Saturday, November 25, 2023

Another Friday hiatus

Both medical and social matters once again kept me too busy to blog. Sabbath tomorrow so back Sunday

Thursday, November 23, 2023

An Open Letter To The Lancet

The Lancet is prestigious and publishes some good studies but it is under heavily Leftist influence. It published, for instance, an article that criticized the American invasion of Iraq. And Leftists like the authoritarian responses to Covid. They took the heavy-handed Chinese Communist approach as their model

A Lancet paper has made outrageous claims that Covid vaccines are highly effective in reducing Covid and all-cause mortality for older Australians. This paper, used by the Australian Government to support more boosters for the elderly, is debunked in the following open letter:

Open letter to Bette Liu, Sandrine Stepien, Timothy Dobbins, Heather Gidding, David Henry, Rosemary Korda, Lucas Mills, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Nicole Pratt, Claire M. Vajdic, Jennifer Welsh, and Kristine Macartney, authors of “Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19 specific and all-cause mortality in older Australians: a population based study”. The Lancet, Vol. 40, 100928, November 2023. DOI:

also to Richard Horton (editor of the The Lancet)

and Paul Kelly (Australian Chief Medical Officer)

Concerns Regarding Data Integrity And Analysis
The retrospective, observational study of 3.8 million Australians of over 65 years, during eleven months of 2022, has reached the following broad conclusion:

“COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective against COVID-19 mortality among older adults although effectiveness wanes with time since the last dose.

Our findings emphasise the importance of continuing to administer booster doses, particularly to those at highest risk.”

This paper and its conclusion have been cited by the Australian Chief Medical Officer in an Australian Senate Estimates inquiry [1] to support government policy of continued vaccination for older adults.

The research has been funded by the Australian Government through various government agencies and by pharmaceutical companies.

As it stands, the conclusion of the paper is unclear, if not invalid, because it states that vaccination is “highly effective”, but “wanes over time”. Can a vaccine be “highly effective” only for a limited time? How limited?

The time limit to effectiveness is one of the key issues to be discussed below.

Data Integrity Issues

Most of the paper, consisting of four large tables occupying most of a printed page each, is a presentation of dosage statistics of the Australian population, which, while not irrelevant, are not germane to the main subject of the paper.

The space could be better used. The main subject and conclusion of the paper depend critically on analysis of the data relating dosage to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality shown in Figures 1 to 3.

These “death by vaccination status” data, central to the study, are largely absent from the paper. Importantly, the conclusion quoted above requires analysis of accurate Australian COVID data which are well-known to have serious integrity issues, which have errors originating from data collected from disparate sources and from flawed data recording procedures.

For example, someone who dies soon after being vaccinated with one dose may be recorded as the death of an unvaccinated person [2].

Also, COVID-19 mortality is intrinsically an unreliable statistic, because attribution of a COVID death may be erroneous. A death (ICD 10 code U07.1) could be with COVID (defined by a positive PCR test) rather than from COVID (the disease).

Sometimes, COVID deaths (ICD 10 code U07.2) have been assigned by judgement without doing any tests.

Raw COVID-19 mortality data by dosage, essential to the paper have not been disclosed in the paper, even in a summary form. How did they select and validate COVID-19 mortality data? The authors need to discuss the data of Figure 1 and 2 and should publish their compilation of the raw data, so that readers can replicate the results of their paper.

A further deficiency is: that measuring vaccination effectiveness (VE) by survival rates against only COVID-19 mortality is inadequate because it assumes falsely that vaccination does not have lethal side effects. Even the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has admitted [3] that there were 14 COVID vaccine-induced deaths to March 2023.

With mass vaccination, non-COVID excess deaths have reached about double COVID-19 deaths [4], which should be investigated for association with vaccination. Yet, with only a brief discussion suggesting how vaccination may reduce all-cause mortality, the authors have inserted “all-cause mortality” in the title of the paper, insinuating vaccination is also effective against all-cause mortality.

Method And Analysis Issues

Even ignoring data integrity issues, ignoring non-COVID excess deaths and supposing VE is validly measured against only COVID-19 mortality, the paper still suffers seriously from methodological and analytical defects. Vaccination, COVID-19 mortality and all-cause mortality data are available since 2021 and well into 2023.

Why does the paper select and analyze only eleven months of 2022? There were surges in deaths in 2022 accompanying the rollouts of the first and second boosters, but the paper does not consider that they may be related to vaccinations, rather than only to the COVID disease.

Instead of analyzing 2022 data as a whole, COVID and all-cause mortality data are analyzed in two separate periods: one five-month period and one six-month period. For different dose groups, vaccine effectiveness (VE) is evaluated by COVID-19 survival effectiveness for three windows: less than three months, three to six months and more than six months.

Such divisions of time periods need to be discussed, because analyzing survival over multiple fixed time periods involves unstated assumptions about the time taken for vaccines to have their effects, and the delay effects should be discussed.

The risk of errors increased due to survivorship bias, where deaths may “fall between the cracks” between survival windows. With two data periods, three dosage groups and three survival windows, there are 18 different vaccine mortality rates to compare to two unvaccinated mortality rates.

As may be expected, there are 18 different VE measures with a wide range of results depending on the various combinations. Importantly, the results appear random with no consistent VE pattern across the two time periods or between the dose groups.

In their main findings, the best and most convenient cases were selected for reporting. For example, from Figure 1 in the first period, the main finding reported was “VE of a 3rd COVID-19 vaccine dose within 3 months was 93 percent (95 percent CI 93–94 percent) whilst VE of a 2nd dose >6 months since receipt was 34 percent (26–42 percent)

Among unfavourable findings (see below), the most favourable finding has been cited by the authors to show COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective, but only relatively and “wanes with time”. Some of those unfavourable findings are masked by what appear as glaring anomalies, probably serious errors collected in table below.

From Figure 1 of the paper, the “Dose3>180 days” group has higher mortality rate (per 100 person-year) than the unvaccinated, yet they have positive vaccine effectiveness of 63.4 percent (COVID-19 VE (percentage) column below).

This and few other examples are shown in the table below, where a “Relative Risk Reduction (percentage)” column (should be the same as COVID-19 VE (percentage)) has been added here with shaded cells, simply calculated from the mortality rates given.

In the June to November period of Figure 1, the “Dose2 8-90 days” group had 1.218 mortality rate per 100 PY, compared to 0.49 for the unvaccinated. This shows that even in the short-term of less than three months, that vaccinated group (second shaded cell from the bottom) had 2.5 times higher risk of dying from COVID than the unvaccinated.

How could the authors claim for that case (second last column in the above table) a positive VE of 13.9 percent in their paper?

The paper needs to disclose the sorts of adjustments used to achieve positive “COVID-19 VE (percentage)” for those cases where the vaccinated groups had higher mortality rates than the unvaccinated. Those negative relative risk reduction results calculated here for those cases, if unexplained, would invalidate the main conclusion of paper that COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective.

Similar criticisms can be raised against the analysis in Figure 2 and Figure 3, where the method of adjustment for obtaining VE results for all-cause mortality is also not transparent, even though the raw all-cause data would be more accurate than COVID-19 data for reasons explained and discussed above.

On all-cause mortality the authors made unsubstantiated comments such as “COVID-19 vaccines also appeared effective against other specific causes of death…those who are more likely to get multiple vaccine doses, or to be vaccinated earlier are healthier and less likely to die from any cause…”. Emphasis added.

On Pfizer/BioNTech’s COMIRNATY vaccines alone, the TGA’s DAEN database [5] recorded (subject to underreporting) over 82,000 adverse events associated with many different diseases. Moreover, those comments are contradicted by the authors’ own analysis.

Figure 3 of the paper shows clearly that the authors’ own calculated VE against all-cause mortality (rates not shown) are all negative for those cases shown in the above table (last column).

Therefore, COVID-19 vaccination was ineffective and had increased all-cause mortality among some groups of older adults. Their evidence of ineffectiveness is consistent with Australian macro-data where all-cause mortality have increased significantly for older Australians vaccinated since 2021 [4].

Summary Of Critique

The approach of this study depends on official COVID data which have integrity issues, which the paper does not acknowledge.

Only 11 months in 2022 of official data out of possibly more than 24 months have been selected for the study.

The “death by vaccination status” data which link dosages with mortality data have not been discussed or disclosed. The key data used need to be publicly available for replication of the findings.

The unseen key data collection has been selectively analyzed, by dividing into separate time periods, dose groups and survival durations, producing 18 comparisons. The method of analysis is unsound and has led apparently to random results, without identifiable regularity.

The vaccination effectiveness results were not simply calculated, but adjusted. The details of the adjustments need to be disclosed.

The unadjusted results contradict the general conclusion that “COVID-19 vaccination is highly effective against COVID-19 mortality among older adults”.

Out of 18 comparisons of adjusted results, the most favourable and convenient findings have been selected and presented to draw the main conclusion which is not generally valid.


As it stands, the paper has serious deficiencies in data integrity, data selection bias, flawed methods of analysis, undisclosed adjustments of results, selective reporting of findings and the drawing of invalid conclusions.

The Australian Government has chosen to take this paper as authoritative evidence to justify its health policy, which has been associated with many excess deaths particularly in older Australians, but those deaths have been brushed off without investigation as coincidental, unrelated to vaccination.

The paper, in its currently published form, has serious methodological and analytical defects, resulting in errors and misleading conclusions.

Therefore, the paper needs substantial revision to address the issues raised or it should be retracted.




Wednesday, November 22, 2023

Study Reveals Most Common Chronic Symptoms After COVID-19 Vaccination

A new study shows some of the most common chronic symptoms among people who began experiencing the problems after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The most common symptoms were exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, and neuropathy, researchers reported in the paper.

Insomnia, palpitations, myalgia, tinnitus, headache, burning sensations, and dizziness were also experienced by at least half of the participants in the study, which was funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Participants reported a median of 22 symptoms, with a ceiling of 35.

The study focused on people "who report a severe, debilitating chronic condition following COVID-19 vaccination" that "began soon after COVID-19 vaccination and persisted in many people for a year or more," the researchers said.

The study was led by Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Internal Medicine at the Yale School of Medicine and Yilun Wu of the Yale School of Public Health's Department of Biostatistics.

It was published on Nov. 10 as a preprint ahead of peer review.


The paper comes from Yale's Listen to Immune, Symptom and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) research, which examines both so-called long COVID and post-vaccine adverse events.
Researchers began recruiting participants in May 2022. Participants filled out a survey, and researchers had access to their health records.

The study featured adults who reported post-vaccination problems from May 2022 through July 2023. The 388 people who also reported so-called long COVID, or lingering symptoms after COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Another 146 people who didn't completely fill out the survey were also ultimately left out.

The median age of the participants was 46, and 80 percent were female. Approximately 88 percent live in the United States.

The design of the study means no causality could be confirmed, the researchers said. While they acknowledged the chronic symptoms could be caused by the vaccines, they alleged they could also be unrelated and have occurred by change, but also said the clustering of symptoms soon after vaccination "suggests a potential relationship."

Known side effects of the vaccines include heart inflammation, severe allergic shock, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Other issues have been linked to the vaccines by some but aren't recognized as widely as confirmed side effects.

The symptoms could be quite painful. Participants reported a median of 80 on a scale of 100 when asked how bad their symptoms were on their worst days.

Lingering Symptoms

In the week before completing the survey, 93 percent of participants said they felt unease at least once.
More than eight out of 10 reported feeling fearful, and 81 percent reported feeling overwhelmed by worries.

Feelings of helplessness, depression, hopelessness, and worthlessness were also commonly reported.

Nearly the entire group said they felt rundown and 91 percent said they suffer from sleep problems.

On the other hand, half of participants reported being in good, very good, or excellent condition. Still, the rest reported fair, poor, or unknown status.

The symptoms started for many people soon after vaccination. The median time of symptom onset was three days. Seventy-seven percent of people experienced the symptoms after their first or second shot.

The study followed an NIH-authored paper that detailed 23 people who experienced persistent symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination.

A number of participants in the new study received new diagnoses after receiving a vaccine, including anxiety, neurological conditions, gastrointestinal issues, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.

Problems Before the Pandemic

Nearly half the participants had allergies before the pandemic, according to the study. About three quarters of the participants in total had at least one comorbidity, such as allergies.

Behind allergies, the most common comorbidities were gastrointestinal issues, with acid reflux as an example; anxiety disorders; depressive disorders; and asthma.

Arthritis, an autoimmune disease, high cholesterol, hypertension of high blood pressure, and migraines were also reported each by more than two dozen people.

Treatments Tried

Many participants tried multiple treatments for their symptoms. Nearly all tried probiotics, which help boost good bacteria in the body.

Vitamins and supplements were also frequently turned to, with vitamins b12, c, and d and ibuprofen being the most popular.

Anti-inflammatory drugs, including ibuprofen, were used by a majority of participants.

Oral steroids such as dexamethasone were used by about half of the group.

Lifestyle changes were also common, with 51 percent limiting exercise or exertion, 44 percent cutting alcohol or caffeine, and 44 percent increasing or decreasing how much salt they consumed. Another approximately four in 10 changed their diet.


U.S. Army Begs Soldiers to Come Back After They Were Forced Out for Not Getting the COVID Vaccine

Soldiers who were forced out of the U.S. Army because they refused to follow the Biden Administration’s draconian COVID-19 mandates are being asked to come back as a potential war looms.

This week, the United States Army sent letters to service members inviting them back to their branch despite being ousted over their refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

In February, the U.S. Army rescinded its order requiring service members to be vaccinated in order to fight for their country.

The letter reads:

Dear Former Service Member, We write to notify you of new Army guidance regarding the correction of military records for former members of the Army following rescission of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement. As a result of the rescission of all current COVID-19 vaccination requirements, former Soldiers who were involuntarily separated for refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccination may request a correction of their military records from either or both the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). Individuals may request a correction to military personnel records, including records regarding the characterization of discharge. Individuals who desire to apply to return to service should contact their local Army, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), or Army National Guard (ARNG) recruiter for more information.

At the height of the Left’s COVID hysteria, the Biden Administration claimed that unvaccinated soldiers “present risk to the force and jeopardize readiness.”


More Than Half Of Vaccinated People Feel Ill A Year Later

Why to do many people feel sick nowadays? A recent study from India suggests the COVID-19 vaccine is causing prolonged symptoms in over half of unwary recipients

Shrestha and Venkataraman published a study of data collected from September 2021 and May 2023, in a descriptive, follow-up cohort study that was conducted, having enrolled participants who were 18 years of age or older, met the vaccination requirements established by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and had completed the primary immunization series with the AZD1222® (adenoviral) or BBV152® (whole-virion inactivated vaccine).

The prevalence of post coronavirus vaccine syndrome (PCVS) and the QoL measured using EQ-5D-5L were assessed at one month, six months, and 12 months post-COVID-19 vaccination.

The authors found more than half of subjects at 12 months were reporting symptoms of PCVS.

These data fit what I am seeing in clinical practice.

This study provides a strong rationale for most vaccinated individuals to undergo McCullough Protocol Base Spike Detoxification for 3-12 months with:

-Nattokinase 2000 FU (100) bid

-Bromelain 500 qd

-Curcumin 500 mg bid (nano, liposomal, or with piperine)

These are starting doses which can be increased if well tolerated.

No therapeutic claims can be made since there are no large, prospective, randomized double-blind clinical trials completed.

Unfortunately, no such trials are planned or registered at this point in time.




Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Long Covid is a vaxx injury

The ‘midwit’ really came into their own during Covid and what a curse on the world they all were, these individuals of above average intelligence, but not too far above, who nevertheless liked to think of themselves as far wiser than the common pleb. Every state Chief Medical/Health Officer in Australia was, in my opinion, a classic midwit, diving into complex, multi-faceted public health issues with simplistic notions and infantile policies.

The CHOs/CMOs appeared to be entirely unaware of the limits to their public health omniscience, but their omnipotence was, alas, very real. They could issue legally enforceable, but patently absurd, Public Health Orders of great scope. Cheered on by media flattery, they went about stuffing up entire economies and ruining or degrading many people’s lives with bull-in-a-china-shop effectiveness.

Most of the Covid midwits have receded into the intellectual swamp they came from because no one is listening to them anymore. In America, for example, only 2 per cent of the population have availed themselves of the latest ‘bivalent’ booster that is supposed to protect against two new horror strains. In Australia, a mere 8.1 per cent of Australians aged 18-64 were ‘fully immunised’ at September 27 and less than half (44.3 per cent) of people aged 75+ (those allegedly most vulnerable to the Worst Disease Ever) have bothered to seek out the recommended up-to-date jab. We are over it.

Some Covid midwits, however, are still valiantly fighting a rearguard action. They are like that Japanese soldier, second-lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, who did not surrender and who hung out as a guerrilla fighter for 29 years in the Philippines after the end of the war in the Pacific. He must have been an inspiration for Australia’s own ‘Never Surrender’ Covid warriors who are manning the ‘Long Covid’ redoubts, masks in hand and boosters at the ready. These include some doctors who staff Australia’s 80-odd ‘Long Covid’ clinics where the lost war against Covid is still being fought.

An enthusiast from one of these clinics recently took to the trenches of social media to come to the aid of the Canadian branch of the Ever-Covid Resistance, one of whose fighters had complained of having twice ‘gotten Covid’ in the last month. Their Downunder ‘Long Covid’ clinic comrade, and fellow Covid magnet, agreed that recurring Covid infections are real and how three times in a year, in March, June and August of 2022, they had contracted Covid despite being ‘fully-immunised’ with each infection as grim as the last.

It seems that all their friends are getting Covid about every five weeks, leading them to conclude that it is now possible to be infected, not just frequently, but even by more than one Covid variant at the same time. Covid doesn’t even wait for the last infection to end anymore. That’s one dangerous viral enemy out there!

It had to be Covid that was responsible because, like Caesar’s wife, the Covid vaccine remains above suspicion. The possibility that, booster by booster, people have been trashing their immune systems in addition to picking up a host of other vaccine injuries, is not considered. One Australian Long Covid champion alleges the following gems on social media:

100 per cent of the clinic’s ‘Long Covid’ patients have microclots in their blood (nothing else could be causing that, doctor?).

Covid increases your risk of heart attacks, strokes, and clots (see above).

Covid can persist in tonsils, the brain, the lymph nodes, the heart, generally anywhere.

‘Generally anywhere’! This pretty much sums up what happens when a toxic spike protein travels throughout the body, courtesy of the blood vessels, and transfects millions of cells through the LNP cell-penetrating delivery system (whilst a respiratory virus stays put in just the respiratory system – the clue is in the name).

19 per cent of Long Covid patients have myocarditis. (Which other group of the population is getting myocarditis which used to be quite rare until something new and toxic came on the scene?)

The clinic’s patients include 14-year-olds who present with fast heart rate and chest pain, contributing to ‘mass disablement – especially of young people’. (Seek Covid and ye shall find Covid; do not seek vaccine injury and ye shall not find vaccine injury…)

It is further claimed by some doctors that unjabbed people are also getting Covid all the time but they just don’t know it because they aren’t testing for it! How will anyone know they are sick with Covid if they don’t test for it? They probably think they are perfectly fine, or have a common cold or something… Those complacent fools! ‘So, please stop saying Long Covid is just a cold when it really, really isn’t!’ Or so they insist. Well, that is kind of correct. What would have been ‘just a cold’ for almost everyone may have been turned into something far, far worse following vaccination.

Online defences of ‘Long Covid’ are notable for what they don’t say. By now, it appears that even medical midwits are losing faith in the vaccine. As some lament, despite their repeated grim infections they have stopped mumbling the once-routine phrase, ‘Thank goodness I was fully vaccinated because otherwise it would have been so much worse!’ Indeed, that flimsy last line of vaccine defence has faded from the entire narrative except at government headquarters where it still gets an increasingly desultory run as the sole remaining virtue of the dud vaccines.

Even though the top generals of the Covid war effort have shown cowardice in the face of the viral enemy, according to the remaining midwits (who are particularly cross about the World Health Organisation ending the formal ‘global health emergency’) there is still a war to be won because ‘someone is dying every three minutes [from Covid] and 10 per cent of all those infected will get Long Covid’.

All is not lost! For the midwits, there is still The Mask, that insignia of the Covid midwit army. The Mask represents midwittery at its most moronic.

The media allies of the Covid Midwits are lending vital auxiliary support in the never-ending defence of Covid hysteria. In South Australia, there is another dogged pocket of resistance to Covid sanity – ‘South Australians suffering debilitating symptoms from Long Covid are being forced to wait up to ten months to see experts in one of the state’s Long Covid Assessment Clinics at the Royal Adelaide Hospital’, reports InDaily.

‘Long Covid’ is the new virus ogre in town these days, superseding the now frankly toothless and boring old ordinary Covid ‘case’ count. Despite the odd article emerging to scare us about ‘cases’ (which ‘continue to plague the state with weekly reported cases of 645’) this sort of dodgy statistic doesn’t turn a hair these days (remember when we shut the state down for a handful of ‘cases’?). Now it’s the turn of ‘Long Covid’ and its myriad discontents.

Covid of the ‘Long’ variety can leave you wiped out for months or years on end and everyone who gets Covid is potentially at risk of Long Covid. ‘SA Health estimated 35,000 South Australians can expect to contract long Covid’. Cue the alarm bells because the Covid astrologers have spoken. Mind you, it may be yet more worthless Covid modelling but, despite that, it gives us some sort of bargain basement government estimate for the number of serious Covid vaccine injuries to come but no alarm bells will be rung for that and no Long Vaxx clinics will ever be established.

Demand for the ‘Long Covid’ clinics in South Australia is already through the roof from people who, for more than 12 weeks, have been experiencing ‘complex symptoms and significant functional impairment, with symptoms ranging from severe fatigue to brain fog and breathlessness’, drastically ‘impacting their return to work, study or social roles’. The clinics have been forced to triage the wave of patients so that those with the most severe symptoms are seen first, leaving those with less chronic symptoms waiting for nearly a year to be seen.

I think, in retrospect, what the Long Covid midwits are fretting about isn’t just a cold, or even post-viral syndrome (which is possible after any viral infection), but vaccine injury. The harms of the Covid vaccine are being swept under the rug of ‘Long Covid’. Long Covid is Long Vaxx Injury. It really really is.


NY Times says school COVID closures may be ‘most damaging disruption’ to kids’ education in U.S. history

The New York Times editorial board penned a new editorial on Saturday stating that the school closures enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic "may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education."

The editorial provided a reflection on the "significant" learning losses stemming from keeping around 50 million kids out of the classroom because of the virus, and urged elected officials and the education community to move quickly to heal some of the damage.

The paper came to these points after certain mainstream media outlets supported these same closures. Some media figures have continued arguing they were good decisions.

The editorial opened with a dire assessment of what COVID-19 closures did to America’s schoolchildren. It stated, "The evidence is now in, and it is startling. The school closures that took 50 million children out of classrooms at the start of the pandemic may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education."

"It also set student progress in math and reading back by two decades and widened the achievement gap that separates poor and wealthy children," it added.

To compound the issue, the board noted that learning losses "will remain unaddressed when the federal money runs out in 2024."

As such, this generation of students "will experience diminished lifetime earnings and become a significant drag on the economy," The Times added, citing economists.

The editorial lamented that school administrators and politicians are not mobilizing the country to meet this issue, noting that combating it requires a "multidisciplinary approach," starting with "getting kids back on solid ground," and replacing "the federal aid that is set to expire."

It also detailed how an "epidemic of absenteeism" is compounding the challenge of rehabilitating these students.

The board wrote, "students who grew accustomed to missing school during the pandemic continue to do so after the resumption of in-person classes. Millions of young people have joined the ranks of the chronically absent — those who miss 10 percent or more of the days in the school year — and for whom absenteeism will translate into gaps in learning."

The piece also mentioned how these kids are "also vulnerable to mental health difficulties that worsened during the pandemic."

Citing the CDC, the Times said, "more than 40 percent of high school students had persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness; 22 percent had seriously considered suicide; 10 percent reported that they had attempted suicide."

The editorial concluded, "The learning loss crisis is more consequential than many elected officials have yet acknowledged. A collective sense of urgency by all Americans will be required to avert its most devastating effects on the nation’s children."

Despite its current concern over the closures’ harm to American students, New York Times reporting in 2020 advocated for school closures despite the risks.

In a March 2020 piece, the Times wrote, "More and more schools have chosen to close in the past few days, reflecting a growing consensus that the benefits of closings outweigh the harms, especially since many of the harms can be mitigated."




Monday, November 20, 2023

Covid lockdowns were NO more effective than Swedish-style softer approach, major Oxford University-backed study suggests

Covid lockdowns were no more effective at controlling the pandemic than letting people adapt their own behaviour to the threat, a major Oxford University-backed study suggests.

Researchers modelled virus death and unemployment rates in response to different pandemic policies.

Results showed imposing blanket shutdowns, which forced people to stay home and closed essential shops, squashed fatality rates for the virus.

However, leaving people to adapt their own behaviour — similar to the controversial approach used in Sweden — was just as effective, data revealed.

Experts concluded that both policies led to 'similar trade-offs' for people's health and the economy, with both approaches triggering huge job losses.

The researchers said strict non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) — lockdowns, social distancing and face masks — were 'critical' to reducing the spread of Covid.

However, they noted that individuals changing their behaviour of their own accord — such as by minimising contacts and less frequent trips to shops or restaurants — could have also minimised deaths.

To determine the effects of both approaches, the researchers created an economic model based on the first wave of the pandemic.

They used data from around 416,000 people in New York City.

Researchers inputted a range of scenarios, including varying levels of restrictions and changes to behaviour.

The model then estimated how many infections occurred as a result, as well as which occupation, income and age group were most affected.

Results, published in the Nature Human Behaviour Journal, showed that both strict lockdowns and high rates of behaviour change led to a rise in unemployment and fewer Covid deaths.

For example, if lockdowns were imposed, virus deaths fell 35 per cent while unemployment jumped 64 per cent.

In comparison, if people were left to their own devices in a 'high fear' situation, deaths fell 50 per cent, while job losses increased by 40 per cent.

The team said this showed there is a 'similar trade-off between epidemic and economic outcomes' regardless of whether Covid restrictions are imposed or if people are left to change their behaviour.

'Both substantial behavioural changes and stringent closures lead to similar patterns of rising unemployment and fewer infections,' they wrote.

The researchers found that this trend still stands, even if older people make bigger changes to their behaviour than younger people.

'While it is intuitive to expect stricter mandated NPIs to increase unemployment and decrease Covid-19 deaths, it is less apparent that heightened behavioural adaptation would yield similar results,' the team added.

They also found that forcing the closure of sectors that aren't people-facing — such as construction and manufacturing — triggers a large spike in job losses with 'only a marginal decrease in fatalities'.

Additionally, bringing in pandemic restrictions late when people have already adapted their behaviour 'leads to a dual blow of increased deaths and unemployment'.

The researchers noted that their results are only based on data from one area of the US during the first lockdown and do not take testing, Covid variants or vaccination into account.

However, the findings address 'key policy debates' of the Covid pandemic and will enable future governments take tough decisions, they said.

Professor Doyne Farmer, director of the complexity economics programme at Oxford University's Institute of New Economic Thinking, said the paper is 'timely' given the ongoing Covid inquiries around the world.

He said: 'We are seeing governments across the globe begin their "moments of reckoning", reviewing the effectiveness of a great variety of policies brought in during Covid.

'According to some, lockdowns were not imposing any trade-off between health and the economy because, if the virus got out of control, the economy would be equally damaged.

'According to others, letting at-risk individuals spontaneously reduce their risk of infection would have led to the best epidemic and economic outcomes, with no trade-off.

'These debates have remained contested and unresolved.'

Professor Farmer said: 'Our quantitative research helps provide evidence-based answers to these questions, suggesting that both lockdowns and spontaneous behaviour change lead to similar trade-offs between health and the economy.

'Those that claimed that there was no trade-off between health and the economy were not basing their belief in a quantitative model.'

The UK imposed its first lockdown in March 2020, with then Prime Minister Boris Johnson telling the nation 'you must stay at home'.

It saw schools, shops and hospitality close, social distancing come into force and Brits only allowed to exercise outdoors once a day.

Experts largely accepted that the economically-crippling measures were vital to control the spread of the virus, as there was no vaccine to prevent severe illness and stunt hospital admissions at the time.

But other epidemiologists and public health scientists shared 'grave concerns' about the collateral damages of such policies on the NHS and other parts of society in future.

Sweden became an international outlier in 2020 when, instead of shutting down society, it relied on citizens' sense of civic duty to reduce the spread of Covid.

Authorities advised residents to practice social distancing, however schools, bars and restaurants remained open and it never required people to wear masks — they were only recommended on public transport during the second wave.

Among its stricter measures included a ban on visits to elderly care homes and limits on the number of people attending public gatherings.

The approach gave rise to a heated debate abroad, and was at times held up as a cautionary tale, or on the contrary, hailed by opponents of lockdowns.


Top doctor Nick Coatsworth delivers a brutal reality check for Aussies who still wear face masks

One of Australia's top doctors has issued a brutal message to those still wearing face masks - and hit out calls from the Australian Medical Association to bring back Covid masks.

Australia reported 6,550 new Covid cases last week. This surge has led health officials, including AMA Queensland president Maria Boulton, to advocate for the reinstatement of mask mandates in high-risk settings, such as on airplanes, in large crowds, and within medical facilities.

However, former Australian deputy chief health officer Dr Nick Coatsworth said Aussies shouldn't be overly concerned about the recent spike during an interview with 2GB'S Ben Fordham.

'The Australian Medical Association has quoted 245 hospitalisations of COVID-19 with this (current) wave in Queensland, but there are over a million admissions to Queensland hospitals every year,' he said. 'The suggestion that this is a wave is probably incorrect.'

He also believes reinstating mask mandates would have little impact. 'That's not going to make any difference at the moment,' Dr Coatsworth explained.

'If you say 'Look, wear masks in some situations but not others, don't socially distance and go about your business', then all the masks are doing is polluting the environment.' 'We need to be smarter about how we manage this.

He also slammed advice from scientists recommending 100,000 concertgoers to mask up when Coldplay performs in Perth this weekend. 'That's just a crazy thing to do,' he said.

'We got to remember just how infectious Omicron is. Just sticking a mask on at a Coldplay concert is unlikely to be protective.

'And number two, the vast majority of people have had Covid, even the people who claim they've never had it. The vast majority of people are also vaccinated.

'COVID-19 is now a milder disease because of what we call herd immunity, we have all been exposed to it. 'Our need to take a chill pill with Covid is getting even greater.'

Dr Coastworth isn't overly concerned about the latest spike but conceded it puts a strain on hospitals. 'The reason why health departments have put this out is because when we do get an increase in Covid or any respiratory virus, it does puts a strain on hospitals,' he said.

'I work in an hospital and you do see the strain but not because people are getting sick from Covid. 'Very few people are actually getting sick from Covid but it creates an infection control problem where you have to isolate the patients and it created bed pressure.

'But that's going to happen for the next 5-10 years with Covid and respiratory viruses and we have to find ways to cope with that.

'Frankly I was on shift yesterday and we had not a single patient with COVID-19 in our acute medical unit.

Dr Coatsworth emphasised that despite a minor increase in hospitalisations, there has been a decline in intensive care admissions from Covid.

'There's creative, innovative ways that will allow the community to get on with its business without constant talk of bringing back things that realistically, public health officials aren't going to bring back.'

Dr Coatsworth echoed the health advice to catch up outdoors where the risk of getting Covid is 'extraordinary difficult, if not impossible.' 'It's always been the right advice, I'm not sure why we didn't give it at the start of the pandemic,' he said. 'You would really have to be on top of someone to catch Covid outdoors.'

Meanwhile, infectious diseases specialist Professor Peter Collignon has made it clear he opposes people being forced by law to wear masks. 'If at increased risk, or concerned, yes wear a mask. But no mandates.'

Professor Collignon, who is a microbiologist at Canberra Hospital, said there was 'little or likely no point' wearing a mask outside.

He added that masks will give 'some short term protection' to those who are concerned about short term exposure indoors, but eye protection is also needed. 'What lands in your eyes goes into your nose,' the professor said.




Sunday, November 19, 2023

No More COVID-19 Shots for Youth? A Bigger Politicization Agenda Behind COVID-19

“The real Covid jab scandal is finally emerging." A November 9 comment in The Telegraph provides a good introduction to the topic of why, when they faced little risk, we vaccinated kids for COVID-19. The conclusion is in the article’s subtitle: “The young and healthy, who were at minimal risk from Covid, should not have been told they had to take the vaccine.”

We learn that one Lisa Shaw, an award-winning BBC presenter, had her first COVID-19 vaccination on April 29, 2021. This 44-year-old mom thought she was doing her part to keep others safe. Within days, Shaw “developed a headache and stabbing pains behind her eyes which wouldn’t go away.” And by May 16, she was in hospital with blood clots in the brain. She could hardly speak, and a portion of her skull was removed to relieve pressure. Then, on May 21, Ms. Shaw died; the coroner found the death was due to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

“Ms. Shaw was previously fit and well,” yet it was “clearly established” that she died from a rare “vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).” VITT is “a new condition which leads to swelling and bleeding of the brain.”

Back in 2021, UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, as part of “strenuous efforts” to ease the public’s concerns, had said the AstraZeneca product was “a great British success story.” Prime Minister Boris Johnson even tweeted that, “It is truly fantastic news – and a triumph for British science….” Fast forward to yesterday, and TrialSite reported on a large lawsuit against that same vaccine in the UK maker—the plaintiff: the VITT Litigation Group.

“Severe brain injury”

Our next perspective comes from the BBC, also on November 9, “AstraZeneca faces legal challenge over Covid vaccine.” They note that the father of two, Jamie Scott, received his jab in April 2021, and that he thereby “suffered severe brain injury.” His case is being brought under the Consumer Protection Act and alleges that the product is “defective” in that it was more dangerous than folks were led to believe. Another 80 vaccine victims are due to launch a suit later in 2023. All are involved with the aforementioned VITT Litigation Group.

According to AstraZeneca, "Patient safety is our highest priority, and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines---Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems--From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, Vaxzevria [the vaccine against Covid] has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects."

“Vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia”
Many victims have obtained one-time £120,000 payments via the UK’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. FOIA requests show that of 148 VDPS recipients, 144 had received that AstraZeneca product.

Scott’s wife Kate has told BBC, "Jamie has had over 250 rehabilitation sessions from specialists, he had to learn to walk again, to swallow, to talk. [He has had] memory problems---Although he has done very well with them, we are at the point now where this new version of Jamie… is the version that will go forward. He has cognition problems…he has aphasia. Severe headaches, blindness---We need the government to reform the vaccine damage payment scheme. It is inefficient and unfair…and then fair compensation." Within months of the AZ rollout, cases of post-vaccination blood clots began to arise. And the aforementioned “vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT) was eventually identified.”

Ironically, BBC is a target of a lawsuit TrialSite is participating in---a a key member of the Trusted News Initiative or “TNI.”

This media cabal consisting of top media and tech companies collaborated to ensure that critical message of the type TrialSite was reporting on was blocked from the public.

After presidential candidate Kennedy called TrialSite founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss the potential lawsuit, TrialSite joined to support what has been both censorship and a potential platform to destroy competition.

So, while the BBC has the green light to report on vaccine injuries now, back in early 2021, when TrialSite was one of the only media reporting on such events. They and the mainstream media followed national emergency scripts, chucking real journalism. So did the pharmaceutical trade press, TrialSite’s more direct competition. Not a peep to this day from the like about some of the more insidious externalities associated with COVID-19.

TrialSite reported on many of the front-line physicians who argued that the vast majority of COVID-19 cases were mild to moderate, especially among young people. This more independent, critical group of providers argued against the need for COVID-19 vaccination.

Put another way, the risks of vaccination outweighed the benefits, according to this cohort. The mainstream argument cited the surge in child hospitalization during Delta and the emergence of MIS-C as a reason for vaccination. Yet opinion contributors such as Geert Vanden Bossche have argued that this never justified mass vaccination of our youngest members of society.

TrialSite has repeatedly reported to the market that, to this day, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot verify the safety of Pfizer’s Comirnaty to the American public for both children and pregnant women.

Section 8.1 of the FDA packaged insert involving pregnancy:

“Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.” Section 8.4 for young children 12 and under states, “The safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals younger than 12 years of age have not been established.”

Why are U.S. health authorities still pushing this vaccine on society’s most vulnerable people other than the elderly with no emergency, a case fatality rate at a level of influenza or even lower, and seemingly overwhelmingly mild to moderate upper respiratory infections, given the reports of side effects and no ability to verify the safety on the label?

WHO deprioritizes youth vaccination

Some nations are starting to get it, including the collection of health representatives that is the World Health Organization (WHO). On March 29, 2023, CNN offered another look at the subject of COVID-19 vaccines for youth, “WHO experts revise COVID-19 vaccine advice, say healthy kids and teens low risk.” They note that “The World Health Organization’s vaccine experts have revised their global COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, and healthy kids and teenagers considered low priority may not need to get a shot.”

This updated “roadmap” aims to “prioritize COVID-19 vaccines for those at greatest risk of death and severe disease, according to the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE).” A SAGE press release offered that “The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children – such as the rotavirus, measles, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.”

TrialSite reported on prestigious academic medical centers such as Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which have studied the matter and all but concluded the push for COVID-19 vaccines should be used for the more traditional vaccine schedule now, given declining rates due to heightened hesitancy.

At the core of the problem is that the current COVID-19 vaccines’ efficacy and risk mix just don’t compel objective pediatric care and research inquiry.

Science and medicine have been completely politicized during the pandemic. We will not go back to a more sane and rational time when the professionals respected their respective lanes.

The Biden Administration’s mandates (some of which were ruled unconstitutional) were announced in 2021, when we already knew the COVID-19 vaccines failed to stop viral transmission and were associated with some dangerous side effects, albeit relatively rare. It doesn’t matter, given the ever-milder strains involving Omicron. Of course, there were still outlier severe cases, and the elderly continued to face higher risk.

This author suggests the Biden move was, behind the scenes, a power play meant to reign in on an emerging medical freedom movement that was identified by the Washington power structure as aligned with MAGA and Trump. After all, even before the outrageous September 6 actions, tensions between opposing political viewpoints were boiling over. It seems American society hasn’t been so divided since perhaps the Vietnam War, maybe even since the Civil War. Social media and changing cultural dynamics fostered an environment of tribal division based on lifestyles and self-identified clicks.

The Biden Administration continues to exploit the pandemic, even if it's over—there is no more emergency—with at least $5 billion in taxpayer funding used so bureaucrats in Washington can pick winning vaccines and other medicinal countermeasures. It’s as if we are in a continuous emergency, or put another way, a new politicized reality.

This isn’t to deny that Trump also politicized the pandemic. He did so as well, first trying to deny its risk, acknowledged in the Woodward interviews. Operation Warp Speed became a somewhat corrupted free-for-all with billions of taxpayer dollars changing hands.

Ominous Roots

Of course, we here at TrialSite cannot be 100% certain, but this author puts forth with 90%+ confidence based on the evidence we have secured that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the laboratory. We have government documentation that alleges it’s a homegrown (American) technology, and we speculate that it likely leaked inadvertently at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

We cannot be certain, and there is some evidence that the pathogen emerged before the Wuhan outbreak on both sides of the Pacific Ocean.

This is why it has been so difficult to discover the origin of this particular coronavirus, while the others (SARS-CoV/MERS) were discovered. All sorts of questionable actions have occurred. Even during the second investigation by WHO into the SARS-CoV-2 origins, the president of EcoHealth Alliance (Peter Daszak) was chosen to represent American interests.

What? That’s the last person who should have traveled to Wuhan in early 2021. This smelled as part of a broader coverup. EcoHealth Alliance has been all but proven to be part of a scheme to outsource gain-of-function to China on behalf of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the NIH. See TrialSite’s early timeline and concerns about origin in “Origins of the Pandemic are Elusive & Timeline Reveals Glimpse into Path to Better Tomorrow.”

Remember all of the back and forth between Rand Paul and Fauci? What ever happened? Why has Sen. Ron Johnson sent dozens of letters inquiring into this or that in these bureaucracies with no response? Like so many other inquiries, they are made more for show for the specific tribal following than anything else.

We suspect a cover-up that includes both the Chinese government but also elements in the American government, as well as others, with intelligence agencies used to run cover and interference.

Why did the Missouri legal case uncover a rat’s nest of government intelligence operatives on Twitter?

Likely, a government operation was ordered to run the cover, help shape the narrative, and incite division and conflict. Some evidence emerged that some elements in the Central Intelligence Agency sought to buy out analysts who would express their real concerns about origins.

And, of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci served a key purpose, but he is just one of many who are part of the coverup, should we be correct. And few individuals likely have a comprehension of the whole story.

Again, based on our educated estimates, there’s a 10% chance we are off the mark, and all of this is something different. This has to be understood. I must convey that this is an opinion piece and not the formal stance of TrialSite Inc., a Delaware and Utah corporation that officially takes a far more conservative stance.