Friday, November 04, 2022

Strange things in mRNA vaccines

What is in the Pfizer vaccines? Recently, Dr David Nixon, a Brisbane GP, decided to find out, putting droplets of vaccine and the blood of vaccinated patients under a dark-field microscope.

That’s a more radical decision than it might sound. According to Sasha Latypova, a scientist with 25 years of experience in clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, the contract between Pfizer and the US government prohibits independent researchers from studying the vaccines. They claim it would ‘divert’ these precious resources away from their intended use fulfilling an ‘urgent’ need.

Is that true in Australia? Who knows? All the Commonwealth Department of Health has said about its contract with Pfizer is that it is commercial-in-confidence.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration performs tests on all Covid vaccines for composition and strength, purity and integrity, identity and endotoxins, but it provides scant details other than the batch numbers tested and whether they passed. (Spoiler alert: they did.)

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control specifically states that all Covid-19 vaccines are free from ‘metals, such as iron, nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth alloys’ and ‘manufactured products such as micro-electronics, electrodes, carbon nanotubes, and nanowire semiconductors’.

Notably, this list does not include graphene oxide which has been widely investigated for biomedical applications. Some researchers sing its praises, its ‘ultra-high drug-loading efficiency due to the wide surface area’, its exceptional ‘chemical and mechanical constancy, sublime conductivity and excellent biocompatibility’. But there’s a catch. ‘The toxic effect of graphene oxide on living cells and organs’ is ‘a limiting factor’ on its use in the medicine.

So is there graphene oxide in the Pfizer shots? What Nixon found, and filmed, is bizarre to say the least. Inside a droplet of vaccine are strange mechanical structures. They seem motionless at first but when Nixon used time-lapse photography to condense 48 hours of footage into two minutes, it showed what appear to be mechanical arms assembling and disassembling glowing rectangular structures that look like circuitry and micro chips. These are not ‘manufactured products’ in the CDC’s words because they construct and deconstruct themselves but the formation of the crystals seems to be stimulated by electromagnetic radiation and stops when the slide with the vaccine is shielded by a Faraday bag. Nixon’s findings are similar to those of teams in New Zealand, Germany, Spain and South Korea.

An Italian group led by Riccardo Benzi Cipelli analysed the blood of over 1,000 people, one month after they were vaccinated, who had been referred for tests because they had experienced side effects. They ranged in age from 15 to 85 and had had between one and three doses. More than 94 per cent had abnormal readings, deformed red blood cells, reduced in counts and clumped around luminescent foreign objects which also attracted clusters of fibrin. Some of the foreign objects dotted the blood like a starry night, some self-assembled into crystalline structures and others into spindly branches and tubes.

The Italians think the objects are metallic particles and say they resemble ‘graphene oxide and possibly other metallic compounds’. They believe the damaged blood is contributing to post-vaccine coagulation disorders, which in turn contribute to increased malignancies, while graphene-family materials are associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammation and damage to those parts of the immune system that suppress tumours.

The artificial mRNA concoction which is ‘cloaked’ from the recipient’s immune system is also likely to reduce the recipients immune function, increasing the likelihood of new or recurring tumours.

Nixon has shared his findings with Wendy Hoy, professor of medicine at the University of Queensland who has called on the Australian government and its health authorities to explain the apparent spontaneous formation of chips and circuitry in mRNA vaccines when left at room temperature, and the abnormal objects that can be seen in the blood of vaccinated people. Hoy thinks that these are ‘undoubtedly contributing to poor oxygen delivery to tissues and clotting events, including heart attacks and strokes’ and asks why there is no systematic autopsy investigation of deaths to investigate the role of the vaccine in Australia’s dramatic rise in mortality.

According to the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, excess mortality was over 17 per cent in July. It is similarly elevated in other highly vaccinated populations.

In Germany, excess mortality in people over 60 increased by 174 per cent between 20 September 2021, when 85 per cent of people over 60 were fully vaccinated, and October 2022.

In the UK, there have been more excess deaths in the last three months than at any time during the pandemic or indeed since 2010. In the most recent week, excess mortality in England was 16 per cent.

In the US, excess mortality in people aged 25 to 44, and in those aged 75 to 84, is 18 per cent, and it is 15 per cent in those aged 65 to 74.

The situation is all the more alarming because there should be fewer deaths now, since so many people died earlier in the pandemic. There has also been a dramatic rise in people with disabilities.

As for Covid, in Australia, vaccine efficacy appears to be negative, judging by the statistics in NSW which are far from perfect but the best in Australia. They show that 88 per cent of people who died were vaccinated even though they made up only 85.5 per cent of the population. They also showed that the unvaccinated made up only 0.15 per cent of people in hospital with Covid and only 1.1 per cent of people in ICU.

Why is this? Almost certainly, because the unvaccinated who die of Covid in NSW are frail and elderly with multiple comorbidities, living in aged care or palliative care or at home, and don’t go to hospital. Why weren’t they vaccinated? Probably because they or their doctors feared it would kill them.

The question is, how many others is it killing too? Until health authorities tell us what’s in the shots, we won’t know.


Vaccinating After Recovering from COVID-19

With each COVID-19 infection, there is exposure to the Spike protein on the surface of the virus. This protein causes a world of trouble, including damaging blood vessels and causing blood clots. When the virus infects the nose with nasal washes and gargles and other treatments in the McCullough Protocol©, the degree of viral invasion in the body should be negligible.

When a COVID-19 vaccine is given, however, the genetic code for the Spike protein is installed throughout the body, and then it is produced for at least a month or longer, giving a heavy and prolonged exposure to what can become a deadly protein.

Although this counters the mainstream assessment, the highest risk patients for complications after vaccination are those who already had untreated COVID-19 illness and then went on to take unnecessary COVID-19 vaccines. It’s promulgated by health authorities that so-called hybrid scenarios offer the most protection against COVID-19—that is persons that were first infected then went on to get their full series vaccination.

However, based on this author’s ongoing practice, literature, and unfolding real world observations of colleagues, many nationally directed COVID-19 edicts need to be questioned. This is fundamental for any real science.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the vaccine producers excluded COVID-19 recovered patients from clinical trials because in this author’s (and colleagues) opinion, they knew there could be no theoretical benefit and that they would cause harm.

It has been accepted now that natural immunity affords as much if not more protection than vaccine-induced immunity—it’s a complex matter and important to note earlier in the pandemic while various other national governments embraced the established science of viral natural immunity, the topic was completely suppressed in the United States.

When the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advised Americans that naturally immune patients should undergo vaccination violating the exclusions of the clinical trials—we knew the program was off the rails.

Multiple studies have shown complication rates are markedly increased for the naturally immune who vaccinate.[i] Take my favorite college football commentator Herb Kirkstreit who contracted COVID-19 in December of 2020 and later commented: "Been 5 months since I tested positive for COVID-19. Still can’t taste or smell."[ii] Then in the Spring of 2021 he takes a COVID-19 vaccine, stating, “I just wanted to get vaccinated and feel the freedom.”

Presumably, he takes a booster six months later in the fall of 2021. Then early in 2022 Kirkstreit announces he cannot attend the NFL draft because he has a blood clots that have shot to the lungs.[iii] More cancellations occur because of this persistent problem. He wasn’t exactly “feeling the freedom” at that point.

Kirkstreit has been loaded with the Spike protein at least three times and may still be taking on more thrombogenic protein every six months if boosting. I would not be surprised if in addition, he has an inherited genetic trait that predisposes to blood clots.

I am concerned that in my practice large blood clots like the one he has are not going away quickly with conventional blood thinners. Additionally, undertakers are reporting tubular rubbery blood clots in the form of a casts of the major blood vessels obstructing the flow of injected embalming fluid. Thus, the quality and the size of the clot are worrisome, although of course, this all requires more systematic investigation for scientific certainty.

Reports indicate the Spike protein is within the clots and is amyloidogenic, meaning the Spike protein folds and encourages complexes of clotting material to organize into a solid form that is resistant to the natural thrombolytic system of the body.[iv] We hope for Kirkstreit that his clot is not permanent. His doctors should recognize the connection and fully exempt him from more ill-advised vaccinations.

The science of post-COVID-19 vaccine injury must imminently evolve, meaning among other things, government, academia, and yes, even industry should redirect at least some of the precious taxpayer-driven research funding meant for ongoing vaccination toward targeted real-world and interventional studies all the while ensuring that the vaccine injured, along with long-COVID patients have access to high quality care. Unfortunately, for a majority, that isn’t the case today.




Thursday, November 03, 2022

The naked authoritarianism of the pandemic response is unforgiveable

Forgiveness is now officially on the Covid menu. The left-leaning Atlantic magazine in the US has called for a ‘pandemic amnesty’ in which people ‘forgive one another for what we did and said’ during Covid. At issue is the question of school closures and other restrictions and mandates now deemed excessive. The Atlantic is something of a mouthpiece for Joe Biden’s hopeless Democrats, but in this instance the article is actually worth paying attention to. Not because of any particular insights but because of the distinct whiff of fear that oozes out of every other sentence.

‘But the thing is: We didn’t know,’ the author whines (in italics!), claiming ignorance as a defence against implementing erroneous Covid polices because she was operating under conditions of ‘tremendous uncertainty.’ ‘We lacked definitive data.’ ‘It wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.’ ‘Obviously some people intended to mislead…’. As well as this bizarre post-rationalisation: ‘In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck.’

Well, no. In some instances the right people were right for the right reasons. At The Spectator Australia in particular, where a veritable army of writers including Rebecca Weisser, Ramesh Thakur, James Allan, David Flint, David Adler, Rocco Loiacono, Augusto Zimmerman, Alexandra Marshall and many others risked opprobrium and worse for writing for the correct reasons – out of principle, out of conviction and out of sound research.

Indeed, a recent (much-appreciated) letter to the editor of this magazine spelled out the rewards of such an approach;

‘You and your team were like a light shining through the darkness of Covid hysteria. It meant a lot to my wife and I that we were not the only ones saying “what the hell…?” I am a former journalist (what has happened to our profession?) and I look forward to The Spectator Australia every week. The quality of writing is first rate but it is the fearless pursuit of truth which is truly outstanding. Your work is critical for public discourse in Australia as our political class, big business, media, bureaucracy and educational system all seem to have been captured by nonsense and wokeism.’

It is because of ‘uncertainty’ that in a democracy we supposedly seek a plurality of views on difficult issues, and we insist on accountability. By ensuring that as many people as possible get exposed to as many ideas as possible we hopefully avoid compounding bad thinking, and we trust the public – rather than the authorities – to make those final decisions that affect our lives and livelihoods.

It is utterly disingenuous for those who made such catastrophic and reckless mistakes during Covid to now say that ‘they didn’t know’ about such-and-such an outcome because of the ‘fog of uncertainty’ and that the alternative to their authoritarian overreach and draconian measures was ‘millions of dead bodies’. These same individuals deliberately and ruthlessly suppressed anyone who did try to shed some light on potential risks, problems or alternatives to the orthodoxy.

Many people were horrified by the police brutality, by the obfuscation and lies surrounding vaccine mandates, and were repelled by the QR codes and having their kids being forced to stay home or wear worthless masks all day long. But the censoring of them and the humiliation meted out to them was merciless. Dr Jay Battacharya was just one of many brave experts who spoke out early and loudly warning that lockdowns would not only fail but would cause more deaths than they could ever possibly save, not to mention doing untold economic damage.

Yet for speaking out he was demonised and hounded out of the public square. For merely asking questions, the Greens in the Australian Senate smeared and vilified the editor of this magazine in his role at Sky News along with Rita Panahi and Alan Jones. Gideon Rozner at the IPA cut a solitary figure in Melbourne when he did a video pleading for lockdowns to end in Melbourne and was vilified and demonised remorselessly.

So let’s skip the ‘fog of uncertainty’ nonsense. There were plenty of voices warning against nearly all of the policies that were being enacted, often brutally so, but rather than such plurality of opinion being encouraged, those voices were viciously silenced, humiliated, denigrated and demonised. It’s called wilful ignorance and it is no defence under the law.

But get used to hearing this argument that nobody knew any better. That it was all so confusing and we all did our very best. Plenty of people did know better and did try and speak up.

The Atlantic author claims that ‘dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop…. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty…’.

No. Let’s have a royal commission into the abuse of power during Covid, and a Senate inquiry, too, for good measure. To ensure this never happens again.


Unvaccinated, COVID-19 Infected Identified with 90%+ Humoral Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 for 20 Months

Natural immunity is powerful and long-lasting

Carlota Dobaño, Anna Ramirez-Morros, as well as physician-scientists at both ISG Global Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, and other Spanish academic research institutions, conducted a longitudinal cohort study involving 247 Barcelona-based primary health care workers who were infected with SARS-COV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.

Assessing natural SARS-CoV-2 induced levels of immunoglobulins M (IgM), G (IgG), and A (IgA) in response to the spike as well as nucleocapsid proteins associated with the novel coronavirus, the Spanish researchers tracked the patients for 616 days covering the range when they were first tested positive to SARS-CoV-2. Both the vaccinated and those who were previously infected and benefited from natural immunity both face risk with waning humoral immunity combined with mutating variants of SARS-CoV-2—the latter leading to the emergence of immune-evading pathogens.

Both of these dynamics can lead to vulnerabilities associated with risk for COVID-19 reinfection. While studies and real-world observations find association with comorbidities and COVID-19 severity, the impact of comorbidity on residual antibody levels (from previous infection) hasn’t been studied. The authors detected a robust natural immunity as measured in humoral protection against SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated health care workers subjects.

Humoral Responses

While the richest economies developed vaccines for a mass vaccination program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a sizable number of the human population around the world has yet to be vaccinated. While many of this global cohort survive based on natural induced antibodies (assuming they have been infected with SARS-CoV-2) how robust is this natural immunity? While studies have demonstrated that it may be active for one year or more, apex research institutes such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) centered their research investment on vaccine-induced immunity, largely avoiding the topic of natural immunity until they absolutely had no choice but to include it in discussions. But now long does natural immunity persist?

With the vaccines, a primary measure of effectiveness is the inducement of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. But the humoral immune response to the novel coronavirus represents another vital immunity response. This class of immunity consists of immunoglobulins in reaction to SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins). When a person is first infected, IgM and IgA represent key humoral responses, while later, the immune response centers on IgM and IgG neutralizing actions.

The Study

The study is a real-world evidence study involving 247 health care workers from Barcelona, Spain who were diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. The study team collected samples covering different time points between March 2020 and November 2021. The goal of this study: to identify and quantify the impact of comorbidities on antibody response to COVID-19. Comorbidities included autoimmune disease, cancer, obstructive pulmonary disease, and more.

How were antibody responses quantified?

The investigators evaluated levels of IgG, IgA, and IgM against the spike protein, subunit S2, nucleocapsid protein, receptor binding domain (RBD), and the C-terminal region of the pathogen while seeking to better understand how antibody levels modified over time.


In what could be considered stunning results, naturally induced antibody levels, as measured by seropositivity against the novel coronavirus, remained cumulatively over 90% even a year after the initial infection. Yes, the level of natural immunity as measured by humoral response proxies gradually declined leading to materially less protection, however, the 90% level of protection persisted during the study period.

For example, Dobaño, Ramirez-Morros, and team report a 95.65% seropositivity rate in the unvaccinated cohort with 95.65% (IgA and IgG) in response mostly to the spike protein as well as RBD-responses that were lower (IgA and IgM), at 47.83%.

Interestingly, while RBDs associated with both Alpha and Delta were associated with comparable IgG seropositivity, as to the wildtype (original) strain, Beta and Gamma variants of concern were associated with lower seropositivity levels.

Low Reported Reinfection Rate

The robustness of humoral powered natural immunity was considerable given that the subjects of this study—again health care workers from Spain who were not vaccinated but were infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the past—experienced a COVID-19 reinfection rate of only 3.23%.

Multivariate regression models suggested comorbidities from fever and hospitalization to smoking, obesity, and other factors associated with lower antibody levels. A year later, antibody levels associated with age, occupation, hospitalization, duration of symptoms, and a host of other factors.

Stable persistence of IgG and IgA responses and cross-recognition of the predominant variants circulating in the 2020–2021 period indicate long-lasting and largely variant-transcending humoral immunity in the initial 20.5 months of the pandemic, in the absence of vaccination.


The authors point out that those health care workers that didn’t get vaccinated experienced robust antibody levels even up to approximately 1.7 year with seropositivity over 90% up to 20.5 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

The authors point out:

“The maintenance of anti-S IgG, whose levels highly correlate with neutralizing antibodies, appears to be clinically relevant in protecting individuals particularly against the wild type and Alpha variants, despite lack of vaccination, consistent with having symptomatic infections in low responders, and those reinfected with the more transmissible Delta variant.”

Furthermore, the Spanish team reports that the “antibody kinetics after natural infection appear to be stably sustained, more so than after vaccination, which has led to the implementation of booster immunizations, particularly in the face of more contagious VoCs like Omicron.”

The authors remind that individuals who benefit from natural immunity also gain further protective benefit from vaccination, as unfolding study data suggests so-called hybrid immunity offers the greatest protection against COVID-19.




Wednesday, November 02, 2022

Anti-vax protesters chant ‘F–k Joe Biden’ at NYC Halloween parade

A group of anti-vax protesters chanted “F–k Joe Biden” as they marched through the streets of Manhattan Monday night in the city’s annual Halloween parade.

The political statement was but a small sideshow to a frightful evening that transformed parts of the city into a scene from “The Walking Dead” — with a wide variety of zombies lumbering up Sixth Avenue.

One other zombie, in full Michael Jackson “Thriller” regalia, danced his way along the parade route.

The brash language aimed at the president was repeated by a reveler dressed as a priest who was holding a sign that read “COVID 19 is a tool of control.”

A man dressed as the “Pfizer CEO” with a zombie mask and “killing you slowly” written on his suit danced to the beat of drums and a crowd of costumed characters followed below with a “RIP COVID-19” banner.

Asked about the mandates, a “Mayuh Eric Adams” impersonator went on a rant pretending to be the real mayor of New York City.

“I am never going to drop the mandates especially for city workers,” the fake Adams said. “I’m dropping it for private workers but not for city workers because they are second-class citizens.”

His response earned boos and a “F–k Eric Adams” chant as well.

“I don’t care about anybody’s rights,” the impersonator said. “I’m the may-uh and I get stuff done.”

Politics aside, both long-time attendees and first-timers said they were glad to partake in the parade’s 49th year.


Alarming Excess Death Among Europe’s Youth in 2022 – January-August

We are posting an alarming analysis of European excess death data from our colleague, Hervé Seligmann, an infectious disease expert in Europe from You will note in the chart above that excess death in the age group 0-14 has skyrocketed since the introduction of the COVID injections.

As evidence of harm from the COVID injections mounts, global populations are left wondering why authorities continue the mantra of safe and effective and persist with their policies.

From Hervé Seligmann, 10VIII2022 (edited for clarity):

The two panels above represent the weekly cumulative excess deaths in two age groups for the population of 24 European countries, representing approximately 500 million people. Excess deaths for a given year are calculated as the observed deaths for that year minus the average deaths for previous years. 2019 and 2021 had particularly high cumulative excess deaths for the 0-14 year age group. 2021 had outstanding high cumulative excess deaths for the young adult population, 15-44 years old. Trends for 2022 at this moment in time, early August, exceed all previous years for both age categories. For the youngest, excess death already surpasses numbers at the end of other years.

The COVID-19 injections are plausibly involved in the excess death numbers for the second half of 2021 and 2022 until August. COVID-19 itself cannot be a cause of excess mortality in these age classes as the death rates in these classes are statistically zero. Neither could confinement and other measures be involved in excess mortality in 2022. These numbers in the young are worrisome.


Unreasonable war on anti-vaxxers in nAustralia

For the past two and a half years, Jack the Insider (Peter Hoysted), through his columns in the Australian, has waged a war on ‘anti-vaxxers’. Of course, he conveniently lumps into that category anyone who dared to point out the fact that the Covid vaccines, far from being the panacea he believes them to be, actually do very little, even when it comes to personal protection.

On October 27, he wrote a piece which so stood out for its lack of rigour that it has to be called out.

He started off with this statement:

When Covid-19 vaccines first became available in the summer of 2021, I argued that this was the end game for anti-vaxxers. The science and the data that followed would be irrefutable. I was right about the data. But I was wrong to think this shameless movement would put its cue in the rack.

Let’s leave aside the emotion about this ‘shameless movement’, who he says ‘are joined by a larger group of disaffected people who don’t read enough and listen too often’. Jack the Insider is the one who is not right about the data because he doesn’t read enough or listen properly.

He cites in his piece a string of US government data that supports the lie that Covid became ‘a pandemic of the unvaccinated’. Jack is a stickler. He even cites a study of prisoners (people who, unlike the vast majority of us, are confined and cannot move out and about in society as they please) to demonstrate ‘what we have now overwhelmingly shows that unvaccinated individuals are more infectious and for longer’.

Unlike Jack, let’s be honest and do the job properly.

If Jack wanted to do his job properly, he could have done far worse than read regular contributor to these pages and The Australian, Ramesh Thakur’s column in the latter on August 20 this year, and he would realise to his argument there is a very strong counter-argument, published by none other than NSW Health:

The Covid report from NSW Health for the week of July 10-16 says: “The minority of the overall population who have not been vaccinated are significantly over-represented among patients in hospitals and ICUs with Covid-19.” Just two pages later the same report gives the number of unvaccinated people admitted to hospital and intensive care units as zero. The sentence is repeated verbatim in the latest weekly report for July 31-August 6, with the number of unvaccinated people admitted to hospital at zero and to ICU just one.

Even by the standards of public health authorities across the world gaslighting the people to nudge them into docile – and often performative – compliance with official edicts, this level of internal contradiction of narrative with data is breathtaking.

Not a single Covid death under 40 was reported in the week to August 6. The total number of boosted people who died with Covid was 71.3 per cent of the 1,281 Covid deaths whose vaccination status was known, slightly above the “more than 68 per cent” of eligible people who have been boosted.

Thus the effectiveness of boosters in preventing death lasts only a short time.

People who have received two to four doses made up over 95 per cent of the over-16s and 98.1, 95.8, and 82.6 per cent of Covid hospital admissions, ICU admissions and deaths, respectively.

In the 11 weeks from May 22 to August 6, the unvaccinated comprised 0.2, 1.8 and 13.1 per cent of all NSW Covid-related hospital admissions, ICU admissions and deaths, respectively.

The double vaccinated and boosted made up 98.1, 95.4 and 85 per cent of the same respective totals. Just the boosted added up to 73.3, 73.4 and 69.9 per cent.

We are no longer in the realm of a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Despite major protective benefits, Covid vaccines are undeniably leaky. Their real-world effectiveness lasts a disappointingly short time.

Strike one.

Then our Jack goes on a tirade against Rob Roos, whitewashing the anger over Pfizer executive Janine Small’s admission that there was never any testing done to demonstrate that the jab prevented transmission because ‘we had to move at the speed of science’. Jack dismisses the outrage at this as ‘shrieking’, and refers to, among other things, ‘peer-reviewed modelling’ (which he doesn’t reference) that suggested we couldn’t wait the usual five to ten years to produce a safe vaccine because ‘we would have to wear 14 million excess deaths a year if we waited’.

As we knew reasonably early in the piece, the modelling could never be trusted. Here are the undisputed facts about Covid from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare from November 2021, published in these pages. The average lifespan of an Australian is 82.6 years. The average age of Covid fatalities in Australia is 85. Since the pandemic began, the Covid fatality rate for Australians under 50 is four in 12,000. Sixty-six per cent of Covid deaths have been in nursing homes. Seventy-three per cent of Covid deaths involved pre-existing chronic health conditions and a higher number involved non-chronic but somewhat serious health complications. It would be difficult, therefore, to justify discrimination on the basis of vaccine status, especially if one has no pre-existing conditions, or is not in a vulnerable category.

Strike two.

Mr Hoysted, continuing his crusade against the ‘shrieking’ states that we always knew the vaccines would never prevent transmission – noting an FDA study – and that this was taken over by ‘political hyperbole’ about ‘protecting grandma’. He even cites an Israeli peer-reviewed study which showed ‘the ability of the vaccine to prevent transmission waned with time and with the advent of the Delta variant’. Well, I, among many other in this publication and elsewhere, were saying that as far back as April 2021. To then, as our Jack does, gloss over the way politicians and health bureaucrats promised to make lives miserable for people on the basis that they saw no point in getting a jab because not only did it not prevent transmission, but that, based on their own age and health circumstances, they believed it wasn’t necessary, is, in the view of this correspondent, inexcusable.

However, our Jack doesn’t give up. He uses the same study to insist that those who were unvaccinated for Covid would be more infectious and infectious for longer. As we know, that has been shown to be wrong. Remember when two doses were enough, then three, now four? Maybe that is why Denmark halted its Covid vaccine program back in April. Even before then, Lancet published this article noting the futility of vaccine mandates in the face of transmissibility (I’ll refer to it again below).

But our Jack still insists that he is right and has ‘indisputable evidence’ to prove it. He writes:

In the Oxford Academic Open Forum on Infectious Diseases, three infectious diseases doctors, two from the US and one from Scotland, examined three randomised trials and found that “receipt of the vaccine was associated with a 70 per cent reduction in all SARS-CoV-2 infections 21 days after the first dose and 85 per cent reduction seven days after the second dose. A similar cohort study of 3,975 health care workers, first responders, and other frontline workers in the United States who were tested weekly found a 91 per cend reduction in infection risk after full vaccination by an mRNA vaccine and an 81 per cent reduction after partial vaccination.”

Jack goes on:

While vaccine mandates may have been excessively applied across a range of industries (I never quite understood why they were imposed on footballers or construction workers), that analysis provides hard evidence as to why vaccine mandates continue to be necessary for frontline health workers, emergency response workers and even more obviously, for those working in aged care.

Well, that Lancet study I cited above directly contradicts this assertion, when it found that triple vaccinated Israeli doctors and nurses were getting Covid and passing it on to their patients: ‘[T]he demonstration of Covid-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients, requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA,’ it argued.

So much for ‘hard evidence’. Strike three.

A suggestion for our Jack. Since he has all the ‘hard evidence’ that the Covid vaccine is safe and effective, he might want to ask his ALP friends in the federal government why it is that the Budget, handed down last week, is warning that Covid vaccine injury payouts could reach $77 million. He might want to investigate why the CDC, which he places so much faith in, fought tooth and nail to prevent this data from being released.

Maybe then our Jack might put his cue in the rack.




Tuesday, November 01, 2022

‘Politically Motivated’ CDC Decisions During COVID

Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) are leading a GOP call for investigations into “politically motivated” decisions made by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a letter exclusively obtained by The Epoch Times, Roy and Biggs, joined by Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) called on Republican leaders to add the issue to a growing list of potential investigations if Republicans take the House.

The letter is addressed to Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and
Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.).

The letter comes in the wake of a unanimous vote by the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to add COVID-19 vaccines to the standard immunization schedule for children.

All members of the ACIP voted to add the Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax vaccines to the 2023 schedules, asserting that the vaccines, despite waning effectiveness, can still prevent severe disease. While technically the vote was only a recommendation, that recommendation is highly likely to be approved by the CDC.

This vote came after a Pfizer executive admitted that their COVID-19 vaccines were not tested for preventing transmission.

“We view this as COVID is here to stay,” said Dr. Matthew Daley, one of the advisers on the ACIP. “When I think about the routine immunization schedule as a pediatrician, I think of it as an opportunity to prevent serious disease and death. And if something is added to the schedule, it’s because I feel like the benefits continue to strongly outweigh the risks.”

This decision, Biggs and Roy warned, will continue to undermine Americans’ freedom and protect vaccine manufacturers from legal liability.

“This decision is concerning for multiple reasons and will only put the well-being of American families with school-aged children at further risk of their healthcare freedom while protecting pharmaceutical companies from any liability related to vaccine injuries,” the lawmakers wrote.

In response to the decision, Roy and Biggs called for the CDC to be added to a growing list of federal agencies to be investigated for misconduct by Republicans.

“If Republicans are once again entrusted with the majority of the House of Representatives, congressional committees with oversight of the CDC should immediately begin investigations, host hearings, and hold accountable those involved in politically motivated decisions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” the duo wrote. “This latest decision is but just one example.”


Citing several statistics showing that children are at minimal risk from the disease, and in some cases are more at risk from the vaccine, Roy and Biggs called the recommendation by the ACIP “unwarranted.”

“The decision to include such a revision in the childhood immunization schedule is unwarranted,” the lawmakers wrote.

For instance, the lawmakers noted CDC statistics showing that those aged 0–17 years old infected with COVID are at minimal risk for hospitalizations, with rates of hospitalization never exceeding 4.8 percent throughout the pandemic. During several months, hospitalization rates for 0–17-year-olds were as low as 0.3 percent according to the same data.

Further, the lawmakers cited evidence from medical studies showing that children aged 0–19 years had a 0.0003 percent mortality rate from COVID-19, or three deaths per million infections. Other research showed that in 100 percent of cases, children who died from COVID-19 had co-morbidities.

Additionally, the lawmakers warned, “studies show that children have an increased risk to COVID-19 vaccine side effects.”

After a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, one study found, boys aged 12–17 years were more likely to have an adverse cardiac event than to be hospitalized.

In men under the age of 40, another study showed, incidents of myocarditis—inflammation of the heart muscle—were more likely after a second dose of the vaccine than after getting COVID-19 itself.

Further adding to the dubitability of claims about vaccine safety, Biggs and Roy noted, is information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS data shows that as of Oct. 14, 2022, there have been 57,166 reports of adverse events in children after they were given the vaccine. Of those, there are 161 reported deaths, 528 reported permanent disabilities, and 1,962 cases of myocarditis.

Despite research showing that natural immunity is more effective for preventing transmission of COVID-19 among children than vaccines, Biggs and Roy noted, “the CDC does not have guidance including natural immunity for this age.”

‘CDC Guidance Has Been Wrong Before’
Biggs and Roy also warned against too readily accepting CDC guidance, noting that past CDC recommendations have had devastating consequences on children’s mental health.

“CDC guidance has been wrong before—leading to terrible outcomes for children,” the duo wrote.

The Manhattan Institute estimates that guidance from the CDC calling for school closures led to around 100,000 public schools shuttering in-person classes for at least eight weeks.

Because of the consequences these decisions had on children’s development, Biggs and Roy said, “We now face a devastating mental health and substance abuse crisis among America’s youth.”

In 2020, CDC data shows, 1,006 teenagers died from drug- or alcohol-related causes—nearly twice as many as died in 2019. By contrast, 199 people under the age of 17 died from COVID-19 that year.

‘Actively Misled the American People’

Further, Biggs and Roy accused the CDC of misleading the American people.

“The CDC has also actively misled the American people throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

The lawmakers cited the CDC’s controversial decision to change the definition of “vaccine” from “producing immunity” to “producing protection.”

In March 2022, the agency also chose to withhold hospitalization data by vaccine status, saying that the data might be misinterpreted. In June, the CDC reportedly decided to withhold information about the spread of COVID-19 in hospitals out of “fears of embarrassing the hospitals.”

In view of these factors, Biggs and Roy called for CDC leaders to be “questioned and fully scrutinized by Congress.”

“This recent decision by the CDC to include COVID-19 vaccines in the childhood vaccine schedule—and thereby pressuring states to implement this recommendation—should be questioned and fully scrutinized by Congress,” they wrote.

“No child should ever be faced with losing his or her education over a clearly and undeniably politicized vaccine,” they continued. “Every parent should have the full freedom to choose whether it makes sense for his or her child to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Decisions such as these are personal and do not require the ‘recommendation’ of the federal government.”

In closing, the lawmakers wrote: “As you consider the numerous failures of the public health apparatus, we strongly urge you to immediately investigate and hold to account the people responsible for brazen political decisions with the potential to impact our children with irreversible harm.

“The U.S. government should respect the decisions of American families, and not pressure States to issue an ultimatum that jeopardizes children’s access to primary and secondary education. Congress should ensure this is the case.”

The proposal by Roy and Biggs is the most recent in a line of potential investigations that Republicans could pursue if they retake the House.

Other proposed investigations could look into Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) role in leaving the Capitol unprepared on Jan. 6, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s handling of southern border security, and Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.


CDC Latest VISION Network Real World Evidence: Not Great News for COVID-19 Vaccines & Immunocompromised During Omicron BA.5 Surge

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) organized another study based on its VISION Network, tapping into what is claimed as the first real-world data look at mRNA vaccine effectiveness during the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 surge involving immunocompromised adults. A sizable study covering multiple regions of the United States, the CDC reports positive findings associated with the COVID-19 vaccination program involving immunocompromised adults.

The unfortunate news is that at best, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, including boosters, are providing moderate protection, and vaccine-neutralizing antibodies wane substantially over time. Immunocompromised patients must work with providers to find additional ways to bolster protection against COVID-19.


Covering the duration of the spring and summer 2022, BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants surged to dominate the SARS-CoV-2 variants in circulation, so much so that a special booster developed to target these pathogens was released into the market before clinical trial data could be collected.

At this time, there were four total doses available, the two primary series and two booster doses all involving mRNA shots from either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

What about the VISION Network? As TrialSite has reported, the CDC set this network up involving several U.S. healthcare systems as well as the Regenstrief Institute affiliated with Indian University to assess COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

What’s the core study findings?

Based on real-world data, the VISION Network covers large health systems across the United States. The study team was able to tap into and review the medical records of 30,000 immunocompromised adults. They found defense against COVID-19 associated hospitalizations was 34 percent after two vaccine doses, increasing to 71 percent during days 7 to 89 after a third dose, then declining to 41 percent 90 days or more after that dose. This means that after 3 months, the decline markedly goes down. TrialSite has reviewed comparable data for the immunocompromised where protection dives into teens and even negative territory in the ensuing months.

Although immunocompromised adults received increased protection after a third dose of the vaccine, this study found that vaccine effectiveness in this population remains lower than in the larger population of all adults.

The VISION investigators report vaccine effectiveness in the immunocompromised group was lowest among persons with sold organ or stem cell transplants or hematologic malignancies such as leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma.

What are the implications for low vaccine effectiveness among the identified groups?

The study authors report a combination of elements that need to be considered, including the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, from use of masks to prophylactic antibody treatment as well as anti-viral treatments. Once a person gets infected with SARS-CoV-2 all are important tools that can confer additional protection against the novel coronavirus in the targeted population.

What’s a PI point of view?

Brian Dixon, PhD, MPA of the Regenstrief Institute and Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, is part of the VISION Network, and a co-author of the study. Dixon reports, “This study confirms that even with boosters, immunocompromised adults, because of their weakened immune systems, are still at high risk of moderate to severe COVID. While vaccines in the general adult population have been found to be 70 to 90 percent effective, for the immunocompromised we’re looking at a much lower range -- 34 to 71 percent effective.”

Dixon continued:

“Those with healthy immune systems should keep in mind that we are a community with a responsibility to keep fellow community members, who are immunocompromised or have other conditions that place them at higher risk for COVID, even with vaccination, protected by taking precautions like hand hygiene and mask wearing, especially when transmission rates are high. We need to look out for one another.”

Shaun Grannis, MD, MS, a physician-scientist with Regenstrief Institute and Indiana University School of Medicine also went on the record:

“This higher risk group has been taking precautions and should continue to work with their providers to access needed tools to protect themselves. Immunocompromised individuals should consult their physician with any questions regarding remaining up to date with COVID vaccinations to optimize their protection. Adults with immunocompromising conditions and other populations have specific questions about the pandemic and vaccine effectiveness. Our findings in this study are a step forward in helping to answer these questions.”




Monday, October 31, 2022

CDC Officials Told They Spread Misinformation but Still Didn’t Issue Correction

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials were alerted that they spread misinformation about child COVID-19 deaths but still did not issue corrections, according to emails obtained by The Epoch Times.

Drs. Katherine Fleming-Dutra and Sara Oliver were told within days of presenting to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, in June that statistics from a preprint study they shared were wrong, the emails show. But after internal discussion about how to respond, neither the CDC nor the officials corrected the false information.

Fleming-Dutra and Oliver both referenced the study, which has not been peer reviewed, while the CDC’s advisers weighed whether to recommend the agency grant emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines for babies and toddlers.

The committee ultimately recommended the CDC authorize Pfizer and Moderna shots for children as young as 6 months of age and the CDC quickly accepted the recommendation.

A week later, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky appeared to cite the false statistics while urging parents to get their children vaccinated, despite no evidence the vaccines protect against severe illness and despite the clinical trials returning substandard or unreliable results for shielding against infection.

Kelley Krohnert, a citizen researcher and mother who flagged the preprint, triggered the internal discussions among CDC officials, according to the emails. When Krohnert pointed Fleming-Dutra to a blog post that detailed the issues with the study, Fleming-Dutra sent the email to others, including Oliver.

“I am not sure who this should go through. Let me know what I need to do,” Fleming-Dutra said.

Megan Freedman, a CDC health communications specialist, looped in a CDC spokeswoman, and they informed Fleming-Dutra that she and other subject matter experts “would need to determine if there’s any validity to the complaint.” If the complaint was deemed valid, possible next steps might include pulling the slide or adding a footnote, Freedman said.

Oliver jumped in, saying that Krohnert “appears [redacted], but there are my thoughts.” Her thoughts were redacted.

“I’m sure you guys can make it sound prettier, but something like this would be how I would respond,” Oliver said. “And the general sentiment that ‘even 1 death from COVID that’s preventable is too many, regardless of how you count them.'”

There’s no evidence any of the COVID-19 vaccines prevent death for small children.

“Love it – thank you for sending!!!” Freedman said.

A separate thread started after the Washington Post forwarded Krohnert’s email over a Post article that said COVID-19 is “a leading cause of death” among children. The article still links to Fleming-Dutra’s slide, which in turn referenced the preprint.

Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, sent the email to Fleming-Dutra, who forwarded it to Oliver.

“Kristen: [redacted]. Hope that helps?” Oliver replied.

“Thanks Sara! [redacted]. And really, I think the bottom line (which lots of ACIP members said today) is any death in a child (regardless of where it ranks on a list) is one too many,” Nordlund replied.

Dr. Jeffrey Duchin, health officer in Washington state’s Seattle and King counties, sent a link to Krohnert’s blog post to Oliver, Fleming-Dutra, and two CDC advisers, Drs. Matthew Daley—who also shared the misinformation—and Grace Lee.

“Great work today, as always. No doubt you’ve seen this and similar critiques of the mortality data presented. Will there be a response from CDC?” Duchin asked.


Seth Flaxman, a professor in Oxford University’s Department of Computer Science, and other researchers corrected the preprint after Krohnert flagged the issues to them. Their paper relied on death certificate statistics from the CDC. They initially said at least 1,433 deaths among people 19 and younger in the United States were attributed to COVID-19, but acknowledged in the updated version that the number was just 1,088.

The initial version “incorrectly used” the death certificate data, the authors said.

That sent the rank of COVID-19 among causes of death for children down. For infants under 1, for instance, it went from fifth to eighth.

Months later, Fleming-Dutra’s slide remains uncorrected, and nobody at the CDC has ever publicly acknowledged sharing the misinformation.

Fleming-Dutra, Oliver, Freedman, Nordlund, Daley, and the CDC did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for Duchin’s agency told The Epoch Times via email that the CDC replied to him in June.

The CDC “noted that the ACIP considers a multitude of data points in making their recommendations, so even if this specific pre-print paper was removed from consideration, the data overwhelmingly support COVID-19 as a cause of serious disease and death in young children, and COVID vaccines as an important way to prevent this,” the spokesperson said. “These ACIP decisions are made after reviewing the totality of the data and it is never one singular data point or analysis used.”

A spokesperson for the Stanford University School of Medicine, which employs Lee, declined to comment.

Lee promoted the false statistics during a meeting in September, and the official webpage for the committee she heads still lists the uncorrected figures. A spokesperson for the panel did not return an inquiry.

The Epoch Times obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request.

‘Very Strange’

The confirmation that the CDC officials were made aware of spreading misinformation but did nothing is “super frustrating,” Krohnert said.

“They had all this internal discussion about the criticism and still the CDC director gets on TV and spouts the same criticized data,” she told The Epoch Times. “And at that point, Flaxman even said he was going to be updating their report.”

None of the CDC officials have ever replied to Krohnert.

The analysis from the British researchers utilized CDC data. It took Krohnert under an hour to run the same numbers. The Epoch Times also examined the data on the CDC’s site, corroborating Krohnert’s analysis. It’s unclear why the CDC scientists didn’t do the same.

“I don’t understand why they don’t seem to know how to use their own resources,” Krohnert said. “It’s very strange.”


PARIS: A prominent French physician has won a stunning victory against charges that he denigrated official covid policies, with the French Order of Physicians holding that he was in fact obliged to speak out.

In its ruling, the French governing body for doctors found that Christian Perronne, 67, acted in the best interest of citizens and his profession in critiquing covid treatments and vaccines on social media, in national television interviews, and in a best-selling book.

“Dr. Perronne, an internationally recognized expert in the field of infectious diseases, was best placed to understand public health issues,” the translated decision stated. “If he spoke in the press about the action of the government and the pharmaceutical industry—as he was legitimate to do and even had the obligation to do so in this area which fell within his competence—he confined himself to publicly, but without invective, a discordant voice on a subject of general interest.”

In March 2020, as covid was exploding, Perronne emailed me a hugely encouraging study by Dr. Didier Raoult on successful treatment of covid with an old antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine. We both thought covid could quickly be tamed. But when President Trump “fast-tracked” the drug a day after my article on, the safe, generic treatment began a slow and tragic slide toward mainstream ridicule and rejection.

Perronne went on to sharply criticize the French government’s covid approach, including in a highly successful book entitled Is there a mistake THEY didn’t make?: COVID-19: the sacred union of incompetence and arrogance. The book, and statements Perronne made in a whirlwind of media interviews, soon got him into trouble with French medical authorities, which he believes was at the behest of French President Emmanuel Macron.

“At the beginning I understood things were going in the wrong way,” Perronne told me. Having served for a decade as overseer, variously, of the nation’s communicable disease, health security, and vaccine review commissions, “I think I knew how to manage such problems.”

Among Perronne’s other qualifications, he was vice president of the European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization for six years, which provides independent review and expertise on vaccines for the World Health Organization.

The Inquisition

Ten days before the ruling that absolved him, Perronne and I met for an interview in a Paris home, where my hostess, a retired physician, had read Perronne’s book, and a neighbor happily recognized him on the street as he was arriving. Perronne was facing the loss of his license to practice medicine based on complaints both by the Order of Physicians and an independent doctor who felt he had been attacked by Perronne.

Leading up to the charges, Perronne had found himself transformed. He had once been an esteemed public health expert, member of the infectious diseases faculty at the University of Versailles at Saint-Quentin, and one-time president of a professional society of infectious disease experts. But suddenly, he was a “charlatan,” he said.

“I was Galileo in front of the Inquisition tribunal,” he said of the September 13 hearing in the Disciplinary Chamber of the Order of Physicians. It nonetheless left him hopeful. In a huge show of support, an estimated 3,000 people had turned out in the streets outside the tribunal. “An extraordinary crowd was present,” the news outlet FranceSoir reported in a tweet with videos of cheering, sign-carrying admirers:

At the proceeding itself, Perronne sensed that his interrogators were going through the motions. “They were rather kind,” he said. “I think they were embarrassed with this affair.”

In an announcement of Perronne’s “complete victory,” his attorney, Thomas Benages, hailed the tribunal’s finding that doctors are entitled to debate and criticize health policies.

“By these fundamental decisions, the Disciplinary Chamber has reaffirmed the freedom of expression enjoyed by university doctors,” Benages wrote, “while highlighting the preponderant role played by Professor Perronne during the health crisis by bringing contradiction to the government and having”—as the decision stated—“‘a discordant voice on a subject of general interest.’ ”

The tribunal’s finding did not specifically endorse Perronne’s views, but rather his right to speak them. I asked him what he thought of the ruling.

“You can just say that I am very happy, since the Disciplinary chamber wrote that in view of my national and international expertise, I had not only the right to give a divergent opinion from the official policy, but it was an obligation for me to speak out, if I did not agree!

This statement is fantastic.”

As his lawyer wrote, “the Disciplinary Chamber simply came to reaffirm the values of our democracy.”




Sunday, October 30, 2022

Italy Plans to Allow Unvaccinated Health Care Workers to Return to Work

Italian health care workers who have been suspended for rejecting COVID-19 vaccines will soon be able to return to work, the European country’s top health official said Friday.

Orazio Schillaci, who was appointed last week by Italy’s newly formed ruling coalition to lead the Ministry of Health, said his administration is working on a measure that would reinstate unvaccinated doctors and nurses before the end of the year.

“Six months after the suspension of the state of emergency and in consideration of the level of COVID-19 contagion, Health Minister Orazio Schillaci considers it necessary to initiate a progressive return to normality in activity and behavior, based on criteria of responsibility and respect for the laws in force,” a statement on the ministry’s website read.

Schillaci also announced that the ministry will no longer provide a daily bulletin with numbers of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Instead, that information will be updated on a weekly basis.

Friday’s announcement, at least in part, is tied to the “worrying shortage of medical personnel,” according to the ministry.

The changes mark a departure from the policies of Schillaci’s predecessor, Roberto Speranza, who allowed hospital employers to suspend without pay any employee who refused to get vaccinated.

Under Speranza and previous Prime Minister Mario Draghi, whose government imploded in the midst of an energy crisis and a worsening economic outlook, all public and private sector workers must get a COVID “green pass” before they go to work. Italians who ignore the order and go to work without proof of vaccination or a negative test or recovery from the virus are suspended on no pay and fined up to 1,500 euros (about $1,500).

The “green pass” policy was considered to be among the most restrictive in Europe. While some European countries have made COVID vaccines mandatory for their health workers, none have implemented a vaccine passport system for all employees.

“We are making these choices in order to restrict the unvaccinated as much as possible, as this is what is causing the burden on our hospital system,” Speranza told media outlets earlier this year.

The new prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has vowed to not inherit the Draghi administration’s pandemic response, saying that despite the harsh restrictions placed on millions of citizens, the country nevertheless suffered the highest COVID death and infection rates in Europe.

“Something clearly didn’t work there,” Meloni said Tuesday in her very first speech to parliament as prime minister. “That’s why I want to say that in no way will we imitate this model.”


Arizona’s Kari Lake makes midterm waves as Republican’s new star

Arizonans know that their state, which flipped to Joe Biden in the 2020 election by the narrowest of margins, marking the beginning of the end for Donald Trump’s presidency, has become the nation’s political bellwether.

A red wave here next month would spell doom for the Democrats, who are defending wafer-thin majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate in US midterm elections on November 8. Their loss would end the Biden administration’s ability to legislate without the agreement of Republicans.

No governor’s race this midterm election has attracted as much attention as Arizona’s. The US media has become obsessed with Lake – they appear to hate her – knowing full well her victory would usher in a new Trump-like political force.

“If she wins next month, she will immediately vault to the top of potential vice-presidential candidates in ’24,” says Barrett Marson, a veteran Republican political strategist based in Arizona. For what it’s worth, Lake, a married mother of two teenage children, could well run for president one day if she wins.

“She’s one of the most compelling figures in the world right now,” says Amy Foto, a supporter and public school teacher of 25 years, who was visiting Phoenix from Denver.

Lake, 53, has leveraged her fame as a 22-year Arizona nightly news anchor and former Democrat seemingly with no political inclinations, to transform into a high-profile political machine with national ambitions. That Youngkin, who has already won a powerful office, travelled five hours across the country to campaign with Lake points to her ascendancy within the Republican Party.

“I’m Republican, I’m hard-core, I love the new Republican Party,” says Lake, emerging in her trademark perfectly cropped hair and a one-piece yellow suit, and beaming to the crowd, liberally dotted with cowboy hats.

Last year she quit media, joined the Republican Party, and two months ago edged out the local establishment Republican candidate in a closely fought primary in August, winning Trump’s fawning approval.

Lake’s growing appeal might even pull the state’s Republican Senate candidate, 35-year-old Blake Masters, across the line against incumbent Democrat senator and “fundraising juggernaut”, former astronaut Mark Kelly, who has raised $US75m for his re-election campaign, more than five times as much as Masters.

“The adverts are just killers, and yet he’s within striking distance,” political strategist Marson says. For Democrats, Lake has become the dangerous face of the hard “MAGA right”, a Trump acolyte, a threat to democracy itself and the face of the new Republicans.

Lake, for her diehard and rapidly growing Republican fan base, personifies the future of the party along with Youngkin and Florida Governor Ron Desantis, and looks set to become governor of the 14th largest US state, succeeding well-liked incumbent Doug Ducey, who has reached the state’s eight-year term limit for governor.

Dismissed as “Trump in heels” by her critics, it’s hard not to be impressed with Lake, whatever you think of her politics: faultlessly articulate and immaculately turned-out, she commands attention.

“When Kari Lake walks into a room, all eyes turn to Kari Lake. She is one of those people,” The Washington Post recently conceded.

Lake is ahead of her Democrat rival, Katie Hobbs, 48.5 per cent to 45.7 per cent, according to the latest average of relevant state polls compiled by FiveThirtyEight, a gap that has been steadily growing.

PredictIt, an online betting agency, gives her an 84 per cent chance of winning, up from 50 per cent two months ago.

“I think we’ve done more events today than Katie Hobbs has done in the whole campaign,” says Lake, fresh from six events earlier that day, mocking her quietly spoken, reclusive opponent.

Hobbs, 52, the incumbent Arizona Secretary of State, has refused to debate Lake, saying she does not want to give her Republican opponent, who has refused to concede Trump lost the 2020 elections, a “platform”.

A more likely explanation is Hobbs fears being ripped to shreds.

“(Lake) believes in everything I believe in: securing our borders, secure elections, she cares about the immigration crisis and a better education for our kids,” supporter Rachel Truse told me, as the Rolling Stones’ Start Me Up and then Laura Branigan’s Gloria boomed in the background at the rally.

The half-dozen supporters I spoke to decried high inflation, the politicisation of the public school curriculum, excessive taxation and especially the scourge of fentanyl, a deadly narcotic streaming across the Mexican border into the US in ever larger quantities that has killed more than 71,000 Americans last year – up 25 per cent from the previous year.

“Maybe we can take that to the border on day one; I’m not a pilot but I’ll be happy to sit back,” Lake says, promising to “declare an invasion” if she wins.

Arizona, at the border with Mexico, has borne the brunt, along with Texas, of the extraordinary surge in illegal immigrants that has dominated US politics for more than a year.

US officials arrested 227,000 illegal migrants in September, a 11 per cent jump compared with August, bringing the annual total to 2.4 million, 37 per cent more than the year before.

“This is the best Republican midterm backdrop in decades,” Marson says. “Dems may have the money, but they don’t have the economy on their side,” he adds, referring to the Democrats’ traditional financial advantage. Inflation is Americans’ No.1 concern, according to polls leading into midterms. Phoenix, Arizona’s biggest city, with about 4.5 million people and geographically double the size of Greater Sydney, has endured 13 per cent inflation, the highest of any big American city.

It isn’t entirely a Republican love-in in the aircraft hangar. Software programmer Andy, 23, reluctant to share his full name, says he’s still on the fence about Lake. “We need lower taxes, and I like school choice, which is a big issue, but sowing distrust in the election is really dangerous,” he told me.

Lake’s refusal to concede Trump’s loss, and support for the former president whose future is under a cloud as multiple political and legal inquiries take their toll, has dogged her campaign, at least among mainstream media.

“She can’t; she’s stuck to him like glue, their brands are intertwined,” Marson says, dismissing my suggestion that Lake, who did not mention Trump once at the rally but name-checked Ronald Reagan twice, might be trying to pivot. “We’re the leading state in election deniers,” Marson says.

Lake has not conceded she will accept defeat, citing as evidence a plethora of unfounded claims the Arizona electoral system is not trustworthy. Indeed, only this week, Republicans claimed Democrats were intimidating voters.

To Lake’s credit, she does talk a lot about concrete policy proposals, even if most media only want her to deny, once again, over and over, the 2020 election result. Her platform includes abolishing the state’s rent and grocery taxes, which average 2.7 and 2.8 per cent, respectively.

“We’re funding students, not schools; you can pick their own school. If they teach garbage to our kids, we can take them out – that’s the fastest way to turn our schools around,” Lake says, referring to a revolutionary education policy just enacted in the state that has enraged public sector teachers unions.

Parents, even those who choose to homeschool their children, receive about $US7000 a year a child, which they can spend on whatever school or tutors they want. It could destroy, in time, the US public education system, which has come under repeated attack during the Covid-19 pandemic for keeping schools shut for more than a year.

National polls suggest Democrats’ key political messages – warnings about the risk to abortion rights and the spectre of “semi-fascism” if Trump-backed Republicans win – have not cut through to an electorate worried about bread-and-butter issues of inflation, crime and immigration.

“It’s all bullshit,” Bill Truse, Rachel Truse’s husband, tells me when I ask if he is worried about Lake’s refusal to concede that Trump lost the 2020 election.

“Dems have been denying elections for years; Hillary (Clinton) denied Trump beat her, that woman in Georgia, I don’t care about it,” he adds, referring to high-profile Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is running for governor in Georgia.

“What did Benjamin Franklin say at 81? You have a republic …” Lake says, as she wraps up her remarks, encouraging the crowd to finish the apparently famous quote. “If you can keep it,” the audience answers, suggesting her audience is more educated than it is typically given credit for.

Trump’s still extraordinary political power is in its winter. Lake, if she wins, will almost certainly supplant Trump in the Republican party: younger, more articulate, more compelling and more attractive. 

“It’s sad because Denver doesn’t have a chance, it’s hopeless in Colorado,” Foto tells me, walking back to her car after the rally, blaming migrating Californians for rendering the GOP irrelevant in her home state.

Maybe with Lake at the helm of the party, that might change.