Thursday, June 06, 2024

Amsterdam UMC Medical Researchers Population Study Raises Specter of COVID-19 Vaccine Possible Ties to Excess Mortality

Mainstream media dips toes even further into the topic of vaccine injury waters as a major epidemiological study led by researchers in The Netherlands featured high excess mortality during the pandemic, raising the prospect that the COVID-19 vaccines may be tied to the mortality. While the authors cannot make any declarative claims or establish any causation, they call for serious inquiry into this public health crisis.

The UK’s The Telegraph and other media reported on an epidemiological investigation into excess deaths during the period 2020-2022. Are COVID-19 vaccine injuries potentially linked to these excess deaths?

Published in The BMJ Public Health and led by Saskia Mostert, Assistant Professor CA - Cancer Treatment and quality of life, Assistant Professor, Pediatrics and colleagues, the study is titled “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data estimates of January 2020 to December 2022.”

The study team designed an all-cause mortality assessment tapping into the Our World in Data database, assessing mortality as a deviation between the reported number of deaths in a country during a certain week or month in 2020 until 2022, and the expected number of deaths in a country for that period until normal conditions.

For the baseline of expected deaths, the authors embrace the Karlinsky and Kobak model which is based on historical death data in a country from 2015 until 2019 and accounts for seasonal variation and year-to-year trends in mortality.


Tracking 3,098,456 excess deaths in 47 nations across the Western World from January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, 41 of the countries, or 87% of the total, in 2020 experienced excess mortality. By 2021, however, excess deaths climbed to 42 countries (89%), and in 2022, the excess death count went to 43 countries (91%).

The authors point out, “In 2020, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic onset and implementation of containment measures, records present 1 033 122 excess deaths (P-score 11.4%).” By 2021—a year that included both COVID-19 containment measures and mass vaccination, the excess death toll was 1,256,942 (P-score 13.8%). By 2022, most, if not all, COVID-19 restrictions were lifted while the mass vaccination persisted, and excess deaths continued at 808,292 (P-score 8.8%).

The authors conclude that “Excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. This raises serious concerns. Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.”

What’s Going On?

Mainstream media’s attention on this topic is late but not unexpected. The authors report “unprecedented” figures that “raised serious concerns,” and consequently, they call on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

As reported in The Telegraph piece, the Amsterdam-based investigators go on the record: “Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.”

“Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”

They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasized by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered, and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”


Judge Finally Rejects Victoria Dep. Of Health Bureaucrats, Records Justifying Extreme COVID-19 Response Measures to be Released

Some of the most rigid COVID-19 response policies in the Western world occurred in Australia, in places like the state of Victoria, with its multiple lengthy lockdowns. Melbourne with three major lockdowns, had some of the toughest Covid rules in the world and the longest lockdown at least among the democratic nations.

What was behind those lockdowns? How were decisions made? What was the evidence used to justify a process that would have a profound impact on the economy, children’s education and psychology and more? Local activists have spent four years attempting to access the trove of records and documentation, yet to the Department of Health for Victoria, good government doesn’t come with transparency. Until now that is, however, as the secret documents supporting the state’s COVID-19 lockdowns will soon be released after the state lost a legal battle to maintain secrecy.

So, what happened?

Just this past week, a judge at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered the department to process freedom of information requests it had refused for the briefings provided to the Chief Health Officer, Deputy Chief Health Officer and Minister for Health relating to public health orders made in 2020, reports Chantelle Francis for

It turns out that the leadership within the Department of Health for Victoria believes it to be above any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the past four years.

David Davis, a Liberal MP made multiple attempts, three in all, to access the justification for the severe lockdowns, and each and every time his effort was rejected by the Department of Health. Why? The request would substantially and unreasonably divert resources.

Davis then initiated a review process, one that’s a legal requirement to be completed within a specific period of time via the Victorian Information Commissioner yet that commissioner failed to follow the law, not reaching a decision within the statutory period.

In that case, the head of the COVID-19 response at the time, Jeroen Weimar, according to the account complained meeting Mr. Davis’s combined FOI requests would take the agency about four years’ worth of work effort.

That claim was backed by Michael Cain, the department’s manager of FOI and legal compliance.

Legal Intervention

But Judge Caitlin English, Vice President of the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), ruled in a different direction. The judge was not convinced that the health department had reasonably estimated the resources required to process the requests and noted the “strong public interest” in the information.

While acknowledging responding to the FOI would take a substantial effort, Judge English declared nonetheless it was manageable for the department.

The judge’s order stated:

“The Department, bearing the onus, has not satisfied me on the evidence that the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.” As a consequence, she emphasized, “I direct the agency to process Mr. Davis’s requests in accordance with the FOI Act.”

Now, this judicial ruled that over 115 briefs backing the state government’s public health orders may be released, at an average of 40 to 60 pages each.


Given the extreme nature of the Victoria COVID-19 response in the form of public health orders, the externalities born by the public, plus limited publicly available information as to the justification, the judge’s decision for transparency points to a significant public interest concern.

According to MP Davis, “The second wave as it surged into effect in July 2020 drove my series of freedom of information requests on 7 July, 13 July, and 17 July of the then Department of Health and Human Services for the briefings behind the decisions to impose the public health orders.”




Monday, June 03, 2024

Dr. Anthony Fauci confesses he 'made up' covid rules including 6 feet social distancing and masking kids

Bombshell testimony from Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals he made up the six foot social distancing rule and other measures to 'protect' Americans from covid.

Republicans put out the full transcript of their sit down interview with Fauci from January just days before his highly-anticipated public testimony on Monday.

They plan to grill him about covid restrictions he put in place, that he admitted didn't do much to 'slow the spread' of the virus.

Kids' learning loss and social setbacks have been well documented, with one National Institute of Health (NIH) study calling the impact of mask use on students' literacy and learning 'very negative.'

And the impacts from social distancing caused 'depression, generalized anxiety, acute stress, and intrusive thoughts,' another NIH study found.

Speaking to counsel on behalf of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic earlier this year, Fauci told Republicans that the six foot social distancing rule 'sort of just appeared' and that he did not recall how it came about.

'You know, I don't recall. It sort of just appeared,' he said according to committee transcripts when pressed on how the rule came about.

He added he 'was not aware of studies' that supported the social distancing, conceding that such studies 'would be very difficult' to do.

In addition to not recalling any evidence supporting social distancing, Fauci also told the committee's counsel that he didn't remember reading anything to support that masking kids would prevent COVID.

'Do you recall reviewing any studies or data supporting masking for children?' he was asked.

'I might have,' he responded before adding 'but I don't recall specifically that I did.'

The pandemic patriarch also testified that he had not followed any studies after the fact regarding the impacts that forced mask wearing had on children, of which there have been many.

And his answer was an ironic COVID-esque pun, 'I still think that's up in the air,' Fauci said about whether masking kids was a solid way to prevent transmission.

Further, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) told the counsel that he believes the lab leak theory - the idea that COVID began at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) - is a real 'possibility.'

'I think people have made conspiracy aspects from it,' he said, adding 'it could be a lab leak.'

'So I think that in and of itself isn't inherently a conspiracy theory, but some people spin off things from that that are kind of crazy.'

His admission that COVID may have began at the WIV comes four years after he backed the publication of a paper which threw cold water on the lab leak theory called the 'Proximal Origin' paper.

The coronavirus committee has dedicated months to discovering the origins of the virus that upended so many lives and resulted in the deaths of 6 million people globally.

Recently they have discovered that Fauci's former top aide, Dr. David Morens, routinely conducted work on his personal email account and deleted files to avoid government transparency laws under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

His disregard for FOIA requests was so blatant that be bragged in emails to colleagues that he learned how to make official correspondence 'disappear' and that he would delete things he didn't 'want to see in the New York Times.'

Emails from Morens uncovered by the committee further revealed that he boasted about having a 'secret back channel' to Fauci where he could clandestinely communicate with the former NIAID director.

That revelation shocked the committee's chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, so thoroughly that he demanded Fauci turnover his personal email and phone records to the investigative body.

Also shocking, is Fauci's admission to the committee in January that he 'never' looks at the grants that he signed off on, some of which total to millions of taxpayer dollars.

'You know, technically, I sign off on each council, but I don't see the grants and what they are. I never look at what grants are there,' he told the committee's counsel.

Further, he said he was 'not certain' that foreign labs that receive U.S. grant money, such as the WIV - which was studying coronaviruses using U.S. taxpayer dollars at the time the pandemic began - operate at the same standards of American labs.

Fauci also said that the money he gave out as a part of the NIAID grant process did not go through any national security reviews.

Additionally, the former director said he was unaware of any conflicts of interest among his staff, which included his senior advisor Dr. Morens.

However, Morens testified before the committee on May 22 that he helped his 'best friend' EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak with his nonprofit's work.

Morens said he helped edit press releases for EcoHealth and worked to restore grant funding for the nonprofit after it's funding was terminated in the wake of the COVID outbreak in 2020.

NIH, which employs Morens, funded Daszak's EcoHealth to the tune of millions of dollars.

Still, Fauci said he was unaware that Morens had any conflicts of interests.

The committee will surely seek to clarify Fauci and Moren's 'secret back channel' of communication during the June 3 hearing.


Drugmakers’ Secret Royalty Payments to Fauci’s NIAID Exploded After Pandemic: Report

Secret royalty payments from drug companies to scientists, researchers, executives, and other employees of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) exploded following the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2021, according to a new report from a non-profit government watchdog.

“In 2022 and 2023, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies paid the [NIH] a sum of $710,381,160 in third-party royalties. These were payments healthcare companies made to NIH, its leadership and scientists to license medical inventions created in federal, taxpayer-funded labs,” reports in an analysis being made public Monday as former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci testifies before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The Epoch Times obtained a copy of the full report.

“The National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led until recently by Dr. Anthony Fauci, collected nearly all of it: $690,218,610 of the $710 million,” the report said.

The $710 million total for 2022-2023 is double the $325 million previously reported was paid to NIH employees between 2009 and 2021. The non-profit watchdog has had to take NIH to federal court twice for failing to provide requested data not covered by any of the nine exemptions to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Among the recipients of royalties was NIAID’s John Mascola, who was selected to manage Operation Warp Speed, the government’s crash program to develop a vaccine for the Coronavirus.

More than 1.2 million Americans have been reported as dying as a result of contracting the virus since January 2020.

Dr. Mascola, who managed NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center since 2013, received royalty payments from Moderna since 2018, when he selected the company as one of the government’s partners in Operation Warp Speed.

Moderna received more than $10 billion from the government between 2020 and 2022 for its work developing a vaccine and delivering millions of doses to health care agencies. In the years 2013 to 2017, the government paid Moderna $60 million for development work on the mRNA technology that is the basis of the Coronavirus vaccine. obtained the data on which its report is based from NIH after the agency resisted providing the information in response to the group’s second FOIA request, which was filed in conjunction with Judicial Watch, a non-profit legal firm that specializes in FOIA litigation.

Media Claims It Was Duped by Fauci-Funded Scientists on Covid Origins, but Is That Really True? | Truth Over News

The NIH was required to provide the names of government employees receiving the royalty payments, the amounts paid, and when they were paid. But claims in its report that the government is still refusing to disclose the names of NIH employees in connection with 4,851 royalty payments between 2009 and 2021.

In addition, nearly 1,000 names of NIH employees getting royalty payments made in 2022 and 2023 are being withheld. The government cites the FOIA’s exemption, which is meant to protect private firms’ commercial trade secrets.

“Why the names of NIH scientists are considered ‘confidential’ or ’trade secrets’ is unexplained, and something we are fighting in our ongoing FOIA litigation ... We have no idea who these scientists are, what they are in charge of, or why their names are redacted. All of this raises significant questions about conflicts-of-interest within the royalty structure at the NIH for obvious reasons,” the report said.

Dr. Fauci is expected to be questioned by members of the subcommittee about the secret royalty payments and why agency officials are defying the FOIA’s requirement that all federal documents that are not covered by the exemptions must be made available to the public on request.

Dr. David Morens, formerly one of Dr. Fauci’s closest advisers at NIH, testified before the panel about how he was advised by officials in the NIH FOIA office on how to avoid disclosure of emails, text messages, and other communications considered potentially embarrassing.
A spokesman for NIH could not be reached late Sunday for comment.




Sunday, June 02, 2024

Emails Show Dr. Fauci Bribed Scientists to Discredit the Lab Leak Theory

Since he appears to have had some role in financing the lab studies concerned, his motive can be guessed

Newly released emails unearthed by the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic show Dr. Anthony Fauci bribed scientists with taxpayer funded grants to discredit the lab leak theory. Fauci rewarded scientists with millions of dollars for doing this bidding. Then, his chief-of-staff covered his tracks by illegally evading Freedom of Information Act laws.

Fauci had an interest in discrediting the lab leak theory on behalf of EcoHealth, the group that partnered with Fauci through National Institute of Health grants to conduct illegal and dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- where COVID-19 was engineered according to intelligence assessments. Ecohealth was debarred and banned from receiving federal grants for conducting the illegal and unethical experiments. In January 2020, Fauci was informed through email by an NIH scientist that the virus looked "engineered."

Fauci was regularly referred to as "the Godfather" of gain-of-function research and created an intimidating environment conducive to corruption and retribution for not bowing to his demands -- which manipulated "scientific" conclusions.

"The head of the funding, the head of the entire field, really, is Anthony Fauci," Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin said during an interview with Megyn Kelly in April 2021. "He's the godfather of gain-of-function research as we know it. That, again, just what I said right there, is too hot for TV because people don’t want to think about the fact that our hero of the pandemic… might also have been connected to this research, which might also have been connected to the outbreak."

In addition to bribing scientists, Fauci enlisted Facebook to censor all stories about the lab leak theory on the social media platform.

A newly surfaced email from CEO Mark Zuckerberg, which was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Buzzfeed, may explain why Facebook was censoring the information.

"Tony: I wanted to send a note of thanks for your leadership and everything you're doing to make our country's response to this outbreak as effective as possible. I also wanted to share a few ideas of ways we could help you get your message out but I understand you're incredibly busy, so don't feel a need to reply unless these seem interesting," Zuckerberg wrote in an email to Fauci on March 15, 2020, adding that he wanted to help get "authoritative" information out to the masses.

Fauci responded to Zuckerberg directly and worked with him on a number of messaging projects for the platform.

When Fauci was asked about the lab leak theory in April 2020, he downplayed the idea. Facebook then started removing posts and conversations about the lab leak theory from their platform.


UK: One in 20 infected with mild Covid in the first wave are STILL battling illness, study shows

One in 20 people infected with mild Covid in the first wave of the pandemic were left with lingering symptoms up to three years later, research has suggested.

US scientists found respiratory and neurological issues were the common problems still reported by those struck down with the virus in 2020.

And the researchers, who tracked more than 135,000 Americans with Covid, also discovered a 34 per cent higher risk of problems with all organs among people hit hardest with Covid and hospitalised.

Experts today labelled the findings an 'important new lesson' and warned the virus 'should not be trivialized'.

Dr Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University and senior author of the study said: 'We aren't sure why the virus's effects linger for so long.

'Possibly it has to do with viral persistence, chronic inflammation, immune dysfunction or all the above.

'We tend to think of infections as mostly short-term illnesses with health effects that manifest around the time of infection.

'Our data challenges this notion. I feel Covid continues to teach us — and this is an important new lesson — that a brief, seemingly innocuous or benign encounter with the virus can still lead to health problems years later.'

He added: 'Addressing this knowledge gap is critical to enhance our understanding of long Covid and will help inform care for people suffering from long Covid.'

US Government data suggests up to 10 per cent of people infected with virus have experienced long Covid.

Often self-diagnosed, the term was coined for a number of symptoms following Covid infection, which can persist for months or even years after the initial infection.

Around 1.9million people in the UK are reported to suffer with it, with the term covering everything from fatigue and breathlessness to muscle and joint pain.

The researchers analyzed data from 114,000 veterans with mild Covid who did not require hospitalisation, over 20,000 patients hospitalised with the virus and 5.2million veterans who never received a Covid diagnosis.

All were enrolled in the study between March and December 2020.

Over a follow-up of three years, they found the risk of long Covid stood at 23 per cent one year after infection.

This fell to 16 per cent or roughly one in six after two years.

Concerningly, they also found that among those who weren't hospitalised, Covid had contributed to 10 lost years of healthy life per 1,000 people, three years after infection.

By comparison, those who were hospitalised with Covid had lost 90 years of healthy life per 1,000 people.

In the US, heart disease and cancer cause around 50 years of lost healthy life, while strokes contribute to roughly 10 years, per 1,000 people.

Writing in the journal, Nature Medicine, the researchers, said: 'Although preventing severe disease is important, strategies to reduce the risk of post-acute and long-term health loss in people with mild Covid are also needed.'

However, they also acknowledged the study mainly involved veterans who were 'mostly older', white and male and may not be reflective of other populations.

Participants also contracted the virus in 2020 — an era predating Covid vaccines — suggesting their infection may have been more severe.

Dr Al-Aly added: 'Covid is a serious threat to the long-term health and well-being of people and it should not be trivialized.

'Even three years out, you might have forgotten about Covid, but it hasn’t forgotten about you.

'People might think they're out of the woods, because they had the virus and did not experience health problems.

'But three years after infection, the virus could still be wreaking havoc and causing disease or illness in the gut, lungs or brain.'

It comes as Covid cases continue to slowly increase across the UK, after infection rates dwindled over the spring.

Earlier this month, health chiefs issued an alert over a new variant, nicknamed FLiRT, they had begun monitoring.

It makes up around 30 per cent of new cases in the UK currently.

FLiRT also accounts for roughly a quarter of new cases in the US, surveillance data suggests.

Virologists are using the term FLiRT to describe a family of different variants — KP.2, KP.3, JN.1.7, JN.1.1, and KP.1.1.

They are all descendants of the JN.1 variant that has been dominant in the UK for the past few months. That itself was dubbed Juno.

Ministers have repeatedly said that they won't resort to imposing lockdowns unless a doomsday variant.

A wall of immunity among the population — built up by repeated waves of infection and vaccine rollouts — has given officials confidence to consign pandemic-era measures to history.

Spikes in Covid cases can still cause mass illness across the country, sparking chaos in schools, the health service and public transport.

Officials also no longer track the prevalence of the virus in the same way they used to, as part of the Government's ushering in of pre-Covid normalities.