never allowed to be rebuilt again.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/farewell-2022-the-year-of-vindication/

************************************************

The Cult of Masked Schoolchildren

There is still some pressure on kids to wear masks in school. Some private schools have gone beyond cloth-masking and mandated N95 (or equivalent) masks for children as young as 4. The Berkeley Unified School District in California recently began transitioning students to N95-level masking. This isn’t a matter of protecting children, their teachers, or their grandparents; it’s delusional and dangerous cultlike behavior.

The way to reduce scientific uncertainty when it comes to practices like masking young children is to conduct randomized studies. When it comes to masking kids in schools, the global scientific community has launched no such studies during the pandemic. The U.K. government commissioned a report on the efficacy of masks in school settings, which failed to identify any clear evidence in favor of this practice. Moreover, the authors write:

Wearing face coverings may have physical side effects and impair face identification, verbal and non-verbal communication between teacher and learner. This means there are downsides to face coverings for pupils and students, including detrimental impacts on communication in the classroom.

Let’s start with cloth masks, which have been the most common type of facial covering used to cover kids’ faces in school. In the only cluster randomized trial conducted during the pandemic among adults, cloth-masking failed to improve the primary outcome of COVID cases that were confirmed with a blood test. In an umbrella review I conducted with Jonathan Darrow of Harvard and Ian Liu of the University of Colorado, we concluded that cloth-masking simply doesn’t work. A month later, the former health commissioner of Baltimore told CNN the same:

The United States is uniquely aggressive in masking young kids. Contrary to scientific evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics advise that children as young as 2 should wear masks. Europe has always been more relaxed on this issue, and the World Health Organization advises against masks for kids under 6 and only selectively for kids under 11.

Data from Spain on masking kids is sobering. The figure below shows the R value—a measure of how fast the virus spreads—by age. Spain mandated masks at a specific age cutoff. If masks have a visible effect, we should see a step down in the graph at the age kids start to wear them (i.e., the spread should drop at the age masking begins). But as you can see, there is only a slow, deliberate, upward trend with no steps down. Based on the evidence only, it would be impossible to guess which age groups are wearing masks and which are not.

This simply means that masking was not associated with a large effect in slowing spread. (If you’re curious, kids started to wear masks in this study at age 6.)

Now let’s consider N95 or equivalent masks that are designed to filter a high percentage of particles. To achieve this goal, N95 masks require a snug fit and validation. Notably, there are no approved N95s for kids because these masks have not been subject to validation for young people. All masks sold with this moniker are merely “N95-style” masks thought to be equivalent, possibly. Berkeley and other school districts have mandated them anyway, even though no study suggests the policy can slow the spread of COVID.

What is the goal of masking policy? Does it at least help to “slow” the spread? Pre-vaccine, it made sense to try to delay infection until all those who wished could be vaccinated, the latter being an intervention that does have a demonstrable effect on rates of serious disease and death. While cloth-masking does little if anything to delay infection, universal N95-masking might have indeed been helpful. But does this goal still make sense after vaccines and omicron?

Omicron has shown it is able to infect even vaccinated people relatively easily (even though, yes, vaccines do still appear to protect from severe disease). The fact that omicron is widely spread by vaccinated people, coupled with its rapid rate of spread, means that sooner rather than later we will all be infected—a conclusion shared earlier by Anthony Fauci. But if infection is inevitable for everyone, then it no longer makes sense to wear a mask. Even the most effective mask can’t avert infection; it can only delay it while causing inconvenience, discomfort, and difficulty speaking, all of which are detrimental to the educational and emotional well-being of schoolchildren.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/cult-masked-schoolchildren

**************************************************

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

**************************************************

Boosted Worse Off Than Vaccinated in Many States, Data Show

People in the United States who have received COVID-19 boosters in many states are more likely than those who have gotten just a primary series to get infected, receive hospital care, and die, according to an Epoch Times investigation.

Cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among the boosted have been increasing since the booster shots were first introduced in 2021. The boosters were promoted as bolstering protection against adverse outcomes. But, compared to the vaccinated who have not received any boosters, boosted people are testing positive, being hospitalized, and dying at higher levels in many states, according to the review, which went over data in the first two quarters of 2022.

In California, for instance, the boosted population made up 72 percent of the COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people in June. In Vermont that month, the boosted population made up 90 percent of the COVID-19 deaths among the vaccinated.

The number of boosted people has continued to rise since the extra shots were first cleared in 2021. But in some of the states, one or more metrics among the boosted exceed their population.

In Wisconsin, boosted people made up 43 percent of the cases, 43 percent of the hospitalizations, and 46 percent of the deaths in June—well above the boosted population, which was 35 percent of the state as of late August.

“It is unassailable that a very large fraction of highly inoculated [people] are among those being hospitalized or dying,” Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA technology that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines utilize, told The Epoch Times. “So, at a minimum, the effectiveness in preventing hospitalization or death does not appear to be aligned with the official policy position.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have continued to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for virtually all Americans, including multiple boosters, stating that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. New, untested boosters replaced the old ones in the fall, but the primary series is still comprised of the old vaccines.

Higher Among Boosted

In 18 of the 19 states that provided or already list sufficient data, the boosted made up a majority of one or more metrics among the vaccinated, The Epoch Times found through reviewing publicly available data and public records requests after reporting how vaccinated people were more likely, when compared to the unvaccinated, to get sick, hospitalized, or die in a number of states.

In seven states, the boosted population even made up a majority of all three metrics—cases, hospitalizations, and deaths—among the vaccinated.

All data are from 2022. Only percentages or numbers were available for some states. Data for June were preferred, followed by data for July. Rates were adjusted for age. Fully vaccinated refers to people who received a primary series and no booster. Boosted refers to people who received one or more boosters

Adjusted Data

Some experts say one can’t derive much from state-level data, particularly if it has not been adjusted.

“The problem with these data is that there are so many missing variables which could confound (bias) the outcomes being followed,” Dr. Andrew Bostom, a former associate professor of medicine at Brown University, told The Epoch Times via email.

For data regarding vaccination, it’s best to utilize randomized or randomized controlled trials, he added, pointing to a paper that found vaccinated people were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event after analyzing data from the original clinical trials.

Some states did adjust data for age, accounting for the fact that older people are more likely to receive not only the original vaccine series, but boosters. All eight states which provided or listed age-adjusted rates showed higher rates for at least one metric among the boosted when compared to the fully vaccinated. In Wisconsin, for example, the rate of hospitalizations among the boosted was 9.2 per 100,000—nearly double the fully vaccinated.

In two of the states—Minnesota and New Mexico—rates for cases among the boosted were even higher than the unvaccinated.

To be included in the review, states needed to report figures for at least one metric broken down by vaccination status, and a breakdown by time. States that would only provide data since the beginning of the pandemic, or would not provide data by daily, weekly, or monthly increments, were excluded. So were states that would not separate the boosted from the fully vaccinated.

In the other states with sufficient data, none of the metrics were higher in the boosted compared with the fully vaccinated.

The data covers a period of time before new boosters were available. The old boosters became unavailable in the fall when regulators authorized the new, bivalent boosters. There remains no clinical trial data for the new boosters but real-world studies have estimated they provide suboptimal protection against infection and good protection, at least initially, against hospitalization.

Negative Effectiveness

The data dovetails with a growing body of research that has detected negative vaccine effectiveness after a period of time and a higher likelihood of getting infected among people with more doses.

Researchers with the Cleveland Clinic, for instance, reported this month in a preprint study (pdf) that each successive dose heightened the chance a person tested positive.

The researchers called the finding “unexpected” and cast doubt on the “simplistic explanation” offered by some that people at higher risk from COVID-19 are more likely to receive more doses.

Another study, published in November (pdf), found people who received three doses of a vaccine tested positive more than people who received two doses.

“This finding suggests that the immune response against the primary omicron infection was compromised by differential immune imprinting in those who received a third booster dose, consistent with emerging laboratory science data,” the authors, including Laith Abu-Raddad, an infectious disease expert at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, wrote.

A growing number of researchers fear that people’s immune systems are trained by the shots to react to older virus strains. The shots targeted the original Wuhan strain for years. The updated shots, which are only available as boosters, target the Wuhan strain and a sublineage of the BA.4/BA.5 Omicron subvariants. Those subvariants are already being displaced by newer, more immune-evasive strains (pdf).

“The literature predicted that there was a high risk of exacerbation of immune imprinting using this booster strategy,” Malone said, “and the data are consistent with that.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/boosted-worse-off-than-vaccinated-in-many-states-data-show_4920614.html ?

**************************************************************

Australian Cardiologist Calls to Halt mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines, Citing Heart Damage

COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Myocarditis and Pericarditis
A growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence links heart issues with the mRNA vaccines.

So much so that the CDC and other government authorities in the United States and around the world now recognize that the COVID-19 vaccines are causing myocarditis—heart inflammation which is considered more severe than pericarditis because it causes inflammation of the heart muscle.

In June 2022, the FDA’s Tom Shimabukuro, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., identified as part of the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Coordination Unit, reported that: “Current evidence supports a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis and pericarditis.”

Six months later, as of Dec. 2, 2022, there have been a total of 35,718 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

An Australian Cardiologist Speaks Out

After witnessing as many as 70 cases of vaccine-related heart conditions similar to Eskandar’s, Australian Cardiologist Dr. Ross Walker is now saying publicly that he believes there should be a ban on the use of mRNA booster vaccines.

According to Walker, the mRNA vaccines are “very pro-inflammatory,” he told Daily Mail Australia. “ He contended that The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization should never have mandated mRNA vaccines.

“I’ve seen many people getting vaccine reactions, who get symptoms for about three to six months afterwards,” Walker said. “I’ve seen 60-70 patients in my own practice over the past 12 months who have had similar reactions.”

Those reactions have included shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and chest pain, he continued.

Changing Recommendations

After conducting a thorough review of the scientific evidence, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the Florida Surgeon General, directed his state to no longer recommend any COVID-19 vaccines for men under 39 because of safety concerns.

Drs. Walker and Ladapo are not the only medical professionals voicing concerns about the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccines, especially for children and young adults.

Among the doctors who have called for the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns to be halted is Japanese cardiovascular surgeon Dr. Kenji Yamamoto. In a letter published in the peer-reviewed journal Virology, Yamamoto argued that the COVID-19 booster shots are not safe.

In particular, Yamamoto voiced concern over an adverse effect of the vaccine known as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Not only that, but since the administration of the vaccine, Yamamoto has seen an increase in the risk of infection among his patients at the Okamura Memorial Hospital in Shizuoka in Japan. Specifically, he cites that many of his patients have contracted severe infections due to “inflammation after heart surgery.” Yamamoto believes that his patients’ suppressed immunity is a result of COVID-19 vaccination.

A Turning Tide?

Several high-profile medical doctors have themselves experienced severe side effects after being vaccinated.

Vaccine researcher Dr. Gregory Poland from Rochester, Minnesota has been struggling with life-debilitating tinnitus.

Belgian immunologist, whom The Atlantic described as “one of Europe’s best-known champions of medical research,” Michel Goldman, was battling lymphoma. He had devastating side effects after his third Pfizer vaccine: severe night sweats, exhaustion, and engorged lymph nodes.

A scan taken after the vaccine revealed that the 67-year-old had a barrage of new lesions, “like someone had set off fireworks inside [his] body.”

Goldman suspected that the COVID booster had made him sicker. His brother, who is also a doctor as well as the head of nuclear medicine at the Université Libre de Bruxelles hospital, suspected as much as well.

The rapid progression of Goldman’s angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma following the BNT162b2 mRNA booster was published as a peer-reviewed case report in the journal Frontiers in Medicine in November 2021. Since its publication, the case study has been viewed 383,411 times.

While Poland and Goldman still seem to be champions of COVID-19 vaccines, many doctors who once advocated for universal COVID-19 vaccination have since changed their minds.

British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra initially encouraged the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines.

But then Malhotra’s father passed away suddenly of cardiac arrest after receiving the jab.

His father’s death prompted Malhotra to begin researching the safety profile of the vaccines. Based on his findings, he no longer believes the theoretical benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the very real risks.

Politicians are also becoming more vocal about ending vaccine mandates.

On Dec. 7, 2022, Senator Ron Johnson led a roundtable discussion called Covid-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries.

The next day, the House voted for an $858 Billion Defense Bill that included a repeal of the vaccine mandate for the military.

COVID-19 Infection Milder, COVID-19 Vaccines Not Safe or Effective

Cardiologist Dr. Ross Walker called to halt only the mRNA vaccines for young adults in favor of non-mRNA options. But a growing body of scientific literature (some of which has been retracted for political reasons), as well as state data and testimony from clinicians, has shown that none of the existing COVID-19 vaccines is as safe or effective as advertised.

At the same time, with Omicron and other strains replacing the other, more virulent SARS-CoV-2 variants, COVID-19 infection seems to be becoming milder.

Dr. Malhotra said in a recent interview “… this vaccine is not completely safe, and has unprecedented harms”. He concluded in a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance that a “pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/australian-cardiologist-calls-to-halt-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-citing-heart-damage_4924166.html

**************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH) 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

**************************************************

Cardiologists say there appears to be cumulative harm from the mRNA shots, especially to the heart

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) V-Safe data, 25 percent of people who took the mRNA vaccine were incapacitated the next day, and 8 percent were hospitalized or went to the emergency room.

“This is the most toxic vaccine by the CDC data that we’ve ever seen in clinical medicine,” McCullough said during a recent dual interview with Malhotra for EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program.

McCullough, one of the most published cardiologists in America and chief scientific officer of The Wellness Company, said he believes those 8 percent who went to the hospital likely had COVID-19 prior to being vaccinated.

“I think all cardiovascular conditions have got worse because of the vaccine, and anything and everything that can go wrong with the heart has gone wrong with the heart as a result of this mRNA vaccine,” added Malhotra, who has written extensively on reversing heart disease through lifestyle changes.

“The part of the virus that causes the heart damage is called the spike protein,” said McCullough.

Myocarditis is one of the more common injuries caused when the patient gets a high dose of spike protein with the shot, the doctors said, so the claim by the mainstream medical establishment that the risk of myocarditis is greater without the vaccine is false.

“There is a risk for traditional cardiovascular events because of this big inflammatory incident the body gets with COVID respiratory illness, but there is a small negligible risk of myocarditis with COVID, the respiratory infection, probably because the body doesn’t get this massive exposure to the spike protein, as it does with the vaccines,” said McCullough.

In addition, there is no evidence to support the claim by the drug industry that mild infection with COVID-19 or the omicron variant is causing sudden death, said Malhotra.

“I think people shouldn’t be distracted by this false narrative that mild COVID may be causing a massive surge in cardiac arrests,” said Malhotra.

It is also not true that there is a higher risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection than the vaccine because the mRNA vaccines have caused more injury and death, the doctors said. This is not surprising because other vaccines have also been known to cause Myocarditis, including the smallpox vaccines, McCullough said.

However, many doctors, including cardiologists, are still not aware of the data that show the mRNA vaccine can cause cardiac arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, heart attacks, myocarditis, and heart failure, but Malhotra has been able to correctly diagnose and treat his vaccine-injured patients, he said.

The rule the regulatory agencies historically have followed is that when a new drug is introduced into the market, if someone is injured or dies within 30 days of any new drug or injection, the injury or death is considered to be caused by the new drug until proven otherwise, said McCullough.

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis, and in June 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated the information on the mRNA vaccines to include the potential for myocarditis, added McCullough.

In addition, there are a growing number of studies that show the link between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis, said McCullough. He cited one study that showed a direct link between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis deaths.

Malhotra believes there would have been less harm to the general public if mRNA vaccines had not been used.

“These vaccines have had a hugely negative impact on society, on health, and of course, everything that’s gone on with it has eroded trust, as well, in medicine,” he said.

“What was most criminal is telling people who had natural immunity to take the vaccine,” said Malhotra, because some evidence suggested that a person was three times more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the vaccine if they’d already had COVID-19.

In addition, early treatments for COVID-19 have been proven to prevent severe illness and hospitalization, and in many COVID-19 patients, these should have been used instead of vaccination, said McCullough.

Early on in the pandemic, when the FDA and pharmaceutical companies were registering people for the trials, they excluded anyone who had already been infected with COVID-19 and women who were either pregnant or had the possibility of becoming pregnant, McCullough said.

“When we have exclusion criteria in clinical trials, the exclusions must be justified, and the rationale to justify the exclusion was, they did not have an opportunity for benefit and they had an opportunity for harm,” in the case of those with natural immunity and young women.

This is the “golden rule in medicine,” that once people are excluded from the original randomized trials, they are never immediately given the vaccine, but in the case of the mRNA vaccine, this rule was breached, McCullough said.

“Those are breaches of regulatory science and breaches of medical ethics. They are completely off the rails,” he said.

COVID-19 Safety Data

McCullough and Malhotra agreed that adverse effects were worse for people who received the mRNA vaccines after already acquiring natural immunity from an infection, and a 2022 study in the United Kingdom supports that conclusion. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tried to prevent the public from accessing its own adverse event vaccine data in its “V-safe” database, but the agency was forced by a court order to release the information to the Informed Consent Action Network, said McCullough.

The UK’s mRNA vaccine adverse event data is very similar to the CDC’s data, said Malhotra.

“There was no precautionary principle applied, and it still comes back that these regulatory bodies failed in their duty to protect the public from the excesses of manipulations of industry who were there just wanting to mass vaccinate as many people as possible, irrespective of the consequences and irrespective of the harm,” said Malhotra.

McCullough has entered many of his patients’ vaccine adverse reactions to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and found it does not allow for differentiating between being vaccinated after having COVID-19 versus being vaccinated before contracting the virus.

“There’s no checkbox to indicate if they previously had COVID. It is a massive oversight,” said McCullough.

In the current era of the omicron variant of the virus, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said there are about 300 people dying from COVID-19 each day. However, McCullough said 90 percent of those 300 are labeled COVID-19 deaths but are actually caused by some other factor while testing positive for prior infection.

This brings the true number of people dying from the omicron variant to about 30 per day, said McCullough, compared to 2,000 people dying each day from heart disease. There is no reason for President Joe Biden to continue to declare COVID-19 a public health emergency, he said.

“We’re dealing with a cold,” said Malhotra. “People need to be told the truth. We need to stop scaring people.”

The Real Bias

McCullough and Malhotra have been criticized for spreading “misinformation” about the vaccines and allegedly cherry-picking studies to show the outcomes they want.

Although McCullough is not an infectious disease specialist, he has studied the virus for the last three years and written more than 60 peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19, he said, and the real bias is coming from the medical establishment and governments.

“There is a clear-cut bias in the medical literature coming from the major publishers—Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, and others—all the way down to the editorial offices to promote mass vaccination,” said McCullough, which is why he has to rely on less well-known journals for studies that focus only on the data, not the claims about the vaccines.

McCullough said it is common for doctors to have opposing views about a drug or a treatment, and medical journals normally have a balance of studies for and against a particular medical treatment, except for the case of the mRNA vaccines. He said this shows that “there is a deep-seated bias to only promote the vaccines in the peer-reviewed literature.”

Fellow medical professionals and the media have tried to assassinate the two cardiologists’ character but have not been able to disprove or rebut their statements, Malhotra said.

“We are losing out on dedicating time, resources, and research towards helping people who are genuinely vaccine-injured,” said Malhotra.

Vaccines Must Be Halted

McCullough said only about 10 percent of people in the United States are still getting boosted, and the reason is likely that most people know someone who is vaccine-injured.

The vaccine should have been offered to only a very small, high-risk group, McCullough said, adding that the focus on vaccinating children and infants is out of proportion to their risk for serious illness.

Instead, the U.S. government put billions of dollars into advertising and disseminating the vaccines and collaborating with the medical establishment, the media, and popular culture to promote mass vaccination.

“These injuries and problems don’t stop until the vaccines stop,” said McCullough. “We need this immediate about-face, and understand that the vaccines themselves have caused a public health crisis.”

There is a cumulative effect with the vaccines, leading to both immediate and longer-term injury to patients, including heart inflammation, neurological disorders, immune disorders, and blood clots, said McCullough.

The more doses, the worse off a person is, the doctors said.

The vaccine industry needs to pay the vaccine-injured, much like the tobacco industry had to settle for the damage its products caused, said McCullough, and that money needs to be used to help the vaccine-injured.

“We don’t want to scare people too much, but what we need to tell them is to say ‘no’ right now,” Malhotra said. “It’s all risk and no benefit.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/mrna-vaccines-causing-high-rate-of-injuries-must-be-halted-cardiologists_4937820.html

*********************************************

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Laments How Little The Medical Establishment Has Learned From China's Covid Disaster

Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya expressed concern Wednesday night that the global and national medical establishment might have learned nothing from China's horrific experience with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Appearing on Wednesday night's "Tucker Carlson Tonight" with guest host Sean Duffy, Bhattacharya worried that the same mistakes China and much of the rest of the world made at various points along the way could "come back" if there is another pandemic.

The segment began with Duffy chronicling China's shift from so-called "zero-Covid" policies, a draconian approach to lockdowns that was never sustainable, to essentially giving up and allowing the virus to run unabated through a population that has little natural immunity.

"The World Health Organization has put containment at the center of its approach to future pandemics," Bhattacharya said. "The Biden Administration has basically, I think, rubber-stamped the same kind of containment idea when there's another pandemic. Unless there's a concerted effort by political leaders to examine the failure of our Covid policies and then put in place plans so that we don’t lock down again, I’m afraid it will come back."

The Stanford professor - who helped craft the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020 that called for focused protection of the vulnerable as an alternative to society-destroying lockdowns - noted that many "public health authorities" wanted something like China's Covid policies in the United States even though indefinitely containing a "highly infectious respiratory disease" like Covid-19 is impossible.

It was inevitable that this virus was going to infect basically everybody. It’s a highly infectious respiratory disease. Our efforts to try the control the spread of it, we don’t have a technology that does that ... Chinese authorities capitulated. The problem is they didn’t protect the elderly population. They’re at high risk. There’s a lot of people that have never been infected before that are really at high risk and their healthcare system is much more easily overwhelmed than ours is. That’s what we’re seeing now. It’s tragic. At this point, there’s not much I can do other than to pray for the people of China because it is absolutely a disaster what they’ve had to go through from their move to zero Covid to essentially letting it rip.

https://townhall.com//tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/12/28/dr-jay-bhattacharya-laments-how-little-the-medical-establishment-has-learned-from-chinas-covid-disaster-n2617666

**************************************************

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

**************************************************

Ivermectin Is Safe and Effective: The Evidence

The article below is right. What it overlooks is why the establishment rejected Ivermectin: Because Trump recommended it. Leftist childishness knows no bounds


Decades of use with nearly four billion doses to humans preceded recent use with COVID patients. From the chapter ‘Ivermectin sends COVID to lockdown,’ in my book The Defeat Of COVID.

Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization (WHO) List of Essential Medicines and is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This well-tolerated but potent anti-parasitic medicine has been prescribed billions of times in its 36-year history against a wide range of parasites. It is a drug in the avermectin family, so named because those compounds are produced by the soil organism Streptomyces avermitilis. It has also been studied and used against a wide range of viruses especially over the last decade, and there is evidence of potent antiviral effects against Influenza A and over a dozen other viruses tested. [309]

In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results. Studies were from all continents except Antarctica. Considered individually, 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone. Over the 63 studies in meta-analysis, pooled effects showed 69% improvement in early treatment, and prophylactic use showed 86% improvement. Of those studies in the meta-analysis that were peer-reviewed, overall improvement in early treatment was found to be 70% (64% in randomized controlled trials), and 86% of those in which ivermectin was used prophylactically showed improvement (84% in randomized controlled trials).

Mortality from COVID-19 over all time periods of delay in treatment was 76% improved over controls (69% in randomized controlled trials), whereas mortality was improved 84% in early treatment of COVID-19 (82% in randomized controlled trials). Forty studies were excluded from the meta-analysis for complicating factors or insufficient detail reported, and these also showed 100% positive results.

It is estimated that the likelihood of an ineffective treatment showing such positive results as the above results in the 63 studies in the meta-analysis to date is exceedingly small. That probability is estimated to be one in one trillion. [310] The overall results of the meta-analysis were not only found to be “overwhelmingly positive,” but also “very consistent, and very insensitive to potential selection criteria, effect extraction rules, and/or bias evaluation.” The data in the meta-analysis are as of date of this article, and are continually updated as new studies are reported.

The first clinical trial of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients was an observational study in four Florida hospitals from March to May 2020. Even in patients with severe pulmonary involvement, mortality was 38.8% in the treatment group vs 80.7% in controls, and this group showed the strongest mortality difference from controls, which raised the possibility of ivermectin also being available as a salvage or rescue treatment. [311]

In a randomized controlled trial, patients given ivermectin were 8 times more likely to be medically released than those in the placebo group. This was even though the average age and number of comorbidities were later found to be somewhat higher in the experimental group than in the control group. [312]

The African continent has had remarkably low incidence of COVID-19, particularly equatorial African countries. It may be helpful to look at African countries where ivermectin has been used commonly for decades against the onchocerciasis that it has been prescribed for, to observe population-wide effects. In this population comparison, risk of COVID-19 death was found to be 88.2% lower and morbidity 85.7% lower in 31 countries where onchocerciasis is endemic and ivermectin is commonly used than in 22 countries where neither is the case, even though the latter group of countries has a higher life expectancy, 66 years vs 61 years. [313]

Ivermectin, for all its power against viruses, is among the safest of medicines that are in long-term and widespread use. [314] There are no known serious drug-related adverse events. [315] Again, it is commonly taken by the populations of 31 African countries for effect against endemic parasites. Dosing has been given as a single annual dose of 150 mcg/kg against filariasis. There have been very few serious adverse events reported over more than 30 years of use. 37 of approximately 14,000 patients treated in Ghana had symptomatic posture hypotension, associated with fainting or sweating or tachycardia. These were treated with corticosteroids. [316] This Lancet study determined its safety in pregnant women, and the risk of fetal damage was not greater than in control women’s fetuses. [317]

However, despite this safety data going back 3 decades, the US FDA has alleged, “Any use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 should be avoided as its benefits and safety for these purposes have not been established.” The FDA offered no supporting evidence for their claim. [318] One concerning risk is that ivermectin is sold over the counter for veterinary use, and if people feel desperate to use it to ward off COVID-19, they might break off too large a piece from a large horse pill. For this reason, it is much better to consult a healthcare provider for ivermectin use and dosing. To further enhance safety, liposomal ivermectin carriers have been developed. When these were used against Dengue fever, cytotoxicity was reduced up to 5 times, absorption was faster and in vivo efficacy was improved. [319]

Despite the spectacular worldwide effect profile, of excellent effect against COVID-19, with 0.26% observed minor side effects, and its use across several continents, ivermectin is widely shunned and ignored in western Europe and in the US. Here is a brief synopsis of how that came to be.

Ivermectin was invented in Japan in 1975 as an anti-parasitic drug by Satoshi Omura, a Kitasato University professor emeritus, which earned Dr. Omura the Nobel Prize in Biochemistry. Ivermectin turned out to be quite effective against a broad spectrum of parasites. The drug was so effective in eliminating a range of parasitic infections, and at very low cost, about $0.10 US, that 3.7 billion doses have been delivered to much of the world’s population since its invention. [320]

A cell culture study in April 2020 showed a 5000 times reduction in SARS-CoV-2 from one dose over 48 hours, compared to control samples. [321] Several Latin American countries, Egypt and India soon began to use it for COVID-19, and then South Africa and several European countries as well. However, resistance remained strong in the US and western Europe, following the vocal disapproval of The World Health Organization (WHO), The US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA). These agencies all expressed disapproval of ivermectin for use with COVID-19 patients. Even after more than 20 randomized controlled clinical trials showed promising effect without adverse reactions, many western countries have still not adopted its use.

Social media companies censored ivermectin research. Even when the WHO commissioned and reported a meta-analysis of ivermectin, it was censored by YouTube. Only negative commentaries were permitted in western media. [322]

How does ivermectin send SARS-CoV-2 to lockdown? There are a number of mechanisms by which components of SARS-CoV-2 need to stay mobile and active in order to replicate, and thus to spread throughout the human body. It turns out that ivermectin binds several of these, which inactivates the virus. Let’s look at exactly what happens to bind or to lock down SARS-CoV-2.

RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) is one of the main enzymes used by SARS-CoV-2 to achieve RNA replication. It is required for viral genome replication, and therefore it is helpful if a nutrient or drug can act on it as an obstacle in some way. 173 drugs were tested in this study for their ability to bind RdRp (making it unavailable or inactive), including two examined in this book, hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C, although vitamin C was also found to have relatively high binding energy for RdRp in this study. Of all the drugs tested, ivermectin was found to bind RdRp with higher binding any energy than any other drug. [323]

One strategy against SARS-CoV-2, as well as other endemic and pandemic RNA viruses, has been to interfere with transport of viruses into a host cell’s nucleus. Ivermectin has been shown to accomplish this by binding, destabilizing and inhibiting the protein IMP alpha/beta1. When this protein is inhibited, viruses are unable to enter a cell’s nucleus, and therefore unable to replicate. Decreased infection results. IMP alpha/beta 1 has been inhibited in SARS-CoV-2 entry into nuclei by ivermectin. [324] Previously, it has been observed that ivermectin inhibited that same protein from entry of other RNA viruses, giving it a broad-spectrum antiviral effect. [325] [326] [327]

It turns out that ivermectin not only binds tightly to RdRp on SARSCoV-2, and IMP alpha/beta1; it also strongly binds the spike protein on SARS-CoV-2. This particular spike protein is trimeric, meaning it has 3 subunits which vary in amino acid sequences or other ways. It was observed that ivermectin binds all three of the SARS-CoV-2 subunits, both the structural S2 subunit, as well as both of the two functional S1 subunits. [328] This binding of all 3 subunits of the trimeric spike protein may be considered a trifecta of fortunate results of ivermectin in favor of the human host and in opposition to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Ivermectin has different mechanisms against parasites, already a miraculous healing drug for that use alone through much of the world’s population. However, now that we learn of its tremendous effect in binding both RdRp and all three trimers of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, we are certainly fortunate to have this medicine in our arsenal against COVID-19. It is inexpensive, and full COVID-19 treatment of an individual, from first dose till last needed can be less than one US dollar. Ivermectin is therefore available to even the poorest communities in the world. Ivermectin is being compared to the discovery of penicillin in its enormous impact, and perhaps was one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century. [329] The fact that this tremendously effective, safe and low-cost antiviral drug is not as thoroughly known to the world as penicillin is a chasm of inexcusable and deadly ignorance that the COVID era is giving the world an opportunity to correct.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/ivermectin-is-safe-and-effective-the-evidence_4944960.html

*******************************************************

Is the CDC Shortening Americans’ Lives?

It’s one thing when government raises your taxes, suffocates your business with regulations or censors your tweets. It’s far worse when government is to blame for actually shortening your life.

American life expectancy dropped to 76.4 years, the lowest in 25 years, according to new federal data. Americans should be gasping. What could be more important than having the chance to live a long life?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention repeatedly has blown its responses to health killers like fentanyl, Covid, and lung cancer. All the while, life expectancy gets shorter and shorter.

In 1980, Americans had one of the best life expectancies in the world. Since then, America has lost ground. People live several years longer in France, Switzerland, Italy, and other highly developed countries, reaching ages 83 or 84 on average.

Residents of the Czech Republic, Chile, and Slovenia can expect longer lives than Americans. Even before Covid, America ranked 29th in life expectancy, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The virus merely widened an already alarming gap between America and other nations.

Now, life expectancy in these other nations is rebounding from Covid, while American lives continue to be cut short due to other causes.

Start with the failure of our government, especially the CDC, to tackle the leading cause of death among Americans ages 18 to 49: overdosing. Two-thirds of these deaths are from fentanyl.

Nearly 107,000 Americans died of overdoses in 2021, about 50 percent more than just two years earlier.

Where’s the campaign to combat fentanyl deaths? Over the last half-century, American health agencies waged several stunningly successful media campaigns to dissuade Americans from smoking cigarettes. The CDC has done nothing like that to fight this new killer.

Blame the agency’s mission confusion. In September 2021, as overdoses soared and Covid raged, the CDC launched a campaign for “inclusive communication.”

The agency instructed health care workers to avoid stigmatizing words like “illegal immigrant” and substitute “parent” for gender-tainted terms like “mother” and “father.” As if political correctness is more important than preventing deaths.

The CDC’s failed response to Covid further depressed American life expectancy. Agency head Rochelle Walensky said, “To be frank, we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes, from testing to data to communications.”

America has had a higher per capita death rate from Covid than other developed countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Canada.

As Covid fades, the CDC’s inaction on another front — lung cancer screening — is limiting progress on life expectancy for cancer patients, where America is otherwise a leader.

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer, taking about 130,000 lives a year. That’s more than breast, prostate and colon cancer deaths combined. Because lung cancer is rarely diagnosed before it spreads, the chances of survival are an abysmal 18 percent.

But when lung cancer is diagnosed early with a CT chest scan, a patient has an 80 percent chance of living another 20 years, reports a radiology expert at New York City’s Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, Claudia Henschke. That sure beats 18 percent.

The scan takes 15 minutes lying flat on a table that glides in and out of the scanning machine. There’s no squeezing like with a mammogram and no yucky preparation like with a colonoscopy.

The technology is widely available, recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and covered by insurance, but few doctors know to order it, and few patients know to ask. Blame the CDC for this knowledge gap. Only 15 percent of Americans who need lung screening are getting it.

On December 20, the White House announced a pilot project to “screen and treat” cancer. Oh, sorry, that’s not for America. It’s for women in Botswana. Laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

Ten years ago, Americans were told the biggest health challenge was the uninsured. Congress passed Obamacare. Now only 9 percent of Americans are uninsured, but the whole nation faces the prospect of shorter life expectancy.

For those lost years, you can thank federal health officials, especially the dysfunctional CDC. Call it the Centers for Decline and Confusion.

https://www.nysun.com/article/thank-government-for-americans-shorter-lives

**************************************************

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

**************************************************

With new pricing law, the Feds can make drug firms offers they really can't refuse

This is an attempt to fix a problem that regulation has created. The best part of it is that most of it seems highly likely to fail under constitutional challege. See the 5th and 8th amendments.

High drug prices are a real problem but the most lasting way of bringing them down would be a great reduction in regulatory barriers on marketing them. Regulatory barriers mean that it can cost bilions to bring a new drug to market. And guess who pays the cost of that in the end? It's Joe citizen. The drugmakers have to cover their costs or there will be no more drugs.

And the companies have to make big profits in good times to finance the big losses they experience when a drug fails to get approval after a lot of expensive trials

The best way to get costs down would be to allow marketing of "experimental" drugs after initial trials under a warning that people take them "at your own risk". Doctors would not prescribe them if there were serious probable risks

President Biden has promised that the $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law this August, will “lower the cost of prescription drugs and health care for families” thanks to provisions that allow the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate the price of some medications directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Critics are decidedly less enthusiastic. They say the IRA’s new drug price provisions are more akin to government price-fixing than negotiation – an unprecedented power grab in health care.

As of Oct. 1, the new law requires drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if the costs of certain drugs rise faster than annual inflation. If the government determines that the price of a drug increased 6% and the inflation rate that year was 4% – regardless of how or why the price rose – the manufacturer will be required to pay the government back the 2% difference in the price. The law does not provide an appeals process.

And starting in 2026, the IRA permits the government to “negotiate” a “maximum fair price” for certain prescription drugs purchased by the Medicare program. Under the new law, “negotiation” means the HHS determines the price it wants to pay for a specified medicine. Drug manufacturers can counteroffer, but if HHS doesn’t budge, the pharmaceutical company has no choice but to accept that price. Otherwise, the IRS will be empowered to slap the company with a “noncompliance” excise tax of up to 1,900% of the medicine’s daily U.S. revenue until the manufacturer sells the drug at the price HHS has set or withdraws from the market.

“I don’t believe that’s negotiation,” said Matt Wetzel, a Washington, D.C. lawyer at Goodwin Procter who specializes in health care policy. “This is the opportunity to give one counteroffer and then a price cap is generated.”

Cory Andrews of the Washington Legal Foundation, a free-market advocacy group in Washington, D.C., was even more blunt: “No matter how obscured by a regulatory haze, strong-arm robbery is not a ‘negotiation’ for a ‘fair’ price.”

HHS did not respond to a request for comment on the new drug pricing provisions. Rep. Curt Schrader of Oregon, a Democrat who claimed a central role in the measure's bipartisan passage after his early objections, also declined to comment.

Although the new rules will only cover a relatively small number of high-priced medicines, critics say this new authority could set a far-reaching precedent for Medicare, which purchases more than 30% (roughly $130 billion per year) of all prescription drugs in the United States. While raising constitutional issues, it may also hinder the development of new drugs.

In October, HHS produced a report to promote its new powers to compel rebates for drugs that exceed inflation, emphasizing that more than 1,200 drugs rose faster than the cost of inflation between July 2021 and July 2022, and the average price increase was 31%.

The powerful pharmaceutical industry, whose deep-pocketed lobbyists have a reputation for very rarely suffering legislative defeats, appears to be keeping its powder dry so far. Brian Newell, a spokesman for the drug manufacturer advocacy group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said that for now the industry is evaluating its legal options.

If a drug manufacturer objects to the price dictated by HHS or thinks the government has unfairly calculated the inflation rebates, it has little legal recourse even if it can be demonstrated that the price the government wants them to accept is below manufacturer cost. The law also contains language prohibiting judicial or administrative review of whether the drug is eligible for negotiation or the price that is set. The IRA also imposes fines of up to $1 million a day if the company fails to provide HHS with any information it demands. And if a drug company is determined to have “knowingly” provided inaccurate information to the government, it can be fined up to $100 million.

The only way a manufacturer can exit a negotiation is if it chooses to withdraw all its products from being purchased by Medicare and Medicaid. Pulling out would be a financially ruinous move since those programs are far and away the largest buyers of prescription drugs in America.

Andrews called the price dictates radical and unprecedented in American history. “Apart from one or two rare wartime exceptions, due process requires that a party deprived of property must have the opportunity to be heard,” he said. “The IRA's bar on administrative or judicial review is an unprecedented deprivation of due process.”

In addition, the law gives Health and Human Services three years’ leeway. “CMS and HHS, for purposes of the statute will issue guidance through program instructions for the first three years and not through Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” Wetzel said. “In other words, for the first three years, CMS has sort of full latitude to implement the program as it sees fit without public input and without stakeholder input or feedback, as is typically the case when implementing regulations.” Wetzel added that CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency within HHS responsible for administering the law, has already submitted a plan to Congress noting that implementing the law will require adding six new divisions to the agency and 95 new federal employees.

'Price Negotiation' Redefined

Containing rising drug costs has long been a priority for reining in Medicare spending. The program has $103 trillion in unfunded liabilities, more than three times the national debt, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Democrats have long sought to leverage the government’s buying power to drive down drug prices as a way to address both Medicare spending and overall health care costs without having to make structural reforms to a popular social program. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, prescription drugs “account for 10% of national health spending and nearly 20% of health benefit costs for large employers.”

Government negotiations over Medicare drug prices were legally forbidden until the passage of the IRA. In 2003, Congress passed the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act” which created Medicare Part D (Medicare’s prescription drug benefit program). As part of that legislation, Congress included what’s become known as Medicare’s “noninterference” clause which states “the [HHS] Secretary may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies,” along with forbidding government intervention with other relevant entities that play a role in the drug market. According to PhRMA, the purpose of the noninterference clause was to preserve market competition within the Medicare program which helps drive prices down.

Since then, congressional Democrats had been attempting to repeal the noninterference clause, and it’s long been clear “drug price negotiation” was being redefined to include price controls and other regulatory inducements. Most notably, in 2007 the House passed the “Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007,” but the legislation died after Senate opposition and President George W. Bush’s threatened veto. According to The New York Times, Republicans opposed government drug price negotiations because “private insurers and their agents, known as pharmacy benefit managers, were already negotiating large discounts for Medicare beneficiaries.”

This view was affirmed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that allowing HHS to negotiate the price of drugs would have a “negligible effect” on federal spending. However, in 2007 the CBO told Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, a longtime champion of Medicare drug price negotiation, that coercive tactics might produce the results Democrats wanted to see. “Negotiation is likely to be effective only if it is accompanied by some source of pressure on drug manufacturers to secure price concessions,” said the CBO. “The authority to establish a formulary, set prices administratively, or take other regulatory actions against firms failing to offer price reductions could give the Secretary the ability to obtain significant discounts in negotiations with drug manufacturers.”

Given the statutory language forbidding judicial or administrative review, the pharmaceutical industry’s options are limited if it chooses to fight. Legal experts say the Constitution – which prohibits the government from taking property without just compensation in the Fifth Amendment and from imposing “excessive fines” under the Eighth Amendment – may provide the best grounds for a challenge, especially if HHS uses its new powers aggressively.

Slowing New Drug Development

“Under the IRA, the offense may be no more than a manufacturer’s hesitation to agree to give away its product at far-below-market prices,” Andrews said. “The IRA’s eye-popping, nine-figure fines bear no conceivable connection to any government injury.” A conservative Supreme Court, he said, might be sympathetic to these arguments. In the 2012 case NFIB v. Sebelius, the high court rebuked the government for a similarly punitive legislative scheme. In that instance, the federal government had framed the decision of state governments to expand the Medicaid program as a choice, even though it threatened to withdraw states’ existing Medicaid funding if they did not agree to the costly expansion. Chief Justice John Roberts described that arrangement as a “gun to the head.”

There are also warning signs coming from the pharmaceutical industry that the new law could slow the development of new drugs. In late October, Alnylam, a biotech company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, announced it was pulling one of its drugs out of a clinical trial because it needed “to evaluate impact of the Inflation Reduction Act.” The snag was that the drug Alnylam was evaluating as a treatment for a rare eye disorder called Stargardt disease was already approved to treat a different condition, amyloidosis. According to the new law, drugs that treat only one rare disease are exempt from being forced into price negotiations. If the drug were found to be effective for two diseases, Alnylam might be forced into selling it for a reduced or unprofitable price.

Alnylam seems unlikely to be the only company to pull a potential cure or treatment off the market in an attempt to avoid price controls. A study published by the University of Chicago in November concluded that the IRA’s price controls will result in the pharmaceutical industry spending $663 billion less on research and development through 2039, which will result in 135 fewer new drugs making it to market. In contrast, the CBO estimates that the decline in research and development spending would result in only five fewer drugs being produced during that time span.

Regardless of how much price controls impact innovation, congressional Democrats have produced reports arguing that pharmaceutical companies have engaged in anticompetitive behavior and blatant price-gouging. The IRA’s price controls seem to be a direct response to this concern. The law specifically caps Medicare insulin prices, which have increased 600% in the last 20 years and are significantly higher in America than anywhere else in the developed world. But despite headline-grabbing examples of rising drug costs, the industry also claims that the government has overstated the problems of rising pharmaceutical costs to justify regulation.

PhRMA argues that focusing on the cost of only 1,200 of the more than 20,000 prescription drugs available in the U.S. doesn’t paint the full picture. “If there's one thing in all the inflation data that hasn't been rising as fast as the rate of inflation, it's actually drug prices,” Newell said. “Overall drug prices have been going up roughly 1% to 2% while the economy has been running hot on inflation.” From June 2021 to June 2022, roughly the same time period covered by the HHS report, the government’s official Consumer Price Index data affirms Newell, noting that drug prices rose somewhere between 0.1 and 2.5%. HHS did not respond to a request for comment on why its study on drug prices rising faster than inflation focuses only on a narrow subset of the prescription drug market.

But big-picture inflation data can also be misleading. Relatively inexpensive, generic medicines account for about 90% of the prescriptions filled, while a small number of expensive specialty drugs – defined as those with a price of at least $830 per month and mostly produced by major pharmaceutical companies – eat up a huge share of government spending. According to a 2019 CRS report, “specialty drugs are about 1% of Part D prescriptions but account for more than 25% of spending, up from 6% in 2007.” The fact that such a small percentage of drugs are disproportionately expensive is one reason why Democrats think giving HHS the power to set prices for as few as 20 widely used and expensive specialty drugs could help lower overall costs.

At the same time, PhRMA spokesperson Newell expresses frustration that the new legislation focuses so narrowly on lowering prices rather than examining the incentives that raise costs for drug companies. While Congress points the finger at pharmaceutical companies, they’re not addressing the fact high drug prices are also created by a heavily regulated pharmaceutical market mandating complex interactions between drug companies, insurers, pharmacies, hospitals, government rebates, and federal drug discount programs.

“We haven't really looked at this insuranc e system that we have today and what's really driving what patients pay at the pharmacy,” says Newell, adding, “There are things in the system today that just aren't working. At the end of day, we haven't fixed the fact that years from now patients with insurance will show up at the pharmacy and get stuck with a bill that they can't afford.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/27/with_new_pricing_law_the_feds_can_make_drug_firms_offers_they_really_cant_refuse_871962.html?mc_cid=0e20e8729b&mc_eid=012a6b3e32

**************************************************

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

**************************************************

Boxing day

I am still in holiday mode so am posting on my personal blog only: https://memoirsjr.blogspot.com/

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all who come by here

I do not intend to post anything (other than this note) on any of my blogs today. I will be busy enjoying a family Christmas instead.

I have in the past often abandoned my pagan ways long enough to go to church on Christmas day. I will not be doing that today but I did go to a service yesterday at a Seventh Day Adventist church. Adventist beliefs seem generally well founded in scripture so I enjoy an SDA service as well as the Presbyterian services I was brought up to.

On this occasion, my girlfriend wanted to go to a specific SDA church so I was happy to accompany her. I thought the sermon was reasonable and I enjoyed belting out the traditional Christmas hymns

**************************************************

Unvaccinated Blood Is Now in Very High Demand

It’s unknown whether blood donated by people who’ve received mRNA COVID-19 shots poses a risk to those who receive it. A growing number of people aren’t willing to take any chances, however, and are requesting blood that comes from unvaccinated patients. One high-profile case involves a 4-month-old baby, Will Savage-Reeves, in New Zealand, who needs surgery for a heart valve disorder.

His parents, Samantha and Cole, requested the infant receive blood only from donors who have not received COVID-19 shots. While unvaccinated blood is available, the doctors and hospital refused to grant the request. The case was heard before a New Zealand court, which sided with the doctors and took guardianship of the child to proceed with the surgery using vaccinated blood.1,2

Hospital Refuses Family’s Request for Unvaccinated Blood

The outcome of baby Will’s case may serve as a harbinger of things to come. The hospital argued that the surgery should proceed using vaccinated blood because of the importance of finding a quality match. A large pool of donor blood raises the possibility of finding the highest quality match.

In addition, according to Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, another of their arguments is, “If there were a safety signal from using vaccinated blood for transfusions, it would have surfaced by now.” They also want to keep up appearances, and allowing one patient to use unvaccinated blood may open the floodgates to others requesting the same. Kirsch noted:3

“If they agree to use unvaccinated blood, it could be interpreted as an admission that vaccinated blood is not safe and could lead to everyone requesting unvaccinated blood which would then create severe blood shortages for a dubious benefit.”

Further, the New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) manages blood donations and collections in New Zealand. Only a specialist doctor can request directed donation for the baby to received unvaccinated blood.

But, Kirsch noted, “The clinicians responsible for the surgery determined that there was insufficient evidence to make a special request … The hospital cannot compel the NZBS to do what it says, e.g., even if the doctors agreed with the parents, NZBS can still refuse to supply the blood if it doesn’t think the request is justified.”4

The hospital also claimed mRNA shots “to date remain safe.”5 According to Kirsch, “The court, lacking the legal and technical ability to second guess the doctors, therefore sided with the expert opinion of the doctors.”6

The media, meanwhile, are painting the reasonable request to honor the precautionary principle as a conspiracy theory and disinformation dreamed up by fringe “anti-vaxxers.” Case in point, The New York Times reported:7

“The case, and the family’s flawed scientific arguments, highlight the continuing dangers of online misinformation and conspiracist narratives, experts say. The dispute has ‘become a cause célèbre in the most toxic way,’ prompting a spike in hate speech on fringe platforms where conspiracy theories run rife, said Sanjana Hattotuwa, a researcher at the Disinformation Project, a New Zealand monitoring group.”

Not only did the New Zealand health service refuse the family’s request, but New Zealand’s High Court granted two doctors authority to make medical decisions regarding baby Will.8 It didn’t need to go this far, supporters have stated, since there is ready availability of blood from unvaccinated donors.9

In a similar case in Italy, however, a judge also ruled against parents who requested blood transfusions only from unvaccinated donors be used during their 2-year-old son’s heart surgery.10

Embalmers Find Unusual Clots in Veins Post-Shots

Richard Hirschman, a board-certified embalmer and funeral director with more than 20 years of experience, has come forward stating that, in the time period since COVID-19 shots were rolled out, starting around the middle of 2021, he’s been finding “strange clots” in the bodies of the deceased.

“When I do the embalming, I have to go into the vein. And in order for the embalming process, I have to allow blood to be drained. So I actually pulled this huge, long clot — fibrous looking clot — out prior to an embalming,” Hirschman said.11

The beginning of the clot, which resembles a white, rubbery worm, appears red and like a normal clot. But the majority of the clot is different: It’s composed of a white, fibrous material. “It just isn’t normal,” he said, adding:12

“Typically, a blood clot is smooth; it’s blood that has coagulated together. But when you squeeze it, or touch it or try to pick it up, it generally falls apart … you can almost squeeze it between your fingers and get it back to blood again. But this white fibrous stuff is pretty strong. It’s not weak at all. You can manipulate it, it’s very pliable. It’s not hard … it is not normal. I don’t know how anybody can live with something like this inside of them.”

What’s important to note is embalmers have reported finding unusual clots not only in deceased people who’ve received the shots but also in those who have had a blood transfusion. So while we don’t know what risk there is from receiving blood from someone who’s had COVID-19 shots, “the risk is not zero,” Kirsch said.13

Another case involves a baby, Alexander, who received a vaccinated blood transfusion and developed “an enormous clot that eventually stretched from his left knee, all the way to his heart,” and died.14 According to Kirsch, the hospital then went on to delete all related medical records:15

“Sacred Heart Hospital in Washington State has erased all records of the death of baby Alex who died from a blood clot after receiving a transfusion from a vaccinated patient. So there is no evidence of a problem anymore. They erased it, just like the CDC erased all data linking vaccines and autism. This is how science works nowadays.”

Is the Blood Supply Safe? Nobody Knows

In the U.S., a person is in need of blood every two seconds.16 If you have a medical emergency, getting a blood transfusion can be life-saving. But should patients have the option of choosing to receive blood that hasn’t been exposed to mRNA COVID-19 shots?

The Red Cross states they’re following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s blood donation eligibility guidance, which states, “In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom-free and feeling well at the time of donation.”17

“While the antibodies that are produced by the stimulated immune system in response to vaccination are found throughout the bloodstream, the actual vaccine components are not,” Jessa Merrill, Red Cross director of biomedical communications, told The Daily Beast.18 Further, after speaking to Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist, Kirsch reported:19

“He said he’d take the vaccinated blood because of the critical nature of the matching process. With donor blood, the match quality would not be as good because there is a smaller pool to draw from, and it’s not just blood type that is matched.

Nobody has quantified the risk of using vaccinated blood. He said if the risk were high, it would have been noticed by now (I’m not sure I agree with that; there is a lot of willful blindness for anything associated with the vaccine).”

Many Contracted AIDS Via Tainted Blood Transfusions

Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole compared the current unknowns regarding “vaccinated blood” with HIV-tainted blood that was used for transfusions in the 1980s:20

“We don’t know. Nobody knows. I have clots from unvaccinated deceased that were transfused and formed large clots post transfusion and died. No blood bank is checking. ‘One cannot find, that for which they do not look.’ This is akin to blood banks and hemophiliacs and HIV in the 1980s. It may not be a problem.

However, it may be. There are assays academically available to check for circulating spike protein. It is criminal negligence to not assure the safety of the blood supply based on bureaucratic declarations without scientific explorations.”

Similarly, in January 1983, after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed evidence strongly suggesting blood and blood products transmitted AIDS and the disease was sexually transmitted, it recommended blood banks directly question donors about their sexual behavior and run blood donations through a series of screening tests.21

The blood bank community issued a statement soon after, stating “direct or indirect questions about a donor’s sexual preference are inappropriate” and not recommending any laboratory screening tests.22 As noted by Encyclopedia.com:23

“In fact, in the early years of the disease, many of the people who contracted AIDS were infected through blood transfusions. Because it took more than five years to develop a test to check for AIDS in blood before it was used in a transfusion, many people got the disease in hospitals.

The AIDS epidemic continued to grow in Africa and Asia during the 1990s and even in the early 21st century because many nations were slow to adopt blood testing.”

In the 1980s, increasing fears over tainted transfusions led many people to say they’d refuse donated blood entirely. One man, whose wife died of AIDS contracted through a contaminated transfusion, told the AP in 1985, “You want to play Russian Roulette? Even if it were an emergency — and I had some say in the matter — I wouldn’t take blood out of the pool.”24

Now, decades later, doctors are hearing similar concerns from patients regarding vaccinated blood. Dr. Davinder Sidhu, the division head for transfusion and transplant medicine for southern Alberta, Canada, told CTV News he gets requests for blood from unvaccinated donors “at least once or twice a month over the last several months.”25

Is it Your Right to Receive ‘Unvaccinated’ Blood?

As it stands, blood donation centers may ask about vaccines their donors have received,26 but it’s not guaranteed that this information will be passed on to consumers. The Red Cross also states, “If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate.”27

Still, it’s unlikely that most hospitals will readily divulge this information when it comes to receiving a blood transfusion. So what are your options if you’re looking for blood from a donor that’s hasn’t received a COVID-19 shot? Directed donations, in which a donor donates blood for a specified receiver, are an option, but they’re typically only used in cases where matched blood is unavailable due to extremely rare blood types.28

Autologous donations, or self-donation, is another option, in which you donate blood for your own use, such as before a medical procedure like surgery. In both cases, you’ll need your doctor to submit a Red Cross Special Collections Order form to complete an autologous or directed blood donation.29

A “Safe Blood” donation campaign has also been formed to match blood donors and recipients who have not had COVID-19 shots. For now, they’re acting as a resource to match donors with those in need of blood, but the hope is that an mRNA-free blood bank will be established:30

“There is no blood bank with mRNA-free blood yet, not even with us. And, although we have already asked hundreds of clinics, at the moment — at least in Europe — all of them still refuse to allow the human right of free blood choice with them — or at least do not want to be mentioned, because otherwise they fear reprisals. However, we promise you that we will not give up until we can offer a worldwide network of such clinics.”

As for baby Will, whose parents’ hopes for an mRNA-free blood transfusion have been dashed, Kirsch said:31

“Whatever happened to the precautionary principle of medicine? In my opinion, this isn’t a close call. We can’t know today if the blood supply is safe because nobody wants to even ask the question and do the experiments required to answer it. For that reason, Baby Will’s parents’ request to use unvaccinated blood should be respected.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/unvaccinated-blood-is-now-in-very-high-demand_4934809.html

**************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH) 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

**************************************************

Australian scientists could have found the ‘masterswitch’ to kill cancer

As I have benefited greatly from immunotherapy, I am pleased to hear of another immunotherapy advance. Specific substances are needed to energize attacks on specific types of cancer cell. Keytruda worked like a charm on my SCCs

Queensland medical researchers are on the brink of a staggering breakthrough that sees palpable tumours completely melting away, offering hope to sufferers of two of the deadliest types of cancers.

QIMR Berghofer scientists have potentially found the “masterswitch” that turns on the immune system to target disease in patients with triple-negative breast cancer and the most common form of bowel cancer, Micro Satellite Stable (MSS) bowel cancer.

The remarkable research findings could finally provide hope for a new, effective therapy but funding is desperately needed to progress the exciting preclinical results into clinical trials.

Associate Professor Michelle Wykes, group leader of Molecular Immunology at QIMR Berghofer, discovered the potential “masterswitch” that turns on a key type of immune cell called dendritic cells while researching immune responses to malaria.

Dendritic cells act like the generals of the immune system waking up other immune cells such as T cells and telling them what to attack and the weapons to use. However, cancer cells are very good at hiding from the immune system. In preclinical testing, the “masterswitch” antibodies make the cancers visible again, so the dendritic cells can go back to work and ‘organise’ the T cells to kill the cancer.

Associate Professor Wykes said further testing of the “masterswitch” antibodies on cancer patient blood samples produced similar results to the testing in preclinical lab work.

“We’re seeing palpable tumours that completely disappear and melt away. In our preclinical lab models, 80 per cent of both the triple negative breast cancers and colon cancers were cleared and hadn’t grown back after ten months. We’re seeing similar results from our tests on samples taken from patients with colon cancer,” she said.

“These patients urgently need help and I have something that I think could really help them, but we need funding to bring us together with a treatment. We’re appealing to the generosity of Australians this Christmas to help us advance this vital research and bring hope to patients and their loved ones,” Assoc Prof Wykes said.

Brisbane mum Justine Dillon was at peak physical fitness when she was diagnosed with highly aggressive stage four bowel cancer and given 18 months to live.

The researchers are working with clinicians at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital who collected samples from patients for the researchers to test in the laboratory.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qimr-berghofer-scientists-could-have-found-the-masterswitch-to-kill-cancer/news-story/0d8c9364b4e905f9ebe4c785717b207a

***********************************************

Scientists say they may have uncovered a new treatment for one of the most common symptoms of Long Covid

Researchers at Yale University managed to lift the “brain fog” of eight patients with the condition who were given a mixture of guanfacine, commonly used for ADHD, and an antioxidant called N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which in the UK is mainly used to treat paracetamol overdose and respiratory illnesses.

So far, the treatment has only been tested on a small number of Long Covid sufferers, who were also mainly women, though researchers said the study looked promising for more extensive clinical trials.

But given the potentially devastating and widespread impact of Long Covid, researchers believe doctors should consider prescribing guanfacine to patients.

“If patients have a physician who can read our paper, we’re hoping that they can access help right now,” neuroscientist Amy Arnsten said.

She and her team believe that the combination of drugs could prove “immediately useful“ to millions of sufferers.

Some 2.3 million people in the UK are estimated to be living with long Covid, official figures show.

According to the NHS, brain fog elicits a similar feeling to the effects of sleep deprivation or stress. It lists common symptoms of brain fog as poor concentration, feeling confused, thinking more slowly than usual, fuzzy thoughts, forgetfulness, lost words and mental fatigue.

It’s not necessarily a symptom of those who were hospitalised with Covid and people usually recover from it.

“There’s a paucity of treatment out there for long Covid brain fog, so when I kept seeing the benefits of this treatment in patients, I felt a sense of urgency to disseminate this information,” neurologist Arman Fesharaki-Zadeh explained.

“You don’t need to wait to be part of a research trial. You can ask your physician – these drugs are affordable and widely available.”

Mr Fesharaki-Zadeh first decided to try the drug combination after considering the inflammatory effects of Covid on the human body.

The team of researchers has since tested the treatment on a dozen other patients suffering from Long Covid. Participants took 600 milligrams of NAC daily and one milligram of guanfacine at bedtime.

After a month, the guanfacine dosage was increased to two milligrams.

All eight participants who finished the trial reported substantial benefits to their memory, organisational skills, and multi-tasking abilities. While some said it cured their brain fog completely, others said they had recovered their sense of self.

The study was published in Neuroimmunology Reports.

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2865134482448/scientists-hail-new-treatment-for-one-of-most-common-long-covid-symptoms

****************************************************

Judge Approves $10 Million Settlement for Health Care Workers Fired Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

A U.S. judge approved a multimillion-dollar settlement on Dec. 19 for workers who were fired by an Illinois health care system for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 500 workers who were terminated or, after seeing their exemption requests denied, got a COVID-19 vaccine, will receive compensation as part of the $10.3 million settlement, a preliminary version of which was first announced in July.

U.S. District Judge John Kness, a Trump appointee overseeing the lawsuit brought by the workers, issued verbal approval for the settlement during a hearing, lawyers for Liberty Counsel and NorthShore University Healthsystem said. Kness plans to release a written judgment in the next week.

In a brief statement emailed to The Epoch Times after Kness’s approval, NorthShore wrote, “We are pleased with the Court’s approval of a supportive resolution to this matter and continue to prioritize the health and safety of our patients and team members.”

Harry Mihet, vice president of legal affairs for Liberty Counsel, said in a statement that the group was “pleased to finally get the court’s final approval of this classwide settlement for these health care workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate.”

“This case should set a precedent for other employers who have violated the law by denying religious exemptions for their employees,” he said.

Liberty Counsel, a legal group that brings cases of alleged religious discrimination, was representing the 13 named plaintiffs in the case. The group successfully won class certification for all workers who were denied religious exemptions, a group that was initially believed to be 499 former and current workers but swelled after the preliminary settlement agreement to at least 519.

As of Dec. 12, 493 class members had submitted claims for a piece of the settlement.

Each worker who was fired stands to receive $24,225. Each worker who remained at the company stands to receive $3,725.

The named plaintiffs are in line to receive an extra $20,000. Those payments, described as service awards, will provide compensation for the plaintiffs helping advise on court filings, gathering documents, and serving as lead plaintiffs “in a sensitive case involving personal health choices and religious beliefs over a matter of intense public debate, even when it was uncertain whether they would have to disclose their identities to the public,” according to a recent filing.

Three workers objected to the settlement, but both parties urged the judge to disregard the objections, which were largely based on pay the trio felt they were owed after being fired.

Marzena Novak, one of the objectors, said her actual losses from being fired and losing pay approached $140,000.

“Although the estimated $25,000 is helpful and will be welcomed, it doesn’t come close to the actual losses suffered by those they treated so poorly,” Novak wrote.

Mandate

Like many health care systems, NorthShore imposed a vaccine mandate on employees in 2021.

NorthShore told workers that they could file a request for a religious exemption using a form that said the worker in question needed to provide “a description of my sincerely held religious principle or practice that guides my objection to receiving the required vaccination.” Northshore explicitly instructed applicants to not fill out lengthy answers.

NorthShore initially approved some of the exemption requests but then reversed the decisions and denied “all or virtually all of them,” according to filings from the plaintiffs. Officials said the employees failed to meet the standard for religious exemptions.

Employees who wanted a second look were told to file an appeal that included their vaccination history since they were 18. NorthShore then said that any religious objections based on “aborted fetal cell lines, stem cells, tissue, or derivative materials” would result in denials because those products were “not in NorthShore administered vaccines.” All of the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States have links to aborted fetal cell lines.

At one point, one of the plaintiffs said, her manager said that “we are not approving anyone” for exemptions, although at least several were approved.

“Instead of engaging Plaintiffs in good faith, NorthShore denied Plaintiffs’ religious exemption requests en masse, providing nothing more than copy and paste responses, informing them that they lacked ‘evidence-based criteria,’ whatever that means,” one filing reads. “By failing to engage any of the Plaintiffs and its numerous employees with religious objections in good faith, NorthShore had no way to know whether an acceptable accommodation might have been appropriate. The only responses received by Plaintiffs and NorthShore’s employees were one-size-fits-all blanket denials.”

The plaintiffs said the treatment violated the Civil Rights Act, which requires employers to treat workers similarly, and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of “right of conscience.”

NorthShore repeatedly denied that it violated the law.

The system also stated that it was “an undue hardship” to let unvaccinated staff work at NorthShore and that “it initially denied many exemption requests and that on appeal it reconsidered some decisions and chose not to challenge that the requests were made based on sincerely held religious beliefs.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-approves-10-million-settlement-for-health-care-workers-fired-over-covid-19-vaccine-mandate_4932982.html

**************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH) 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

**************************************************