Thursday, January 11, 2024



The Covid vaccine gave me side effects that ruined my life, but Facebook keeps censoring me from telling my friends about what happened

A woman who says she suffered chronic health complications after taking the AstraZeneca vaccine claims to have been censored from sharing her story on Facebook.

Caroline Pover, 52, received the jab in March 2021 and within nine hours, experienced convulsions, shivering, breathing difficulties and low blood pressure.

Ms Pover, of Cirencester, Gloucestershire, says she was hospitalised when her condition escalated to 'stroke-like' symptoms, in addition to exhaustion, breathing difficulties, a racing heart and migraines.

Her story was shared in a national newspaper in March last year as she and 800 other victims struggled to claim the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS).

But after sharing the link on her Facebook feed at the start of this year, Ms Pover says the website put a warning notice on her account.

Ms Pover, herself a freelance journalist and entrepreneur, said: 'My posts about what was happening to me started having FB “notes” appearing underneath them about vaccination.

'A group page I was an admin on was shut down completely by Facebook in the summer of 2021.

'When I posted the Daily Express article, which did an excellent job of not discussing anything pro or anti... I received a warning and the post was hidden.

'It's a ridiculous situation for vaccine-injured people, who have a right to information.

'If this was an online support group relating to cancer or another type of serious condition, we'd be outraged at the thought of it being censored and we'd be very sensitive to people having to navigate a very complicated health situation.'

Ms Pover said she made her first post about vaccine side effects on March 3, 2021, shortly after receiving a Covid jab.

She said: 'In the week that followed I was posting about my health and I always thought I'd be fine the next day.

'After a few weeks, I noticed that little notes from Facebook were appearing whenever I posted anything relating to the vaccine.'

Ms Pover claims she was subsequently 'shadow banned' on Facebook and that often, her posts failed to appear in the timelines of her friends and family.

She said: 'People would tag me in posts and complain that they weren't getting any traction. I'd say to them, "don't tag me, it will just disappear if you do."'

Ms Pover says that over time, the censorship led her to develop a specific writing style that would help prevent posts from being flagged up.

She has also written a book about people receiving adverse reactions from Covid jabs, which was picked up by a publisher last year.

And she says her experiences with censorship have only made her even more determined to share her message.

Ms Pover said: 'The physical health struggles we face aren't just what happens in the minutes, hours or days immediately after injection; it's what we are still dealing with years later, as well as the impact of being censored.'

Facebook has been approached for comment.

Elsewhere on the platform, UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her sports therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

AstraZeneca said in a statement: '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 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.

'The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) has granted full marketing approval for Vaxzevria for the UK based on the safety profile and efficacy of the vaccine.

****************************************************

Fauci Admits 'Six-Foot Social Distancing' Was Based on Nothing During Closed-Door Testimony

During Dr. Anthony Fauci’s second day of his closed-door interrogation with members of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, the former head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases admitted shocking details about COVID-19.

The Committee, led by chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), dove into 14 hours of testimony where Fauci acknowledged that his six-foot social distancing recommendation “was likely not based on any data.”

“It just sort of appeared,” the GOP-led Committee wrote, quoting Fauci. “Dr. Fauci acknowledged that the lab-leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory.”

Nearly four years after civilization collapsed due to Democrats pushing a mostly non-life-threatening virus, Fauci suggested that his “recommendations”—AKA mandates— were based on the desire to control the sheep, which proved that the majority of society is obedient and uninformed.

The Committee revealed that Fauci “advised American universities to impose vaccine mandates on their students,” despite the former NIH director admitting that vaccine mandates could “increase vaccine hesitancy in the future.”

“This comes nearly four years after prompting the publication of the now infamous ‘Proximal Origin’ paper that attempted to vilify and disprove the lab-leak hypothesis,” the Committee wrote.

Wenstrup said things became very “evident” following Fauci’s two-day-long testimony, adding that the above admissions from the NIH official were suppressed completely.

“During his interview today, Dr. Fauci claimed that the policies and mandates he promoted may unfortunately increase vaccine hesitancy for years to come,” the Republican wrote in his findings. “Further, the social distancing recommendations forced on Americans ‘sort of just appeared’ and were likely not based on scientific data. “[The transcribed interview] revealed systemic failures in our public health system and shed a light on serious procedural concerns with our public health authority.”

********************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************************

Wednesday, January 10, 2024

Censored!

Google has deleted the post that I put up here yesterday. It reported a very skeptical article about the Pfizer Covid vaccine.

 Never mind, however as the post is still available on my backup site:  https://johnjayray.com/jan24.html

Just scroll down tothe post of 9th.  

The article is also still available on the site from which I took it:

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/ex-who-advisormrna-covid-19-vaccines-dangerous-09b8d28e

The originating story is here:

https://www.aussie17.com/p/my-story-by-professor-gabriel-oon

There were actually two articles in my post yesterday.  The second was a  perfectly rigorous statistical analysis of seasonal influences on Covid incidence.  I can't see that Google would object to it so I have reprinted it under yesterday's date.  It is also still available on the site from which I took it:

https://www.ceres-science.com/post/new-research-finds-the-natural-seasonality-of-coronaviruses-had-more-influence-on-the-covid-19-pande

****************************************



People More Likely to Suffer Vertigo, Tinnitus Soon After COVID-19 Vaccination: Study

People were more likely to present with tinnitus and vertigo shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, Australian researchers reported in a new study.

Some 65,468 visits to general practices with an audiovestibular problem were recorded in a database called POLAR that collects data from the practices, the researchers found. The visits, in Victoria and New South Wales, were more likely to happen within 42 days of a COVID-19 shot.

Another 678 problems relating to the ear were reported within 42 days of a vaccine dose to the Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Vaccination In the Community, or SAEFVIC, a surveillance system in Victoria, in the timeframe studied.

That timeframe was January 2021 to March 2023.

A safety signal, or sign the vaccines may cause the problems, was established for tinnitus and vertigo, according to the new paper.

Researchers found that there was an increase in general practice visits with vertigo following a Moderna or Pfizer vaccination, and visits with tinnitus after a Moderna, Pfizer, or AstraZeneca vaccine. At the same time, there was no increase in visits with hearing loss.

New COVID Variant Spreading in US, but Risk Is Low: Experts
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use modified messenger RNA (mRNA) technology while AstraZeneca’s vaccine uses an adenovirus.

A separate analysis of SAEFVIC found that reports of audiovestibular problems were more common after AstraZeneca vaccination than after a Moderna or Pfizer shot. That analysis excluded, owing to what researchers said were insufficient records, reports of problems after certain kinds of COVID-19 vaccines, including one version of Pfizer’s vaccine and Novavax’s vaccine.

“This is the first study that demonstrates an increase in audiovestibular presentations following COVID-19 vaccination, in particular, vertigo and tinnitus. Healthcare providers and vaccinees should be alert to potential audiovestibular complaints after COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Aishwarya Shetty, with the Centre for Health Analytics at The Melbourne Children’s Campus, and her co-authors wrote.

The paper was published ahead of peer review on the medRxiv server. Dr. Shetty did not respond to a request for comment, including whether the study has been submitted to any journals for peer review. Pfizer and the other vaccine manufacturers did not respond to requests for comment.

Methods

Tinnitus, or ringing in the head, has particularly been previously linked in case reports and patient accounts with COVID-19 vaccination.

To explore the possible relationship, the Australian group took the primary care data and conducted what’s called a self-controlled case series. In such an analysis, comparisons are made using the same people but different periods of time. In this study, the method involved examining visits for audiovestibular conditions and separating out visits that happened within 42 days of vaccination. Any visits in the time periods before and after that window were used as comparison.

For all audiovestibular conditions, including hearing loss, people were more likely to present within 42 days of vaccination than during the other time periods. When analyzing by specific condition, the increased risk of vertigo after mRNA vaccination and the increased risk of tinnitus after all vaccines was statistically significant while the increased risk of hearing loss was not.

The researchers also calculated the rates of reports of the conditions made to SAEFVIC per 100,000 doses. They found people were about two times more likely to suffer from most hearing problems after AstraZeneca vaccination than after Pfizer or Moderna vaccination.

The rates of reported audiovestibular conditions were 9.7 per 100,000 AstraZeneca doses and 5 per 100,000 mRNA shots. The rates of reported vertigo cases were 5.9 per 100,000 AstraZeneca doses and 3.1 per 100,000 mRNA doses, while the rates of reported cases of tinnitus were 3.2 per 100,000 AstraZeneca doses and 1.7 per 100,000 mRNA doses.

One theory to explain the difference is that older people, who face a greater risk of vertigo, predominantly received the AstraZeneca vaccine, the researchers said.

Some previous papers, such as one from the United States, have not found an increase in tinnitus after COVID-19 vaccination, but those mostly relied on self-reports “and are prone to recall bias,” according to the Australian researchers.
Limitations of the paper included not capturing people who reported to health care settings outside of general practices.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Funding was listed by the Department of Health in Victoria.

Increased Risk Versus Unvaccinated

In another new study released on medRxiv, South Korean researchers reported finding vaccinated people were at increased risk of tinnitus and ear disease when compared to unvaccinated people.

Taking data from a national health care database, the researchers said vaccinated people three months after vaccination had increased rates of tinnitus, inner ear disease, middle ear disease, and other ear disease.

The researchers said the results showed COVID-19 vaccination “significantly increased” the risks of what they described as non-fatal adverse events, such as tinnitus.

The group found that females were more likely to suffer from tinnitus and ear disease than males, and that people who received a non-mRNA vaccine were more likely to suffer from tinnitus and inner ear disease than those who received an mRNA shot. On the other hand, the risk was about the same across vaccine types for middle ear disease and higher for mRNA recipients for other ear disease.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest and no funding.

*********************************************

UK: The conspiracy of silence around Covid even four years on betrays our values

It is more than four years since the World Health Organisation was tipped off about a mysterious new disease that had emerged in Wuhan. This proved to be the start of a deadly pandemic as the virus hurtled round the planet, sparking the most serious public health catastrophe for a century.

Now, it is beyond dispute that China’s dictatorship covered up Covid’s eruption in Wuhan – with disastrous consequences. The regime’s officials hid the initial outbreak, silenced whistleblowers and censored data that could have saved millions of lives.

Yet, last year, when Michael Gove told the UK Covid-19 inquiry there was ‘a significant body of judgment that believes that the virus itself was man-made’ he was slapped down as the lead counsel, Hugo Keith, told him: ‘We’re not going to go there.’

So this bloated, costly inquiry is happy to admonish British politicians while ignoring the much bigger issue of whether the pandemic was sparked by cutting-edge scientific research or if there was ‘natural’ transmission from infected animals.

Keith’s hasty response reflected the desperate efforts of Western political, scientific and media establishments to stifle such discussion as they kowtow to China’s bullying rulers and cover up funding ties to risky research outsourced to Wuhan labs.

Zero reliable evidence has emerged to back claims of zoonotic (animal to animal) transmission. But there has been a steady trickle of evidence to suggest that it may be no coincidence that Covid emerged in the city with China’s maximum bio-safety lab, the biggest repository of bat coronaviruses in Asia.

I have reported on these issues since early 2020 – and it has been deeply disturbing to witness systemic attempts to shackle debate for it corrodes public confidence in science, politics and the media.

Obstruction has been led by heads of key American and British funding bodies. Yet last month a study disclosed 309 laboratory-acquired infections between 2000 and 2021 – along with 16 cases of pathogens escaping a laboratory.

Alarming details about the work in Wuhan and China’s cover-up have been exposed along with concerns over ‘Wild West’ safety and details of secret schemes to boost the infectivity of coronaviruses.

Today, there is growing acceptance that a laboratory incident might have caused the pandemic.

While no one knows for sure the answer to this scientific riddle, one thing is clear. There has been a toxic conspiracy of silence in collusion with China over Covid’s origins that has betrayed the values of democracy and science.

This undermines all efforts to prepare for the next pandemic.

********************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************************

Tuesday, January 09, 2024



New research finds the natural seasonality of coronaviruses had more influence on the COVID-19 pandemic than government interventions

A new international study on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in six northern European countries has unexpectedly discovered that the pre-existing seasonal nature of coronaviruses may have played more of a role during the pandemic than any of the government public health intervention policies – including vaccinations, lockdowns, masks and travel restrictions. The scientific study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Journal of Clinical Medicine.

The international team of scientists and medical experts used 10 years of human coronavirus monitoring data collected in Sweden before the pandemic to estimate the seasonal variations in coronavirus incidence in northern Europe. They then used publicly available data on the COVID-19 pandemic for six northern European countries (Ireland, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland) to compare the relative contributions to the progression of the pandemic in each country of: (1) seasonality; (2) vaccination programmes; and (3) other public health measures. They studied the various waves of the pandemic from early 2020 until May 2023, when the WHO declared the public health emergency over.

The authors found that the increases and decreases of each wave consistently followed the natural seasonal behaviour of coronaviruses – increasing during the winter “cold and flu season” and decreasing during the summer. In contrast, the scientific team were surprised to find no clear or consistent influence from either the vaccination programmes or the many public health interventions that were implemented.

The lead author, Dr. Gerry Quinn, a research scientist specialising in microbiology and immunology, described the significance of these surprising findings as follows:

“Since the start of the pandemic, governments and societies around the world have been implementing unprecedented measures in an attempt to control the spread of the virus. Whenever cases began to fall, many people believed that this was due to the public health interventions. But, a careful examination of all the available data shows that this belief was mistaken. It now transpires that most of the changes were probably due to natural seasonal changes of coronaviruses.”

Another author of the study, Prof. Karol Sikora (Medical Director of Cancer Partners International and Consultant Oncologist; former Director of the WHO Cancer Programme), emphasised:

“The finding that most of the apparent successes of the government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were actually due to the natural seasonality of coronaviruses makes the negative health impacts of the lockdowns and other interventions even more disturbing. In the UK, we are still reeling from the harms these policies caused for cancer treatment and diagnosis and many other health concerns throughout the pandemic. Now, it seems that these dramatic health interventions did not even noticeably alter the progression of the pandemic.”

Prof. Norman Fenton, a Professor Emeritus of Risk at Queen Mary University of London and a mathematician who specialises in data analysis and statistics, was also a co-author. He warned that,

“From the beginning of the pandemic, there have been major problems in the interpretation of the publicly available COVID-19 data. During the first waves, health agencies were still developing, changing and increasing testing capacity. This meant that initial attempts to evaluate the COVID-19 public health measures were hindered by inconsistencies in the official data. Ambiguities in the definitions of COVID-19 vaccination statuses also led to considerable confusion in assessing the impacts of the vaccination programmes. Another problem was that many of the model-based studies only considered either the first or the second wave.

However, this comprehensive new study overcame many of these statistical challenges by considering five different indicators of the pandemic and separately analysing each country over multiple waves of the pandemic. The results show that the overwhelming influence of seasonality created a false, and scientifically invalid, confidence in the many previously untested public health interventions that most governments used.”

********************************************************

Monday, January 08, 2024


'Vaccine victims' left with life-changing injuries from the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab say they've been censored online when speaking out

I have put this up as a free-speech issue but it is of course a medical issue too. So I thought I might mention that I got two shots of the AstraZeneca vaccine and did not get even a sore arm out of it. And I gather that most recipients were not significantly troubled by it. So the people who are complaining below may be:

1). Blaming the vaccine for some injury that had another cause. Many things may oocur in close sequence without one causing the other.

2). Affected by some rare pre-existing physical condition that interacted with the vaccine.

In both cases it is a bit much to blame the vaccine-makers for failing to see and prevent the problems concerned


People who were left with life-changing injuries after being given the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab claim they have been censored while trying to speak out on social media about their symptoms.

They believe they are vaccine victims who suffered a number of severe reactions, including a father-of-two who formed a blood clot after being given the vaccine in spring 2021 causing a permanent brain injury.

The man is in the process of suing the pharmaceutical giant at the High Court in London over the injury, while the widower of a woman who died from the jab has also brought a claim.

Now other 'victims' who claim they reacted badly to the jab who are not involved in legal proceedings have claimed sites such as Facebook have given them 'warnings' when they have tried to speak to others about their experiences.

They alleged that they are being forced to 'self censor' and speak in cryptic language to avoid having groups shut down, the Telegraph reported.

UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her Sports Therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

***********************************

Why Florida's Surgeon General Has Called for a 'Halt' in the Use of mRNA COVID Vaccines

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo is calling for a “halt” in the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines over a health risk federal officials dispute.

In a Dec. 6 letter, Ladapo addressed his concerns “pertaining to the safety assessments and the discovery of billions of DNA fragments per dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines” to the directors of the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But federal officials have strongly disagreed with his assessment.

A top FDA official last month pushed back against Ladapo and what the FDA called "the proliferation of misinformation" on vaccine safety.

Ladapo raised concerns about the agency's approval of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a Dec. 6 letter to FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf and CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen. His letter cited a pre-print study that, according to the surgeon general, showed there are "billions of DNA fragments per dose of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines."

Pointing to FDA guidance on vaccines that "use novel methods of delivery regarding DNA integration," Ladapo questioned whether the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines had been assessed to meet FDA's standards, noting a potential risk of cancer.

In a written response, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote that it is "implausible" that residual small DNA fragments could find their way into the nucleus of human cells and then alter DNA to cause cancer.

"We would like to make clear that based on a thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process, FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines," Marks wrote in a Dec. 14 letter. "Additionally, with over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered, no safety concerns related to residual DNA have been identified." (Fox News)

But Ladapo said the FDA’s response did not adequately address his concerns.

“The FDA’s response does not provide data or evidence that the DNA integration assessments they recommended themselves have been performed,” he said in a statement. “Instead, they pointed to genotoxicity studies – which are inadequate assessments for DNA integration risk. In addition, they obfuscated the difference between the SV40 promoter/enhancer and SV40 proteins, two elements that are distinct.

“DNA integration poses a unique and elevated risk to human health and to the integrity of the human genome, including the risk that DNA integrated into sperm or egg gametes could be passed onto offspring of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients,” Ladapo continued. “If the risks of DNA integration have not been assessed for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, these vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings.”

********************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************************

Sunday, January 07, 2024



Apparently, Elderly Patients in Europe Died After Receiving the Pfizer Vaccine. Why Has There Been No Widespread Reporting?

Late last year, TrialSite News reported on a Brown University study analyzing the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines. “The study team summarized that when comparing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 with Moderna (mRNA-1273), the latter was associated with a lower risk of adverse events, possibly due to improved protection against COVID-19. Put another way, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine represents a higher-risk product for the elderly.

Yet this finding has never seen the light of day in mainstream media. “However, though not widespread, there have been some reports on the risk of the Covid vaccine to the elderly. TrialSite reported all during the pandemic from one concern to another involving regulatory shortcuts, to anomalies to hundreds of articles involving COVID-19 vaccine injuries with Pfizer-BioNTech. A group of scientists known as “Team #3” found bombshell information that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was associated with over twice the number of deaths during the pivotal 20-week clinical trial than the placebo group. The scientists found that data was suppressed by Pfizer, hence the FDA would not have been able to detect the safety signal.

Reports in 2021

In February of 2021, an article about all 78 elderly residents of a Spanish nursing home in Madrid developing COVID-19 after being vaccinated with the Pfizer jab surfaced. Note the article was published in the Global Times, which is a China-based media, and thus does raise a question of objectivity.

The residents contracted the virus after receiving the first dose of the shot and seven of them died. But in November of the same year, an article was published claiming deaths attributed to the Covid jab in Spain, “cannot be linked to Covid-19 vaccines by the mere fact of being notified until a study confirms the causal relationship between the vaccine and death or the serious side effect."

In other words, if a person dies due to a blood clot a few days after getting vaccinated against COVID-19, there is an undeniable possibility that this may have occurred for other reasons than the COVID-19 vaccine.

But Spain wasn’t the only country in Europe to report elderly deaths after receiving the Pfizer Covid shot. Norway investigated the demise of 23 seniors after getting the Pfizer jab. The Norwegian Medicines Agency labeled the victims as “frail” and such common adverse reactions to the mRNA vaccine such as nausea and fever may have contributed to the deaths.

In a statement, the agency said, “We cannot rule out that adverse reactions to the vaccine occurring within the first days following vaccination (such as fever and nausea) may contribute to a more serious course and fatal outcome in patients with severe underlying disease.” This news was covered by mainstream CNN.

However, also The British Medical Journal (BMJ) went further. It published an article in May of 2021, saying the Norwegian review said the “Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine is ‘likely’ to have been responsible for at least 10 deaths of frail elderly people in nursing homes in Norway, an expert review commissioned by the Norwegian Medicines Agency has concluded.”

The Norwegian report further conveyed that even though the mortality rate in nursing homes was generally very high and deaths of nursing home residents were anticipated after vaccination, the review concluded “a causal link between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and death was considered ‘likely’ in 10 of the 100 cases, ‘possible’ in 26 cases, and ‘unlikely’ in 59 cases. The remaining five were deemed ‘unclassifiable.’”

In Switzerland, at least 16 elderly people reportedly died after receiving the Covid vaccine according to the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic). The agency said it had recorded about 364 suspected adverse drug reactions, with 199 incidents linked to the vaccines developed by Pfizer and BioNTech and 154 to the Moderna jab.

TrialSite also tracked data in Australia after mass vaccination with both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. By the end of Q1 2022—a period when nearly the entire Australian population was fully vaccinated—more than double the number of people who died from COVID-19 in those three months than all of 2020 and 2021 combined. See “Heavily Vaxxed Australia First 3.5 Months of 2022 has Double the COVID-19 Deaths from 2020-2021 Combined.”

Underreported

Last year, Northern Irish politicians were complaining about the underreporting of deaths related to the COVID-19 vaccines. In June of 2021, MDPI, which is a publisher of peer-reviewed open-access journals, published a paper by a group of European medical professionals questioning the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, which was later retracted. Members of the journal’s board resigned afterward.

The question is, why does the possible danger of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine seem to be covered up and what kind of power and influence does the pharmaceutical company have over the European Union and the United States?

********************************************************

Florida Clinic Conducting Large Ivermectin Study Targeting COVID-19

Dr. Patrick Robinson and his partner Dana Robinson run the Matters of Beauty aesthetics and med spa clinic in San Antonio, Florida. The duo registered a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated cohort, a prospective observational study targeting 1,000 patients.

Can the clinic’s patients who opt for ivermectin as a regimen against COVID-19 have a faster path to recovery and keep out of the hospital more than others? The Robinsons are to be commended for making the investment to study the benefits of ivermectin formally. They are following other front-line physicians who made the investment to design and execute formal, organized studies including another Florida-based husband and wife team Drs. Jean-Jacques Rajter and Juliana Cepelowicz both with Broward Health, who led the well-known ICON study, with promising results published in the journal Chest.

Also, Malibu, California-based Dr. Sabine Hazan, a pioneer in microbiome-based research, became the first independent physician to formally register an ivermectin-based clinical trial in the United States during the pandemic. While other physicians have established practices involving ivermectin in various protocols, such efforts were based on their own formal studies within their clinics, registered in Clinicaltrials.gov, for example.

The study, registered in Clinicltrials.gov in May 2022, is scheduled to conclude this May 2024.

The Study

Patients at local physician clinics, as well as my Matters of Beauty, are enrolled when they are evaluated for COVID-19. Patients enrollment is, of course, voluntary and based on their request for treatment with ivermectin.

These patients will be questioned on symptoms and the timing of those symptoms in detail. They will then be followed throughout their treatment course to evaluate their recovery experience. Detailed accounts of their symptoms and their resolution will be followed.

The study patients will stop being followed when they are either admitted to the hospital or are deemed to be symptom-free. Any other medications prescribed to the patients will also be tracked. Medical histories will be taken and documented to make comparisons at the end of the study. Those patients not requesting ivermectin will also be followed for comparisons at a later date.

What are the study’s two cohorts?

As delineated in the national registry, Dr. Robinson and his wife Dana designed two cohorts, including A) the ivermectin cohort and B) the non-ivermectin cohort.

What are the primary outcome measures?

This study includes two primary outcome measures, including 1) complete recovery from COVID-19 with resolution of symptoms following a 4–6-week timeline per participant and 2) admission to hospital for further treatment within the same 4–6-week timeline per participant. In this latter case, the patient was unable to recover at home and thus needed hospital admission.

********************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************************