Friday, January 28, 2022

Doctor’s offering early treatment of Covid have Treated Over 150,000 COVID-19 Patients With 99.99 Percent Survival

A doctor who has been offering free telehealth services to COVID-19 patients during the pandemic says that early treatment for COVID-19 works, claiming that he has a 99.99 percent survival rate.

“We have a team of volunteer free doctors that donate their time to help treat these patients that come to us,” Dr. Ben Marble, the founder of, an online medical consultation service, said at a roundtable discussion hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Jan. 24.

He added, “We deliver the early treatment protocols to them as early as we can, and we have a 99.99 percent survival rate. So, I believe, the free volunteered doctors have settled the science on this—early treatment works, period!”

Marble was answering Johnson’s question about what people can do if they or their loved ones have COVID-19.

People can visit the website, create an account, and fill out a patient intake form if the doctors are accepting new patients for that day. One of the doctors will then reach out in less than 24 hours. With a huge demand for their services, the physicians say they can only “accept a certain number of patients each day.”

Marble says that he and his small team of volunteer doctors prescribe Dr. Peter McCullough’s treatment protocol, which consists of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, and other low-cost generic drugs. They also prescribe vitamins D and C, and zinc.

McCullough, a cardiologist, and epidemiologist, along with several physicians put together an early treatment protocol to provide outpatient care for COVID-19 patients. Their paper was published in The American Journal of Medicine in August 2020.

Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and the President at the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, says that the public is not aware that there are doctors across the country who will provide telehealth and early treatment for COVID-19.

“On our website, we have a button, which says find a provider. We’ve tried to collect as many telehealth providers that treat all states in the country,” Kory said.

“We are trying to let that message be known because that message is being suppressed that this disease is treatable,” he added.

Kory also claims that there is corruption at the federal level in suppressing early treatment with repurposed cheap drugs and their availability and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been “captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“The corruption is because they don’t want you to use off-label, repurposed generic medicines. It does not provide profit to the system,” Kory said, adding that, “you know what’s going on in this country right now, is that the CDC has been captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“They sent out a memo in August of 2021, they sent out a similar memo back in the spring 2020, telling the nation’s physicians and pharmacists not to use generic medicines.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to the CDC for comment.

Early treatments were and continue to be discouraged by the CDC, whose guidance since the beginning of the pandemic up until January 2022, only focused on people self-quarantining for 14 days, keeping hydrated, taking analgesics, and only seeking hospital care when they can’t breathe or turn blue. They also warned people to not take any medications not approved for COVID-19.

“People have been seriously harmed and even died after taking products not approved for use to treat or prevent COVID-19, even products approved or prescribed for other uses,” the CDC wrote on its potential treatments webpage.

The weblink provided for the alleged harmful product was related to a March 2020 health alert warning of a serious health effect from ingesting non-pharmaceutical chloroquine phosphate used to clean fish tanks. This alert came after an Arizona man and his wife took the non-pharmaceutical drug in an attempt to self-medicate for COVID-19.

For the past two years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only authorized limited early outpatient treatments for COVID-19 that include monoclonal antibodies for high-risk patients and antiviral pills from Merck and Pfizer. However, the FDA on Jan. 24 announced it was limiting the use of Eli Lilly and Regeneron monoclonal antibodies only to patients “likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.”

Johnson held the roundtable discussion to offer a different perspective on the response to the pandemic, including on “the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.”

The discussion panel consisted of health experts and scientists that included McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Paul Marik.

According to a press release, Johnson also invited over a dozen prominent figures involved in developing, promoting, and leading the pandemic response, including the CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeffrey Zients. All of the individuals declined to attend the forum.


COVID-19 oral antivirals have been embraced in much of the US and could be a pandemic game changer

Jeff Carlson is a keen cyclist who has kept active throughout the pandemic, and is double-vaccinated and boosted.

But as he lay on his couch struggling for breath, he felt worse than he could ever remember feeling in his life.

Within a day or two of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, the 61-year-old from Minnesota was "going downhill" fast. "I was laying on my couch. A lot of my body functions were slowing," he said.

His blood oxygen levels, which he measures regularly because of underlying health conditions, dropped dangerously low. In his condition, he could have been sent straight to hospital.

But his telehealth team offered him what he now describes as a "miracle drug": a course of one of the newly authorised oral antivirals for COVID-19.

A friend picked the pills up at the pharmacy for him. Mr Carlson said less than 24 hours later, things were turning around.

A week later he could barely believe he had been sick at all. "I'm back out exercising … and I don't have any side effects," he said.

Mr Carlson was among the very first Americans to be prescribed oral antivirals for COVID-19.

In December, the US Food and Drug Administration authorised Pfizer's Paxlovid and Merck's molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19.

The drugs are taken twice a day for five days with the aim of preventing hospitalisations.

"I believe it saved my life," Mr Carlson said. "And if it didn't save my life, it saved me from taking up another bed in the hospital."

Vaccines are still considered the best defence against serious disease. The pills are intended for patients who are not yet hospitalised but are at risk of being admitted or of dying.

Until now, COVID-19 treatments, including monoclonal antibodies and the antiviral remdesivir, have largely only been available in hospitals because they are administered intravenously.

The arrival of the take-at-home COVID treatments has been eagerly awaited. "It's a game changer that allows us to get back to some kind of normal life where we can treat patients effectively and easily," Bryan Jarabek, from M Health Fairview in Minnesota — Mr Carlson's healthcare provider — said.

Dr Jarabek said he and his team were thrilled by Mr Carlson's speedy recovery. "We all celebrated a tonne," Dr Jarabek said.

M Health Fairview is just beginning to roll out the new medicines and is experiencing the kinds of issues that will challenge providers the world over.

The first issue with antivirals is supply. Mass production of the drugs is time consuming, so for the moment stock is "extremely limited", according to Dr Jarabek.

There is also a small time frame in which the drugs can be prescribed. The drugs interfere with the virus's ability to multiply so a patient must take them within five days of becoming ill.

That means that in a very short space of time the patient has to be tested for COVID-19, get the result, consult with their medical team, locate a pharmacy that has the drug and start taking it.

The third issue is that although Paxlovid has a far higher success rate in preventing hospitalisations in trials — 90 per cent compared to 30 per cent for molnupiravir — it has potentially dangerous interactions with other drugs.

For Mr Carlson, who was already on medications for diabetes and coronary heart disease, Paxlovid just was not an option.

He was lucky that in his case, molnupiravir worked. "I was told this drug that I took had a 30 per cent effective rate," he said. "In my case, it was 100 per cent."

Katherine Yang, a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), said the danger of drug interactions associated with Paxlovid were "a little bit of a Catch 22".

The very patients who could benefit most from the COVID pills are the very ones who shouldn't take it.

Dr Yang said the arrival of the first generation of COVID-19 pills was nevertheless "exciting and the next step".

"I don't know if it's the magic bullet," she said. "It's the most magic bullet we have so far."


Proposed State Law Would Make It Illegal to Request a Person’s Vaccine Status

A newly proposed South Carolina law would make it illegal for certain institutions to ask a person for their COVID-19 vaccination status.

“The government has no place in making you or telling you to take the vaccination or threatening your livelihood if you don’t,” said state Rep. William Chumley, a co-sponsor of the bill, known as H.4848.

A representative of a public, private, or nonprofit entity who asks about a person’s COVID-19 vaccination status should be fined more than $14,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, according to the text of the bill.

“South Carolina didn’t want to get in this fight,” Chumley told local media outlets. “It was brought to us by the federal government.”

The bill is currently being discussed in a state House committee.

Lawmakers who sponsored the bill said they support the measure because it can serve as a bulwark against government coercion.

“It’s about protecting people from being forced or coerced into getting a vaccine for purposes of employment, admission to schools, or government services,” state Rep. Wayne Long, a Republican, told Channel 2 News.

“I get calls from people literally every week begging the legislature to take some kind of action to protect people’s rights, to protect their privacy, and to keep them from being forced or coerced into getting a vaccine that they frankly don’t want to get,” Long added. “And even for people who have gotten the vaccine, I’ve spoken with many of them, it’s really a privacy issue.”

South Carolina labor law attorney Jeremy Summerlin told local media that he believes the bill would be very difficult to implement.

“You put employers in an impossible position,” Summerlin remarked. “You’ve got a (proposed) state law now that says that if you ask about that, and try to comply with federal law, then you are going to jail,” he added.

“What if you ask your coworker about their vaccination status, and you are just having a conversation?” he said. “What if you are a nurse, and you ask a fellow nurse about it? Do you want the local law enforcement to go in and arrest them because of this law?”

The proposed law comes two weeks after the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 majority opinion, blocked an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emergency temporary standard that required employees at companies with 100 or more workers to either get the vaccine or submit to weekly testing. And on Tuesday, OSHA published an announcement saying it would formally withdraw the rule Wednesday.




Thursday, January 27, 2022

The SON of Omicron: health expert warns about new Covid-19 variant that's even MORE contagious

A version of Omicron that is even more contagious than the original strain could extend Australia's deadly latest wave of cases, a leading health expert has warned.

The new BA.2 subvariant has been detected across Europe and already makes up 45 per cent of all cases in Denmark.

Scientists fear the 'stealth' variant could also be even harder to track than previous strains as it can only be confirmed through lab analysis rather than a PCR test.

University of Melbourne epidemiologist Professor Nancy Baxter said initial data showed BA.2 could be even more infectious than its more common BA.1 ancestor.

She said it was unclear if BA.2 would worsen the latest wave of Omicron cases or whether it would even land on Australian shores.

'It looks like, if people can believe it, it could be more contagious than Omicron,' she said. 'So if it gets here, it may extend our waves and they may take a lot longer to get out of. But we don't know enough yet, so stay tuned.'

Danish Health Minister Magnus Heunicke on Wednesday said the BA.2 subvariant appeared to be more contagious than the original Omicron variant.

The BA.1 lineage accounts for 98 per cent of all cases globally but in Denmark has been pushed aside by BA.2, which became the dominant strain in the second week of January.

The United Kingdom Health Security Agency has designated BA.2 a variant under investigation, saying it could have a growth advantage.

Preliminary calculations suggest BA.2 could be 1.5 times more infectious than BA.1, Denmark's top infectious disease authority Statens Serum Institute (SSI) said in a note on Wednesday.

However, an initial analysis by the institute showed no difference in the risk of hospitalisation for BA.2 compared to BA.1. "There is some indication that it is more contagious, especially for the unvaccinated, but that it can also infect people who have been vaccinated to a greater extent," SSI's technical director Tyra Grove Krause said at the briefing.

This could mean the peak of Denmark's epidemic will extend a bit further into February than previously forecast, Krause said.

BA.2 cases have also been registered in the UK, Sweden and Norway but to a much lesser extent than in Denmark.

Denmark on Wednesday announced plans to scrap the last of its Covid-19 restrictions by February 1, the latest country in Europe to do so despite record high daily infection numbers


Military Whistleblowers May Blow Up the COVID Vaccine Narrative

On January 26, thousands showed up in Washington, D.C., to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The protest received little if any coverage in the corporate media. To try and give the clinicians and researchers fighting the vaccine mandates more coverage, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) held an all-day panel on Monday

Two speakers shared some shocking statistics about illness and disease in the military over the 11 months COVID vaccines have been available. Human rights attorney Leigh Dennis raised concerns about data on myocarditis in the Department of Defense (DOD) tracking system. Myocarditis is the only side effect warning the FDA places on the mRNA vaccines.

Dennis told Johnson that in August of 2021, when a DOD report was run on the incidence of acute myocarditis, there were 1,239 cases. When the report is run for the same period now, there are only 307 cases. She added that the initial report for January of 2022 showed 176 cases. Now it only shows 17.

Dennis said the military data was one of the most comprehensive because it contains baseline rates. The occurrence of disease across all categories for the previous five years averaged 1.7 million. Ten months after the vaccine program launched, it jumped to nearly 22 million. Dennis added:

“We need to not be calling this suspicious. With all due respect, we need to be asking hard questions of the DOD. And I will close by saying they are charged at least in part with protecting the sanctity and the welfare of the brave men and women who are defending this country. And right now these numbers indicate something is drastically wrong.”

Dennis is working with attorney Thomas Rentz to support three whistleblowers who are doctors in the military and who signed affidavits under the penalty of perjury. Renz identified them as Lt. Colonel Dr. Theresa Long, Dr. Samuel Sigoloff, and Colonel Dr. Peter Chambers. According to Renz, the data the physicians provided showed alarming increases in several diagnoses:

Data like this provides a signal that requires further investigation. Much like any correlation, researchers must prove causation. However, it does not appear from the testimony that any serious question is underway. There has been anecdotal data on reproductive issues following the vaccines, and the agencies just released information affirming that vaccines can affect a woman’s menstrual cycle. The DOD data, if confirmed, raises questions about safety in pregnancy and childbearing years. Yet, the CDC still recommends vaccines for Americans down to the age of five and pregnant women.

Even more disturbing, Renz alleges the CDC receives data from the Department of Defense through a program called Project Salus. In the weekly report for September 28, 2021, Renz stated that 71% of the new COVID cases and 60% of the hospitalizations were fully vaccinated. Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared multiple times on television to assert the late summer wave was a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Unlike the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), where anyone may submit a report, the information provided by these would be more like insurance claims data that contain diagnosis codes. A recent preprint study on claims data from Kaiser Northwest showed the frequency of myopericarditis was 1 in 1,860 for males 18-24 and 1 in 2,650 for boys 12-17. This finding was more than two times higher than the previously cited number from the FDA of 1 in 5,000. It would not be surprising if DOD data showed higher rates of post-vaccine illnesses that the CDC or FDA report from the less rigorous systems the agencies use.

Dennis asked Johnson to take the testimony of the whistleblowers and put them on the record. Johnson committed to taking their transcribed interviews and shared he has put the DOD on notice to preserve all records pending an investigation. As of December 2021, an estimated 40,000 active troops remained unvaccinated and under threat of discharge. Each branch is implementing its own policy under the mandate. Increases in serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease will further impair military readiness. All while hotspots worldwide, like the Ukrainian border, are heating up.


Two-thirds of Covid cases in England last month may have been in people who were REINFECTED, official data suggests

One of the country's largest surveillance studies — which randomly tested 100,000 people in the fortnight ending January 20 — found 4.4 per cent had the virus.

Imperial College London experts, who carry out the project, said it was the highest rate ever recorded, mirroring other swabbing surveys.

The team also claimed England's Covid outbreak was now starting to plateau after the Omicron wave 'rapidly' dropped off on its own.

Analysis of the data showed 2,315 of the 3,582 positive tests in the sample (64.6 per cent) were people who had coronavirus before.

And a further 267 (7.5 per cent) suspected they had caught Covid previously, even though their case was not confirmed with a test at the time.

Getting Covid after being fully-jabbed triggers 'super-immunity'

Fully-vaccinated people who catch Covid end up with 'super immunity', scientists have claimed.

Oregon Health and Science University experts say the same is also true for people who get infected before getting two jabs.

Academics took blood samples from more than 100 fully-vaccinated volunteers and exposed them against three different strains of coronavirus.

Volunteers with 'hybrid' immunity produced an 'amazingly high' antibody response, tests showed.

Their antibodies were 10 times more potent than proteins made by participants who managed to dodge Covid completely.

Despite the study being carried out before the emergence of Omicron, the authors believe the findings will hold up against the highly-transmissible variant.

And the high levels of protection among those with hybrid immunity could see the virus become a 'mostly mild' infection and bring about the end of the pandemic, the researchers said.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT programme, told a press briefing: 'What we are essentially seeing is the same sort of people catching Covid before are catching it again.'

The REACT-1 data suggests one in 23 people in England were infected with the virus over that two-week period.

Despite extremely high prevalence last month, cases have been dropping in all age groups other than under-18s.

It was highest in those aged five- to 11-year-olds over the course of the month (7.81 per cent) and lowest in those aged 75 and over (2.43 per cent).

Professor Elliott added: 'There is good news in our data in that infections had been rapidly dropping during January.

'But they are still extremely high and may have recently stalled at a very high prevalence.

'Of particular concern is that there is rapidly increasing prevalence among children now they are mixing more following the start of the school term.

'And, compared with December, prevalence in older people aged 65 and over has increased seven- to 12-fold, which may lead to increased hospitalisations.

'It's therefore vital that we continue to monitor the situation closely to understand the impact of the Omicron variant, which now makes up almost all infections in the country.'

Regionally, Covid was most prevalent in the North East, where 6.85 per cent of residents had the virus during the month.

In comparison only 2.93 per cent of people in the South East ended up testing positive during the month.

Health and Social Care Secretary Sajid Javid said: 'It's reassuring to see Covid infections beginning to slow across the country, as we move back to Plan A.

'Covid rates are still high so as we learn to live with the virus it is vital we continue to be vigilant — wash your hands, let in fresh air, get tested and, if you haven't already, get boosted now.'




Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Pfizer to launch trial of Omicron-targeted COVID vaccine

Pfizer and BioNTech say they have started a clinical trial to test a new version of their vaccine specifically designed to target the COVID-19 Omicron variant, which has eluded some of the protection provided by the original two-dose vaccine regimen.

Banking on volunteers in the United States, the companies plan to test the immune response generated by the Omicron-based vaccine both as a three-shot regimen in unvaccinated people and as a booster shot for people who already received two doses of their original vaccine.

They are also testing a fourth dose of the current vaccine against a fourth dose of the Omicron-based vaccine in people who received a third dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine three to six months earlier.

The companies plan to study the safety and tolerability of the shots in the more than 1400 people who will be enrolled in the trial.

“While current research and real-world data show that boosters continue to provide a high level of protection against severe disease and hospitalisation with Omicron, we recognise the need to be prepared in the event this protection wanes over time and to potentially help address Omicron and new variants in the future,” Pfizer’s head of vaccine research and development, Kathrin Jansen, said in a statement on Wednesday AEDT.

Depending on the amount of clinical trial data required by regulators, it may not be possible to realise a current plan to launch an Omicron-targeting vaccine by the end of March, BioNTech said.

Pfizer has said that two doses of the original vaccine may not be sufficient to protect against infection from Omicron, and that protection against hospitalisations and deaths may be waning.

Still, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says a third dose of an mRNA vaccine like the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has provided 90 per cent protection against hospitalisation due to COVID-19.

Some countries have already started offering additional booster doses, but a recent study from Israel showed that while a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine boosted antibodies, the level was not high enough to prevent Omicron infection.

DATA The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said on Friday that international regulators want data from clinical studies like the one being done by Pfizer and BioNTech before approval of a new vaccine.

EMA said these studies should show that the new vaccines elicit more neutralising antibodies in the blood than current vaccines and might also protect against new variants of concern.

BioNTech declined to comment on what type of data it was asked to file with regulators.

It said an analysis of antibodies elicited by its Omicron-targeted booster should help answer whether shots will be needed that address more than one variant at a time. It hopes to show the antibodies neutralise a spectrum of variants.

Still, some scientists question whether any change is currently needed.

“The goal of this vaccine is to protect against serious illness,” said Dr Paul Offit, an infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania. “To date, these vaccines do that, including protection against Omicron.”


Growing up poor affects your BRAIN: Children in low-income households show slower activity in key neural regions linked to thinking and learning, study reveals

This study of cognitive development in neonates is interesting but its generalizability is low. We know that IQ measured in young children shows negligible correlation with IQ in adulthood, for instance. And the lesson from HeadStart is that early improvements fade over time

Children who grow up in poorer households show slower activity in key brain regions linked to both thinking and learning, a study has warned.

Experts from Columbia University found that the brain development of infants in low-income families varied with the amount of financial support they were given.

Scans at age one showed faster brain activity in kids whose families were given $333 (£250) of support monthly compared to those given only $20 (£15) per month.

It is unclear if the differences in brain activity will persist as the children age, or how they might influence cognitive and behavioural growth.

However, in older children, activity in the regions in question has previously been linked to the development of learning skills.

The researchers are now investigating how the payments benefited the children, with possibilities including facilitating better nutrition, or relieving parental stress.

Either way, they said, the results suggest that interventions designed to reduce poverty could benefit infant brain development and improve later outcomes.

The investigation was undertaken by neuroscientist Kimberly Noble of New York's Columbia University and her colleagues.

'The brain changes speak to the remarkable malleability of the brain, especially early in childhood,' said Professor Noble.

'We have known for many years that growing up in poverty puts children at risk for lower school achievement, reduced earnings, and poorer health.

'However, until now, we haven't been able to say whether poverty itself causes differences in child development, or whether growing up in poverty is simply associated with other factors that cause those differences.'

In the study, the researchers measured brain activity levels among a subset of 435 one-year-old children who were participating in the so-called 'Baby's First Years' trial.

This randomised controlled trial into the benefits of poverty reduction has seen 1,000 low-income mothers recruited from postpartum wards in four US metropolitan areas — New Orleans, New York City, Omaha, and Minneapolis–Saint Paul.

The mothers, who were primarily Black or Latina and not college educated, were then given a cash gift of either $333 (£250) or $20 (£15) per month to spend it whatever way they chose.

While these results come from one year into the interventions, the trial is still ongoing, and the mothers will continue to receive the monthly cash gifts until their children are four years and four months old.

Each child's brain activity was measured using an electroencephalography, or 'EEG', machine via an electrode-bearing cap that was placed on the child's head.

The researchers found that children whose mothers were given $333 per month had around 20 per cent more high-frequency brain activity than those whose parents were only given $20 of support monthly.

High-frequency brain activity in the frontal region has previously been linked to both the development of learning and thinking skills.

Professor Noble explained that children’s brains naturally adapt to their experiences. 'All healthy brains are shaped by their environments and experiences, and we are not saying that one group has "better" brains,' she said.

'But — because of the randomized design — we know that the $333 per month must have changed children's experiences or environments, and that their brains adapted to those changed circumstances.'

'Families are all different, and the potential promise of money as a way of directly supporting families is that it allows parents to make choices about what their children most need,' said paper author Katherine Magnuson. 'Thus, there may not be just one way in which money positively affects families; —money may matter in a lot of small ways.

'We hear from the mothers in our study how challenging it is to raise children without enough money. 'A few hundred dollars a month has the potential to do a lot of good for these families, and we are grateful that we will continue to learn from them about how the money has helped them meet their goals.'

'Global evidence is thin on how children are affected by cash transfers, especially with respect to very young children,' said fellow paper author and applied economist Lisa Gennetian of North Carolina's Duke University.

'This is mostly because it is so hard and expensive to objectively capture children's development. This study's findings on infant brain activity are unprecedented.'

The outcomes seen, she added, 'really speak to how anti-poverty policies — including the types of expanded child tax credits being debated in the US — can and should be viewed as investments in children.'


Biden Forced To Bend The Knee To Trump, Admit He Was Right

Joe Biden (well, the people calling the shots for Joe Biden) have made such a mess out of the Southern border that it’s not even funny.

The media fell over itself to label Trump’s border policy a failure, yet have nothing to say when Biden fills cages with kids, to 1700% of capacity … during what we are told is a pandemic.

It really is not even funny. The number of rapes and abuse of children that this administration is responsible for are mind boggling. This administration has committed crimes against humanity not seen since the Obama/Biden admin ran guns to drug cartels.

Things have gotten so bad that Biden has been forced to concede that Trump was right … but you won’t hear this on the TV ‘news’

Conservative Treehouse reported:

‘The JoeBama administration are pathetic in their manipulation of policy.

After taking apart the Trump agreement with central American nations (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador) to secure their own northern border the mass migration toward the United States began…. a crisis created. However, once the crisis turns public opinion against them, the JoeBama administration then proposes to return to the exact same policy President Trump initiated and Biden destroyed.

The White House and the media then herald the return of the Trump agreement as a groundbreaking new policy initiative instituted by JoeBama. It would be funny, if it were not so ridiculous to watch it in real time.’

CNN repoerted – The Biden administration has secured agreements for Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders and stem the flow of migration, Special Assistant to the President for Immigration for the Domestic Policy Council Tyler Moran told MSNBC Monday.

“We’ve secured agreements for them to put more troops on their own border. Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala have all agreed to do this. That not only is going to prevent the traffickers, and the smugglers, and cartels that take advantage of the kids on their way here, but also to protect those children,” Moran said.

The Biden administration has struggled to keep up with the influx of migrants coming to the border and as there has been a major spike in the number of migrant children in US custody. (read more)’

They did not ‘struggle’ they created this situation on purpose. They don’t care about all the lives that were and are yet to be ruin from their policies. The left wants everyone equally poor, so poor that they can not revolt.

Unfortunately, they are well on their way to making that a reality.




Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Omicron vaccine on the way

The emphasis on vaccines is wrong headed. Medicines to cure it are the way of the future. Several are now available

The race is on to find a variant-proof vaccine

Since the emergence of Omicron, both Pfizer and Moderna have announced they're working on vaccines to specifically target the variant, with production promised as early as March of this year.

So, are variant-specific vaccines the way we regain control of COVID?

A vaccine targeting Omicron will increase immunity to the variant on both an individual and population level.

However, variant-specific vaccines are ultimately a reactive measure that could always leave us behind the eight ball. By the time we roll out any variant-specific vaccine, a wave of infections driven by that variant may already have peaked, and a new variant will likely be on the way.

The solution to this problem may be "variant-proof" vaccines, also known as "universal" COVID vaccines. These are vaccines that work across different variants, rather than being targeted to a specific variant. These are in development and could be a proactive way to prevent new variants from taking hold.

Variant-specific vaccines could take too long to roll out
Scientists have little doubt vaccination with an Omicron-specific vaccine will provide enhanced immunity to Omicron.

Approvals of these new vaccines should be comparatively rapid because they're similar to previously approved vaccines, though some additional data on safety and efficacy will be required.

Reactively relying on developing variant-specific vaccines, even under idealised production and distribution systems, would always leave us vulnerable to disruptive waves of infection and pose ongoing challenges to health strategies.

Waves of new variants would engulf the population faster than variant-specific vaccines could ever be deployed.

Mass infection isn't likely to protect against future variants
Health officials predict almost all Australians will soon be exposed to Omicron.

This has left many wondering if mass exposure could finally provide us with the antibody protection required for the fabled "herd immunity", making the need for future variant-specific vaccines unnecessary.

A small-scale pre-print study, yet to be reviewed by other scientists, suggests infection with Omicron did produce some antibodies that could neutralise Delta, but only around a quarter the magnitude of those produced against the infecting variant.

Whether these antibodies would be sufficient to protect against the infection from the Delta or other variants, remains to be established.

Most antibodies induced by vaccination and natural infection predominantly target regions of the virus that can easily mutate.

It's plausible the next variants that emerge could be even more different in this region than Delta or Omicron. This means it could evade current antibody responses induced by infection, or by vaccines specific for either the original virus or the Omicron variant.

So it's likely mass infection with Omicron won't protect us from catching future variants.

Here's where a variant-proof vaccine comes in

These are vaccines which generate antibodies to regions of the virus that cannot be easily mutated.

The goal of using such vaccines across the population is to protect us not just against current variants of the virus, but also against future variants.

Unlike the current reactive strategy of generating variant-specific vaccines following the emergence of a new invasive threat, a universal vaccine could be used to prevent a new variant from ever taking hold.


Dissecting the supreme court's split decision on vaccine mandates

Major issues remain to be resolved with respect to the Chevron doctrine and agency power and the question of what police power, if any, the federal government has.

The Supreme Court has issued its opinions in the two vaccine mandate cases. In the case involving the mandate that all employers with 100 or more employees require their staff to be vaccinated (with very limited exceptions), the Court, by a 6-3 vote, reinstated an injunction against the regulation adopted by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) being enforced. The Justices in the majority were Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. The dissenters were Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

In the case involving the mandate that all healthcare workers at facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds be vaccinated (with the exception of employees who telecommute entirely) or that the medical facility with unvaccinated healthcare workers would be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, lifted the injunction against the applicable regulation. The Justices in the majority were Justices Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh. The dissenters were Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett.

Note that the switch by Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh from blocking a vaccine mandate in the one case to allowing a vaccine mandate in the other case created the mess and confusion about the power of the Federal government to mandate that Americans be jabbed with a vaccine or lose their jobs. This reinforces the “enigma of Justice Roberts” and perhaps the alliance in that “enigma” of Justice Kavanaugh.

Before we object that it is unfair to call these votes a reinforcement of such an “enigma” since Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh are part of a conservative majority committed to enforcing and interpreting the Constitution as written and generally join the Court’s conservatives in opinions of the Court and in dissents, let me say that I am not suggesting that Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh have followed in the footsteps of Justices like Justice Souter, who once appointed and seated, became a reliable liberal vote.

The reason I say “enigma” is that in major cases where the weight of the major liberal institutions in the media and the universities and the leaders of the Democrats express outrage at the possibility of striking at one of their sacred cows and they scream about a partisan Court, Roberts has generally sided with the Court liberals and increasingly so has Kavanaugh. We saw how Justice Roberts stretched and twisted to find a way to uphold the Affordable Care Act and avoid the questions of whether the Federal government could mandate that every person have health insurance and whether the statute violated the Commerce Clause. The question is why.

I wish I could say it was simply an honest disagreement based on the legal reasoning of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh, but it appears that they are bending to the demands that the Court not be or appear to be partisan. It may also be, in the case of Justice Kavanaugh, that the vicious attacks on him during his confirmation hearing, have made him gun shy. As I discuss the healthcare worker mandate below, I will return to this very important question.

The opinion in the healthcare worker mandate case was an unsigned per curium opinion, meaning that no author was identified and that all 5 of the Justices in the majority agreed, with none issuing a concurring opinion. For those readers who don’t know the purpose of a concurring opinion, it allows a Justices to vote with the majority but explain where he or she has different reasons or doesn’t agree with statements in the majority opinion while still voting for the result. The Court’s opinion relied on numerous statutes (a “hodgepodge” in the words of the dissenters and many commentators) to conclude the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had the authority to issue the regulation creating the mandate.

The Court said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “has general statutory authority to promulgate regulations ‘as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which [he] is charged’…” -- 42USC Section1302(a) -- and that “one such function, perhaps the most basic, given the Department’s core mission is to ensure that the healthcare providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patient protect those patients’ health and safety.” The Court further said that Congress authorized the Secretary “to promulgate, as a condition to a facility’s participating in the programs, such requirements as [he] finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in the institutions.” (42USC Section 1395(c)(9). The Court noted that, in adopting the healthcare worker mandate and relying on these statutes, the Secretary “further noted that staffing shortages caused by COVID-19 related exposure and illness has disrupted patientcare.” That is a rather ironic justification since the regulation will result in many healthcare workers losing their jobs.

Now it should be noted that Congress adopts laws and under the Court’s delegation doctrine, Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to regulatory agencies. There are two important ancillaries that have followed in Supreme Court opinions.

One is what is known as the Chevron doctrine. That comes from a 1984 Supreme Court opinion in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in which the Court said that whenever a regulatory agency makes a rule or regulation which deals with a statute adopted by Congress -- and there is ambiguity in the statutory language or the intent of Congress is not clear, and there is any reasonable way to argue that such rule or regulation is consistent with the statute under which it is acting -- the Court will defer to the regulatory agency. The Court said that determining the intent of Congress often requires the opinions of experts and that judges should not interpose their own preferences.

The many subsequent cases applying this doctrine are beyond the scope of this article, but the core concept has been extremely consequential. It is at the heart of the growth of the regulatory state in which Congress adopts ambiguous or broad law and lets the agencies fill in the blanks. That absolves Congress from having to take actions that may be unpopular or consequential and it takes the general public out of the equation since regulators are not elected. The enormous power given to the regulatory agencies by the Chevron doctrine has been a prime factor in the enormous growth of the Federal government. The possibility that the Court would reverse or weaken Chevron terrifies fans of big government because without the ability to freeze out Congress and thus the public through their ability to vote for their elected members of Congress, many radical or so called “progressive” policies would have no chance of adoption.

The second ancillary is known as the “major questions doctrine.” This doctrine holds that courts should not defer to regulatory agency interpretations in matters that have “vast economic significance.” The Court has said repeatedly in subsequent cases that Congress must speak clearly if it intends to give a regulatory agency the authority to act in a particular way. Justice Kavanaugh addressed this doctrine in response to questions during his confirmation hearing when he said: “I’m not a skeptic of regulation at all. I am a skeptic of unauthorized regulation, of illegal regulation, or regulation that’s outside the bounds of what the laws passed by Congress have said. And that is what is at the root of our administrative law jurisprudence.” As we discuss the dissents, consider if Justice Kavanaugh’s interpretation of the “major questions doctrine” has been applied by Justice Kavanaugh.

As stated above, there were 4 dissenters. Three were 2 written dissenting opinions—by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined in both of these dissents.

Justice Thomas described the “major questions doctrine,” and he said there is no question the healthcare worker mandate falls within its scope. He noted that 10 million workers across the entire country are affected by either getting vaccinated or losing their jobs. He noted that nothing in the statutes on which the agency relied had clear language that could possibly empower the agency to make this mandate. Then he noted that: “Vaccines mandates fall squarely within a state police power”, citing Zuch v King 260 US 174 (1920). This case is a bedrock of federalism. Justice Thomas further said: “We expect Congress to use exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between state and federal power.” Allowing the healthcare worker mandate to go into effect as the Court has done will allow the federal government to intrude on the police power of the states.

Justice Alito said: “Under the constitution, laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose members are elected by the people… Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress. It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators, except in rare cases.” This was a direct attack on the administrative state.

Major issues remain to be resolved with respect to the Chevron doctrine and agency power and the question of what police power, if any, the federal government has. We will watch keenly in future case and with particular interest in the cases of Justice Roberts and Kavanaugh.




Monday, January 24, 2022

Vaccine-induced heart damage is a real risk for young males

As has been long established, myocarditis is the most documented adverse reaction from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. A number of studies have established the risk of myocarditis as highly stratified by age and gender. A study from Israel found that males aged 16 to 29 faced the greatest risk, with around 11 in 100,000 males developing post-vaccination myocarditis. A pre-print study last year comparing risks of infection versus vaccination found that boys aged 12 to 15 were four to six times more likely to develop myocarditis from the vaccine than become hospitalized with any Covid-related condition (in the broadest possible sense, including incidental cases—meaning the relative myocarditis risk is likely understated).

The specific point of causality has not been identified by scientists yet, as the vaccines are experimental by nature and their long-term implications are not fully understood. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal compiles the leading hypotheses for what is causing this adverse event. One newly emerging theory relates to the way the vaccine is injected into the body:

“The shots are supposed to be injected into the shoulder muscle, also known as the deltoid muscle. If the injection accidentally reaches a vein, it could lead to delivery of some of the vaccine to the heart through blood vessels.”

As for the gender-specific risk, some scientists speculate it is due to higher testosterone levels in men:

“That myocarditis appears to happen more among younger males after vaccination than in other age and sex groups suggests a link to the hormone testosterone, which is usually at high levels in younger males, according to researchers. Testosterone may heighten an inflammatory immune response, Dr. Bozkurt said, leading to myocarditis in some male adolescents and young men.”

The consistently identified risk in young males across different countries, medical journals, and research institutes warrant serious caution and re-evaluation of fully vaccinating healthy young males—given their extremely low risk of serious illness or death from Covid. Public health officials in Norway, the UK, and Hong Kong have acted with commendable prudence, offering only one dose of the vaccine to young people since myocarditis cases are clustered after the second dose. Other countries such as Finland, France, and Germany have advised against administration of the Moderna vaccine in males under the age of 30 because of higher rates of myocarditis compared to the Pfizer vaccine.

However, both Canada and the United States have adopted a one-size-fits-all policy, making no medically tailored recommendations for teenagers and young adults.

As a 20-year-old healthy male myself, who has suffered from minor heart complications in early adolescence (irregular heart palpitations), I have decided not to take the vaccine. As a result of my personal health decision informed by my physician, my social and physical well-being has been significantly compromised. The Canadian government (both provincial and federal) has implemented coercive and draconian vaccination policies, limiting the freedoms of the unvaccinated across various parts of society.

Much of my social life in Vancouver has been restricted and my ability to maintain physical fitness—a preventative measure that reduces risk of serious Covid illness—has been radically hampered. With the rest of unvaccinated Canadians over 12 years of age, I am barred from exercising at a gym, going to nightclubs, bars, large gatherings, and weddings. Worst, I am now landlocked in Canada and unable to leave the country to do media appearances in the United States and visit my family in India. I was recently planning to go to Florida to do Ben Shapiro’s show, but the government won’t even let me board a domestic flight.

In what world is this fair?

Under governmental pressure, public organizations have also stepped up their efforts in mandating vaccination for the young. In Ontario, Canada the biggest youth hockey league (OMHA) recently mandated all players 12 and over to be vaccinated. OMHA President Bob Hill gave a statement on the league’s decision:

“We know that the environment around return to play is a real concern for a large proportion of hockey families …. Our game is played in an indoor environment where there can be close contact, and we must do everything possible to reduce the risk of any transmission around the rink. It is the duty for our players, our officials and our communities.”

Unless one is willing to give their child an insufficiently tested booster shot on a likely 6-month basis, such a rationale being used to push child vaccine mandates falls apart under closer scrutiny. Vaccine efficacy against infection significantly drops over time (an idea which up until last summer was considered right-wing conspiracy). A study published in The Lancet showed a 55 percent reduction in vaccine effectiveness against infection five months post-vaccination, a trend which spirals downward over time. Any public benefit that child vaccination would bring is temporary and short-lived.

I asked Dr. Mike Hart (known for his appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast), one of my consulting physicians who runs a top medical clinic in Ontario, what he thought about such a mandate:

“I don’t think this is a good policy. For vulnerable populations, vaccines make sense; but for young healthy people, the risks of the vaccine may outweigh the benefits.

“The risk of myocarditis from COVID is much higher than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine in the general population, but in younger cohorts, the best available evidence suggests that’s not true.”

Unfortunately, medical experts such as Dr. Hart who consider both the costs and benefits of the vaccine have been marginalized by spokespeople of the medical establishment who are bizarrely devoted to vaccinating everyone regardless of their individual risk-benefit proposition.

When CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and was repeatedly asked about myocarditis risk in young males, he responded with the claim that most myocarditis patients experience mild symptoms and recover quickly. When celebrity physician Dr. Oz was asked the same question by FOX 29 Philadelphia earlier this year, he replied in nearly identical fashion: myocarditis is a mild, easily curable medical condition and shouldn’t discourage healthy male teenagers from receiving the vaccine.

However, myocarditis has long been documented as a cause of chronic fatigue, shortness of breath and chest pain, leading to disruptions in physical activity. A number of top cardiologists across the country—such as Dr. John Mandrola, Dr. Amy Kontorovich, and Dr. Venk Murthy—have publicly spoken out against minimization of vaccine-induced myocarditis.

According to Dr. Kontorovich, professor of medicine and cardiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,

“[M]any of those affected are young people who were previously healthy and are now on three or more heart medications and potentially out of work due to symptoms, even if their heart function is ‘back to normal.’”

University of Michigan cardiologist Dr. Venk Murthy has also noted,

“People with myocarditis are usually counseled to limit activity, placed on 1 or more meds and are at lifetime increased risk of cardiac complications. This can have profound consequences. … [They] are typically told to limit activity for several months, sometimes longer. This means no sports. Some kids are told not to carry books to school.”

In attempts to downplay these real, quantifiable risks, those with the most powerful voices in the medical community perform glaringly disprovable sleight-of-hand distortions of the scientific research on mainstream networks. When discussing his viral JRE appearance on Erin Burnett’s CNN program, Dr. Sanjay Gupta addressed the public concern of myocarditis for vaccinating teenagers by presenting a study finding infection-induced myocarditis poses a greater risk compared to the vaccine.

A cursory reading of the study reveals it is irrelevant to the cost-benefit analysis of vaccinating healthy young males. The post-vaccination myocarditis rate of 2.7 per 100,000 people is derived from a highly diverse population (in age and gender) with a median age of 38 years in the study. Moreover, the specific age group among the highest at risk of myocarditis—12 to 15 year olds—was not included in the studied population. The alarming concern is with young males specifically, not the general population. And yet, the CNN segment closed with Erin Burnett summarizing this total falsehood based on Dr. Gupta’s stunningly dishonest analysis of the issue:

“The number one [vaccine] risk you do hear about for young boys is myocarditis. You’re saying you have about five times greater risk of getting that from Covid than the vaccine. I think that’s an incredibly powerful, just basic statistic for people to know.”

Another viral clip of Joe Rogan talking about myocarditis has been exploited by the media to promote their universal vaccination agenda:

The study in the article Rogan looks at finding a higher risk of infection-induced myocarditis than from the vaccine is severely flawed. As practicing physician and epidemiologist Tracy H√łeg has pointed out, the authors of the study vastly underestimate both the incidence of Covid infections (thereby exaggerating the infection risk) and post-vaccine myocarditis. The latter is underestimated by a factor of three or four at least.

As a result, the authors fallaciously conclude post-infection myocarditis poses a higher risk than post-vaccine myocarditis in young males.

The aforementioned pre-print by Oxford researchers published last month is the most comprehensive, robust, and rigorous analysis of relative myocarditis risk.

Neither the risk of Covid or vaccine side effects is equally distributed across the population. While the general risk is minuscule, the individual risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young males between the ages of 18 and 24 is roughly 1 in 2,000 according to a recent study by top infectious disease physician Dr. Katie A. Sharff. According to this calculation, one million administrations of the vaccine in this age group would yield 500 cases of heart inflammation in kids who were otherwise at near-zero risk of Covid.

Supporting the vaccine means honestly discussing the real risks of vaccination in specific demographics—without either agenda-driven minimization or exaggeration. Obfuscating, downplaying, and misleading the public, on the other hand, undermines trust in the vaccine—a miraculous scientific innovation that has transformed the course of the pandemic by preventing millions of deaths and cases of severe disease.

Honesty, nuance, and compassion are especially needed when it comes to personal health choices. We are only born with one body and we must make medically informed decisions at our own volition without governmental coercion or political pressure.

More here:


Surgical face masks make people look more attractive, new study finds

Striding up to greet someone for the first time with half your face obscured, doesn't exactly fill you with meet-cute confidence.

But a new study by British academics suggests that protective face masks can make you more attractive — particularly the blue surgical kind.

Seven months after masks became mandatary in the United Kingdom, researchers at Cardiff University were curious to know whether the pandemic had altered perceptions of attractiveness.

Cardiff University school of psychology's Michael Lewis, the study's co-author and an expert in the psychology of faces, spoke about the findings after the pandemic began.

"Research carried out before the pandemic found medical face masks reduce attractiveness," Dr Lewis said.

"So, we wanted to test whether this had changed since face coverings became ubiquitous and [to] understand whether the type of mask had any effect."

The study — published in the peer-reviewed journal Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications — asked 43 women to rate the attractiveness of 40 male faces, with and without different types of masks and coverings.

Dr Lewis said they were surprised by the results, which indicated an overall sentiment of mask positivity.

"Our study suggests faces are considered most attractive when covered by medical face masks," he said.

"This may be because we're used to healthcare workers wearing blue masks and now we associate these with people in caring or medical professions."

In their pre-pandemic research, participants had said they associated masks with disease and would avoid people who wore them.

But the research conducted in February 2021 — which will be continued to see if the results are true for both genders — also found that faces were considered significantly more attractive when covered by cloth masks than when not covered at all.

"The current research shows the pandemic has changed our psychology in how we perceive the wearers of masks," Dr Lewis said.




Sunday, January 23, 2022

Dr. Peter McCullough: Vaccines Failed in Stopping COVID-19 and Mandates Have to Be Dropped

“The vaccines themselves have basically now become obsolete as the virus has continued to mutate,” McCullough told NTD’s “Capitol Report” in an interview broadcast on Wednesday. “So at this point of time, the vaccine mandates have to be dropped across the board.”

McCullough said some recent studies have shown the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines dropped significantly with the new variants.

“There’s a paper by Young-Xu in JAMA, the prior Delta strain that was only about 20 percent covered by the vaccines. Vaccines were very ineffective against Delta,” McCullough said.

The study, which is peer-reviewed and published on the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) last month, found that during the high-Delta period, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was 62.0 percent in the first month and decreased to 57.8 percent by month three. The decrease in vaccine effectiveness accelerated after month four, reaching a low of approximately 20 percent in months five through seven.

“And now a paper from Hansen from Denmark, and from the UK public health security report indicated, against Omicron the vaccines are basically ineffective,” McCullough continued.

The Danish study, a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, found that vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was initially 55.2 percent and 36.7 percent for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively, but waned rapidly over time. By comparison, vaccine effectiveness against Delta was significantly higher and better preserved over the same period.

The UK Health Security Agency report released on Dec. 31 also found that vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant is significantly lower than compared to the Delta variant and wanes rapidly.

“Among those who had received 2 doses of AstraZeneca, there was no effect against Omicron from 20 weeks after the second dose. Among those who had received 2 doses of Pfizer or Moderna, effectiveness dropped from around 65 to 70 percent down to around 10 percent by 20 weeks after the second dose,” the report (pdf) states.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been saying the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective,” and serious adverse events are rare.

“The only thing the vaccines could have done is reduce the chances of getting COVID-19. … So many millions of Americans who have taken the vaccines have been disappointed to find out they contracted COVID-19 anyway,” McCullough continued.

On Wednesday, the CDC published a study showing protection from prior infection, or so-called natural immunity, was better than the protection from COVID-19 vaccines against the Delta variant.

McCullough also said the vaccine mandates lack the ethical or legal standing in the first place because the COVID-19 vaccines are “investigational.”

“All the vaccines are still investigational and in research. Mandates had no ethical or moral or legal standing from that perspective. No one can be forced into research against their will or be coerced into it.”

A spokesperson from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), didn’t answer directly whether COVID-19 vaccines are investigational, but told The Epoch Times that “all of the vaccines are under an EUA except for Comirnaty, which is fully approved.”

In a guidance (pdf) issued last year, FDA said emergency use authorizations (EUAs) are issued for investigational vaccines to prevent COVID-19 during the pandemic.

“We can’t have Americans have fear about losing their job or school or travel related to a failed vaccine,” McCullough said. “But even more so we need to re-examine what we’ve done with respect to our public health priorities and COVID-19.”

McCullough said that in March and April 2020 America should have had large randomized trials and moved very quickly into studying multi-drug treatment. However, the federal authorities refused to do so and made a big push for vaccines.

McCullough also shared the treatment for COVID-19 patients with the Omicron variant.

“Fortunately with the Omicron variants very mild, the main treatment is oral nasal virucidal washes with dilute povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide 12. Clinical trials show the biggest benefit of that is more than any other form of treatment,” McCullough said.

Occasionally patients may need additional oral drugs and Pfizer and Merck pills could be featured, the renowned cardiologist and epidemiologist added.

“And for severe cases we can use Sotrovimab, which is the GSK monoclonal antibody, may be in a high-risk senior or special case,” McCullough said.

“The vaccines aren’t treatment, they offered no hope of treating a patient once they contracted COVID-19. And we knew with respiratory virus they were very unlikely to be effective,” said the doctor.

The CDC has been saying that the COVID-19 vaccines could reduce severe illness and death, and vaccinated people should get a booster to keep up the protection.


Olympic Athlete Reveals Chilling Side Effect of COVID Booster

Professional athletes fine-tune their bodies in an effort to be the best in the world — but what happens when something goes wrong with a medical procedure?

That’s the unfortunate position Swiss sprinter and Olympian Sarah Atcho found herself in after having a severe reaction to a COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The 26-year-old who competed in the 2016 and 2020 Olympic Games took to social media on Monday to share her experience with the world, giving a matter-of-fact account of a possibly life-changing event.

“Obviously as you know, I’m trying to be as transparent as I can and now is more important than ever,” she began her lengthy post.

“On December 22 I got my booster vaccination because I didn’t want to struggle with this when the season started. I was told that it was safer to get Pfizer (even though I had Moderna the first time) to avoid cardiac side effects,” she wrote.

A recent study found that Moderna’s vaccine is four times more likely to cause heart inflammation than Pfizer’s. Sweden and Finland have both halted its use.

“On December 27 I felt a tightness in the chest and started feeling dizzy while walking up the stairs,” the young athlete continued.

“This happened a few more times until I decided to check with a cardiologist who diagnosed me with pericarditis (inflammation of the thin membrane surrounding the heart).”

Atcho went on to say she would have to take time off from activities that increased her heart rate.

“I have to admit that I am upset at the situation because we don’t talk enough about the side effects. I feel helpless since this is completely out of my control,” Atcho disclosed.

“I am glad the vaccine helped avoid many deaths and reduce the pressure on the hospitals and hospital staff however I am frustrated that myself as well as other young and healthy people are suffering from these heavy side effects,” she added.

There have been other anecdotal accounts of young athletes experiencing serious side effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, but officials still insist this occurrence is rare.

Of course, it’s hard to tell, since even talking about vaccine side effects or expressing skepticism about the jab is enough to get a person de-platformed.

Dr. Robert Malone, who was instrumental in inventing the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 vaccines, was thrown off Twitter for expressing his concerns that the vaccines may be doing more harm than good.

Regardless of whether Malone is correct or not, any treatment or procedure should be able to withstand the scrutiny that comes with speaking about its potential side effects.

Perhaps Atcho is a one-in-a-million case — who knows? But the fact that vaccine injury is a subject too taboo to discuss in public raises major red flags.


New sub-variant of Omicron under investigation as it sweeps Europe

A new sister subtype of the Covid Omicron variant, which may be more transmissible and harder to track, has begun rearing its head overseas in recent days.

The subtype is being referred to as BA. 2, while the original Omicron, currently sweeping through Australia, is known by scientists as BA. 1.

While cases of the BA. 2 type of Omicron remain low across various European countries, it could be just a matter of time before it arrives in Australia.

Scientists are still however working to determine whether the subtype, which had infected 53 people in the UK up to January 10, is more severe than the original BA. 1 type.

While the Health Security Agency has designated BA. 2 as a variant under investigation, its UK incident director Dr Meera Chand said such subtypes were to be expected.

“It is the nature of viruses to evolve and mutate, so it’s to be expected that we will continue to see new variants emerge,” she said, according to Metro.

There had been early indications the BA. 2 type may be more transmissible than BA. 1, however in Denmark, where it accounts for about half of Omicron cases, no stark differences in hospitalisations had yet been noted.

Denmark’s Statens Serum Institute this week said it was likely vaccines had an effect against severe BA. 2 infections, which had several differences to BA.1.

One difference was that BA. 2 had shown positive for the S-gene, while BA. 1 did not.

The lack of S-gene in BA. 1 was a key component in tracking Omicron’s early spread, as it was a feature that distinguished it from Delta.

The same feature however may be what makes BA. 2 infections harder to track.

Scientists are still confident it will be picked up in certain tests though.

Virologist from the Imperial College of London, Tom Peacock, said while early trends suggested BA. 2 was more transmissible, more research was required.

“BA. 2 appears to be the major Omicron lineage in (part of) India and the Philippines and there is evidence it is growing compared to BA. 1 in Denmark, the UK and Germany,” one recent tweet read.

“Consistent growth across multiple countries is evidence BA. 2 may be some degree more transmissible than BA.1. This is the main reason BA. 2 is currently in the news.

“Unfortunately this is really where the evidence mostly ends – we do not currently have a strong handle on antigenicity, severity or a much evidence for how much more transmissibility BA. 2 might have over BA. 1 – however we can make some guesses/early observations.”

He added how “very early observations” from India and Denmark suggested there was no dramatic difference in severity when compared to BA.1.

“This data should become more solid (one way or another) in the coming weeks,” he said.

Mr Peacock also predicted BA. 2 would not have a “substantial” impact on the Omicron wave, which he expected was past its peak already in many countries.