Friday, May 12, 2023

Brief hiatus

I am at the moment recovering from a mild virus. I think it will help my recovery if I take it easy for a couple of days. So I am doing no blogging today and tomorrow. I should however be back to strength on Sunday

Thursday, May 11, 2023

The shocking refusal of medical treatment to the unvaccinated

Vicki Derderian desperately needs a lifesaving heart. She suffered from heart failure in 2020 before doctors inserted a ventricular assist device, a mechanical pump that circulates blood to help both sides of her heart function. However, she has been turned away by the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne because of vaccine mandates which are still enforced by the Victorian government.

The Hospital insists that she must receive the Covid vaccine even though Vicki has a permanent vaccine exemption provided by the Australian Technical Advisory Group (ATAGI). As reported, the Hospital has refused to recognise her permanent vaccine exemption. ‘They want her to have three vaccines so they can do surgery on her.’

Vicki, a wife and a mother of three, has not been vaccinated because of concerns that her medical condition makes her unsuitable to receive a Covid vaccination. She insists that she is not an ‘anti-vaxxer’ and only decided against such a vaccine after ‘reading up on all the information’. Indeed, Dr Peter McCullough, a leading and renowned cardiologist, agrees with her that ‘under no circumstances’ should she, or any heart transplant patient, receive a Covid vaccine ‘because of the damage it can do to the heart’. According to him, ‘if Vicki’s heart sustains any more damage it is almost certainly going to be lethal’. This is so because evidence shows that heart damage can be caused by an mRNA vaccine.

Vicki’s reluctance to receive vaccinations, especially in her perilous condition, is a sensible and understandable response to the realisation that Covid vaccines remain experimental and their long-term effects on its recipients are largely unknown. Dr Jessica Rose, a Canadian researcher with multiple degrees in immunology, computational biology, molecular biology, and biochemistry, says that, while conventional vaccines take approximately 10 years to be available in the market, the Covid mRNA vaccines were rushed through clinical trial testing in less than a year. According to her, ‘these trials were basically the foundations upon which all the decisions were made and the mantra that we’ve been hearing for three years, “safe and effective”, were based on’.

The rigid enforcement in Victoria of its vaccine mandate in hospitals is reminiscent of its ‘no jab, no job’ mandate. While such a mandate destroys the livelihood of people, withholding medical care may be a matter of life or death. In this context, Ed Yong, in a perceptive article published in The Atlantic, argues that ‘medical care should be offered according to the urgency of a patient’s need, not the circumstances leading up to that need’. Carla Keirns, a professor of medical ethics and palliative medicine at the University of Kansas Medical Center, told Yong that it is a fundamental medical principle that ‘everyone has an equal claim to relief from suffering, no matter what they’ve done or haven’t done’.

The refusal to operate upon Vicki is a baffling and despotic example of bureaucratic decision-making. Even the Australian Human Rights Commission, on its website, encourages service providers ‘to carefully consider the position of vulnerable groups in the community before imposing any blanket Covid vaccination policies or conditions’.

In addition, the Australian Medical Council’s Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia stipulates, in Article 2.4, that decisions about patients’ access to medical care ‘need to be free from bias and discrimination’ and exhorts doctors not to prejudice the care of their patients on the ground that ‘a patient’s behaviour has contributed to their condition’. Relevantly, the Code also states that even if a patient poses a risk to their treating doctors and staff, ‘a patient should not be denied care’ if reasonable steps can be taken to protect the treating staff.

Indeed, a refusal to treat a patient because of their vaccine status adversely affects the democratic principle of equality before the law. The deliberate exclusion of unvaccinated Australians from life-saving medical treatment discriminates against them on the ground of vaccine status. In other words, if the unvaccinated face such serious restrictions of fundamental rights to bodily autonomy and lifesaving medical treatment, these restrictions directly violate the principle of equality before the law. Accordingly, in Leeth v Commonwealth, Justice Deane and Justice Toohey argued that ‘the essential or underlying theoretical equality of all persons under the law and before the courts is and has been a fundamental and generally beneficial doctrine of the common law and a basic prescript of the administration of justice under our system of government’.

Furthermore, even international law fully recognises that certain inalienable rights must never be violated. Accordingly, the right of an individual to refuse vaccination is codified in the Nuremberg Code, an ethics code. This Code has as its first principle the willingness and informed consent by the individual to receive medical treatment or to participate in an experiment. To deny a patient much needed medical assistance – a potentially life-saving transplant – because she did not give consent to vaccination, constitutes a gross violation of this Code.

To make Vicki’s plight worse, scientists have now discovered that mRNA vaccines, not Covid infection itself, may cause brain and heart damage. For instance, a study published in October 2022 in the journal Vaccines reports the fascinating results of the autopsy of a patient who had no history of Covid infection. The article provides compelling evidence that the patient’s death was directly caused by the mRNA vaccine. ‘In the heart, signs of chronic cardiomyopathy as well as mild acute lympho-histiocytic myocarditis and vasculitis were present. Although there was no history of Covid for this patient, immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins) was performed’.

Dr Young Dong, a medical doctor who has more than 20 years of experience in virological and immunological research, believes that, at the general population level, the risks of imposing vaccine mandates substantially exceeds the benefits. According to John Ionnidis, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University, the average rate of death for Covid, when adjusted from a wide age range and unreported cases, could be as low as to that of influenza. According to him, more than 80 per cent of those who get the virus have no symptoms or these symptoms are actually very mild. In fact, even the World Health Organisation (‘WHO’) acknowledges that ‘most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment’.

Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang report that, in the 2021-22 period, there has been a sudden and unexplained surge of age-inappropriate deaths in at least 30 countries in the industrialised world. They refer to research undertaken by Ed Dowd for his book Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in which he argues that ‘the sudden deaths in young people in industrialised countries are due to mRNA vaccines’. Relevantly, Dowd shows that ‘the number of excess deaths in America attributed to Covid in 2020 was actually much lower than the huge spike in sudden deaths that began in 2021 after the Covid vaccines started being widely distributed’.

With such low risks for most people, why is the entire population of Australia being coerced to be vaccinated with Covid vaccines? This is especially so given the potential for side effects which can lead to death, as is demonstrated by the dramatic surge in sudden deaths in countries around the world, including Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, of which many have been causally related to mRNA vaccines.

Australia closely followed World Health Organisation’s guidelines since the start of the pandemic. By the end of 2021, the nation reached a vaccination rate of 80 per cent of the population. Despite having such an impressive vaccination rate, last year, 174,000 deaths were registered in Australia, which is 20,000 more than projections estimated. This represents the highest number of excess deaths on record since the end of the first world war.

These excess deaths are mostly related to cancer and heart issues, including heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infraction, and heart disease. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged that the evidence shows that mRNA vaccines have caused many types of heart conditions, including myocarditis. Myocarditis is a condition that inflames and weakens the heart muscle, which can result in death. In fact, a considerable number of blind-reviewed academic papers have directly linked these vaccines with a higher risk of myocarditis, and even Pfizer scientists now acknowledge that there may have been increased cases of myocarditis after vaccination. Dr Ross Walker, a practicing cardiologist with 40 years of clinical experience, believes that mRNA vaccines are ‘very pro-inflammatory’, and so they should never have been mandated. On 24 November 2022, he stated the following about such vaccines and heart conditions:

I don’t think we should be having the mRNA vaccines. I’ve seen in my own practice as a private cardiologist 60-70 patients over the past 12 months who have had similar reactions to this. Whether it’s pericarditis or the more serious myocarditis. I’ve seen a lot of people get chest pain, shortness of breath, heart palpitations.

Dr Kenji Yamamoto, a cardiovascular surgeon who works at Okamura Memorial Hospital in Shizuoka, Japan, recently called for the discontinuation of Covid booster shots. In a letter to the peer-reviewed journal Virology, he explains that he and his colleagues have ‘encountered cases of infections that are difficult to control’ including some that occurred after open-heart surgery and were still not under control after several weeks of treatment with multiple antibiotics. ‘As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued,’ Dr Yamamoto wrote.

Given the already known potential harms of mRNA vaccines, the decision of the Alfred Hospital to force Vicki to receive such vaccination regardless of her health conditions is plainly wrong and not scientific. It is now patently clear that mRNA vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission. Speaking on these very vaccines, a member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisations (ATAGI), now acknowledges that ‘the more doses you get, the less benefit you derive from them and then we start to worry about causing side effects’.

The latest research confirms that mNRA vaccines are not being able even to stop the spread of the disease. Those who are vaccinated can still catch and transmit Covid. As evidence of the inefficacy of these vaccines, in a study supported by Centers for Disease and Prevention contracts, members of the Upper Midwest Regional Accelerator for Genomic Surveillance founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, concluded that vaccinated people can still catch and transmit Covid and, once infected, the vaccinated are as likely to infect others as the unvaccinated.

In other words, these Covid vaccines do not stop transmission of the virus, and the protection provided at best is very limited. Dr Jayanta Bhattcharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research and policy at Stanford University, believes that, from a medical perspective, the necessary conditions for vaccine mandates are not present. If a vaccine fails to stop disease transmission, then ‘the idea that you need to vaccinate other people so that I’m protected is just false’, he says.

These sobering scientific facts militate against the imposition of vaccine mandates and make the refusal to treat people like Vicki particularly odious.

With such high risks for some people, particularly those with heart conditions, why is Vicki being forced to be vaccinated with defective Covid vaccines? Indeed, the Alfred Hospital, which is owned by the State Government, has denied Vicki a place on the transplant list because she has not received Covid vaccines. They are trying to force a person in desperate need of a heart transplant to get a vaccine that has known cardiac side effects, in order to get a heart transplant!

To add insult to injury, as mentioned above Vicki actually has a legitimate vaccine exemption which the hospital is deliberately choosing to deny. In an attempt to get the authorities to respect her vaccine exemption, Vicki and her husband, John, have asked Senator Ralph Babet to raise her case in the Senate, which he did. ‘We’re being pushed in the corner and coerced to take something that goes against what we believe in, or not receive lifesaving treatment,’ she says. She has recently applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to have her case heard. Let’s hope that justice finally prevails, and Vicki can undergo a desperately needed heart transplant regardless of her vaccination status.




Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Another blow for the statin religion: Negligible benafit found from taking statins

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment

Paula Byrne et al.


Importance The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.

Objective To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.

Data Sources PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.

Study Selection Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.

Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.

Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.

Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.


Local and Private COVID Vaccine Mandates at Health Care Facilities Being Reversed, Struck Down Across US

Efforts to overturn vaccine mandates for both hospital patients and health care workers appear to be gaining momentum across the United States.

In what’s seen as a major victory for transplant patients who didn’t take the COVID-19 vaccine, one of the largest transplant centers in the United States reversed its policy to require the vaccine in order to be eligible for an organ transplant.

The University of Michigan (UM) announced its new policy on May 4, just before court proceedings started in a lawsuit filed against it for declaring patients ineligible for an organ transplant unless they agreed to receive the vaccine.

The suit was filed on behalf of several patients by David Peters of Pacific Justice Institute, who, in celebrating the reversal, simply said “We’re winning!”

According to a written statement by UM, “new information” led to the “voluntary decision” to reverse its policy.

“The University hereby gives notice to the Court that in light of developing epidemiological and other actuarial circumstances, effective April 27, 2023, it has changed its Transplant Center COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Adult Transplant Candidates,” the statement reads. “Relevant to this litigation, COVID-19 vaccine will no longer be required prior to wait-listing of potential adult solid organ transplant recipients.”

The UM decision came on the same day that a federal judge chastised Maine Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Patwardhan for filing a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of health care workers who lost their jobs for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

“You obviously have not been reading the U.S. Supreme Court precedent on this or else you would not have filed your motion to dismiss,” Judge Sandra Lynch said to Patwardhan.

Lynch made the comments during oral arguments in the case before a three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The case is being argued by Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, on behalf of the health care workers.

In addition to the ban, Maine Gov. Janet Mills also threatened to revoke the licenses of all health care employers who fail to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for all workers.

Maine is one of six states—along with New York, California, Connecticut, West Virginia, and Mississippi—that banned religious exemptions from vaccine mandates.

In April, in Mississippi, in what many parents opposed to vaccines are hoping will become a national precedent, a federal judge ruled that outlawing religious exemptions from vaccines, including school-required immunization, was unconstitutional and ordered the provision restored.

Such rulings follow a Supreme Court decision that found that it’s discriminatory for states to consider other kinds of exemptions from the vaccine while denying religious ones.

However, Peters said he believes that the SCOTUS ruling is only part of the reason hospitals are starting to voluntarily reverse COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Peters, who holds a doctorate in medical sociology and a master’s in medicine, said the hospitals are starting to own up to the reality that the vaccines are “if not hurtful, useless.”

He has several other pending cases against transplant centers that have denied patients a spot on a list, including some in need of life-saving heart transplants, because they weren’t vaccinated against COVID-19.

Peters said he’s planning to file “tons” more across the country.

Liberty Counsel has also partnered with lawyers in states including Florida to bring similar lawsuits on behalf of patients and health care workers.

Florida attorney Jenna Vasquez represents nursing students on behalf of Liberty Counsel in pending litigation against their colleges for refusing to let them complete their clinicals unless they get the COVID-19 vaccine.

“And yet we are being told we are in a nursing crisis,” she told The Epoch Times.

In Maine, another group, Health Choice Maine, has filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of EMTs who were fired for not taking the vaccine.

The Mills administration continues to enforce the mandate for EMT workers despite a critical shortage of technicians and drivers in Maine, which has the largest elderly population in the United States.

One of the largest U.S. hospitals has also been taken to court over its denial of religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine.

Oral arguments are scheduled for May 10 in a case against Mass General Brigham in Boston.

In the lawsuit, 159 workers question why the hospital granted 230 employees religious exemptions but denied their requests. The hospital cited “hardship” as the reason but didn’t explain what it meant, the complaint shows.

The hospital has filed a summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the case.

Massachusetts attorney Ryan McLane of McLane & McLane, a law firm affiliated with Liberty Counsel, is representing the 159 health care workers in the case.


Increased Risk of Serious Eye Problem After COVID-19 Vaccination: Study

People who received a COVID-19 vaccine have an increased risk of a serious eye problem, according to a new study.

The risk of retinal vascular occlusion “increased significantly” after a first or second dose of the messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines, researchers reported in a study published by Nature.

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines both use mRNA technology.

Retinal vascular occlusion refers to the blockage of veins or vessels that carry blood to or from the retina. It can cause sudden vision loss.

Out of 207,626 Pfizer vaccine doses administered in the population that was studied, 226 cases of the eye problem were detected after two years. Among 97,918 Moderna vaccine doses administered, 220 cases were detected over the same time.

While some cases were detected among AstraZeneca recipients, the risk wasn’t statistically significant.

The risk of retinal vascular occlusion was 3.5 times for vaccinated people compared to an unvaccinated group after 12 weeks and 2.19 times higher after two years. An increased risk was found shortly after vaccination.

“We demonstrated a higher risk and incidence rate of retinal vascular occlusion following COVID-19 vaccination, after adjusting for potential confounding factors,” Chun-Ju Lin, an eye doctor, and other Taiwanese researchers reported in the study.

Patients on medications that could alter blood osmolarity should be especially aware of the risks identified in the study, although further research is needed to figure out whether COVID-19 vaccines actually cause the eye problem, the researchers said.

They drew data from TriNetX, a global network, and adjusted the results with a model that included excluding people with a history of retinal vascular occlusion.

Limitations include not confirming the accuracy of diagnoses listed in the system




Tuesday, May 09, 2023

NIH Clinical Investigator Acknowledges Rare Neurological-Related Injuries Associated with COVID-19 Vaccines: What Are You Going to Do About It?

Avindra Nath, M.D. knows a thing or two about the COVID-19 vaccines and the neurological issues, although rare, that may ensue. Far earlier in the pandemic when the AstraZeneca vaccine was still undergoing testing in clinical trials, a group of patients including React19 co-founder Brianne Dressen engaged with Nath and others at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dressen and some others experienced neurological problems associated with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

In fact, as myriad issues emerged with that experimental product the decision was made to not consider that particular COVID-19 vaccine for distribution as a countermeasure under the Emergency Use Authorization. Nath and others conducted an observational study that was never peer-reviewed, uploaded to the preprint server medRxiv and essentially forgotten.

TrialSite reported on the study where Nath and colleagues emphasized that more time was necessary for scientists and physicians to determine the true nature of any causal relationship between the COVID-19 vaccines and neuropathies. So, lots of time has passed—what more does the NIH Principal Investigator have to say on the topic?

It should be noted that during those early days of the pandemic not only Nath via his National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), part of the NIH but also representatives from other federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were aware of these early reports of neurological-related vaccine injuries.

Brianne Dressen has explained to TrialSite that numerous upbeat promises were made by the agencies to support the COVID-19 vaccine injured with research and access to care. But particularly after the political winds blew hard as 2020 transitioned to 2021, with the outgoing Trump administration fiasco, the January 6th uprising, plus Biden’s new intensified focus on vaccination, it led to the worst possible political storm impacting the vaccine injured, raising questions about the COVID-19 vaccine or unbelievably just claiming an industry tarnished a person in the eyes of many. Essentially the topic was intensely politicized and remains so. In some societal circles, it’s a taboo topic, one that can divide what were friends, even family.

In Nath’s most recent article in the journal Neurology titled “Neurologic Complications with Vaccines: What We Know, What We Don’t, and What We Should Do” Nath, an NINDS Senior Investigator highlights first the impact of vaccination generally over the last half century, nearly eradicating potentially deadly infections that in days gone by were constantly taking lives. He is correct. Vaccination has played a vital role in individual and collective health despite the trendiness of elements in the medical freedom movement to deny that reality.

However, Nath and most in positions of influence and power in health-related research today treat vaccines as if they were all alike. But they are not. Importantly, not all vaccines are the same, even when the FDA has approved them as safe and effective. But it’s as if this classification immediately delegitimizes any critique of these medicinal-based products. An either-or false dilemma narrative is set up. Either you believe that it's universally good or you don’t. But that’s not how the real world works, especially with medical products with side effects.

The reality is that some vaccines have better safety track records than others, and at least historically, the vaccines that we have that are tried and true have a lengthy development lifecycle and several iterations of advancement.

The number of vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule continues to grow. As of this writing, there are 18 vaccines on the CDC’s Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for children from birth to 18 months, and this includes the COVID-19 vaccine. Importantly, the particular version of the vaccine now in circulation remains experimental (investigational) in that only the bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 product became available as recently reported by TrialSite.

There are another 18 vaccines on the CDC’s schedule from the age of 18 months to 18 years. While many of these vaccines remain a bedrock of personal and public health, TrialSite continues to have questions about the placement of the COVID-19 vaccine, again, still investigational (despite the licensure that did occur with the monovalent product), on the childhood vaccination schedule from birth to 18 months.

Nath in his generally cursory piece emphasizes that despite an evolution toward more sophisticated vaccines (mRNA or protein-based) and “well-defined” manufacturing process (see Emergent BioSolutions fiasco for glaring examples of production problems with the COVID-19 vaccines) he acknowledges that well, “despite such measures, vaccines are not without side effects including those that impact the nervous system.”

So, there is an explicit acknowledgment that neurological issues are present, at least on rare occasions. A wealth of information exists in various monitoring systems today, yet as will be noted below Nath calls for a more complex reporting scheme, involving global platforms, with full industry buy-in. A tall order that in all reality is years away. What about people with debilitating conditions today?

Nath points to “numerous case reports and case series” implying “possibilities” of such potential serious adverse events. But the NIH scientist isn’t squaring with the American public. The “React19 Scientific Publications & Case Reports,” database houses a collection of 3,400 peer-reviewed case reports and studies involving post-COVID-19 vaccine reports of serious adverse events. Including 24 therapeutic categories, the repository includes 628 studies associated with neurological issues associated with post-COVID-19 vaccine adverse events. 628 studies, even if only case series, is a lot and should be well studied, reported on and translated to the clinic to educate and empower more doctors and health care professionals to help patients. Isn’t that what it’s all about?

The NIH scientists remind all of the universal immunity the U.S. government grants to bio-pharmaceutical companies developing vaccines during the national public health emergency under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. Industry, and in fact, the entire value chain of vaccination from pharma companies to healthcare clinics has absolutely no liability associated with the mass vaccination campaign during the emergency. Any compensation for injury must come from what TrialSite has identified as a dismal failure—the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). To date, despite over 11,000 claims only three have been awarded. This is an outrageous reality. This demonstrates the government’s intention, which is to leave the vaccine injured to fend for themselves.

Importantly, vaccine makers generally don’t have liability for any injuries even before COVID-19. That dismissal of liability emerged with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 which shifted liability from industry to government under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)---an alternative to traditional products liability and medical malpractice litigation for people injured by the receipt of one or more standard childhood vaccines. While VICP is far better than CICP, it as well needs to be updated and modernized.

Nath reminds us of all that the government is busy monitoring for COVID-19 vaccine injuries thanks to both the “active and passive surveillance programs” in place by the CDC and FDA (think VAERS). TrialSite has reported on heretofore not conceivable volumes of adverse event reports in the VAERS system. Yet we are constantly reminded that despite the fact that the system was billed as a key to monitor for safety signals, VAERS doesn’t do much to help us because causation isn’t proven. This is true, however, when the incidence is reported in VAERS just one or two days after the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine the probability of some causal connection markedly increases, all things being equal.

With 672 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 1, 2023, serious adverse events are indeed rare. But they are occurring. Out of the 19,476 preliminary reports of deaths associated with the vaccines a substantial percentage of these occurred shortly after vaccination. Again, that doesn’t mean the vaccine triggered the death. But deaths are occurring—we have been reporting on them around the world. Some nations such as Taiwan and Singapore seem to have more reasonable and responsible government compensation schemes as compared to the United States, United Kingdom and Canada.

Nath continued in his journal entry, “While most side effects of vaccines are benign and transient, such as headache or fatigue, more serious side effects, including devastating neurological complications may occur.”

So, what does Nath propose to do to help this vulnerable population? Where is the health equity agenda in this case? According to his paper, “future research” is necessary to better understand the neurological complications of the COVID-19 vaccines (which he acknowledges involve other vaccines as well

Nath is also big on working to build influential, global monitoring systems with complete industry buy-in. Does he understand how difficult, how time-consuming the realization of such a vision entails?

What about the patients with vaccine injuries struggling now? Does he care about this vulnerable population? Nowhere therein does Nath really address what to do with the COVID-19 vaccine-injured population today.

The stakes here are bigger, more severe given the intense mandates and societal pressures that emerged during the pandemic, along with what was clearly federal agencies playing fast and loose with the law. True informed consent for example wasn’t really practiced during the pandemic in most cases. Although classified as rare, considerable risks continue to be associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for certain cohorts (Myocarditis for young men as an example), but during the emergency, the specter of catching COVID terrified the society far more than the rare prospect of an injury, which most likely would be mild.

At TrialSite we continue to carefully monitor the topic, and while we cannot prove our vaccine-injured estimations, we consider them reasonable. The extent to the scope and scale of the vaccine-injured population varies depending on point of view, outrageously, often even political point of view given the overall politicization of the topic.

We’ll simplify and call out two extremes—the so-called medical freedom movement extreme and the mainstream medical establishment, which we believe systematically suppresses accurate insight into the topic.

While the more extreme groups classified as “anti-vax” may declare millions have died from the COVID-19 vaccines in all reality there is no real evidence to make this claim. Any algorithms used to generate such high numbers are quite suspect and not validated anywhere. We are concerned by the growing tendency toward sensationalism to drive attention and eyeballs and in many cases monetization among the anti-vax crowd.

On the other hand, from a mainstream point of view, government estimates may vary but there is no formal, systematic research on the matter, at least that we are aware of. The government has only acknowledged a few deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines even though nearly 20,000 were registered in VAERS (again that doesn’t mean they are connected to the vaccine).

At least some of the research Nath proposes in his paper has been suppressed, or even shut down. There isn’t much money in studying COVID-19 vaccine injuries. And this is unlikely to change barring some extreme unforeseeable changes.

TrialSite reminds all that in the United States 270 million people alone received their primary series and based on nearly 2.5 years of ongoing monitoring of data and study sources worldwide, we estimate that a range from anywhere from half a million to 2 million people are struggling with material health issues that persist since the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. We acknowledge that not all of these are because of the vaccine solely—long COVID and other issues very well could be factors. It’s a complex difficult situation for those that are struggling, ill, in pain and left to fend for themselves in most cases.


Climate misinformation from "The Guardian"

Leftist organ quick to misallocate blame

The Guardian Australia has made multiple corrections to content it published about misinformation and Sky News Australia.

The online news outlet published a podcast titled, “Fox News and the consequences of lies with Lenore Taylor”, only to later amend it after making false claims relating to Sky News.

A note published on the Guardian’s website underneath the podcast by Taylor, the editor of the Guardian Australia, read: “An earlier version referred to adverse findings by the Australian Communications and Media Authority against Sky News Australia in respect of programs containing misinformation ​about C​ovid-19,” the correction states.

“This was incorrect.

“The programs were broadcast by Foxtel Cable Television Pty Limited on the Daystar channel.”

The embarrassing correction comes just one week after the Guardian also made false claims in relation to complaints lodged with the media regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The complaints were made about content relating to commentary by Sky News Australia host Rowan Dean on climate science, however the article incorrectly said the complaints were made by “Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission”.

In a statement on its website it later corrected the record to state the complaints were made by former prime minister Kevin Rudd.

“This article was amended on 28 April 2023 to clarify that the initial complaints to ACMA were made by Kevin Rudd personally, not by Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission,” the correction said.

A Sky News Australia spokeswoman said in a statement: “This latest factual error is particularly ironic given the purported expertise of the presenters on the podcast, discussing misinformation.”




Monday, May 08, 2023

COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Drops Near Zero Within Months

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines fell below 20 percent a few months after vaccination, with booster shots seeing effectiveness drop below 30 percent.

The review, published in the JAMA Network journal on May 3, analyzed 40 studies estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE) over time against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection and symptomatic disease. The studies were selected from 799 original articles, 149 reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, and 35 preprints. The review found that the vaccine effectiveness of a primary vaccination cycle against the Omicron infection and symptomatic disease was lower than 20 percent at 6 months from the administration of the last dose.

Booster doses restored vaccine effectiveness to levels similar to those seen after administration of the primacy cycle dose. However, nine months after the booster dose, vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was found to be lower than 30 percent against infection and symptomatic disease.

“The half-life of VE against symptomatic infection was estimated to be 87 days for Omicron compared with 316 days for Delta. Similar waning rates of VE were found for different age segments of the population.”

“These findings suggest that the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed Omicron or Delta infection and symptomatic disease rapidly wanes over time after the primary vaccination cycle and booster dose,” the study said.

“Putting together the bulk of available evidence on the waning of VE over time against COVID-19 variants has crucial implications for future interventions and vaccination programs.”

Effectiveness by Vaccine Brand

Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection was 44.4 percent a month after the completion of the primary vaccination cycle. This fell to 20.7 percent at six months and then to 13.4 percent at nine months. Vaccine effectiveness was found to be higher against the Delta variant as compared to the Omicron variant.

“Pooled estimates of VE after any primary vaccination cycle against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection show a marked waning over time,” the study stated.

Effectiveness against symptomatic disease fell from 52.8 percent a month after completion of the primary vaccination cycle to 14.3 percent at six months and 8.9 percent at nine months.

“Our estimates suggest that the initial VE could be different depending on the vaccine product, with higher VE found at one month from the second dose administration for Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech compared with AstraZeneca and Sinovac.”

With regard to age, vaccine effectiveness was found to be similar in younger and older age groups against the Omicron variant infection.

No “significant differences” were observed between the two age groups regarding vaccine effectiveness against Delta variant infection. “A significantly lower VE was found for both age groups for Omicron compared with Delta,” it stated.

Vaccine Harms

COVID-19 vaccines have been known to lead to several medical conditions. One study that examined 9,500 women found that those who had taken COVID-19 shots had a slightly higher risk of heavier menstrual bleeding. In the study, 40 out of 1,000 women saw bleeding increase after just a single dose of a vaccine.

Earlier research from the same team had found that the length of the menstrual cycle increased by 3.7 days on average among women who had taken two doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to those who hadn’t taken a shot.

According to a study from February published in the British Medical Journal, heart failure and deaths have occurred among those who have taken COVID-19 shots.

Researchers found that more people experienced myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than after being infected by the virus. Myocarditis is a type of heart inflammation.

A March report from Phinance Technologies, a global macro investment firm co-founded by former BlackRock portfolio manager Edward Dowd, estimates that COVID-19 vaccine damages in the United States resulted in more than 26 million people being injured last year, with such injuries costing almost $150 billion to the economy.

Misleading Effectiveness Claims, Compensation for Injuries
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also looking at whether Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson misrepresented the efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccines.

According to Paxton, the companies may have violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which bars people intending to sell a product from disseminating a statement that they know “materially misrepresents the cost or character of tangible personal property, a security, service, or anything he may offer.”

It also bans representing that a product is “of a particular standard, quality, or grade … if they are of another.”

Paxton has asked the three companies to submit relevant documents and information, including any concerns with regard to the vaccine trials.

Meanwhile, letters from U.S. officials that were reviewed by The Epoch Times show that authorities rejected multiple individuals who had sought compensation for injuries suffered as a result of taking a COVID-19 shot despite diagnoses from doctors.

One such individual is agricultural pilot Cody Flint who began suffering from adverse reactions to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine after taking a shot. Four doctors confirmed that his medical complication, including experiencing intense head pressure, were linked to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Flint sent the medical files to the U.S. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is tasked with compensating people who prove that they were injured due to getting vaccinated against COVID-19.

However, CICP rejected Flint’s claim, saying that it did not find the “requisite evidence” necessary to prove that his health issues were caused by the Pfizer vaccine.


Delirium Cases in the Elderly After COVID-19 Vaccination

The elderly are a particularly vulnerable population to COVID-19 infection so they were prioritized when it came to the COVID-19 vaccination. However, we now know that COVID-19 vaccines might also on rare occasions cause some adverse events. One of these that has been reported is delirium, and it appears to affect mainly the elderly. TrialSite previously reported on the neurological side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. This article will summarize a case series that reports delirium in the elderly after COVID-19 vaccines.

Delirium is characterized by poor concentration, disorientation, paranoia, memory loss, agitation and sometimes hallucinations. The presentation of these symptoms varies from person to person and symptoms may also involve sleep problems and behavioral disruptions such as hyper or hypoactivity. The symptoms of delirium should not be explained by any other neurocognitive condition but rather by an underlying medical problem. Causes of delirium can vary widely from stress to anesthesia due to surgery.

The case series

Researchers conducted the study at a nursing home (NH) with 514 beds during the period of COVID-19 vaccination for the residents. Participants were 70 years and older. Participants who had positive COVID-19 results or who had a history of alcoholism, were nonverbal, were deaf or blind, or could not speak English were excluded.

After the participants had been recruited, they were examined for conditions that could cause a change in their health status. The study considered vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition that might affect the health status. A day after the vaccination, participants were tested using the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity (CAM-S) instrument, a method used to assess the severity of delirium symptoms. A random sample was selected based on the results of CAM-S. After the initial selection, participants completed a more structured assessment involving the following:

Severe Impairment Battery?8 (SIB?8), a brief assessment method for people with severe Alzheimer’s disease.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a screening test for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This condition is characterized by a cognitive decline that does not affect an individual’s daily functioning but is still noticeable to others.

The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), a method to use to identify delirium.

Researchers diagnosed delirium using the criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM?5), a reference manual for the diagnosis of mental illness and neurocognitive disorders, based on the residents’ test results at baseline and after vaccination. The participants were diagnosed either with delirium or subsyndromal delirium, defined as a condition where one shows delirium symptoms but does not meet the DSM-5 criteria.

Demographic information was also collected from the participants including:

Previous delirium history
Presence of dementia
Presence of MCI


The study involved 40 participants; 39 of them had their third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and one received the second dose.

Demographic information was as follows:

The average age of the participants was 82 years.
45% of them were males.

13% of the ethnicity was Latino/Hispanic and non-Whites were 43%.

65% of the participants had dementia and 35% had MCI.

18% of the participants had a previous history of delirium.

Out of the 40 participants, 10% showed symptoms; three showed delirium (7.5%) a day after the vaccination and one participant was diagnosed with subsyndromal delirium (2.5%). A day after the vaccination, these four participants had increased CAM-S scores and decreased MoCA scores compared to their baseline scores.

Within two weeks participants’ scores went back to normal and delirium was resolved. SIB-8 scores also showed the same pattern.

Among 26 people with dementia, three (26%) experienced delirium; among 14 cases without dementia, one (7%) experienced delirium, among seven cases of participants with a previous history of delirium, none experienced delirium after the COVID-19 vaccine, and among 33 participants without a previous delirium history, four (12%) experienced delirium.




Sunday, May 07, 2023

Do Vaccinations INCREASE the Risk Of COVID Infection?

A study from a distinguished medical organization says they do. The study has however generated a lot of hysteria, as you might expect. See

The criticisms of it are largely ad hominem so should be disregarded. The claim that the study is ONLY a preprint should also be disregarded. I have read the study and see that it is perfectly orthodox in methodology with no obvious flaws.

The real limitation of the study is a familiar one in epidemiologcal research: There is no clear causal chain. We have to ask WHY some people had more vaccinations than others. Perhaps because they had reason to be nervous about their health. So the findings could simply indicate that people with more health concerns got more Covid. Simple


German Study Claims Mask Wearing May Be Harmful

Exposure to Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

The study claims wearing face masks may raise the risk of stillbirths, testicular dysfunction and cognitive decline in children. According to the study, “Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2, while wearing masks more than 5 min bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 1.41% to 3.2% of the inhaled air. Although the buildup is usually within the short-term exposure limits, long-term exceedances and consequences must be considered due to experimental data. US Navy toxicity experts set the exposure limits for submarines carrying a female crew to 0.8% CO2 based on animal studies which indicated an increased risk for stillbirths. Additionally, mammals who were chronically exposed to 0.3% CO2 demonstrated a teratogenicity with irreversible neuron damage in the offspring, reduced spatial learning caused by brainstem neuron apoptosis and reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor-1. With significant impact on three readout parameters (morphological, functional, marker) this chronic 0.3% CO2 exposure has to be defined as being toxic.”

The study was done as part of a scoping review where literature was “systematically” reviewed regarding CO2 exposure and facemask use. The study also says, “Circumstantial evidence exists that extended mask use may be related to current observations of stillbirths and to reduced verbal motor and overall cognitive performance in children born during the pandemic. A need exists to reconsider mask mandates.” The research team acquired data from 43 previous studies of mask-wearing and pregnancy. Apparently, mask-wearing creates a “dead space” that traps CO2 leading to more inhaled and rebreathing of the gas.

Conclusions are questioned

The researchers looked at studies focusing primarily on mice and rats, and that appears to be one of the main issues with the research because the data was taken from animals and not humans. Researchers also noted none of the studies they looked at involved mask use, miscarriages or infertility and neurodevelopment disorders. They also said that the exact effects of toxic levels of CO2 on unborn life are not known in great detail.

Additionally, the lead researcher of the analysis, Kai Kisielinski, who describes himself as an “independent researcher” has written other papers claiming mask wearing may cause significant health problems. Kisielinski is also a surgeon in Dusseldorf, Germany. Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic there has been a debate about mask-wearing. Now it seems an argument has been introduced claiming mask-wearing may be unhealthy. There appears to be one constant with the Covid pandemic. It continues to foster divisiveness and debate.


Un-informed consent

Dr Julie Sladden

‘I had my shots but I’m not having any more’ is a phrase I’ve heard more than once.

A little over a year ago – I know, it feels longer – thousands marched the streets of Australia protesting the mandates. I was one of them.

In many cases, the mandates were facilitated through emergency powers enacted by the state governments. But some sectors (for example Universities) and employers (for example airlines) brought the mandates in all by themselves.

It makes me wonder, if the government and employers tried it on again, how many would march the streets in protest now?

This is an important question as none of the legislative powers that made the ‘mandate nightmare’ possible have been wound back. And only a handful of workers have successfully defeated the mandates.

Meanwhile, the mandate hangover continues…

I recently received a call from a worker who was ‘mandated’ to have a booster. They wanted to discuss options.

‘Just say no,’ I offered. A simple option, possibly not without consequence, but one I would place top of my list. Saying ‘no’ in the current climate is far more likely to be accepted than it was twelve months ago. And I know people who have successfully done so, without losing their jobs.

But there’s something more important at stake: who owns your body?

I asked the caller, ‘Do you really want to continue to work for an employer who is going to require you to have a jab every six months just so you can earn a living?’

It’s a question we should all ask because under those conditions, there is no bodily autonomy (that is, your employer owns your body) and it’s impossible to give legally valid informed consent. Being coerced into having a jab, to keep your job, is not informed consent. It’s the antithesis of informed consent.

In considering the requirements for legally valid informed consent – which can only be given voluntarily and in the absence of undue pressure, coercion, or manipulation – it becomes clear that anyone ‘mandated’ is unable to give informed consent. Why? Because mandates and informed consent are mutually exclusive. If someone is being told they have to have a jab to keep their job then informed consent is not possible, regardless of whether they are willing to receive it for those reasons.

Many understood this, and the seriousness of the new ‘no jab, no pay’ territory we were entering. Tragically, thousands of people walked from jobs and careers that spanned decades, in what might be the biggest government-enforced-mass-exodus of a skilled working population. Even more tragically, hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, were coerced into having the jab to keep their job. And let’s not talk about those who were injured or worse.

This, in a so-called ‘free’ country.

Informed consent was not just ‘impossible’ for the mandated. I have serious doubts about whether anyone in Australia gave informed consent to the Covid injections.

Let me explain.

During the Covid years, Australians were subject to politicians and medical technocrats who told us how miserable our lives were going to be if we didn’t get vaccinated. The disgust was tangible, and the message was clear. Somehow we allowed Australian authorities to subject us to the ‘largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever’ despite treaties, agreements, and codes of conduct that are supposed to protect against such things. I believe the ’95 per cent’ Covid ‘vaccination’ rate was achieved through undue pressure, coercion, and manipulation of the Australian population.

Were you told you wouldn’t be able to attend weddings, funerals, birthdays, social events, schools, or community services if you didn’t get vaccinated? Undue pressure.

Were you told that you would be unable to work, return home, travel, visit sick relatives, enter a hospital, or obtain medical care if you didn’t get vaccinated? Coercion.

Were you told it was your duty, your social contract, and a way to ‘love your neighbour’ by getting vaccinated? Manipulation.

‘The vast majority of people taking vaccines did it under duress,’ said Dr. Peter McCullough on his recent visit to Australia. ‘They did it under duress. They had to try to keep their job or maintain their position … and my heart is broken that so many people have taken the vaccine, and so many have been harmed.’

This same pattern of pressure, coercion, and manipulation was seen around the world.

In the UK, the Lockdown Files revealed how the government employed military-grade psyop-style strategies to make sure they ‘frightened the pants off everyone’ into compliance.

‘You’ve got to look at the definition of coercion,’ explains UK Doctor of Psychology Christian Buckland. ‘The Encyclopedia Britannica states, “It’s the threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions… and those threats include psychological pressure and social ostracism.”’

Buckland continues, ‘This is really important because the (Lockdown Files) prove that psychological pressure was applied to the public. That means any consent to immunisation that was given, whether they asked you or didn’t, or if you agreed or didn’t agree … was not valid.’

‘So what?’ you may ask. Well, if consent was not valid then who is accountable?

Buckland explains, ‘One of the most important questions that is going to emerge from this issue is going to be one of accountability and liability for all the people who have been greatly injured or been left bereft, because of the Covid vaccine. Because they gave their consent for an injection that they couldn’t give consent to. There has to be some form of accountability, based on the fact that no one could give informed consent.’

This issue of informed consent is about so much more than bodily autonomy. It is inextricably linked to medical freedom… and more.

‘Your medical freedom is inextricably linked to your social freedom and your economic freedom,’ says Dr McCullough. ‘When that medical freedom is broken, and you begin to do things to your body for other reasons, outside of medicinal reasons, it infringes upon these other circles of freedom, and this can cascade down. We have to bring ourselves out of this.’

I agree.

We, the people, need to re-draw the line in the sand. The line where the government ends and our bodily autonomy begins. The ‘informed consent’ line.

Informed consent isn’t some optional extra in medical ethics. It is foundational in medicine and foundational to freedom.

Without it, we lose far more than the right to refuse an experimental jab.