Thursday, February 29, 2024

Top Cardiologist Reports 47-Fold Increase in Serious Myocarditis Post Covid Vaccinations

Dr. Dean Patterson, a leading consultant cardiologist in Guernsey and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, has written to the U.K. medical professional regulator the General Medical Council (GMC) calling for an investigation into harms from the COVID-19 vaccines, in a letter first published on Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s website.

February 19th 2024
Charlie Massey
Chair of Executive Board
The General Medical Council

Dear Mr. Massey,

I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a distinguished medical professional who, through his dedication to improving public health and promoting evidence-based medicines, has inspired numerous medical professionals to speak out in support of non-pharmaceutical management of chronic illness. He has been attacked for his stance in the past, in respect to his views on sugar and statins. He today again stands accused of spreading dangerous misinformation by a group of medical professionals who appear dedicated to reducing science and medical practice to an echo chamber.

It is indeed a sad irony that Dr. Malhotra has been labeled an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, as he himself took the initial COVID-19 vaccine, recommended it to others and even his father. He later realised that serious safety signals were being reported and understandably has concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine may have contributed to accelerated fatal acute myocardial infarction in his father.

Over the past 18 years, I have been a partner, consultant cardiologist and general physician at the Medical Specialist Group and Princess Elizabeth Hospital in Guernsey with a population of 63,000. Here I am proud to say, we provide a consultant-only service which leads to exceptional continuity of care compared to the NHS where multiple tiers of doctors working shifts care for patients.

In my personal experience, the COVID-19 vaccine has caused me intolerable concern for patient safety here in Guernsey. In my 33 years of medical practice, I have never witnessed such harm from a therapeutic intervention. I lost a female patient due to myocarditis aged 42 in 2021. A 63-year-fit woman died from myocarditis one month after her booster vaccine in 2022 after getting breathless within one week of the injection. In addition, I personally cared for a 20-year-old male with severe myocarditis which developed within 24 hours of his second Pfizer vaccine. In the first year of the rollout, I diagnosed 20 patients with myocarditis and 15 cases of pericarditis, including one death (42 year-old) and another who required an ICD (79-year-old male). In the 16 years prior to this, I would on average diagnose two to three myocarditis cases per year, with serious cases being limited to one every three to four years. The U.K. ONS data for England and Wales show 250 hospital admissions for myocarditis over 10 years. This equates to two per 10 years for Guernsey. In the first year of the rollout, we had 10 hospital admissions for myocarditis. In the second year of vaccine rollout, I have seen another 18 myocarditis cases, including the death of the 63-year-old woman listed above.

In addition, I have noticed an increase in the number of heart failure and acute myocardial infarction cases. I am currently auditing the ambulatory ECG data as I believe there has been an increase in arrhythmia burden. Incredibly, the side-effects don’t stop there, as we have seen a doubling of the stroke numbers recently with an increase in overall thrombo-embolic disease since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.

I am therefore writing not only in support of Dr. Malhotra’s views on this matter but also to inform you that the medical establishment appears blind to the harm. I am extremely concerned that medical practice itself will be irreparably damaged by the fallout from the mishandling of the Covid vaccine side effects. Dr. Malhotra must be supported in his efforts to shine a light on this.

While the GMC is mandated to protect patients and regulate doctors, currently the GMC finds itself in a regulatory vacuum where it, like many mainstream doctors, is unable to openly support what should be an urgent independent investigation into Covid vaccine safety.

It is my opinion that the side-effects being detected are the tip of the iceberg. Healthcare professionals are quite poor at reporting Yellow Card cases, while the NHS doctors are overburdened and unlikely to spend 30-45 minutes submitting a Yellow Card incident. This is particularly the case when the same doctors have been indoctrinated with the statement that the Covid vaccines are safe and effective, while the evidence for this safety and effectiveness from double blind placebo controlled studies is extremely weak.

The initial Covid studies were due to complete in Q4 2023 and we await the final report, notwithstanding the major flaw that most of the placebo group have been vaccinated in 2021. A paper published very recently (K. Faksova, et al., ‘COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals‘, Vaccine, 2024) shows significant side-effects based upon this known under reporting.

Cardiologists in the main continue to blame COVID-19 infection as the cause for the harms I am seeing. However I have not diagnosed a single case of post-COVID-19 myocarditis prior to the vaccine rollout in Guernsey. The U.K. Government website from 2021 to date states that Covid causes myocarditis. The evidence it lists for this is flawed. One study it uses as evidence by Buckley et al. (‘Prevalence and clinical outcomes of myocarditis and pericarditis in 718,365 COVID-19 patients‘, Eur J Clin Invest. 2021) concluded that myocarditis had a prevalence of 5% in Covid patients. This study used data from the USA EMR records, which is poisoned by the flow of money. It is well documented that hospitals in the USA were paid $37,000 if a patient with Covid was admitted to ICU. ICU admissions would be promoted in patients with ‘multi-system involvement’. A rise in troponin, however insignificant, would be the rationale for diagnosing myocarditis and the accompanying $37,000 payment when the patient was admitted to ICU.

It is well known within the cardiologist circle pre-Covid that patients with sepsis often have a rise in troponin and the rise is proportional to age and co-morbidities and not indicative of myocarditis or a heart attack. In 2020, Guernsey had 20,000 Covid cases, which according to the paper by Buckley et al. would lead to 1,000 cases of myocarditis, but I have not diagnosed a single case of myocarditis prior to the vaccine rollout.

Dr. Melissa Heightman, a UCL Long Covid expert, is on record when speaking at the Acute and General medicine conference in 2022, stated that after MDT with cardiologists about the late gadolinium being seen on CMRI scans, they concluded it was just the usual background noise.

In the paper by Buckley et al. above they reference a paper by Puntmann et al. (‘Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)’, JAMA Cardiol. 2020) which erroneously concluded that 78 of 100 subjects recovered from mild Covid without cardiac symptoms had myocardial involvement on their cardiac MRI scans.

The correct interpretation is that the abnormalities seen were due to the same background noise referred to by Dr. Heightman, amplified further by the study done in Germany using 3 Tesla MRI scanners.

In the U.K. we use in the main 1.5 Tesla MRI scanners. More power equals more noise!

It is my opinion that the GMC must not only support whistleblowers like Dr. Malhotra, but urgently put in place the following:

* A working group to investigate the COVID-19 vaccine safety. May I suggest you speak with Dr. Yvonne Young from the UKHSA and Dr. Melissa Heighten (UCL) to invite their views on this matter? I am part of a growing group of doctors who would like to be part of this investigation, as I am sure Dr. Malhotra would be.

* A helpline to support doctors afraid of speaking out.

* A helpline to support those who are vaccine injured. Clearly the GMC should seek support from the MHRA and U.K. Government with funding for this work.

* A panel should be established to open discussion and reporting the above strategy in the media, in a calm unbiased manner to avoid undue stress on the general population and the healthcare system.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly endorse Dr. Aseem Malhotra and believe that his unwavering commitment to advancing a more patient-centric, evidence-based approach to healthcare makes him a valuable asset to the medical community. I am confident that his contributions in relation to exposing the truth about the COVID-19 vaccine safety will continue to have a lasting impact on the health and wellbeing of countless individuals. There are many doctors and healthcare professionals who will openly endorse my view, but sadly there are a silent majority who will only endorse my view quietly in private conversation.

Unfortunately, medicine finds itself standing at crossroads. There are significant seeds of division. The question for you is therefore: are you going to heal these wounds or empower the irreversible split of healthcare that beckons in an increasingly uncertain future?


Dr. Dean Patterson MBCHB, FRCP

Pathologist Dr. Clare Craig writes on X that, assuming Dr. Patterson saw all the cases on the island, “that would equate to 35,000 myo- and pericarditis cases in U.K. and 200,000 in USA”.


Australia: Queensland Supreme Court finds some Covid vaccine orders unlawful

They were the three words of the week, if not of the year: ‘vaccine’, ‘mandates’ and ‘unlawful’. That was the key takeout from the decision handed down this week by the Queensland Supreme Court in a case largely financed by mining gazillionaire and political agitator Clive Palmer. Specifically, the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, implemented in the form of directions given to Queensland police and ambulance service workers, were made unlawfully, the court has ruled, partly because they didn’t take into account those workers’ ‘human rights’.

The news, of course, is to be welcomed. It is the first crack in the dam wall and will hopefully be followed by significant class actions and further court cases. Ideally, one might hope that certain senior politicians, senior bureaucrats, doctors and corporate heads will wind up in prison for their collective roles in the grotesque Covid abuse of power, following a royal commission. However, there is the chance that the Queensland case will be overturned on appeal, as the powers-that-be attempt to reassert their censorship and crushing authoritarianism over what remains the most disgraceful period in our history.

Alone – and we really do mean alone – among the Australian mainstream media, indeed in many instances the world media, The Spectator Australia fought from the very beginning against the vaccine mandates, the lockdowns, the mask mandates, the school closures, the banning of perfectly good (and cheap) alternative treatments for Covid and the fraudulent claims being made about the safety of the mRNA ‘vaccines’. Dismissed as conspiracy theorists, extreme right-wingers, anti-vaxxers and a whole list of other pejoratives, this magazine and its astonishing collection of writers can hold their heads high – Rebecca Weisser, Ramesh Thakur, Julie Sladden, Kara Thomas, Alexandra Marshall, David Flint, David Adler, James Allan, Rocco Loiacono, Robert Clancy, Rowan Dean and many others. Of course, there were a miserable handful of writers, and readers, who were appalled by our Covid scepticism and took their writing skills or subscriptions to other media outlets more in tune with their views. They are not missed.

On 22 May 2021, as powerful voices and commentators within the Australian media frantically urged the government to introduce vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, we wrote on this page:

So we will be blunt on this particular occasion: if Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Health Minister Greg Hunt or any members of the federal or ‘national’ cabinets seek to impose a ‘vaccine passport’ that restricts the freedom of movement and liberties of Australians, they will potentially be guilty of human rights abuses and even crimes against humanity.

Any number of conventions and laws exist that make it a criminal offence for a government or its bureaucrats to coerce or make mandatory any form of medical treatment against the will of the individual. Such laws and conventions were brought in as a direct result of the atrocities of the second world war and the revolting medical experiments conducted by not only the Nazis but other totalitarian regimes against their own people.

Make no mistake; a ‘vaccine passport’ denying liberties and restricting the free movement of Australians within their own country will be the most sinister and disgraceful act by an Australian government against its own people in our history. This is for one simple reason: governments and bureaucracies have no right to enforce or to coerce an individual to take a medical treatment or drug against the individual’s better instincts or judgment.

In any free society, the government’s role is to persuade, not to coerce or to mandate.

It is a fine line between encouraging or incentivising vaccination and coercing it, but telling traumatised Australians that they can, for example, only visit their loved ones or carry on their normal business if they inject a certain drug is completely unacceptable and indeed reprehensible. Persuasion is all very well. Coercion and emotional or financial blackmail are not.

Then on 3 July 2021, we wrote:

"It is on the coronavirus that an absence of any genuine political convictions on the part of the PM and his advisers is most apparent. Devoid of a bedrock of political philosophy to stand upon, the government makes it up as it goes along, reacting, presumably, to internal polling as much as to media hysteria. It is not a pretty sight"

Kudos to Queensland Judge Glenn Martin for having the courage and moral fortitude to put into law what was always self-evident to any self-respecting conservative. The vaccine mandates trashed every ethical, moral, medical and human rights principle in a free democracy.




Wednesday, February 28, 2024

The Excess Death Disappearing Act

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the United Kingdom has unfurled a new methodology for calculating excess deaths.

At the helm of this change is Julie Stanborough, ONS’s deputy director for Data and Analysis for Social Care and Health, and a seasoned veteran in the realm of government statistics. She spun her numerical narratives previously for the Cabinet Office during the COVID-19 crisis, and before that, in the labyrinthine corridors of HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions.

Ms. Stanborough has promised a regime of continuous refinement for these newly minted estimates of excess deaths, now intriguingly tagged as “Official Statistics in Development.”

She said, “In the spirit of continuous improvement, we will regularly review estimates of excess deaths produced by the new methodology, with further refinements being undertaken if necessary. As such, the new estimates will be labelled as Official Statistics in Development while further review, testing, and development work is undertaken.”

In place of the old method, Ms. Stanborough has ushered in a statistical model that she explains will rely on age-specific mortality rates.

The ONS is now posing the question—how many deaths would we expect there to be within the context of an evolving population?

The introduction of the new calculation method, has been dissected with clinical precision by health campaigner John Campbell, revealing startling disparities between the old and new figures, with the latter method significantly reducing the count of excess deaths.

David Dickson, a forensic investigator, has unveiled an even more shocking revelation, accusing the ONS of erasing some 68,000 excess deaths from the 2023 records through this statistical manoeuvre.

This open-ended commitment to iterative adjustment begs the question: What necessitated this methodological metamorphosis in the first place?

The recalibration of numbers has cast the pandemic’s mortality in a starkly different light, artificially amplifying the lethality of the pandemic year in comparison to the previous counts of excess mortality.

The complexity of the new model equation is seemingly decipherable only by someone such as Rainman, raising suspicions about the motivations behind such opaque adjustments.

Ms. Stanborough has said, “It’s important to note that excess deaths estimates are just that—estimates. They cannot be counted on an individual basis, as can be done for death registrations. They are estimated using statistical techniques and, as a result, there is no single ‘true’ measure of excess deaths.”

Thus, while statistical manipulations may have obscured relative increases in mortality, the immutable facts of absolute death counts remain more resistant to concealment.

Dr. Thomas Binder has pointed out that a similar strategy of adjusting excess mortality expectations was previously employed by StatSchweiz in Switzerland, particularly affecting younger demographics.

Lifting the Shroud

Amidst this backdrop of statistical shuffling, a rigorous investigation by Denis Rancourt, Maurine Baudin, Joseph Hickey, and Jérémie Mercier has pierced through the fog with their illuminating study on COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality across the southern hemisphere.

Their empirical scrutiny of the vaccination campaigns across 17 countries has revealed a damning narrative: the mass vaccination efforts have failed to demonstrably impact all-cause mortality rates, contradicting the prevailing vaccine discourse.

The study has meticulously correlated the timing of mortality spikes with the aggressive rollout of vaccine boosters, challenging the purported benefits of COVID-19 vaccinations.

Far from reducing mortality, the data suggested a sinister association between vaccination campaigns and subsequent increases in death rates.

This revelation has cast a long shadow over the global push for COVID-19 vaccinations, demanding a sober reassessment of their safety and efficacy.

Mr. Rancourt and his team’s findings not only have questioned the utility of these vaccines in curtailing the virus but also have shone the spotlight on the critical need for a more discerning and empirical approach to public health policy.

As the narrative around excess deaths and COVID-19 vaccines has continued to evolve, the ONS’s new methodology for calculating excess deaths has added another layer of complexity to an already convoluted debate.

With politicians like UK MP Andrew Bridgen advocating for inquiries into excess mortality, the ONS’s adjustments now threaten to obscure these crucial investigations, potentially eroding public trust in governmental transparency.

This latest episode in the annals of public health statistics serves as a poignant reminder of the adage, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

In the end, the quest for truth in the age of COVID-19 has become ever more entangled in the webs of statistical reinterpretation, leaving the public yearning for clarity amidst a sea of numbers.


CDC Reveals ‘Changing Threat’ of COVID-19

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced on Feb. 23 that hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 are overall on the decline in recent years despite some episodic episodes of elevated transmission.

“Severe outcomes from COVID-19 have substantially decreased since 2020 and 2021,” the agency said. Hospital admissions in the United States for COVID-19 have dropped by more than 60 percent from the peak in 2021, and have also decreased to just 900,000 hospitalizations in 2023—from 2.5 million in 2021.
“The decline in deaths associated with COVID-19 is even more dramatic than the drop in hospitalizations. In 2021, over 450,000 deaths among Americans were associated with COVID-19, while in 2023, that number fell to roughly 75,000,” it said.

The federal agency further noted that COVID-19 infections have stayed at a level similar to previous years, but the chance of being hospitalized has dropped.

“While other factors are involved, the increase in the percent of the population with COVID-19 antibodies indicates that rising population immunity is partially responsible for the decline in severity,” the agency said. “In January 2021, only 21 percent of people aged 16 years and older had COVID-19 antibodies.”

At the same time, the CDC said that hospitalization rates have dropped across all age groups. But it stressed that certain older adults, infants, pre-existing medical conditions still appear to have a higher risk of developing a severe case of COVID-19, adding that adults aged 65 and older accounted for 63 percent of hospitalizations and 88 percent of in-hospital deaths from the virus for the first half of 2023.

More than 90 percent of that group had “multiple pre-existing medical conditions,” and it also noted that infants aged six months and younger have higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations, the CDC said.

Despite the positive update, the CDC warned that the virus is a “public health threat” and again recommended everyone, including infants and pregnant women, to take one of the updated booster vaccines. It once again suggested that people wear masks and improve ventilation in closed areas.

On Feb. 16, the CDC said that the 2023–24 respiratory illness season appears to have peaked but stressed it is “far from over.” It noted that hospitalizations for COVID-19, influenza, and RSV have dropped in recent weeks.

“However, respiratory disease activity remains elevated, and some flu activity indicators have increased again,” according to the agency’s update. “Test positivity for flu rose nationally in late January and has leveled off since but continues to increase in parts of the country. Emergency department visits for flu have been going up in some areas of the county.”
Notably, the combined peak for hospitalizations associated with the three viruses “was not as high” as the previous season, adding that there were also “fewer reports of healthcare strain” for 2023 and 2024. Overall hospitalizations and deaths for the flu and COVID-19 were lower, too, it added.

Major COVID Study

This month, researchers from the Global Vaccine Data Network—an arm of the World Health Organization—looked at about a dozen medical conditions considered adverse events of special interest in a population study of 99 million people who were vaccinated.
“The size of the population in this study increased the possibility of identifying rare potential vaccine safety signals,” lead author Kristýna Faksová of the Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut in Denmark, said in a news release. “Single sites or regions are unlikely to have a large enough population to detect very rare signals,” she added.

Cases of a type of heart inflammation known as myocarditis were found in first, second, and third doses of the Pfizer mRNA shot, while the rate was higher in Moderna’s second shot, according to the research.

Pericarditis, which is inflammation of the pericardium, saw a 6.9-times higher risk in people who took AstraZeneca’s vaccine, while there was a 1.7-fold to 2.6-fold chance of developing the condition after taking Moderna’s first and fourth dose, respective, it found.

“This unparalleled scenario underscores the pressing need for comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring, as very rare adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines may only come to light after administration to millions of individuals,” the authors wrote.

They also found an increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome for those who received the AstraZeneca shot within a few weeks, and higher-than-anticipated cases of disseminated encephalomyelitis, a form of inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, among people who got the Moderna first vaccine dose.

“Moreover, overall risk–benefit evaluations of vaccination should take the risk associated with infection into account, as multiple studies demonstrated higher risk of developing the events under study, such as GBS, myocarditis, or ADEM, following SARS-CoV-2 infection than vaccination,” the authors concluded.




Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Study Finds Hearing and Balance Disorders Among COVID-19 Vaccinated

More cases of hearing and balance disorders have been observed after people received COVID-19 vaccines, according to a recent study, which asked vaccinated people to remain alert to such complications.

The Australian peer-reviewed study, published in the Vaccine journal on Feb. 22, aimed to determine whether there was an increase in “audiovestibular events” following COVID-19 vaccination in south-eastern Australia. Audiovestibular refers to conditions related to hearing and balance disorders.

“Healthcare providers and vaccinees should be alert to potential audiovestibular complaints after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

Increase in Incidences of Vertigo, Tinnitus

Researchers found a rise in vertigo and tinnitus cases after vaccination. Tinnitus is a condition that makes an individual hear sounds like humming, ringing, or rushing, in the absence of external stimuli. Vertigo makes people feel like they’re spinning, and can result in dizziness.

“Our study found an increased relative incidence of vertigo in the 42 days following mRNA vaccines, and an increased relative incidence of tinnitus in the 42 days following both Vaxzevria adenovirus vector and mRNA vaccines,” researchers wrote.

“We are the first to confirm this increased relative incidence of tinnitus and vertigo post COVID-19 vaccines,“ they stated. They speculated that the audiovestibular events may be an ”immune mediated injury” triggered by the COVID-19 vaccines.

No Rise in Cases of Hearing Loss

In the same study, the researchers reported that there was “no increased relative incidence in hearing loss” in the 42 days following any COVID-19 vaccine.

They noted that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data and studies conducted on the Finnish and Danish health care registry have found “found no association between sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) and COVID-19 vaccination.”

As such, the authors concluded that their analysis “supports the opinion that there is no increased incidence of hearing loss following COVID-19 vaccines.”

The authors pointed out a limitation—that their study could not account for any concurrent COVID-19 infections, which other studies have suggested could be associated with audiovestibular events.

“COVID-19 infection is an important potential confounder of the association between COVID-19 vaccination and audiovestibular events,” they wrote.

Researchers collected vaccine-related data from two databases in Australia, selecting 45,350 records via SAEFVIC, and 4.94 million records via POLAR, for the time period from January 2021 to March 2023.

SAEFVIC is the central spontaneous reporting service for adverse events following vaccinations in the Australian state of Victoria. The POLAR platform collects and processes general practice data on behalf of Primary Health Networks in Australia. Multiple researchers in the study declared receiving funding from the Department of Health, Victoria. SAEFVIC is funded by the department.

Out of the 45,350 SAEFVIC records, researchers identified 415 cases of vertigo, 226 incidences of tinnitus, and 76 hearing losses. From the POLAR platform, 13,924 reports of vertigo, 4,000 incidences of tinnitus, and 3,214 hearing losses were identified.

Researchers recorded the impact of two types of vaccines—AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vector vaccine and mRNA-based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The researchers found an increase in vertigo incidence following mRNA vaccines, and an increase in tinnitus incidence following both AstraZeneca and mRNA vaccines.

The reporting rate for audiovestibular events was found to be higher for AstraZeneca shots compared to the mRNA vaccines. In addition, more audiovestibular events were identified after the first dose of AstraZeneca than its second dose, while no such difference was observed for the mRNA vaccines.

Sudden Deafness

SSNHL, commonly known as sudden deafness, refers to an unexplained, rapid loss of hearing either at once or over a few days, caused by damage to the inner ear or the nerve from the ear to the brain. The condition usually affects only a single ear.
Researchers noted that some studies did find an association between Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and SSNHL, but that the population or the effect size in those studies “was very small.”

One such study was published in February 2022—a cohort study of over 2.6 million patients in Israel. Of the 2,602,557 patients who received the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 91 cases of SSNHL were reported. Of the 2,441,719 people who received the second dose, 79 SSNHL cases were identified.

While the “effect size is very small,” the researchers of that study said their findings suggest the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine “might be associated with increased risk of SSNHL.”

Tinnitus Takes Toll on Quality of Life

Back in 2021, Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, developed tinnitus after receiving his second shot of the COVID-19 vaccine. While he experienced ringing in both ears, the situation was worse in the left ear.

“It was like someone suddenly blew a dog whistle in my ear … It has been pretty much unrelenting,” he said in an interview with MedPage Today in March 2022. The outlet did not specify which vaccine he received, however it noted that, “Given his personal situation, [Mr. Poland] will look to protein subunit vaccines that are in development but not yet authorized by the [Food and Drug Administration], such as those from Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi.”

At the time, Mr. Poland said there could be tens of thousands of people affected in the United States and potentially millions globally.

“What has been heartbreaking about this, as a seasoned physician, are the emails I get from people that, this has affected their life so badly, they have told me they are going to take their own life,” he told the outlet.

The World Health Organization said in 2022 (pdf) that, up to February 2021, it received 367 reports of tinnitus following COVID-19 vaccination, including 56 that were grouped with hearing losses. The majority (293 cases, or 80 percent) received the Pfizer vaccine. More than 70 percent of the total tinnitus cases were among females. Over a third of the reports were from healthcare professionals.

From the 367 cases, 97 incidents (26 percent) were recorded as serious. This included 59 cases classified as “other medically important condition,” 33 as “disabling/incapacitating,” and eight reports as “caused/prolonged hospitalization.” Two incidences were reported as “life-threatening.”

The organization also separately reported 164 cases of hearing loss, of which 104 cases (63 percent) were found among females.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Mary, who declined to disclose her last name, said that she started experiencing tinnitus an hour after the first Pfizer shot in 2021. When she contacted the pharmacy where she was vaccinated, Mary was told that tinnitus wasn’t a side effect.

Even after taking steroid therapy as recommended by a physician, her condition didn’t improve. “I complained about it so much in the beginning … especially in the first couple of weeks,” she said. ‘I cried. I broke down.”

Despite facing difficulties, Mary could not openly discuss her concerns with her family, friends, or health providers. “I felt comfortable saying that I had tinnitus, but I was afraid to tell people that it started an hour after the vaccine ... I didn’t want people to think that I’m an anti-vaxxer,” she stated.

“But it’s my own experience, and the fact that I was afraid to say that is really sad.”


Australia: Leftist health commentator admits some Covid vaccines had serious side effects after largest ever study released


ABC health expert Norman Swan has admitted the Covid vaccines produced unexpected side effects but considers them to be akin to 'winning the lotto three times in your lifetime'.

Dr Swan was commenting on the largest ever study done into adverse reactions from Covid vaccines which was published last week.

'They uncovered side effects they hadn’t quite expected and they did show up as a signal there,' Dr Swan told ABC interviewer Jeremy Fernandez on Monday.

However, Dr Swan stressed that the side effects seen in the study's 99million subjects who received Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca shots were 'rare'.

He said Guillain-Barre syndrome was a side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine that received particular attention in the study.

He described it as a 'descending paralysis of the body that affects the nervous system'.

'Usually in most people it is a temporary phenomenon but it can be quite serious at the time,' Dr Swan said.

An unexpected side effect of the Moderna vaccine was acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.

'So, this is essentially a brain inflammation usually seen in children but in this case in older people, these are largely 20 to 60-year-olds,' Dr Swan said.

'He described the condition as 'self-limiting and quite nasty'.

Dr Swan said that this condition was still extremely rare with only seven cases seen out of 10million injections.

He likened the probability of getting it to 'winning the biggest lotto three times in your lifetime'.

Asked how applicable the study was to Australians, Dr Swan said it included Aussies and people from similar countries such as Canada.

Dr Swan has been a strong advocate for getting the Covid vaccines despite initially dismissing their likely efficacy and saying those who took them were 'guinea pigs'.

In July 2022 the Scottish-born medical commentator revealed he had caught Covid for the second time despite having four jabs.

The study Dr Swan was citing involved an international coalition of vaccine experts who looked for 13 medical conditions among 99million vaccine recipients across eight countries.

They confirmed that the shots made by Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca are linked to significantly higher risk of five medical afflictions including Guillain-Barre syndrome.

But the study also warned of several other disorders that they said warranted further investigation, including the links between a brain-swelling condition and the Moderna shot.

However, the team says the absolute risk of developing any one of the conditions remains small.

They said 13billion doses of vaccines had been administered and there have only been 2,000 cases of all conditions.

Their research was published in the journal Vaccine.




Monday, February 26, 2024

Voters, Not the Doctor’s Union, Will Elect or Reject Vaccine Critic

Tasmania goes to early polls on March 23. The centre-right Liberal Party has selected Dr. Julie Sladden, a registered general practitioner and emergency medicine doctor since 1997, to contest the northern electorate of Bass.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) wants her deselected.

AMA Tasmania vice president, Dr. Annette Barratt, says Dr. Sladden’s candidacy is “untenable.” Premier Jeremy Rockliff is standing by her.

Dr. Sladden closed her practice in 2021 because of strong objections to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Writing in the Spectator Australia in 2022, she explained that as a well-travelled doctor, she was more vaccinated than most people.

When the COVID vaccines arrived on the scene, she calculated her COVID infection survival rate was 99 percent.

Early data showed comparable transmission rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, but also some worrying safety signals with no long-term toxicity, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or fertility studies.

She concluded that for her, “the risks did not outweigh the benefits, especially if it meant I could still infect my patients.”

Her efforts to communicate her concerns to Tasmanian politicians mostly fell on deaf ears. That is when, as far as the health establishment is concerned, she became an “anti-vaxxer.”

She has penned many thoughtful, informative, and well-written articles since then.

Her six-month-old article for Brownstone on “The Vax-Gene Files,” co-authored with Julian Gillespie, remains the 10th most popular article on that site. My respect for her grew with her work with the Australians for Science and Freedom that I helped to establish.

There is a legitimate debate to be had on the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID vaccines in preventing/reducing infection and transmission, on the age-disaggregated harms-benefits equation, and on the science and ethics underpinning mandates, as opposed to recommendations and guidance.

This worldwide ongoing debate is being conducted by well-qualified and highly credentialed people.

Dr. Barratt believes “COVID vaccines have saved lives and continue to do so.” This remains the prevailing opinion in the medical establishment.

But many experts share doubts about the net benefits of universal COVID-vaccination and have come together in groups like the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS), the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART) in the UK, and the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the United States.
These alliances were needed because critics of COVID-19 interventions felt the full force of stifling intellectual conformity. Regulators threatened dissenting doctors with professional disciplinary action.

Although the threat was carried out in only a few instances, the modest numbers do not invalidate the tactic.

On the medical freedom side, that which is beyond question is not science but dogma. Science is a work in progress, not an encyclopaedia of facts. The long arc of science bends towards truth, but progress is neither linear nor irreversible.

Scientists have a responsibility to subject the existing consensus to searching scrutiny in line with empirical observations. They must have the corresponding right to challenge the prevailing dominant narratives.

Diversity viewpoints on contested elements of knowledge, and rejection of attempts to suppress dissenting voices, provide necessary guardrails against reverses of knowledge.

On the political freedom side, it’s extraordinary that anyone should seek to deny a duly selected candidate, of any political party, the opportunity to contest an election. Pre-selection is a matter solely for the party concerned. Voting is a matter for the citizens of Tasmania.

Who appointed the AMA as the custodians of Australian democracy?

Did Australia’s COVID-19 policy interventions represent the greatest triumph of public policy, with an unprecedented high number of lives saved as a result of timely, decisive, and appropriate measures instituted by governments acting on the science- and evidence-based advice of experts? Or will they prove to be the biggest public policy disaster of all time?

The 2020–22/23 years were among the most disruptive in many countries, including Australia. The herd panic of early 2020 led to an abandonment of good process, an abandonment of carefully prepared pandemic preparedness plans, and a centralisation of decision-making in a narrow circle of heads of government, ministers, and health bureaucrats and experts.

The rules and regulations made on the run represented a hysterical mix of ignorance, incompetence, and/or malfeasance. The damaging health, mental health, social, educational, and economic consequences will continue to impact public life well into the future.

Core Principles

The doctor-patient relationship in Western societies has long been governed by four important principles: the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship; first, do no harm or at least, avoid doing more harm than good; informed consent; and prioritising the health outcomes of the patient over that of any collective group.
All four principles were gravely compromised with COVID.

Colleges and bureaucrats operating at a remote distance are not better placed than the doctor to assess the best interests of the patient.

The AMA should have been at the forefront of vigorously defending the sacrosanct principles that have delivered Australians among the best health outcomes in the world.

Instead, Dr. Barratt and the AMA are betraying authoritarian instincts in seeking to remove Dr. Sladden as a duly pre-selected candidate.

Little wonder that some doctors express concern the AMA has morphed from a union representing doctors into a bureaucratic institution run by careerists. Often, in my opinion, they seem more interested in attacking other doctors than representing the best interests of the diverse group.

They are free to challenge Dr. Sladden to a debate and argue their case for mandatory vaccines.

Good luck with that in the current political environment, with only 3.3 percent of 18-64 year olds choosing to be boosted in the last six months.
The criticism of Dr. Sladden is a bad development for the health of Australian democracy.

In fact, it is the AMA that owes the people of Tasmania an apology for this unwarranted intrusion into the electoral process.


UK Health Advisory Team Calls For Suspension Of Covid Boosters

Britain’s Health Advisory and Recovery Team co-chair Dr. Claire Craig, supported by the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council, issued this joint open letter to Victoria Atkins, MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on February 6, 2024

This letter was appended with dozens of physician-scientist signatures.

To: The Right Hon Victoria Atkins, MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

CC: Dame Jenny Harries, CEO UKHSA; Professor Sir Christopher Whitty, CMO; Maria Caulfield MP

Dear Ms Atkins

Re: Urgent Review of Excess Deaths

Firstly, congratulations on your recent appointment as Secretary of State at the DHSC.

Your three months in office have given you time to see for yourself how much the NHS is struggling; with rising waiting lists, low staff morale and the devastating strike action. You will also be aware of the ongoing and concerning excess deaths in the UK, recently debated in Parliament.

The fact that this is occurring in many Western countries and across all age groups, particularly younger adults for whom there were no excess deaths during 2020, should trigger alarm bells and prompt an urgent investigation.

In addition, in parallel with increased deaths, there has been a significant rise in levels of sickness and disability recorded throughout the working age population.

This has resulted in not only increased demands on the health service, but also has impacted the health and resilience of NHS staff themselves, with resulting high levels of staff sickness and absence, causing additional strain on an already struggling system.

The causes of excess mortality and morbidity are likely multifactorial, including the physical and mental impacts of lockdowns, delays in accessing treatment and long-term effects of Covid-19 itself.

However, a fourth potential factor appears to be being deliberately ignored: that is, any possible role of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. The timing of the rise in disabilities and deaths should make the vaccinations a definite suspect. As early as November 2020, many scientists and doctors, including those in UKMFA, were highlighting the potential risks of a rushed vaccine.

Until this question has been thoroughly investigated, it is premature and reckless to be talking of using mRNA technology for future prophylactic vaccines (we take no view on the development of mRNA vaccines for their previously-intended role as therapeutic anti-cancer agents).

We are concerned that the Government is focused on the business opportunity for the UK, offered by the expansion of use of these technologies, but are ignoring potential risks to public health from these products, particularly to the immune and cardiovascular systems.

The failure of COVID vaccines to stop viral circulation is obvious to all. The obviousness of this failure, along with growing concern about the products’ safety – evidenced by poor uptake among those eligible – is undermining public trust in vaccination more generally, including where it is indubitably useful.

We have written repeatedly to the MHRA, the CMOs, the JCVI, and to your predecessor, regarding the many risks of rolling these vaccines out to children. Members of the Pandemic Response All Party Parliamentary Group also wrote a letter in January 2022, over two years ago, regarding increased all-cause mortality in 15–19-year-old males.

The first three signatories on this letter were all asked by Baroness Hallett to provide Witness Statements for Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry; these we have recently submitted, only to learn that the date for the Module 4 hearings has been inexplicably and disappointingly postponed, likely until after the general election.

In the interim we therefore call upon you to suspend the booster programme, pending an immediate review into all aspects of Covid vaccine safety, as outlined in our letter to the MHRA a year ago.

The health of the nation’s citizens is of paramount concern and must surely be a high priority for an incoming Minister.

We entreat you to apply the precautionary principle regarding the use of these products, which have been linked (in published scientific literature, adverse event databases and real-world epidemiological data) to numerous short- and long-term safety issues, particularly after multiple doses.

Pausing their use is now becoming widely recognised to be the only rational, responsible and morally justifiable course of action.

We wish you well in the challenging job you have ahead.

Yours sincerely

Open letters such as these are important all over the world because they prompt actions that should be taken, provide notice to the public that concerns are real, and take away plausible deniability for political leaders concerning the Covid vaccine safety debacle.




Sunday, February 25, 2024

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19. A Randomized Clinical Trial

The article below appeared in JAMA, a prestigious medical journal. Like previous similar articles, it found no benefit for Ivermectin in treating Covid-19.

The study is carefully done but overlooks a major caution for Ivermectin usage. While some clinicians claim benefit for Ivermectin at all stages of the disease, well-informed researchers are clear that benefit is to be found only if Ivermectin is given immediately after symptom onset. The study did not examine that. A 7 day treatment window was allowed. N would probably have been too small for useful analysis if the proper restrictions were observed so we await an experimental study before firm conclusions can be drawn

Susanna Naggie, et al.

Question Does ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, shorten symptom duration among adult (≥30 years) outpatients with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19?

Findings In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial including 1206 US adults with COVID-19 during February 2022 to July 2022, the median time to sustained recovery was 11 days in the ivermectin group and 11 days in the placebo group. In this largely vaccinated (84%) population, the posterior probability that ivermectin reduced symptom duration by more than 1 day was less than 0.1%.

Meaning These findings do not support the use of ivermectin among outpatients with COVID-19.

Importance It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022.

Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28.

Results Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.


Large COVID-19 vaccine study finds risks

A Leftist take on the matter from "Salon"

Even while the COVID-19 vaccines have been hailed as one of the greatest achievements in modern science, they have been swirled in misinformation perpetuated by anti-vaccine figures and organizations who question their efficacy and robust safety record. The shots have even been wrongly blamed for high-profile health events, like when LeBron "Bronny" James Jr. suffered a cardiac arrest during practice. While research has shown that a COVID-19 infection is linked to an increased risk in myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle, how — and if — that translates to causation from vaccines has been widely taken out of context.

But now, a new study, published in the journal Vaccine, examined the potential health effects of the coronavirus vaccines. In its international attempt to separate fact from fiction, scientists have found that there are some links between the vaccines and adverse health effects to be aware of — but more research is needed to land on any definitive conclusions.

“What we wanted to do was to see if there was any signal to suggest that COVID vaccines might be associated with an increased risk of certain medical events occurring,” Helen Petousis-Harris, a co-author of the study and co-director of the Global Vaccine Data Network, told Salon. “So what we did was we compared what we would normally expect to see — because these events occur all the time — what would you normally expect to see, and what are we actually seeing.”

The study included 99 million people across eight countries and found that the first, second and third doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines were linked to rare cases of myocarditis. Specifically, people who received a second dose of Moderna vaccine were 6.1 times more likely to have myocarditis. The condition also developed among people who received the Pfizer vaccine while researchers identified that pericarditis had a 6.9-fold increased risk for those who received a third dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine.

There was also a 2.5-times increased risk of developing the rare autoimmune disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome linked to those who received AstraZeneca’s vaccine. Separate research has found that COVID itself can cause this syndrome at a rate far higher than vaccines.

Petousis-Harris told Salon in general that the researchers weren’t surprised with the findings, in part because previous research had already pointed to the rare risk associated with vaccination and conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis. But they did pick up something that hadn’t been discussed before: a link between AstraZeneca's viral-vector vaccine and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, a rare condition that causes inflammation and swelling in the brain and spinal cord.

“And what that enabled was to take the next step, to a different kind of study, to really ask the question: Is this a problem?” she said. “Our colleagues in Australia performed a study in 6 million people, which is in the same issue, to look at that, and found that essentially after the viral-vector vaccines, the risk is about less than one extra case per million doses. So very very rare.”

Notably, the risk was not observed in the mRNA vaccine design.

As Salon has previously reported, COVID-19 vaccines changed the course of the pandemic. The mRNA technology, which was novel at the time, allowed for an effective vaccine to be developed in record time. Yet what the scientific community saw as a historic moment for biotechnology turned into a polarizing debate among American lawmakers who fell for conspiracy theories and misinformation surrounding the vaccines — marking a pivotal turning point for the anti-vaccine movement. Typically, misinformation about vaccines doesn't appear out of nowhere. There is usually a kernel of truth to it, and the misinformation persists because it lacks context.

Unsurprisingly, this study is already being used to justify long-held concerns about the vaccines. But experts say that doesn’t come as a shock and that misrepresenting this study doesn’t tell the whole story about weighing the risk between being unvaccinated and getting infected with COVID-19, and getting vaccinated against COVID-19. For example, previous research has found that the risk of myocarditis is seven times higher from getting a coronavirus infection than getting vaccinated.

Glen Pyle, a molecular cardiologist who investigates cardiac injury associated with COVID-19, told Salon via email the most recent study is “a great example of the continuous safety monitoring that vaccines are subjected to, and it confirms much of the safety work already done.”

“For example, with adverse events like myocarditis it shows that these events are very rare,” he said. “And when we stack these rare risks up against the overwhelming cardiovascular benefits of vaccination, the case for vaccination becomes clear.”

Pyle added that this study highlights the need for public health experts to communicate the risks of vaccination and how common they are in the right context.

“For example, myocarditis is a very rare complication that increases primarily in younger males,” he said. “On the other hand, cardiac arrhythmias are far more common and they increase significantly with infection, but not vaccination — in fact, vaccination decreases these risks.”

He added there are “small but real increases in rare risks after vaccination, compared to large increases in very common risks with COVID-19.”

This strengthens the case for vaccination, and why cardiovascular societies throughout the world recommend vaccination, especially for people with cardiovascular conditions. Petousis-Harris said it’s hard when a study like this is published because “risk communication” is a complex science on its own.

“You have lots of ways you need to communicate this, and I think it's vital to be open and transparent with people, but you also have to work hard at how you are able to present to them,” she said. “I think it's important to empower our people who are health professionals and vaccinators to be able to confidently have those conversations with people and have the tools that they need to help show people what the risks look like.”

She emphasized that any pharmaceutical has risk of side effects.

“Probably vaccines are the safest of all pharmaceuticals by a longshot,” Petousis-Harris said. “One of the challenges is actually expressing how safe they really are. And another challenge is that we have health events happen by chance all the time, and they may or may not be related to a vaccine.”

She added that what has become clear is that it’s been difficult for people to grasp this nuance when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines.

“People are really interpreting anything bad that happens after the vaccine has therefore been caused by the vaccine,” Petousis-Harris said. Notably, the study only examines links and associations — potential “safety signals,” it’s not definitively declaring a cause. “Ultimately, if the issue is transparency, this is transparent.”