Thursday, May 30, 2024

Mindless Covid policy caused great harm to children

Written by Hugh McCarthy

“Children are more likely to be harmed by not returning to school than if they catch coronavirus” and then he added “the chances of children dying from Covid-19 are incredibly small” – but missing lessons “damages children in the long run” – Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, August 2020

“It’s nothing to do with the children, it was to keep their parents at home” N.Ireland Chief Medical Officer to Paul Frew MLA, explaining why we closed schools. Jan 9

Robert Halfon, chairman of the House of Commons education select committee, described closing schools as “the biggest and most catastrophic mistake the Government made during Covid”.

“What is frightening is that there was very little consideration given to the disadvantage that pupils would face from school closures,” – Robert Halfon, chairman of the House of Commons education select committee. August 2022 (some) “ministers were concerned about the ‘frightening’ lack of evidence on the knock-on effect of Covid restrictions”

For two years we were subjected to the most restrictive regimes in our history. And yet despite the catastrophic failures of the policies, the wholly unnecessary nature of them and the devasting damage to our children and society and, numerous official admissions of educational, developmental and mental harms and the vast amounts of public money spent and wasted no one has admitted responsibility.

The refusal of the authorities and fellow professionals to examine the evidence and engage with me at the time appalled me.

The article reflects my 4 year campaign on behalf of children against the wholly unnecessary and harmful policies directed against them.

It highlights the data/evidence available at the time to the authorities and sets that alongside the updated evidence. It didn’t start here, but it should have ended here.

In a sense the story began with the Diamond Princess, the cruise ship on which 3000+ people were imprisoned and despite a closed air circulation system and staff moving from room to room only 13 people died and no one under 70.

On the 24th March 2020 the then PM Boris Johnston announced his “3 weeks to flatten the curve” lockdown policy and which, of course, was extended and extended. This was in stark

contradiction to all countries’ existing Pandemic Plans which expressly ruled out lockdowns and border closures as being largely ineffective and far too harmful.

The unreality of press reports eg the ridiculous pictures from China and Italy where, according to Professor Heneghan, just 162 Italians under 40 died of COVID-19 in 2020 and the wholly obvious disproportionate and damaging government response encouraged me tobegin my own research, I was very influenced by the evidence and data presented byeminent professors and scientists including Professors Levitt, Lee, Gupta, Ennos, Heneghanalong with Ivor Cummins, whose data analysis was clarity itself (soon to be joined by JoelSmalley),Nick Hudson and Abir Ballan whose humanity shone through in her writing, herDeclaration on behalf of the Childrenis particularly inspiring and more recentlyDavid Bell whose dissection of the evils of the new WHO is unparalleled and Professor Fenton whose data analysis is equally clear, it was why I joined Collateral Global and Pandata and was astrong advocate of theGreat Barrington Declaration.

These people explained their views with evidence and werecaringand compassionate towards their fellow citizens It was obvious from the beginning, that the potential damage far outweighed the potentialbenefits and this was particularly clear for children.

It seemed particularly appalling that we were putting adult welfare ahead of that of children and it was clear, even at that early stage that young people were not affected, nor were they a danger to others as the world’s leading epidemiologist, Professor Ioannidis said in his film ’Out to see’ “decisions were putting our children as a shield to protect us—the whole debate was for protecting adults from the dangerous children, creating a sense in children that they are dangerous”, in 2020 he had reported that:

“Children had a 99.97 percent survival chance”
So the children were known at the time not to be at risk—what about the other central plank of government policy, namely that they were a danger to granny?

In July 2021 Public Health England had reported that:

“They aren’t taking it home and then transferring it to the community. These kids have very little capacity to infect household members”

In early 2020 and subsequently as more evidence emerged and based on publicly available evidence of the essentially non threatening nature of the virus and the obvious flawed test demonstrating its spread I decided to try to persuade fellow professionals.

I was invited to write a series of articles for the Belfast Newsletter and present evidence to an education Board of which I was a director, eventually this would extend to 11 articles in parallel with 11 monthly presentations I was to make to the Board.

As you can read, both the Newsletter and I were struck by the absence of debate around school closures with little concern for the children and a complete lack of any questioning and examination of the evidence.

The Belfast Newsletter had attempted to spark a debate in May 2020 about the continued closure of schools under the headline ‘Return of schools is too late, yet the matter is not being debated’

My response was published on the 16th June 2020, under the heading-“Retired principal: ‘We need to talk about getting our children back to school’

An extract follows:

“There is a crisis looming when the children return if we continue to fill them with fear. Education is either important or it isn’t. Numeracy and literacy levels will not have stayed level during this time, they will have fallen by close on a full year.

Catching up will take ahuge effort. Where are the resources for this? Reading scores for example affect exam results and from there access to higher education and employment and I can only imaginethe stress and angst some parents are feeling as they struggle with home teaching.

As the paper reported it is the disadvantaged who are becoming more disadvantaged. Does anyone seriously believe that children who can’t or won’t work at home at the best of times are doing so now? Many children will be falling further behind.

Why aren’t we talking about how to get our children back at school? Naturally parents, children and staff are fearful of a return to school, so let’s look at what the science and the scientists say. Either it is safe to go to school or it isn’t.

According to the Department Health Northern Ireland Dashboard one person under 40 has died in NI and not one under 15 and 75 percent of the deaths have been of people over 75, and the Office of National Statistics reports that if you are under 30 you have a one in a million chance of dying (reported on BBC 5-live Sport.)

Professor Karol Sikora, who holds a double first from Cambridge and was formerly Director of Cancer services at the World Health Organisation (WHO) said with regard to primary school and nurseries “opening schools is absolutely vital” … “the people who are suffering most are the most disadvantaged” and “the evidence that young children spread this is almost zero”.

Professor John Lee, Professor of Clinical Pathology at Hull, sums it up thus “The majority of cases are asymptomatic. The most common symptoms are not fever, cough, headache and respiratory symptoms; they are no symptoms at all.

Somewhere around 99.9 percent of those who catch the disease recover.” The ‘safety measures’ — masks, screens, Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) etc give the illusion of safety whilst increasing fear and anxiety and this will hugely increase if the children do not return to school soon.
Mental health issues are on the increase in schools as it is — there aren’t enough resources at the moment, there is a crisis looming when the children return – if we continue to fill them with fear.

Our children need educated in an environment conducive to learning, not one filled with fear and anxiety”

This was in parallel with the opening two presentations I made to an official council in May 2020 and September 2020, “No one is challenging, no one is questioning-not the opposition, not the media, not the people,-we have introduced the most draconian laws in our history-yet no one is stopping to ask—-are they necessary? —or even do they work? Is it necessary to destroy towns, people’s lives, a generation of young people.

The medical, scientific, government fraternity bear a heavy responsibility for the destruction. The NHS web site says, if you are ill, don’t go to your GP.

Unproven actions have been introduced under the guise of “following advice” The removal of our democratic rights provides the umbrella under which this is all happening—lockdowns, masks, mass testing, etc We can’t travel abroad-or we face house arrest on our return.

You face house arrest if you come into contact with anyone who might be infectious You can’t worship as you wish. There is no work to go to Disgraceful limits on funerals and burials You can’t visit ill or dying relatives-many have died alone.

No more than 6 people to meet, your life’s work is closed, curfews, sign in at cafes and sports events, masks, lockdowns, contact tracking.

It is indeed a pandemic—–unemployment, fear, untreated cancers, substance abuse, child abuse, suicide.

450 cancer deaths per day, 140 heart disease,130 dementia,21-30 suicides yet “only” 15-25 covid, there is a 1 in 3 and a half million chance of a 5-14 year old dying, 1 in a million chance for under 30s, for under 45 s the risk is so small as to be almost zero 80 percent of deaths are of people over 75, 99.96 percent people recover, not one child in hospital.

The UN Convention of Human Rights of the Child “in all actions concerning children…undertaken by public institutions…the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration “

Are we doing this?

Why then are we continuing with these fear inducing measures with the worst and longer term effects being on our children and young people? I call upon us to take a proactive stance opposing mandatory mask wearing for pupils on the scientific and medical grounds that they are physically and mentally harmful and educationally damaging, they don’t work and are unnecessary.

I propose/suggest:

– hold the Department of Health to account by insisting they furnish us with the PCR cycle frequency-this is going to destroy our children.

-ask DE for their Risk assessment re mask wearing for 6/7 hours per day and ask when they intend to carry out a review of their effect in terms of reducing cases and harms to education and health.”

(I would later propose an end to the vaccinations on school premises)

And just to remove any doubt, below is an extract from a lengthy email exchange during May, June and July 2020 with the Department of Education, the leaders of Alliance and the leader of the UUP the party which held and holds the Health Ministry.

I included evidence from Professor Speighalter of Imperial College and carried by the BBC

“There is ,as you know, immense disquiet regarding children’s and teachers’ safety, however there is increasing anger regarding the non restart of schools, if the girls at Tescos can stand in line then so can professionals. Teachers have a moral duty to teach in an appropriate learning environment.

I keep hearing the mantra-“follow the science”-I wish we would. The “science” is clear- (and is attached as covered by the BBC-see above) -there has been only 1 death in N.I of a person under 40 (Dept Health N.I Dashboard) -there is a one in a million chance of dying from covid if you are under 30 (Office of National statistics) -research recently from the Chief Scientist of WHO, has shown that children under 10, neither catch nor transmit the infection.

-80 percent of those infected won’t even know and 99. percent of those infected will recover.

-teachers along with doctors/nurses have the highest immunity of any group in the community.

The “safety ” measures”-masks, screens, ppe etc give the illusion of safety whilst increasing fear and anxiety and this will hugely increase if the children do not return to school soon.

Mental Health issues are on the increase in schools as it is–there aren’t enough resources at the moment, there is a crisis looming when the children return.”

I went onto highlight:

“The re-opening of schools in this phased and conditional way places immense stress on Principals who have to reassure children, parents and staff whilst at the same time organising staff rotas, part class rotas, year group rotas, curriculum arrangements staffing, desks, movements, toilets etc and teach, placing impossible stress on school leaders.

Surely it is for government to reassure parents and teachers with a forceful advertising campaign stating it is safe- and then getting all the children back asap.

There are many eminent scientists who will testify to this. I would like to ask -what is the science underpinning locking up under 40s?”

I was also invited by Professor Bhattacharya to contribute to the initial Collateral Global Newsletter, Children are better off at School and that is where they should be-available HERE

Rereading the above, I remain totally appalled at the treatment of our young, sick, elderly and the dying. The inhumane treatment was unbelievable and causes me great concern for the future.

The authorities knew that children were not at risk and not a risk to others and that lockdowns and masks were not necessary, did not work and caused harm. Education, development and mental harms were obvious and known at the time.

The Chief Medical Officer knew the risks to children AND the PHA knew they were not a risk to granny or anybody else for that matter. It was known children were not transmitting to others. The Prime Minister also knew it was nothing worse than flu and the NHS was not overwhelmed.

“I must say I have been slightly rocked by some of the data on Covid fatalities. The median age is 82- 81 for men, 85 for women. That is above the life expectancy.”

Presumably the CMO and the Prime Minister were basing their remarks on widely known data, not shared with the general public by the CMO, PM nor MSM.

But they went ahead anyway.




Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Google have been censoring this blog rather enthusiastically lately. The articles censored have been very skeptical of the mainstream view so I do wonder what degree of skepticism is permissible. What appears below are two skeptical reports based on articles in respectable academic journals, plus a news report, so it will very interesting to see if my content below is accepted. It will be a sad day if content from academic journals is censored


Countermeasure Critic Goes Mainstream—COVID-19 Vaccines Not Nearly Effective, Published in Elsevier’s Public Health In Practice

COVID-19 academic critic Rapheal Lataster, BPharm, Ph.D. is at it again, finding ways to channel his piercing prose published directly in mainstream academic medical journals. This time, the article “Anti-science case study: COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness and safety exaggerated” was published in the Elsevier publication Public Health in Practice.

It is a summary of seven must-read papers critical of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials (the 4 Doshi-Latatser papers, Thacker, Fraiman, Benn), and some of the recent post-trial studies (Raethke, Faksova) that raise all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the COVID-19 vaccines, and which followed another important article arguing for more debate.

Declaring that “the COVID-19 vaccine pile-on in proper medical journals continues apace,” Lataster, a previous contributor to TrialSite, reports in Public Health in Practice, published by Elsevier (who also publishes The Lancet) the review of the seven studies suggesting that all is not as good as the mainstream media, trade press and medical establishment incessantly promotes with COVID-19 vaccines.

Summarizing the Doshi-Lataster and other papers, the Australian academic points to what he refers to as in his Substack as “dodgy counting windows found in the clinical trials, and also in observational studies, which serve to drastically exaggerate the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.” But Lataster also addresses what he cites as “negative effectiveness,” meaning the COVID-19 vaccine may actually increase the chance of COVID-19 infection and mortality.

Additionally, Lataster claims his understanding of the various studies proves what he refers to as a “little-known fact” that post-COVID-19 vaccination is linked to myocarditis rates far more common than the background rates meaning the risk-benefit analyses for young healthy people is being misrepresented by the medical establishment. See Lataster’s points on this topic in his Substack.

From Doshi and Thacker to Fraiman et al., which noted that the “excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction,” to Benn et al. (article), citing no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials, Lataster, via the mainstream raised fundamental questions about the true efficacy and safety profiles of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies such as Raethke et al. (article) evidence serious side effect rates much higher than ‘rare’, and very likely not worth what the author describes as the “minimal to zero benefits” of COVID-19 vaccines, at least for the young and healthy.

He looks at additional research, pointing to the huge 99 million study Faksova et al. claiming “tons” of serious side effects, and that the authors would have undoubtedly discovered more had they looked far beyond “42 days following vaccination.”

TrialSite reminds all that this point of view would still be considered very much in the minority in the mainstream, but the major journals are becoming more open to critical views now that the COVID-19 emergency and countermeasure operation winds down.


Disturbing Post-Covid ‘Vaccine’ Cancer Deaths Data From Japan

It is becoming increasingly clear that the COVID “vaccines” did not save net lives. The death toll and number of serious injuries produced by this engineered virus are being recognised and accepted by an increasing number of people

Adverse effects such as heart attack, stroke and blood clotting are more acute or immediate adverse effects.

However, one of the potential delayed adverse impacts is the widely predicted increase in cancers of various types due to the mechanism of action of these gene-based injections.

Renowned oncology experts such as the UK’s Prof. Angus Dalgleish have been talking about this for some time.

No animal studies were conducted to rule out the cancer risk prior to release of these injections.

Normally, this would have been absolutely mandatory from a drug regulatory point but the usual safety requirements were waived. This is highly regrettable.

Now, a study (April 8 2024) from Japan by Gibo et al (Increased Age-Adjusted cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan” – DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57860) concludes:

“Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS- CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine.

These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERĪ±-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown.”


New COVID-19 Surge in Singapore—Cases & Hospitalizations Rise

Thought we were over with COVID-19? Think again as the city-state of Singapore reports a new wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections, with 25,900 cases reported by authorities from May 5 to 11. The latest surge triggered Health Minister Ong Ye Kung on Saturday to advise mask wearing.

Reported in Straits Times, the Singapore Ministry of Health (MOH) reports the estimated number of COVID-19 cases in the week of May 5 to 11 surged to 25,900 cases. This compared with 13,700 cases the week before.

What about hospitalization numbers? This data is a better indicator as to the severity of the symptoms involved with the COVID-19 surge. According to local media, daily COVID-19 hospitalizations increased to 250, surging over 181 last week. The numbers entering intensive care unit (ICU) cases continue to be low—with three cases, compared with two cases in the previous week.

In the Straights Times piece, Prime Minister Ong Ye shared, “We are at the beginning part of the wave where it is steadily rising,” said Ong. “So, I would say the wave should peak in the next two to four weeks, which means between mid- and end of June.”

Acknowledging that COVID-19 is endemic—something the population of 5.64 million people must live with annually, the government doesn’t plan for any new social restrictions or other mandatory type of measures: at least for now.




Tuesday, May 28, 2024

More censorship

They have deleted my post of yesterday. I was not greatly surprised. It was by Libertarian writer Jeffrey A. Tucker and was very critical of pharmacetical companies. It is still online where I got it from:


COVID-19 Vaccine Litigation Against Mayo Clinic Revived by Federal Court

A lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic must move forward, a federal court has ruled, reviving the suit after it was thrown out in 2023.

The five fired workers who sued the Minnesota-based health nonprofit have all plausibly pleaded that their religious beliefs conflict with the clinic’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on May 24.

The workers in multiple suits, which have since been consolidated, argued that the Mayo Clinic illegally failed to accommodate their religious beliefs, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Three of the workers applied for religious exemptions to the nonprofit’s mandate and were denied; the two others saw their applications accepted but protested against the requirement that they had to test for COVID-19 weekly.

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in 2023 tossed the suit, finding that some of the plaintiffs did not prove that they hold religious beliefs in opposition to the mandate or show how the testing requirement conflicts with their beliefs.

The Eighth Circuit’s new ruling is that the judge’s findings were erroneous.

Federal employment law makes it illegal for employers to fire or otherwise take action against employees over their religion. The three workers whose religious exemption requests were denied, Shelly Kiel, Kenneth Ringhofer, and Anita Miller, all said that their Christian beliefs prevented them from accepting COVID-19 vaccination, in part because they oppose abortion and aborted fetus cells were used in the production or testing of the COVID-19 vaccines.

“The district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately connect their refusal of the vaccine with their religious beliefs,” U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton said. “At this early stage, when the complaints are read as a whole and the nonmoving party receives the benefit of reasonable inferences, Kiel, Miller, and Ringhofer adequately identify religious views they believe to conflict with taking the COVID-19 vaccine.”

The two other plaintiffs received religious exemptions but refused to undergo weekly testing. One said it “violates her conscience to take the vaccine or to engage in weekly testing or sign a release of information that gives out her medical information.” Both also plausibly pleaded religious beliefs that conflicted with the testing, the panel found.

Judge Tunheim said at one point in his ruling that because many Christians who oppose abortion still receive vaccines, opposition to vaccination based on pro-life beliefs is not linked to religion. However, that view is not correct, Judge Benton said, pointing to a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found that constitutional protection of religious beliefs is “not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had urged the circuit court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, in part because of that Supreme Court ruling.

The circuit court reversed Judge Tunheim’s ruling and remanded the case back to him.

Judge Tunheim is an appointee of President Bill Clinton. Judge Benton, appointed by President George W. Bush, was joined in the unanimous ruling by U.S. Circuit Judges Ralph Erickson and Jonathan Kobes, both of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump.

The circuit court also ruled for the plaintiffs concerning the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), which bars employers from discriminating against workers because of factors such as religion. Judge Tunheim said the law only provides a cause of action for workers who allege disability discrimination, not religious discrimination. That’s not correct, according to the appeals court.

“Due to Minnesota’s precedent of (1) construing liberally the MHRA, and (2) providing its citizens with commensurate, or greater, protections than under federal law, the Minnesota Supreme Court would decide that the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs,” Judge Benton wrote. “The district court erred by finding that the MHRA does not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs.”


NY High Court Justice Slams Hospital--for trying to Avoid Wrongful Death Liability In Ivermectin Cases

Mary Beth Pfeiffer recently shared on X:

“Big WIN in the wrongful death lawsuit of Deborah Bucko, who was cut off of ivermectin after a court ordered it 3X. The judge denied the hospital’s pathetic excuse that it had NO liability under the PREP Act. “Stunning,” the judge wrote.”

Yes, a big win for patients and even the vaccine injured who are filing lawsuits for damages or various forms of support, with the PREP Act undoubtedly the law all of the defendants will point to as assuring their escape from any liability. But would that be the case?

Brief Primer

The deceased, Deborah Bucko, as Ms. Pfeiffer educated us, was one of a number of patients whose families resorted to courts to obtain treatment with a safe, FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, that hospitals refuse to administer, and public health agencies endorse. At the time of the article, there were five ongoing cases with five judges ordering the ivermectin treatment in those cases; three near-death patients, aged 68, 80 and 81, later went home. A fourth, 68 and in a Chicago area hospital, is slowly improving after her treatment began on May 3.

Although not the result of a randomized controlled trial, if an already FDA-approved drug with a good safety profile was helping, why on earth wouldn’t a clinic or hospital be open to trying? We can explain why they could not below.

But denial after denial ensued after this brief period of success for ivermectin, and the Bucko cases portended a new reality during the pandemic—hospital systems would take an increasingly hostile directive against patients and their families requesting ivermectin when all else was failing. And as we explain above, it’s likely that pandemic-era covenants with Pfizer and Moderna played a role. It went something like this: “You want access to our vaccines in development, sign on the dotted line and don’t bother to read the fine print.”

The denials continued despite plenty of evidence at the time suggesting the low-cost, safe drug could have helped. Yes, the drug is only recommended for research by the National Institutes of Health. But that’s a recommendation, and millions of doses of the drug with Nobel-honored distinction have been consumed by patients participating in the Mectizan program alone.

Hundreds of doctors embraced ivermectin in the United States and in fact, TrialSite covered some obscure research demonstrating that at one point during the pandemic, the number of prescriptions per week approached 90,000--this as compared to about 3,000 per week pre-pandemic.

It was at that point that we saw the federal government via the FDA and industry intensify an information war. At the time, the federal government was allocating money to pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines and antivirals. The feds gave Merck $356 for R&D to develop an antiviral, and another $1.2 billion in purchases, and the whole affair turned out to be a debacle with molnupiravir. Most recently, the drug was associated with SARS-CoV-2 mutations. But the market had to be cleared of alternatives, for the federally sanctioned COVID-19 countermeasures.

And then there was the claim that acknowledging ivermectin would have interrupted COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization, although at TrialSite we don't believe that was the case.

And in this case, there was nothing to lose other than Bucko’s life. She was in ever-worsening condition, and the ivermectin prescription continued. All countermeasures the hospital tried failed. Nonetheless, the hospital and its professional handlers did everything within their power to essentially end the patient’s life. That’s the net result. Read the story for a refresher.

The Decision

As cited above, the question about PREP Act liability and the wrongful death litigation was decided in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau, by Hon Randy Sue Marber ruled in favor of the plaintiff with Scott D. Mantel, administrator for the estate of Deborah Bucko (plaintiff) versus South Nassau Communities Hospital d/b/a Mount Sinai South Nassau (defendant).

The legal issue litigated here was not a surprise; that the PREP Act would protect the hospital from any and all liability of caring for a COVID-19 patient.

But Judge Marber emphasized in this particular case PREP grants “immunity only from ‘any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure’” Here, Marber cites “(Hudak v Elmcroft of Sagamore Hills, 58 F4th 845, 849 [6th Cir 2023] quoting 42 USC § 247d-6d [a][2][B]) and not with respect to “such a measure’s non[1]administration or non-use” (Hampton v California, 83 F4th 754, 763 [9th Cir 2023]), the latter of which is the central predicate upon which the Plaintiff’s complaint is based.”

Because of this unfolding case law, the New York State Supreme Court justice declared that the “factual claims alleged in the complaint, which must be accepted as true and afforded the benefit of every favorable intendment (Nonnon v City of New York, supra at 827), are unequivocally based upon South Nassau’s “non-administration” of Ivermectin and accordingly the immunity afforded under PREP is inapplicable (Hampton v California, supra at 763).”

So, if the matter involves an action or an issue that the PREP Act authors didn’t intend to address then the PREP Act does not apply. The wrongful death case ensues, and for attorney Ralph Lorigo profiled by TrialSite far earlier in the pandemic, this decision could open up a serious pathway for more victories. See our piece on April 2021 on Lorigo “An American Hero: Ralph C Lorigo Fights for Clients Rights including Access to Ivermectin for COVID-19 Patients at Risk.”




Sunday, May 26, 2024

Overreporting COVID-19 as an Underlying Cause of Death Inflated Mortality Numbers During Pandemic

A new analysis suggests COVID-19 was reported more frequently than it should have been as an underlying cause of death, inflating COVID-19 mortality numbers and attributing deaths from other causes to the virus.

In a preprint paper published in Research Gate, researchers aimed to identify who truly died “from” COVID-19 versus who died “with” COVID-19 but were included in U.S. COVID-19 mortality numbers.

To determine if COVID-19 was overreported as an underlying cause of death, researchers calculated the overreporting adjustment factor and compared the ratio of reporting COVID-19 as a multiple—or contributing—cause of death versus an underlying cause of death on death certificates from 2020 to 2022. They also examined how “pneumonia and influenza” were reported on death certificates from 2010 to 2022.

An overreporting adjustment factor for mortality is a statistical correction applied to mortality data to account for the propensity of certain death counts reported more frequently or inaccurately than others. It typically involves comparing reported death counts to a more accurate independent benchmark, which helps ensure data reflect the true incidence of deaths in a population. Here, the researchers chose pneumonia and influenza because the conditions are similar in nature to COVID-19, and they could compare patterns using mortality data before and after the pandemic began in 2020.

According to the preprint, data show COVID-19 was systematically overreported as an underlying cause of death during the pandemic by an average of about three times for all ages compared to influenza and pneumonia during the same period—and was highest in those aged 15 to 54. Additionally, only about one-third of influenza and pneumonia-related deaths were reported as underlying causes, whereas almost all COVID-19-related deaths were reported as “deaths from COVID-19.”

When comparing underlying cause death rates for different age groups for COVID-19 with death rates from influenza and pneumonia, researchers observed that underlying cause COVID-19 death rates were higher than those for influenza and pneumonia in the 15 to 24 and older age groups. After adjusting to obtain the overreporting factor, they found COVID-19 death rates were still higher than they were for influenza and pneumonia for ages 25 to 34 and older and equal for those aged 15 to 24.

About 30 percent of influenza and pneumonia-related deaths were registered as an underlying cause of death on death certificates, whereas 90 percent of COVID-19 deaths were recorded as the underlying cause of death in 2020 and 2021. In 2022, 76 percent of COVID-19 deaths were registered as the underlying cause.

“There was a systematic overreporting of deaths from COVID when we analyze versus the flu and pneumonia, as almost all COVID deaths were reported as the underlying cause,” Edward Dowd, founder of Phinance Technologies, told The Epoch Times. “Basically, when one wants to understand the pandemic, only about 30 percent of the reported COVID-19 deaths were ‘from COVID-19’ as the underlying cause,” Mr. Dowd said.

How the US Counts COVID-19 Deaths

Each country has its own criteria for determining what constitutes a COVID-19-related death. The United States uses the World Health Organization’s (WHO) classification system to categorize and code mortality data from death certificates.

The WHO defines the underlying cause of death as “the disease or injury which initiated the chain of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury.” The underlying cause of death is chosen from the conditions listed by the physician on the death certificate. When the physician records multiple causes or conditions, the underlying cause is determined by the sequence of conditions that led to the death on the certificate, ICD provisions, and selection rules.

“The WHO methodology for identifying COVID-19-related deaths cast a wide net for potential classification of COVID-19 as either the underlying cause of death or a contributory cause of death, which could lead to over-reporting relative to other diseases. This led to criticisms of suspected over-counting of COVID-19-related deaths during the pandemic. As an example, a CDC mortality report indicated that COVID-19 was the sole cause of only about 5% of listed COVID-19 deaths,” the authors of the analysis wrote.

Each death certificate contains a single underlying cause of death and up to 20 additional multiple or contributing causes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), properly classifying the death on a death certificate is important for mortality trends that inform public health risks and policy decisions.

Causes of Overreporting COVID-19 Deaths

According to the analysis, incentives for recording positive COVID-19 tests may have contributed to an overreporting bias in deaths attributed to COVID-19 compared to other diseases. Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 deaths have included those who died with COVID-19 and from COVID-19, and more recently, those who died of conditions attributed to long COVID, even if they had not tested positive for the virus in recent months or years.

The White House acknowledged early on that health officials were taking a very liberal approach to mortality regarding COVID-19.

“There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition, and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem, some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death,” former White House coronavirus response coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx told reporters during an April 2020 press briefing.

“Right now, we’re still recording it, and the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as ‘COVID-19 infection’ the intent is right now that if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death,” Dr. Birx said.

State health departments use the CDC’s standardized surveillance case definition and uniform criteria to define a disease for public health surveillance. They also report COVID-19 cases through the agency’s National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. At the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC’s definition of COVID-19 was “very simplistic,” and health departments recorded anyone with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis at the time of death a COVID-19 death, even if a clear alternative cause of death existed.

Likewise, medical examiners and coroners follow CDC guidelines when completing death certificates, and the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics provides standardized forms and procedures for certifying deaths, including how to determine underlying causes of death and report related causes.

CDC guidance states that in cases where a “definite diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but is suspected or likely,” it is “acceptable” to report COVID-19 on the death certificate as “probable” or “presumed” and certifiers can use their best clinical judgment in determining whether an individual likely had COVID-19. It’s this same discretion that allows long COVID to be counted as a COVID-19 death long after an individual tested positive for infection.

The CDC broadly defines long COVID as “signs, symptoms, and conditions that continue to develop after acute COVID-19 infection” that can last for “weeks, months, or years.” The term is also used to refer to post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), long-haul COVID, and post-acute COVID-19.

The CDC guidance gives a physician or medical examiner discretion to classify long COVID as a COVID-19 fatality, and the CDC death certificate guidance allows for PASC to be listed as an underlying cause of death, which may affect COVID-19 mortality numbers.

A December 2022 Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report published by the CDC identified 3,544 deaths in the National Vital Statistics System that mentioned long COVID key terms and were coded as COVID-19 deaths in the United States from Jan. 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022.


RFK Jr. Takes Aim at Trump, Biden Over Pandemic Policies in Libertarian Convention Address

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. chastised former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden for not respecting the Constitution during the COVID-19 pandemic during his speech May 24 at the Libertarian National Convention.

“There’s always a reason why, right now, the rights are an inconvenience that we can’t afford. It was the Red Scare in the 1920s. It was Joe McCarthy in the 1950s. It was civil rights protests and the Vietnam War protests in the 1960s. It was the war on drugs in the 1970s. It was the war on terror after 2001. And most recently, it was the COVID pandemic,” Mr. Kennedy said.

“Maybe a brain worm ate that part of my memory, but I don’t recall any part of the United States Constitution where there’s an exemption for pandemics,” he added.

President Trump was reluctant to impose lockdowns early in the COVID pandemic, but he relented, and “many of our most fundamental rights disappeared practically overnight,” Mr. Kennedy noted.

Mr. Kennedy continued by criticizing the former president for “allowing his health regulators to mandate social distancing, which undermined our First Amendment right to freedom of assembly.”

“With no due process, no public hearings, and no notice,” America was locked down during the pandemic by President Trump, Mr. Kennedy added.

A total of 3.3 million small businesses were closed while Wal-Marts and liquor stores remained open, he remarked.

“President Trump said he was going to run America like a business, and he came in and gave the keys of all of our businesses to a 50-year bureaucrat (Dr. Anthony Fauci) who'd never been elected to anything and had no accountability.

Since entering the 2024 presidential race as a Democrat in April 2023 and then opting to run as an independent last October, Mr. Kennedy has been outspoken about President Trump’s role in moving forward with Operation Warp Speed, a program that rushed the COVID-19 vaccine to market.

When President Biden took office, “the assault on the Constitution intensified,” Mr. Kennedy continued, citing multiple censorship cases.

During his address, Mr. Kennedy also hailed journalist Julian Assange as a hero and reiterated that he would pardon him and Edward Snowden on his first day in office.

“We shouldn’t be putting [Julian Assange] in prison; we should have a monument to him here in Washington D.C.,” Mr. Kennedy said.

President Trump is scheduled to address Libertarian National Convention attendees on May 25.

The former president has escalated verbal attacks on Mr. Kennedy in recent weeks as multiple national polls have shown the independent candidate has support from conservatives and independents. National Republicans have expressed concern that will cut into President Trump’s support on Election Day.