Thursday, January 04, 2024

Grand Inquisitor Says Oops

Francis Collins was head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—Anthony Fauci’s parent bureaucracy—during the wreckage caused by the COVID response. Ultimately, Dr. Collins bears a huge measure of the responsibility for the disaster, even if he played the role of the stooge.

It was he who wrote Fauci with the demand for a “quick and devastating takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement that merely reasserted traditional public health wisdom in the midst of an insane science experiment being conducted on the whole population.
Five months ago, an organization that seeks political consensus hosted him for some frank talk about what happened. Here is what he had to say:

There is a sense in which he didn’t need to say this at all. We all knew it. They were thinking only about New York City. The rest of the country never had anything approaching a crisis. The government under Collins emptied hospitals out from coast to coast to reserve them for COVID patients who only arrived much later and never came close to overwhelming health care services.

Meanwhile, the entire country was plunged into a grave crisis at every level—a man-made crisis of the worst sort.

Nor did they think about anything other than this one pathogen. It was a wild fanaticism that seized the whole of the ruling class for the better part of two years. None of it made sense but those who objected could hardly get a hearing. Instead, they were smeared, censored, and often fired for non-compliance.

Even as late as December 2021, Collins was still fear-mongering. He told NPR concerning Christmas celebrations:

“We were planning to invite some of the trainees at NIH who are far from home to come for a brunch on Christmas Day at our house if they’re all fully vaccinated and boosted. Still planning to go forward, very carefully, with a small group, and everybody will be wearing masks except when they’re eating.”

Note that Collins doesn’t apologize. He takes no responsibility. He just continues his masquerade as a tennis-shoe wearing, guitar-strumming, Jesus-loving grandpa who is open and broad-minded, never mind that he wielded absolute power over all our lives only a few years ago.

Later in the interview, he is singing hosannas to the glorious vaccines and how perfectly they worked. We are nowhere near approaching the point where people like this tell the truth. It’s almost like they cannot bear it.

Even in this interview, Collins’s nonchalant delivery is infuriating. You want to scream back: you wrecked the lives of hundreds of millions of people! And no one ever gave you the authority to do so!

Meanwhile, it was incredibly obvious to many at the time that disaster would be the only result of lockdowns. The bit about masking was never serious; no one in the know seriously believed these things would protect anyone from a tiny pathogen with an animal reservoir. The only solution was the traditional one from public health wisdom: preserve normalcy, treat the sick with known therapeutics, and alert the vulnerable to stay away from large crowds until the virus becomes endemic.

Collins directly attacked this solution and demanded that government attack it and ultimately censor it!

As we approach the end of the year, we are surrounded by a cultural and economic darkness this generation has never seen before. Most incredibly, public health itself is wrecked.

Let’s just count the ways. Each consequence dates from the beginnings of the lockdowns. That was the turning point, the end of innocence, the great reset, the moment when the choice between freedom and despotism weighed heavily in the most inhumane direction.


Homeless people are everywhere at record highs (650K), stemming from rampant mental disorder, substance abuse, and incredibly tight leasing standards stemming from the eviction moratorium.

The middle class can no longer afford to buy a home thanks to high rates from the Fed, deployed in an attempt to mitigate against inflation which is still running hot.

Every merchant has hidden fees in everything, struggling to find some way to hide the hot potato of inflation that has eaten 20-plus percent of the dollar’s purchasing power since 2019.

Shoplifting is a major national problem to the point that thousands of stores have closed.

Shrinkflation affects everything. The groceries have shrunk and the bills have soared—a direct consequence of some $8 trillion in stimulus and money printing.

Office real estate in large cities is approaching an accounting crisis because people are not returning to work, their routines totally shattered by lockdowns.

Travel is uncertain with endless delays and cancellations due to pilot shortages stemming from stay-at-home orders, vaccine mandates, and rampant illness.

The “great reset” is all around us, as we are constantly nudged to drive EVs, live without comforts, buy less meat, and even eat bugs.

A wide-open Southern border has created an immigration crisis as government neglected its core duties in favor of insane methods of virus control.

Restaurants are unaffordable for most people. Dependency on government handouts is 28 percent higher than in 2019. All stores close an hour or two earlier because they cannot get workers to stay later.

The learning losses among the kids are unfathomable, two years and rising, and perhaps an entire generation is lost.

There is a population-wide mental-health crisis in addition to rampant substance abuse.

The federal budget has been blown to smithereens. Political divisions are festering as never before, with neither party willing to discuss the COVID elephant in the room.

Our conception of what it means to live in freedom with a government that knows limits to its power has slipped away.

Arts venues are struggling for dear life to survive. World trade is shattered, with new trading blocs replacing the old ones.

The rise of maniacal gender dysphoria of the young is probably connected with this: endless hours online, loss of confidence in the world as it is, plus loneliness.

One could argue that even the war in Israel and Gaza is a result: security concerns were neglected in favor of microbial activism and shot mandates, and the loss of a moral center to policy then unleashed successive rounds of violence.

Finally, there is the loss of trust in everything: government, public health, pharmaceuticals, academia, science, media, and each other. Society cannot function without trust. Not even churches are immune from broad incredulity since most went along with the COVID response in every detail.

This only begins to scratch the surface of what we’ve lost and what has replaced it. Ultimately all such tragedies come down to individual lives. These days you hear them only among friends and families. And they are terrible stories of sadness and personal despair. The pain is only intensified by the silence on the part of all corporate media, government, and other commanding heights. Because of the news block on the whole topic, there is mass and festering anger beneath the surface.

And yet here is this granddad—the man ostensibly in charge over the whole operation—telling us old war stories of mistakes that were made. Does he have any idea of the carnage he caused? Does he even care?

In Dostoevsky’s version of the Grand Inquisitor, the nemesis predicts: “In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us.”


Australian Court Reverses Millions in COVID-19 Fines

More than $36 million (US$24.5 million) in COVID-19 infringements were withdrawn this year by the New South Wales (NSW) fines commissioner following a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Thousands of fines were issued by NSW Police to members of the public who allegedly contravened health orders during the pandemic lockdowns in 2020 and 2021.

But in a landmark ruling in November 2022, Justice Dina Yehia said the fines were not valid because they did not include a sufficiently detailed description of the offences.

Following this ruling, the NSW Commissioner of Fines Administration withdrew four types of public health order fines which were similar to the ones examined during the Supreme Court case.

These included unlawfully participating in an outdoor public gathering and failing to comply with the requirement of public health order.

According to the NSW Customer Service department’s annual report, $36.3 million in fines were reversed in 2023 following the commissioner’s decision.

A spokesperson for Revenue NSW said this amounted to about 36,600 fines being withdrawn.

“The decision to withdraw these fines does not mean the offences were not committed, but that the fine notices in question had insufficient descriptions of the offences committed,” the spokesperson said.

As of Nov. 20, around 90 per cent of the withdrawn COVID-19 fines had been refunded and the remaining were in the process of being refunded.

A total of 62,138 COVID-19 related fines were issued by police during the pandemic.




Wednesday, January 03, 2024

Researchers Point to Statistically Significant Autoimmune & Auto-Inflammatory Adverse Event Incidence Post COVID-19 Vax

Mostly small effects but not all

Biomedical researchers from prominent academic research centers in both South Korea and the United States conducted a study identifying 3620 autoimmune-related adverse events among 223.2 million US residents using Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and the COVID-19 Data Tracker.

Seong-Jan Kim an expert in nuclear medicine from Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital and Sung Ryul Shim, an epidemiological researcher at Konyang University and Yale University-based pharmaco-epidemiologist and mental health investigator Taeho Greg Rhee declare their recent investigation published in the journal Clinical Immunology is the first to quantify the cumulative incidence of autoimmune and auto-inflammatory adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination. This includes an accounting of autoimmune and auto-inflammatory adverse events across six major classes of medical conditions and stratified by age, sex, as well as COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer.

The study involves an accounting of the investigators’ initiative to estimate the cumulative incidence (CIR) of autoimmune and autoinflammatory adverse reactions per 100,000 people fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in the United States.

Study Method

Following STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines, the authors point out that as publicly available de-identified data was used for the study, it was exempted by the Institutional Review Boards at Konyang University and Yale School of Medicine.


Tapping into both the U.S. VAERS as well as the CDC Data Tracker databases, the study authors for this investigation report 3620 autoimmune and autoinflammatory adverse events (AEs) across 223,270,498 fully vaccinated individuals in the United States.

A study duration starting upon first administration of the COVID-19 vaccines based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (December 2020) to September 2022, the reports of AEs by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen groups

Measuring statistical significance at p<0.05, the following adverse event classes were identified:

Cardiovascular and/or pulmonary events (Pfizer-BioNTech 0.109; Moderna 0.180 and Janssen 0.170); Hematologic events (Pfizr-BioNTech 0.195; Modern 0.283 and Janssen 0.217);

Musculoskeletal events (Pfizer-BioNTech 0.554; Moderna 0.738 and Janssen 9.422) and Other events (Pfizer-BioNTech 0.198; Moderna 0.259 and Janssen 0.211).


City University of New York & Pfizer Study: COVID-19 Infected, Vaxxed Americans Mostly Reject Pfizer & Merck Antivirals

TrialSite was at the forefront of reporting the boom in use of ivermectin and other off-label regimen such as hydroxychloroquine and even fluvoxamine during the earlier stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most physicians in North America initially learned of the use of ivermectin in research or in COVID-19 care scenarios in low-and middle-income countries as TrialSite chronicled this activity early on in the pandemic.

TrialSite also chronicled the substantial public investment the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made in novel branded pharmaceutical antiviral development during the pandemic, including those developed by Pfizer (Paxlovid) and Merck (molnupiravir). The market was targeted in the several billions per annum given SARS-CoV-2 was to persist—the biomedical research establishments worldwide made the faulty assumption at first that sterilizing vaccines would eradicate viral transmission, leading to herd immunity. When it became clear that this was not the case—that the vaccines would not do a good job of stopping viral transmission and that SARS-CoV-2 would continue to mutate, the antiviral market was considered a winner by pharmaceutical analysts. See “Feds Now See the Need for Funding Antivirals: TrialSite Will Track the Spend, Carefully.”

During the pandemic, what was especially disturbing to both industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was a report by TrialSite on an obscure study revealing ivermectin use in America surged from about 3,000 prescriptions per week pre-pandemic to nearly 90,000 prescriptions per week during the height of the pandemic. This kind of data raised the risk of off label generic competition.

An aggressive series of public health programs were unleashed, some terming it propaganda including the FDA’s frontal attack on ivermectin. Ultimately, the FDA lost in a lawsuit by frontline doctors arguing the agency overstepped its mandate. Regardless, Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s molnupiravir were to be key antiviral medications in the transition from the COVID-19 pandemic to endemic status.

But much like how the market in America has rejected the COVID-19 vaccines at this point, so too are these antivirals routinely for the most part, avoided despite the greenlight from the FDA. In fact, according to a recent study published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, despite any surges in the number of COVID-19 cases, Americans tended to avoid these products.

In this prospective cohort study involving persons infected with COVID-19 between December 2021 and October 2022, the authors representing the CHASING COVID Cohort Study Team describe the uptake of Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) and Molnupiravir (MOV) among a cohort of highly vaccinated adults across America.

Representing the authors is corresponding authors Yanhan Shen, MS, an epidemiologist and biostatistician at City University of New York (CUNY), Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health. Other authors are affiliated with CUNY and Pfizer.


While overall and not surprisingly, uptake did increase during the study period given surges in underlying COVID-19, overall demand was depressed among the cohort under investigation. This was especially true among African Americans/Blacks and low income Americans.

For example, of those infected, in the study sample of 1,594 only 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9% to 15.2%) opted for Pfizer’s Paxlovid. The situation for Merck was far bleaker—out of 1,398 participants only 1.4% of infected individuals opted for MOV (95% CI, 0.8% to 2.1%).

Undoubtedly, due to a confluence of factors including company marketing and government promotion, Paxlovid use grew substantially during the study period. By December 2021 and March 2022, 1.9% of the total subgroup consumed the drug once infected. That percentage surged to 25.3% between August and October 2022. But the data supports the financial data TrialSite reports on Pfizer’s grim COVID-19 vaccine and antiviral sales numbers. See TrialSite “Pfizer Bloodbath? Collapse of COVID-19 Revenues.”

Given that during the entire study period a majority of participants could access antivirals (Paxlovid 85%; MOV 84%), the study team did find that individuals aged 65 and up opted to use the antivirals more than others. For example, among the elderly cohort Paxlovid use was higher at 30.2% (95% CI, 22.2% to 38.2).

Not surprisingly, participants with comorbidities had higher uptake rates as well.

Interestingly, although COVID-19 at least according to some studies impacted African Americans more than Whites and other racial groups, non-Hispanic Black participants opted to mostly stay away from the COVID-19 antivirals (7.2%[95% CI: 2.4%-12.0%]). Also, low-income groups avoided the products relative to other higher income groups (10.6%%[95% CI:7.3%-13.8%]).

What about persons with long COVID versus those without the condition? This cohort was found to take the Paxlovid more frequently (22.0% vs. 7.9%; P=0.001).

Of 216 persons prescribed Paxlovid, 137 (63%[95% CI: 57%-70%]) reported the antiviral as helpful in reducing symptoms.




Tuesday, January 02, 2024

A New Report Claims US Medical Officials Knew Covid Vaccines Didn’t Prevent the Spread of Variants of the Disease but Pushed Mandates Anyway

In August of 2021, the former governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, instituted a vaccine mandate for all state healthcare workers. This was followed by former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s mandates for workers in NYC in December of the same year. The federal government announced the idea of Covid vaccine mandates in September of 2021, under the Biden administration COVID-19 action plan.

The dates are important because in July of 2021, TrialSite News reported the widely circulated mRNA vaccines lost efficacy against the then spreading Delta variant of Covid. At the time, the Israeli Health Ministry reported that the delta variant cut the Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine’s strength by 64% in preventing infection. It has just been reported that the Israelis weren’t the only government to know there were problems with vaccine efficacy. Apparently, officials in the United States were also aware of the shortcomings of the mRNA jab.


An article in the Washington Examiner reveals US government officials were aware of “breakthrough cases” of Covid in January of 2021, when the vaccines became widely available. Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show the director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Rochelle Walensky and the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Francis Collins, were discussing the short comings of the Covid vaccine with breakthrough cases but were pushing vaccine mandates at the same time.

Walensky and Collins also included Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who was also serving as the chief medical advisor to the president. In her emails Walensky says the breakthrough cases are “clearly” an “important area of study”.

Public and Private Statements

In public, however, Walensky issued a different statement. Reportedly, two months after discussing the data with both Fauci and Collins, Walensky said vaccinated people “don’t carry the virus” and “don’t get sick”. Walensky repeated this claim in May of 2021, during a Senate committee hearing claiming fully vaccinated people can’t pass COVID-19 to other people. Unfortunately, for the former head of the CDC, emails now reveal she knew this not to be true.

Mandates Based on Falsehood?

What is disturbing here is the fact that vaccine mandates were pushed, even though the US medical officials in charge knew vaccinated people could contract and spread the virus. People lost jobs over refusal to get the Covid vaccine, and political affiliation was defined by who was vaccinated and who wasn’t. Not to mention those who may have been injured or died due to myocarditis as a result of the Covid vaccine.

The question, of course, is why? The relationship between the US government and big pharma has repeatedly been questioned during the entirety of the pandemic along with the profits made by the pharmaceutical industry. If all of this was, in fact, based on a lie, it’s no wonder the American public has lost faith in the medical industry in the United States.


TrialSite Interviews Medical Justice Minnesota Founder--Seeking to Address Immoral COVID-19 Hospital Protocols

Recently, TrialSite covered the nonprofit advocacy formed based on a growing outrage over what are considered negligent, or even worse protocols for COVID-19 care during the declared national emergency. And the litigation ensues, including a group of Minnesotans now suing local hospital systems called Medical Justice Minnesota. A group formed by a part-time attorney and EMT, experienced firsthand what he and many others consider the outcomes associated with COVID-19 protocols involving remdesivir or procedures such as intubation. Started by Andy Barnhart, the Minnesota-based group seeks to raise charitable contributions, seeking to use such funds to advance legal action that it and others may take on behalf of those injured or killed in Minnesota by pandemic protocols which according to the advocacy group, “Violate the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights and generate profits for the wrongdoers.” TrialSite was able to connect with founder Andy Barnhart and learn more about the organization.

What follows is a brief email question and answer so subscribers can learn more about this organization committed to justice for loved ones, including patients and bereaved due to COVID-19 protocols.

How many members are in Medical Justice MN?

As of December 29, 2023, we have 144 members who have reached out to us concerning 84 hospital COVID-19 protocol deaths, the vast majority of which are from Minnesota hospitals.

What COVID-19 protocols does the group believe were most negligent?

We believe that the most negligent aspect of hospital COVID-19 treatment was that it was financially incentivized protocol-driven rather than outcome-driven.

Why do you think these protocols were so off the mark? How did this happen?

We believe the Covid-19 protocols were so off the mark because they drove a financial and administrative wedge between the physician-patient relationship.

How many lawsuits have you filed? Any link to public documents would be greatly appreciated.

We have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Regions Hospital in Saint Paul, MN, on behalf of two widows who each lost their husbands, they believe, due to that hospital’s use of COVID-19 protocols. I do not wish to comment on this case or provide a link to any documents. In 2024 we expect to file additional wrongful death cases against other Minnesota hospitals for their use of COVID-19 protocols including one before the end of January 2024, and another before the end of March 2024 with others to follow.

What are your funding goals?

It is our goal to have all legal fees for these cases paid by Medical Justice MN out of the donations we receive with clients having to pay the legal costs such as filing fees, service of process, expert fees, etc. We are currently bringing in enough donations to allow one attorney and two paralegals to get reimbursed at a discounted rate on a part-time basis.

In order to assess the merit of and take legal action in all the potential Minnesota wrongful death cases we need to raise considerably more money in order to attract more lawyers and paralegals to help. We are a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota with a board of directors and officers. We have applied for federal tax-exempt status and our application is pending. Once we receive our exempt status, donations received while our application was pending may be treated as tax-deductible contributions retroactively. However, if our application is not approved, contributions will not be considered tax-deductible.




Monday, January 01, 2024

MY PICTORIAL HOME PAGE: New edition now up

At the end of every year, I put up a revised version of my pictorial homepge -- with new jokes, new toons and new serious bits. See the latest




FDA Commissioner Addresses Life Expectancy Decline

Vaccine toxicity? It's the only obvious cause. Vaccine usage is the big change. You need a big cause to explain a big effect

The decline in Americans’ life expectancy has drawn the attention of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf, who tweeted on X, “We are facing extraordinary headwinds in our public health with a major decline in life expectancy. The major decline in the U.S. is not just a trend. I’d describe it as catastrophic.”

Reversing Course

Two weeks before the tweet, in remarks to the Association of Professors of Medicine, Califf said “blame is toxic,” but the FDA must examine its level of accountability. Califf gave several ways to reverse course.

Califf proposed his agency “create and sustain a post-market evidence generation system” that would evaluate medical products after FDA approval and “teach about the need for participation in evidence generation.” Califf noted clinicians are under financial pressure not to participate.

Another step to increase life expectancy would be to counter medical “misinformation,” Califf said.

“While vaccination is an obvious example, we could go through the list of leading causes of death and disability and find that misinformation is much more pervasive in the lives of susceptible people and communities than valid, reliable scientific information,” said Califf.

Califf also called for expanding the clinical workforce and wider use of artificial intelligence to “lift clinicians out of box-checking hell.”

‘Vaccine Skepticism and Fatigue’

Better alignment of resources with need might also optimize health outcomes, noted Califf.

“And, as we all know, these poor outcomes are far from uniformly distributed,” said Califf. “Disparities as a function of race, ethnicity, wealth, education and geospatial location are profound and widening. A college degree is associated with an 8.5 year longer life and differences of more than a decade in life expectancy are common when we go from urban areas and university towns to rural areas.”

Califf also recommended increased vaccination but did not mention the adverse reactions connected to the COVID-19 shots. Califf noted new vaccines for COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus infections.

“Yet, the combination of vaccine skepticism and fatigue have produced weak vaccination results and parents are seeking exceptions to vaccine requirements for their children in record numbers,” said Califf.

What about Excess Deaths?

Califf does not even pose the obvious question, much less answer it in his remarks, says Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

“The decline in life expectancy is recent and sharp,” said Orient. “Why now? What changed? What are the causes of death? During COVID, there was not a spike in excess deaths. If older, sicker people died of COVID, we should be seeing fewer deaths after the culling effect, not more. Perhaps more fentanyl (overdose deaths), more suicides? How many? Not enough to account for this.”

Califf is ignoring the obvious, wrote Pierre Kory, M.D., and Mary Beth Pfeiffer in The Hill, on December 12. “People are dying in abnormally high numbers even now and long since COVID-19 waned. Yet public health agencies and medical societies are silent,” Kory and Pfeiffer stated.

“Life insurers have been consistently sounding the alarm over these unexpected or, “excess,” deaths, which claimed 158,000 more Americans in the first nine months of 2023 than in the same period in 2019,” wrote Kory and Pfeiffer. “That exceeds America’s combined losses from every war since Vietnam. Congress should urgently work with insurance experts to investigate this troubling trend.”

Dancing Around the Elephant

In researching the increase in excess deaths, researchers should be mindful of the mass COVID vaccination campaign, says Orient.

“Certainly, vaccine status is something you should ask about when collecting all that data,” said Orient. “You’d see a decline in life expectancy if more younger people are dying—as appears to be the case.”

Califf is dancing around an issue that is on most people’s minds, says Orient.

“Which is why they are declining more boosters,” said Orient. “But there may still be delayed effects from earlier shots. There are red-alert levels of safety signals. They are demanding urgent, thorough investigation. Why isn’t Dr. Califf calling for more autopsies, and checking for effects of spike protein or integration of DNA fragments from vaccine production? That a person didn’t go to college is not the reason he died at age 35.”

Evidence-based Medicine

Increasing life expectancy should be a major concern, says Scott Jensen, M.D., a family doctor, and former Minnesota state senator and gubernatorial candidate.

“We see people putting their heads in the sand,” said Jensen. “They don’t want to take blame, but they want to be noble and say it’s catastrophic.”

Jensen says he takes exception to one of Cardiff’s suggestions.

“The phrase ‘evidence-based medicine’ has become similar to ‘follow the science,’ said Jensen. “‘Evidence-based medicine’ is whatever you want it to be. It allows you to pick and choose studies that suit your purpose. But it falls short of the mark. What does it mean and what does it constitute in the practice of medicine?”

The decline in life expectancy should be a primary focus, but the FDA might also examine popular treatments, such as statin drugs, says Jensen.

“There is now data coming out that indicates statin drugs may well be contributing to congestive heart failure,” said Jensen.

FDA’s Image Problem

During the summer, when conservative-leaning media began focusing on excess deaths, the FDA launched a “Rumor Control” webpage to target “the growing spread of rumors, misinformation, and disinformation about science, medicine, and the FDA.”

The problem may go beyond “misinformation,” says Orient.

“The medical establishment has betrayed the people’s trust,” said Orient. “Can they ever get it back?”


COVID Mask Mandates Return Across US Hospitals

Hospitals in places across the United States have reimplemented mask mandates because of what officials say is an uptick in COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.

For example, the NYC Health + Hospitals—officially the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation that operates public hospitals and clinics in New York City—announced that mask mandates will be reimplemented at its hospitals.

“Due to an uptick in respiratory illnesses like COVID-19, flu & RSV in our communities & our hospital, we must return to mandatory masking. Please wear a mask when you visit us!” the hospital operator wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, earlier this week.

The post showed a photo of staff members wearing masks.

A separate NYC Health + Hospitals post states that “mandatory masking” was reinstated at its Jacobi facility in the Bronx because of “the prevalence of COVID-19 in our communities.”

While the hospital and other medical facilities have cited recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data showing an increase in COVID-19 cases, historical data from the same agency show that the increase has been relatively small compared to previous years. As of Dec. 16, the agency data show that more than 25,000 people are currently hospitalized for COVID-19 across the United States, whereas on Dec. 16, 2022, more than 36,000 were hospitalized.

Other Mask Mandates

UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, Massachusetts, confirmed to local media that it would issue a monthlong mask requirement for its staff, effective on Jan. 2. Patients and visitors won’t be mandated to wear face coverings, however.

“These changes are expected to remain in effect for approximately one month, at which time they will be reevaluated based on current trends,“ a spokesperson for the hospital said in the statement. ”The health and wellbeing of our patients, visitors, and employees is our top priority.”

The Mass General Brigham health system in Massachusetts also announced that it’s reinstating masking requirements because of COVID-19. “Our masking policies are based on the current respiratory illness rates in our communities,” Mass General Brigham confirmed in a statement to local media on Dec. 28.

In Delaware, TidalHealth announced on Dec. 28 that it’s mandating masks for all hospital visitors in patients’ rooms. That rule was initiated in “an effort to protect the most vulnerable of our population from close contact with persons that may be contagious but not yet have symptoms,” according to the hospital.

Thousands of miles across the country, in Washington state, Kaiser Permanente confirmed to local media that staffers who work in person with patients have to wear masks. Kaiser spokeswoman Linnae Riesen told The Spokesman-Review that masks are required for its workers but that patients and visitors aren’t required to wear them.

“Masks are not required but are strongly recommended for patients and visitors who do not have respiratory symptoms and are visiting low-risk areas of our medical facilities,” Kaiser Permanente’s guidance reads, according to the media outlet.

Officials at Beacon Health System said Memorial Hospital and Elkhart General, located in South Bend, Indiana, are reimplementing masking requirements for visitors, patients, and staff, according to local reports. Earlier this month, several hospitals in Pittsburgh, hospitals in Boston, and UW Health hospitals in Illinois and Wisconsin also implemented mask requirements to varying degrees.

Multiple California counties across the Bay Area region had already imposed a mask mandate for staff; it started in November and will run until the end of spring because of a predicted rise in respiratory illnesses.




Sunday, December 31, 2023

Consent of the Governed, Where Art Thou?

When authority-loving do-gooders run wild

Dr. Robert Malone

I am often asked some form of the question “What caused you to come out of the closet and start criticizing the vaccines?” On a related note, when interviewed by a reporter from the infamous Atlantic August 2021 hit piece, Stan Gromkowski (a former Vical colleague of mine) prophetically opined, “He’s [expletive] up his chances for a Nobel Prize.”

The answer to this persistent question is nicely summarized in the first essay which I wrote in objection to what was being done, titled “COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA: It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down,” published in Trial Site News on May 30, 2021 (three months before the defamatory Atlantic attack). I guess that article struck a nerve, because it currently has over 19,000 likes; pretty good for an article on a specialty paid site targeting the clinical research industry.

The essay was prompted by a midnight Saturday evening Zoom call with a Canadian physician who was pleading for me to help intervene with the Canadian authorities overseeing the “vaccine” campaign. This specific physician later had his office raided and office computers damaged by the Canadian government for prescribing early treatment and writing vaccine exemptions, and has now being required to submit to the Canadian government re-education and contrition program for his sins if he wishes to retain the ability to practice medicine, just as has been required of Jordan Peterson. But that was all in the future.

Talking until midnight Saturday, he had described what was being done in Canada to force toxic COVID “vaccines” on an unwitting population including children, imploring me to somehow intervene with Health Canada to stop the madness. I told him I did not have the necessary connections, and there was nothing much I could do to help.

Waking early the following Sunday, I realized there was something I actually could do to advance his cause. I could dip into my extensive training in bioethics and write about the fundamental breaches of established biomedical ethics that were going on in Canada, and would soon migrate to the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and across the western “democracies.”

The following is the core of my argument back then (May 2021), which I assert has withstood the test of time much better than the notorious Atlantic hit piece published three months later.

* * *

I believe that adult citizens must be allowed free will, the freedom to choose. This is particularly true in the case of clinical research. These mRNA and recombinant adenovirus vaccine products remain experimental at this time. Furthermore, we are supposed to be doing rigorous, fact-based science and medicine. If rigorous and transparent evaluation of vaccine reactogenicity and treatment-emergent post-vaccination adverse events is not done, we (the public health, clinical research and vaccine developer communities) play right into the hands of anti-vaxxer memes and validate many of their arguments.

The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products.

In this context, the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial. And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research—written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.

There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects. The human subjects—you, me, and the citizens of these countries—must be informed of risks.As a community, we have already had a discussion and made our decision—we cannot compel prisoners, military recruits, or any other population of humans to participate in a clinical research study. For example, see the Belmont report, which provided the rationale for US federal law Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A), referred to as “The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (also known as the “Common Rule”).

Quoting from the Belmont Report:

“Informed Consent. — Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Information, comprehension, and voluntariness. To my eyes, it appears that in many regions public health leadership has stepped over the line and is now violating the bedrock principles which form the foundation upon which the ethics of clinical research are built. I believe that this must stop. We must have transparent public disclosure of risks—in a broad sense—associated with these experimental vaccines. It is either that, or the entire modern bioethical structure which supports human subjects research will have to be re-thought.

* * *

This was not a major intellectual leap. It was a simple restatement of the training in clinical research bioethics which I had received and which had been repeatedly reinforced over the prior decade. No big deal, except that few if any were willing to make such a statement at that time. Long before the infamous Dark Horse or Rogan podcasts.

The failure to disclose the risks of the gene therapy-based COVID vaccines by the U.S. and other “Western” governments became widespread, chronic, and well-documented. Fast forwarding to the present, on Dec. 22, 2023 investigative journalist Greg Piper of the alternative “Just the News” published yet another chapter in the abundant library of documented government withholding of key information concerning COVID genetic “vaccine” harms.

* * *

Misinformation for thee, not me? FDA had similar concerns as COVID vaccine skeptics, docs suggest

FOIA production shows the agency wasn’t impressed by Pfizer’s plan to mitigate “endotoxins,” complained about insufficient cleaning in manufacturing, and had no basis to claim post-vax heart inflammation was rare.

If an outsider raises questions about contamination of COVID-19 vaccines or how closely the Food and Drug Administration monitors for severe adverse events, the agency considers it a boon to misinformation that lowers vaccine uptake and hence kills people.
If the FDA itself raises these issues, that’s a different story ....

The FDA documents, some heavily redacted under the FOIA exemption for trade secrets, show less daylight than may be thought between the agency and critics of federal COVID policy such as Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo.

* * *

Mr. Piper went on to summarize a range of recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and court-ordered document disclosures which clearly demonstrate a systematic and intentional failure by the U.S. government to properly inform the public of the risks associated with accepting gene therapy-based COVID “vaccine” products.

• The CDC had no scientific research to back its public claim in January that people can safely get their COVID, flu, and monkeypox vaccines “at the same time.”

• “Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, didn’t just tell Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo last week his concerns about DNA contamination were ‘quite implausible’ but also shamed him for feeding what he considered misinformation that will cause preventable deaths. Yet an Aug. 6, 2021 email to Pfizer from CBER Senior Regulatory Review Officer Mike Smith about ‘endotoxins’—potential contaminants introduced in pharmaceutical manufacturing—shows the feds had similar concerns as they considered full approval for Pfizer’s Comirnaty.”

• “A month before then-acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock told the media that post-vaccination heart inflammation ‘appears to be very low,’ a CBER ‘surveillance’ scientist made clear that the leader was not relying on the agency’s own data. Joyce Obidi reviewed how well CBER’s Sentinel Program, created under a 2007 law to monitor drug safety through electronic healthcare data, could ‘evaluate the serious risk for myocarditis and pericarditis’ following Pfizer COVID vaccination in recipients 16 and older, the first population authorized for emergency use.

‘Post-authorization safety data identified serious risks for myocarditis and pericarditis after COMIRNATY, with increased risk in males under 30 years of age,’ Obidi wrote in the May 18, 2021, memo, which is also buried in the agency’s 246-document public folder on materials related to Comirnaty’s approval.”

• Obidi also stated that “Available data sources in the CBER Sentinel Program are NOT sufficient to identify the outcomes of myocarditis and pericarditis” and not “sufficiently powered to assess the magnitude of risk” for ages 12-30. She wrote. The program would need a minimum of 3-6 months follow-up data to check for “long-term sequelae,” and it cannot study subclinical myocarditis “because of the absence of a definition of subclinical myocarditis and unknown background incidence of troponin abnormalities,” according to Obidi. Sentinel’s data sources at full approval of Comirnaty did not have “sufficient power to assess the magnitude of risk in patients 12-30 years of age” and hence cannot assess the “serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, and subclinical myocarditis” associated with the vaccine.

• “In another May 18, 2021, memo reviewing Pfizer’s proposed pharmacovigilance plan for its vaccine, Analytic Epidemiology Branch Medical Officer Deborah Thompson evaluated the company’s claim that ‘vaccine-associated enhanced disease’ is just a ‘theoretical risk.’ She cited Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System reports of deaths in ‘fully vaccinated’ patients at that early stage of vaccination. ‘Severe manifestations and death from COVID-19 raise the possibility’ of VAED because it has ‘overlapping clinical manifestations with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, making it difficult to differentiate VAED from severe’ infection in VAERS reports.”

• Despite assurances otherwise from Peter Marks in his letter to the Florida Surgeon General, major manufacturing process good practices were breached. “In a Form 483 to Pfizer following inspections that uncovered possible or actual product adulteration, FDA investigators made 13 observations about procedures at Pfizer’s Andover, Massachusetts, manufacturing facility. They include “insufficient data to support product quality prior to the release” of vaccine batch FA8057. The observation says “a deviation [redacted] was initiated due to the multiple control limit excursions during [redacted]” and the “affected batch was manufactured with a process that deviated from the validated process parameters” and was “not put on stability until July 22, 2021.” It was released on a redacted date.

An observation on “inadequate quality oversight” implies that Pfizer was late in adding a notation to a batch record that “[redacted] exceeded the allowable [redacted].” The company’s quality assurance does not review “electronic data/reports” from a redacted manufacturing process “during batch record review or prior to batch release.” [Note: No clinical trial I have ever been involved in has been associated with an FDA 483 warning letter. This is no small matter.]

• Just the News asked the FDA prior to publication of this report on Dec. 22 for its characterization of the FOIA-disclosed and related documents in light of Marks’ comments to Ladapo about feeding misinformation. A spokesperson responded two days later, saying the agency was working to provide an answer. As of Dec. 27, the FDA still has not provided a response.

At this point, the burden of publicly available documentation clearly demonstrates multiple examples of intentional breaches of informed consent by both the U.S. government and the pharmaceutical industry manufacturers of these products. It is difficult to dispute that the U.S. government and the pharmaceutical industry sponsors are colluding in a public-private partnership to suppress information concerning risks of these products. Likewise, there has been an agreement between the UK and U.S. governments to suppress disclosure of information concerning risks and adverse events associated with these products.

In a normal, historic regulatory and bioethical environment, this breach of international bioethical norms concerning informed consent would rise to the level of a clear-cut crime against humanity. But in the “through the looking glass” world of COVID post-late 2019, established legal, moral, and ethical norms concerning patient and citizen rights to proper informed consent have all been turned upside down. All of these clear-cut breaches ostensibly being actively “justified” by mockingbird media, the massive censorship-industrial complex, and government officials as being in service of the public interest and the greater good.

The western Five Eyes alliance participants, deferring to the leadership of the U.S. government, are all acting in coordination and cooperation to disregard and hide the implications and consequences of their illegal and unethical actions. This is being justified based on the following oft-repeated catechism, each element of which is demonstrably false or opposed to established Western bioethical consensus:

1. COVID-19, the disease caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2, is highly pathogenic with a case fatality rate of 3.4. [The actual case fatality rate was approximately 0.02 percent when this disease was first “modeled” in 2020 and is much lower now.]

2. The gene therapy-based COVID-19 “vaccines” are safe and effective, are effective as prophylactics, are effective in preventing infection and spread of COVID-19 disease, and if taken by a sufficient fraction of the population [a moving goalpost] can be used to achieve herd immunity. [All of these previous claims are now clearly demonstrated unsupported falsehoods.]

3. The gene therapy-based COVID-19 “vaccines” are effective at preventing severe disease and death from SARS-CoV-2, and have saved 14 million lives. [This 14 million lives saved claim turns out to be based on flawed mathematics, and all cause mortality data analysis indicates something more like 17 million lives lost globally due to the products.]

4. Fully disclosing actual risks, morbidity and mortality data concerning the COVID-19 genetic vaccines will result in “increased vaccine hesitancy” and avoidable harm due to reduced “vaccine” (booster) uptake. [At this point in the outbreak, multiple data sources indicate that acceptance of boosters is associated with “negative effectiveness,” meaning that after a 2-3 month lag period (shorter in some studies) you are more likely to suffer death or severe COVID-19 disease—and other diseases—if you accept injection with these products than if you do not.]

This fourth point is a clear-cut example of flawed logic. Flawed both in terms of the data on morbidity, mortality, and immune imprinting, as well as flawed bioethical reasoning.

Think this through with me. The essence of the statement is essentially the governments’ assertions that “if the public knew about the risks that we know about, then they would choose not to accept those risks based on their assessment of the effectiveness of the product and the clinical risks of infection with the virus. Therefore there would be much more avoidable disease, disability, and death from COVID-19 than would be saved from vaccine products not administered.”

And on the basis of this ill-logic, governments and Pharma are withholding adverse event data, and thereby are unilaterally making medical decisions for sovereign individuals and their children. This is what we have come to. The ultimate embodiment of the nanny state, with corporatist allies. The State knows best, and will withhold medical information from the public which would cause members of that public to question its wisdom and decision-making.

Basically, the State is asserting that it has the right to sentence you to increased risk of death and disease by purchasing (using tax dollars), mandating (vaccines for children program), distributing, enticing, and marketing an injectable product while censoring or defaming (using modern psychological warfare technologies) any and all who disagree or even have the temerity to question the decisions and rights of the State to do so.