tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41384582024-03-18T18:42:56.646+13:00Dissecting Leftism<img src="http://i.imgur.com/VM3wN8h.jpg"><br><br>
THE RIGHTFUL PRESIDENT. He gave us a reprieve from Leftist authoritarianism and hate. He was defeated not by a majority of American voters but by a flood of fraudulent postal votes. Some Lessons from history in support of Trump thinking: http://jonjayray.com/trumpism.htmlJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger8472125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-51220010598007902602024-03-18T18:40:00.004+13:002024-03-18T18:42:25.062+13:00<br><br/>
<b> mRNA Experts acknowledge many faults in mRNA vaccines</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> But they still seem to believe that the vaccines helped on balance. Most deaths were among the elderly, who probably died WITH rather than FROM Covid. Among the under-65s, most infections were minor. A few lives may have been saved by the vaccines but some were lost from vaccine effects too</i><br/>
<br/>
A trio of experts from one of the birthplaces of mRNA breakthroughs represented by Drew Weissman, MD, PhD Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and along with Katalin Kariko, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2023 for their role in driving mRNA-related discovery directly influencing the development of the Pfizer—BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) discuss the need to look at mRNA technology, beyond the COVID-19 vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
In a way, a code word to acknowledge that these products in the form delivered to the world as a mass countermeasure/immunization scheme during a global pandemic are not ready for more refined therapeutic delivery. Put another way the products as represented by the vaccines are by no means ready for prime time! Why? One of the true authorities on the subject of mRNA, Weissman and University of Pennsylvania colleagues, point out in their recent paper published in The Lancet problems, or challenges ongoing with mRNA stability, duration of expression, targetability, and the like, but also introduces scientific advances to harden these products. These products were rushed to market in the pandemic. Key preclinical steps such as pharmacodynamics were all but bypassed due to the exigencies of the time. As a deadly virus spread, government health agencies and industry decided that acceleration of mRNA vaccine delivery for mass immunization was acceptable.<br/>
<br/>
Yet because of the emergency conditions and the medical establishment’s declaration that the vaccines saved millions of lives, any externalities continue to be swept under the carpet of history. And these are externalities that derive from the gaps called out by one of the most notable authorities on the topic of mRNA technology. Advancing this medicinal technology in more refined therapeutics necessitates improvements they discuss in their paper. The good news, industry is quietly capitalizing on advancements in science to stabilize these products. The bad news, any externalities adversely affecting what is likely a relatively small percentage of the masses during the pandemic don’t exist according to the medical establishment. Is human suffering a consequence of advancement?<br/>
<br/>
Declaring that the recent COVID-19-driven advancements ushered in a new era in medicine powered by mRNA-based therapeutics, “the rapid, potent, and transient nature of mRNA-encoded proteins” less any nucleus penetration or risk of genomic integration positions mRNA-based medicine as “desirable tools for treatment of a range of diseases, from infectious diseases to cancer and monogenic disorders (inheritance of a single gene mutations).<br/>
<br/>
Yet this view evades over some fundamental challenges that the medical research establishment will not come out and admit publicly! At least in a minority of cases, for example, the spike protein generated by the mRNA does not just flush out of the system as declared by the boosters. Peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study finds evidence of the spike protein distribution sending the potentially toxic protein to various tissues or organs in the human body. This has become fact yet the medical research establishment will not accept this reality, at least not yet.<br/>
<br/>
Or perhaps they have and experts such as Dr. Drew Weissman, the American physician-immunologist known for this contributions to RNA biology, whose work underlies the development of the mRNA vaccines of BioNTech (Pfizer), does perhaps acknowledge the need to advance the technology in this latest piece published in The Lancet.<br/>
<br/>
While he and Penn-based colleagues declare in their recent paper, “The rapid pace and ease of mass-scale manufacturability of mRNA-based therapeutics supported the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” they explicitly acknowledge that “challenges remain with regards to mRNA stability, duration of expression, delivery efficiency and targetability.” Acknowledging and overcoming these fundamental challenges, an admission in many ways, are absolutely vital before any broadening of applicability for mRNA therapeutics can happen.<br/>
<br/>
Put in simple terms the trio, rightly considered an authority on the topic, argue in this latest entry that it’s not prime time for mRNA technology!<br/>
<br/>
But hold on, didn’t we just inject hundreds of millions of people worldwide with mRNA vaccines? Yes, of course, and that was an emergency use authorization scenario in an emergency setting. And while the jabs were ultimately approved by the Food and Drug Administration (except now for children 6 months to 11, which are still investigational), driving their logic is the assumption that the benefits given the COVID-19 pandemic outweighed any costs or externalities, which medical authorities and regulators resist any acknowledgment.<br/>
<br/>
Of course, the evidence of these externalities exists in persons that combat ongoing issues, injuries derived from the mass immunization program. TrialSite has amassed more than enough evidence along with partner React19, the largest COVID-19 vaccine injury advocacy group worldwide.<br/>
<br/>
TrialSite’s founder, Daniel O’Connor, shared, “This most recent piece in The Lancet represents yet another admission as to the reality that it’s not prime time yet for the mRNA therapeutic technology.” The TrialSite founder said, “You could not find a better, more authoritative source than Dr. Weissman, who, along with Katalin Kariko, received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2023 for the discoveries of these two leading to the mRNA technology today as we know it.”<br/>
<br/>
TrialSite has tracked a series of papers and studies now representing authoritative figures in science who come forth via academic papers discussing the gap between the existing platform in use, billions of doses administered, and the needs for better stability, efficient delivery, and targetability, as Weissman and colleagues postulate.<br/>
<br/>
For example, TrialSite recently reported on the ex-Moderna scientists and the Northeastern University professor that recently had a similar paper published.<br/>
<br/>
See the TrialSite piece based on the authored by four ex-Moderna scientists and a Northeastern University professor, the paper calls attention to serious limitations in the existing mRNA technology now on the market. See “Bombshell? Ex-Moderna Preclinical Scientists Acknowledge Serious Safety Concern with Current mRNA Technology..”<br/>
<br/>
Weissman and colleagues acknowledge the ongoing need to learn “rapidly” from the growing number of both preclinical and clinical trials testing mRNA-based therapeutics and vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
The goal: to optimize what essentially in the minds of the authors are a proven medical technology, based on what Weissman and colleagues breakdown as advances in mRNA technology, many overlapping with those discussed by the ex-Moderna scientists and in select other papers published in TrialSite.<br/>
<br/>
How are these advancements being used in Immunotherapeutics, protein replacement therapy, and genomic editing? How is targetability improving in that scientists can, with more predictability, deliver mRNA to “desired specific cell types and organs?”<br/>
<br/>
These breakthroughs, or better, incremental advancements are what is needed to validate the “development of the next generation of targeted mRNA therapeutics.”<br/>
<br/>
Behind The Lancet paywall, we must respect their boundaries, as we have our own for economic sustainability, so for those tracking these trends the Weissman piece most certainly should be studied.<br/>
<br/>
But here at TrialSite, we think it’s fair and important to ask about those gaps, the deficiencies in the mRNA technology that were clearly part of the emergency countermeasure product administered by over a billion people. Considering externalities in what, in essence, was a declared war against a pathogen, why is there such resistance to recognize and accept publicly what one of the true inventors of the technology has acknowledged?<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/mrna-nobel-prize-winner-drew-weissman-verifies-mrna-platform-needs-significant-advancement-before-prime-time-for-therapeutics-fb89e163">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/mrna-nobel-prize-winner-drew-weissman-verifies-mrna-platform-needs-significant-advancement-before-prime-time-for-therapeutics-fb89e163</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-47854297574880423212024-03-17T23:04:00.003+13:002024-03-17T23:06:11.958+13:00<br /><b>Catching Covid has made people less intelligent - with severe infections reducing IQ the most, new study suggests</b><div><br /></div><div>Catching Covid makes people less intelligent, with severe infections reducing IQ the most, a study suggests.</div><div><br /></div><div>Britons who avoided the disease typically performed best in intelligence tests, while those who ended up in hospital scored worst.</div><div><br /></div><div>But even those who suffered only mild disease are likely to have had their cognitive abilities decline, it is believed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Scientists from Imperial College London analysed data on more than 112,000 volunteers who took Covid tests during the pandemic.</div><div><br /></div><div>Analysis revealed that those who were admitted to intensive care with Covid scored around nine IQ points lower on average in exams than those who avoided infection.</div><div><br /></div><div>Those who reported having long Covid – persistent symptoms such as 'brain fog' – scored six points lower and those with only mild infection two points lower.</div><div><br /></div><div>Professor Adam Hampshire, lead author of the study published in The Lancet medical journal, tried to match people as closely as possible when comparing the groups in a bid to account for other factors. </div><div><br /></div><div>Further examination found long-lasting cognitive impacts, even in people infected a year or more earlier.</div><div><br /></div><div>The original Covid strain was associated with a bigger drop in IQ, while there were only marginal differences with Omicron. Vaccination also appeared to have a protective effect.</div><div><br /></div><div>Professor Hampshire said the implications of the figures are 'quite scary'.</div><div><br /></div><div>The participants had enrolled on Imperial College's React study. Dr Taquet said the results should be interpreted with caution as the study did not compare the same person before and after infection.</div><div><br /></div><div>Professor Benedict Michael, director of the University of Liverpool's infection neuroscience laboratory, said there is 'clearly a very severely affected group'. </div><div><br /></div><div>But he added: 'I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that the vast majority of the population have been knocked back by X number of IQ points.'</div><div><br /></div><div>Separate studies analysing brain scans taken before and after the pandemic suggest Covid infection can have an impact, even in those who had not been hospitalised.</div><div><br /></div><div>Professor Michael said it did not appear to be the virus that was infecting the brain but a secondary consequence of infection elsewhere in the body – potentially acting on blood vessels, reducing oxygen flow. Researchers say it remains unclear if brains of Covid patients will fully recover.</div><div><br /></div><div>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13203253/Catching-Covid-intelligent-reducing-IQ.html</div><div><br /></div><div>************************************************</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Covid DID come from Wuhan lab, says new analysis of patients, records and virus' makeup: '70% chance'</b><div><br /></div><div>After being denounced as a conspiracy for years, the Covid lab leak hypothesis is now considered the most likely origin of the virus, according to a new analysis.</div><div><br /></div><div>Researchers from Australia and Arizona used a risk analysis tool- which they described as the most comprehensive yet - to determine the chances the SARS-CoV-2 virus was of 'unnatural' or 'natural' origin. </div><div><br /></div><div>The team compared the characteristics of the virus and the pandemic to 11 criteria that analyzed things like the rarity of a virus, the timing of a pandemic, the population infected, the spread of a virus and the unexpected symptoms of a virus. </div><div><br /></div><div>Based on the nature of Covid, researchers assigned a score to each category - less than 50 percent meant the pandemic would be classified as a natural outbreak, but 50 or more percent would mean the pandemic was an unnatural outbreak. </div><div><br /></div><div>Covid received a score of 68 percent. </div><div><br /></div><div>The study said: 'The origin of [Covid] is contentious. Most studies have focused on a zoonotic origin, but definitive evidence such as an intermediary animal host is lacking.'</div><div><br /></div><div>However, just because Covid received a higher score, the researchers said the 'risk assessment cannot prove the origin of [Covid], but shows that the possibility of a laboratory origin cannot be easily dismissed.'</div><div><br /></div><div>Co-author Dr Raina MacIntyre, a professor of Global Biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, told DailyMail.com: 'The key point [the findings] make is that the likelihood of [Covid] originating from a lab is non-trivial and cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.'</div><div><br /></div><div>In the study, the virus and pandemic scored the maximum number of points in three categories. </div><div><br /></div><div>The first was the 'existence of a biological risk,' which is considered to be a geopolitical environment from which a biological threat could originate. </div><div><br /></div><div>With the pandemic, a biological risk was present in an area where dangerous pathogens were researched and where poor lab security could allow a pathogen to be released. </div><div><br /></div><div>Covid scored nine out of nine. </div><div><br /></div><div>Researchers said the score was high because WIV was located just 1,000 feet from the wet market believed to have been the site of the first cases of Covid and because Chinese researchers were experimenting with dangerous pathogens under lax protocols. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the 'unusual strain' category, Covid also scored a nine out of nine. This class was described as virus strains having atypical, rare, newly emerging or antiquated characteristics, as well as showing signs of gain-of-function or genetic engineering. </div><div><br /></div><div>This score was attributed to the virus' unique characteristics that allowed it to evade the immune system and be adept at infecting humans and mutating. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lastly, Covid scored the maximum nine-out-of-nine points in the 'special insights' category.</div><div><br /></div><div>This was defined as 'suspicious circumstances and other insights identified prior to the outbreak, during the period of outbreak or post-outbreak.'</div><div><br /></div><div>In this area, researchers highlighted the extensive debates around the origin and 'a series of unusual actions at the WIV,' including handing over control of the lab to the military and removing a large virus database containing 20,000 samples from bats and mice. </div><div><br /></div><div>Overall, out of a possible maximum 60 points, the Covid virus and the pandemic scored 41 - or 68 percent. </div><div><br /></div><div>While controversial, the Covid lab leak theory - that the virus was borne out of gain-of-function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology bankrolled by the US taxpayer through Dr Anthony Fauci's former department - has been endorsed by the FBI and other government agencies. </div><div><br /></div><div>Those subscribing to the zoonotic theory believe the virus originated in animals and jumped from host to humans.</div><div><br /></div><div>A September 2023 study published in the journal Nature found a strain of coronavirus found in the rare animal pangolin - believed to be the zoonotic origin - was nearly identical to the the virus that sparked a worldwide pandemic. </div><div><br /></div><div>The discovery led the scientists to theorize that the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 likely jumped from pangolins to immunocompromised people. </div><div><br /></div><div>This gave the novel virus ample opportunity to mutate and replicate until it reached its full pandemic potential. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, lab leak supporters were recently emboldened after it was revealed that American and Chinese scientists sought to create a Covid-like virus just a year before the pandemic began. </div><div><br /></div><div>Records - obtained by FOIA requests in December - laid out a plan to 'engineer spike proteins' to infect human cells that would then be 'inserted into SARS-Covid backbones' at WIV in December 2018.</div><div><br /></div><div>The proposal was made by the now-notorious EcoHealth Alliance, a New York nonprofit that channels US government grants abroad to fund these types of experiments.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ultimately, the application was denied by the US Department of Defense, but critics say the plans laid out in the proposal served as a 'blueprint' for how to create Covid.</div><div><br /></div><div>Talking about the implications of the study, Dr MacIntyre told this website: 'For policy, this [study] matters because we have more control over prevention of unnatural outbreaks, many of which arise from simple human error or inadequate biosafety. </div><div><br /></div><div>'Poor biosafety procedures in bat sampling and at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were documented but lab accidents are common all over the world.'</div><div><br /></div><div>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13198689/covid-19-originated-lab-new-study.html</div><div><br /></div><div>*************************************************</div><div><br /></div><div>Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:</div><div><br /></div><div>http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH) </div><div><br /></div><div>http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)</div><div><br /></div><div>https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)</div><div><br /></div><div>https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs</div><div><br /></div><div>*********************************************************</div><div><br /></div>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-62953878436646088952024-03-14T19:36:00.002+13:002024-03-14T19:36:48.945+13:00<br><br/>
<b> ‘Laissez-Faire’ Sweden Had the Lowest COVID Mortality in Europe</b><br/>
<br/>
Gore Vidal once said “I told you so” are the four most beautiful words in the English language.<br/>
<br/>
Perhaps this is why it’s difficult to resist sharing new data that show how Sweden’s much-maligned pandemic response was right after all.<br/>
<br/>
For those who’ve forgotten, Sweden was excoriated by corporate media and US politicians for its lighter-touch Covid-19 strategy. Many were downright hostile to the Swedes for refusing to shutter schools, lock down businesses, and ramp up police to enforce mandates.<br/>
<br/>
Here’s a sample of headlines:<br/>
<br/>
• “Why the Swedish Model for Fighting COVID-19 Is a Disaster” (Time, October 2020).<br/>
<br/>
• “The Inside Story of How Sweden Botched Its Coronavirus Response” (Foreign Policy, December 2020).<br/>
<br/>
• “Sweden Stayed Open and More People Died of Covid-19, but the Real Reason May Be Something Darker” (Forbes, 2020).<br/>
<br/>
• “Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale” (New York Times, July 2020).<br/>
<br/>
• “I Just Came Home to Sweden. I’m Horrified by the Coronavirus Response Here” (Slate, April 2020).<br/>
<br/>
This is just a taste of the reactions against Sweden in 2020. By opting to allow its 10 million citizens to continue living relatively normal lives, Sweden was, in the words of The Guardian, leading not just Swedes but the entire world “to catastrophe.”<br/>
<br/>
Even then-president Trump got in on the action of smacking Sweden around.<br/>
<br/>
“Sweden is paying heavily for its decision not to lockdown,” the tweeter-in-chief warned.<br/>
<br/>
Despite the foreboding rhetoric, the worst-case predictions for Sweden never materialized. In fact, they were not even close.<br/>
<br/>
In March 2021, it was apparent that Sweden had a lower mortality rate than most European nations. The following year, Sweden boasted one of the lowest mortality rates in Europe.<br/>
<br/>
By March 2023, Sweden had the lowest excess death rate in all of Europe, according to some data sets. And though some weren’t ready to admit that Sweden had the lowest excess mortality in all of Europe, even the New York Times, which had mocked Sweden’s pandemic strategy, conceded that the nation’s laissez-faire approach was hardly the disaster many had predicted.<br/>
<br/>
More recently, Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg shared a statistical analysis based on government data from all European countries from January 2020 to August 2022. The study demonstrated that Sweden had the lowest cumulative age-standardized mortality rate in all of Europe in that period.<br/>
<br/>
“Across Europe, Sweden saw [the] lowest total death during and after Covid,” Lomborg said on X (formerly Twitter).<br/>
<br/>
One Economic Fallacy to Rule Them All<br/>
<br/>
Lomborg’s analysis provides yet more evidence that the Covid state was a disaster.<br/>
<br/>
Some will say, How could we have known?<br/>
<br/>
The harsh truth is that some of us did know. In March 2020, I warned that government “cures” for Covid-19 were likely to be worse than the disease itself. The following month, I argued that Sweden’s laissez-faire policy was likely to be a more effective policy than the hardline approach favored by other nations.<br/>
<br/>
I wrote these things not because I’m a prophet, but because I’ve read a bit of history and understand basic economics.<br/>
<br/>
History shows that collective responses during panics tend not to end well, and economist Antony Davies and political scientist James Harrigan explained why near the beginning of the pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
“In times of crisis, people want someone to do something, and don’t want to hear about tradeoffs,” the authors noted. “This is the breeding ground for grand policies driven by the mantra, ‘if it saves just one life.’”<br/>
<br/>
The thing is, tradeoffs are real. Indeed, economics is largely a study of them. When you choose one thing, you give up another; and we evaluate outcomes based on what we get versus what we gave up. We call this opportunity cost.<br/>
<br/>
Throughout most of the pandemic, however, there were those who didn’t want to pay any attention to opportunity costs or the unintended consequences of government lockdowns—and they were legion.<br/>
<br/>
This is the great economic fallacy Henry Hazlitt warned of decades ago.<br/>
<br/>
Hazlitt, the author of Economics in One Lesson, claimed that overlooking the secondary consequences of policies accounted for “nine-tenths” of the economic fallacies in the world.<br/>
<br/>
“[There is] a persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy,” he wrote, “and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be.”<br/>
<br/>
This was the fatal flaw—quite literally—of the Covid state. Its engineers didn’t realize they were not saving lives, but trading lives (to borrow a turn of phrase from Harrigan and Davies).<br/>
<br/>
Lockdowns weren’t scientific and proved ineffective at slowing the spread of Covid, but even if they had worked, they came with severe collateral damage: cancer screenings plummeted, drug use surged, learning was lost, and global poverty exploded. Depression and unemployment skyrocketed, businesses went bankrupt, and high inflation arrived. Babies were denied heart surgery because of travel restrictions, youth suicides increased…the list goes on and on.<br/>
<br/>
The dark truth is that lockdowns were not based on science and came with a rather unfortunate side effect: they killed people.<br/>
<br/>
‘A Giant Experiment’<br/>
<br/>
The secondary consequences of lockdowns and other non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) did irreparable harm to humans that will be experienced for decades to come.<br/>
<br/>
In the words of New York magazine, lockdowns were “a giant experiment” that failed.<br/>
<br/>
Sweden’s top infectious disease expert, Anders Tegnell, was one of the few people to understand that lockdowns would probably not work. And though Tegnell is not a professional economist, he seemed to understand the lesson of secondary consequences better than many economists.<br/>
<br/>
“The effects of different strategies, lockdowns, and other measures, are much more complex than we understand today,” he told Reuters in 2020, when his strategy was under fire.<br/>
<br/>
By understanding this basic economic principle and having the courage to stand by his convictions, Tegnell was able to avoid the pernicious effects of lockdowns, a policy that seduced so many central planners.<br/>
<br/>
Today, many more people in Sweden are alive because of it. And Anders Tegnell should not be shy in saying, “I told you so.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/03/12/laissez-faire-sweden-mortality/">https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/03/12/laissez-faire-sweden-mortality/</a>
</p>
*********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Court Strikes Down $3,000 Fine for Person Trying to Leave City During Pandemic</b><br/>
<br/>
The NSW Supreme Court has found that a $3,000 fine for leaving Greater Sydney without a permit in 2021 was unlawful, casting doubt on the validity of around 30,000 similar fines issued during the pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
This is the second such ruling.<br/>
<br/>
The state’s Revenue NSW, however, says it will not withdraw the fines and, will instead, treat each one on a “case-by-case basis,” likely meaning those fined will need to argue their case with the government and potentially take the matter to court.<br/>
<br/>
The case centred on a $3,000 fine imposed on Angelika Kosciolek for leaving Greater Sydney in 2021. She was homeless and made plans to travel to South Australia after being offered accommodation there.<br/>
<br/>
But Justice Desmond Fagan said fines issued during COVID-19 must pass the “bare minimum test,” established in a 2022 Supreme Court ruling. That ruling said that for a fine to be valid, the penalty notice must clearly state the relevant Act, and the provision related to the offence.<br/>
<br/>
Ms. Kosciolek’s fine was found to have not passed that test, and the Redfern Legal Centre (RLC) said most COVID-19 fines also failed to precisely state which laws had been broken.<br/>
<br/>
‘Withdraw and Repay’: Redfern Legal Centre<br/>
<br/>
“If a COVID fine fails to state the specific offence, the fine is invalid,” Samantha Lee, senior solicitor at the Centre, said. “RLC considers that the judgment supports the conclusion that the remaining COVID fines are invalid and urges Revenue NSW to withdraw and repay the 29,000 remaining fines.”<br/>
<br/>
Yet Commissioner of Fines Administration Scott Johnston, from Revenue NSW, told a Budget Estimates hearing that it would not be withdrawing any of the remaining fines, but will continue to “review and treat every matter on a case-by-case basis.”<br/>
<br/>
However, Ms. Lee urged Mr. Johnston to “come to his senses.”<br/>
<br/>
“The commissioner is refusing to honour a supreme court judgement and do the right thing and give people back their money and withdraw these fines that don’t meet the legal requirements,” she said. “We’re giving the commissioner time to come to his senses and make the right decision to withdraw these fines. If not, then watch this space.”<br/>
<br/>
More than 33,000 COVID fines, worth millions of dollars, were cancelled after a NSW Supreme Court ruling in 2022 found that details of the offences were insufficient.<br/>
<br/>
In that instance, Revenue NSW withdrew 33,121 fines, meaning roughly half of the 62,138 COVID-related infringement notices issued in the state during the pandemic were invalid. However, it emphasised that the decision to withdraw the fines did not mean the offences had not been committed.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/court-rules-a-3000-fine-for-leaving-sydney-during-covid-invalid-5605371">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/court-rules-a-3000-fine-for-leaving-sydney-during-covid-invalid-5605371</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-77311304919714414132024-03-13T16:40:00.002+13:002024-03-13T16:40:45.611+13:00<br><br/>
<b> New Zealand regulator ignored vaccine risks</b><br/>
<br/>
The life of Ray Avery, a New Zealand-based scientist could come right out of a Hollywood screenplay. It is a rags to global influencer story. Known as “Sir Ray,” he heads the Sir Ray Foundation. The author of two books including the bestselling autobiography “Rebel with Cause", chronicling his life from orphaned and homeless street-kid in England to actual Kiwi Knighthood.<br/>
<br/>
The scientist, social activist, inventor and much more, Sir Ray founded Medicine Mondial, an independent agency focused on improving the lives of impoverished people around the world via distribution of high quality healthcare technology. In 2011, Sir Ray was honored as a Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit by governor-general Sir Anand Satyanand.<br/>
<br/>
Recently TrialSite featured Sir Ray’s thoughts on the World Health Organization (WHO), and how it was never really possible to think the non-governmental organization funded by governments and wealthy donors could contain a global pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
Now Sir Ray goes on the record, in the professional network LinkedIn to remind all that side effects linked to the COVID-19 vaccine are systematically ignored according to a response from the New Zealand Ministry of Health’s Medsafe (New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority).<br/>
<br/>
Reminding all about the role and importance of post marketing surveillance and ongoing monitoring of medicinal products once they reach the market after clinical trials. This includes the ongoing evaluation of vaccines for example, taken by individuals under a wide range of circumstances over an extended period of time.<br/>
<br/>
According to Sir Ray, such surveillance “must be conducted in perpetuum by the vaccine manufacturer to determine any long term adverse clinical effects due to the medicine and above all to validate the long-term safety and efficacy of the medicine.”<br/>
<br/>
It is an important topic given rare but real side effects such as the incident with 26-year-old male Rory Nairn who died after receiving the Pfizer mRNA-based BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine. This incident was reported in the Kiwi mainstream media such as 1 News.<br/>
<br/>
In New Zealand, where Sir Ray resides, such tragic adverse event reports and records derive from The New Zealand Medsafe. The website states:<br/>
<br/>
“Anyone living in New Zealand who thinks they may have experienced an adverse reaction due to a medicine or vaccine can report it. You do not need to be a healthcare professional to report an adverse reaction.”<br/>
<br/>
According to Sir Ray, “Medsafe collects and processes suspected adverse reaction reports and the physicians at the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) medically assess non-routine reports.”<br/>
<br/>
According to Medsafe’s website on the topic of Post-marketing surveillance:<br/>
<br/>
“Post-marketing surveillance monitors the safety of medicines and medical devices in use. Products shown to be unsafe are removed from use, and prescribers are advised about new safety information for products. Post-marketing surveillance is achieved through activities such as:<br/>
<br/>
monitoring adverse reactions to medicines used in New Zealand and monitoring the international literature and other information sources.<br/>
<br/>
testing marketed medicines against product quality standards.<br/>
handling complaints and investigations; and<br/>
auditing and licensing medicine manufacturers.<br/>
<br/>
Filing for OIA Request: Are they doing their job?<br/>
<br/>
Under the Official Information Act (OIA) request, Sir Ray requested Medsafe to provide the number of adverse clinical events recorded for each Batch of Pfizer vaccine administered in NZ.<br/>
<br/>
The New Zealand Government’s official response:<br/>
<br/>
“Medsafe does not hold information on all recorded adverse events for medicines as these may be recorded in a patient’s notes but not reported to CARM, and the batch may not be recorded. Therefore, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the information requested is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act.<br/>
<br/>
What?<br/>
<br/>
Sir Ray informs, “So, in plain English, no one in Medsafe or any medical related agency in NZ is monitoring and recording all serious adverse effects to individual Pfizer vaccine batches in NZ and many patient notes are not routinely reported to CARM – the Medsafe Adverse Drug reactions database.”<br/>
<br/>
Truly Troubling if True Reality<br/>
<br/>
It is a troubling finding to say the least if fully verified. Sir Ray learns that since adverse clinical reactions in the original Pfizer trial were only followed up for two months, and as a consequence of that fact, post marketing surveillance of any serious adverse reactions to the vaccine becomes absolutely vital to demonstrate the long-term clinical safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, BNT162b2, developed in partnership with BioNTech from Germany.<br/>
<br/>
Yet what Sir Ray has learned is that the New Zealand Government is failing to follow decades of obligation to ensure patient safety, not systematically monitoring recording all Kiwi-related serious adverse effects to individual Pfizer vaccine batches, plus the many patient notes are not routinely reported to CARM – the Medsafe Adverse Drug reactions database.<br/>
<br/>
According to Sir Ray, “If you don’t measure it, you don’t know it is safe.”<br/>
<br/>
TrialSite has sent an email request to the Group Manager via multiple email contact addresses for clarification from the agency’s point of view.<br/>
<br/>
A Message to New Zealand Ministry of Health<br/>
<br/>
The health-related activist, philanthropist and entrepreneur has a serious message for the New Zealand government agencies responsible for this terrible gap in responsibility:<br/>
<br/>
“I urge Medsafe and the MOH to put in place an effective post marketing surveillance system to record ALL batch related adverse clinical effects due to the Pfizer Covid Vaccination.”<br/>
<br/>
Sir Ray’s request in actuality represents a mandatory requirement for a pharmaceutical companies to gain and maintain ISO 13485 Certification to ensure the safety of the products that they manufacture, but they can only act of the feedback from Medsafe and New Zealand’s Ministry of Health.<br/>
<br/>
More on Medsafe<br/>
<br/>
Medsafe is the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority. It is a business unit of the Ministry of Health and is the authority responsible for the regulation of therapeutic products in New Zealand.<br/>
<br/>
With 60 operating staff and 2 offices according to the agency’s website, their mission is “To enhance the health of New Zealanders by regulating medicines and medical devices to maximise safety and benefit.”<br/>
<br/>
It would appear the agency falls short of their responsibility and their mission based on Sir Ray’s investigational probing.<br/>
<br/>
Who is running this agency?<br/>
<br/>
Although the agency makes it very difficult to find what individuals actually fill the roles in the org chart below, TrialSite found that Christopher James runs Medsafe as Group Manager. A pediatric pharmacist by training, according to Mr. James’ own LinkedIn profile he has spent 17.5 years at the Ministry of Health New Zealand, serving as Group Manager for MedSafe Group Manager since 2015.<br/>
<br/>
TrialSite reached out to Christopher James requesting that he respond and clarify on Sir Ray’s allegations. Any response will contribute to an updated article.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/did-kiwi-medsafe-acknowledge-lack-of-post-market-surveillance-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-related-side-effects-06cb7089">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/did-kiwi-medsafe-acknowledge-lack-of-post-market-surveillance-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-related-side-effects-06cb7089</a>
</p>
*****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Does COVID-19 Vaccination Lower the Risk of Long-COVID?</b><br/>
<br/>
The global healthcare system has faced numerous challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with long COVID emerging as a major concern—the enduring, long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. Despite these challenges, Scientific American reported that the impact would have been more severe without vaccines. A consensus is emerging that individuals receiving higher doses of COVID-19 vaccines prior to infection experience a reduced risk of developing long COVID. This article will analyze this claim. TrialSite previously reported on the findings of a Nature article which purportedly provided evidence that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of long-COVID in children and adolescents.<br/>
<br/>
Long-COVID, also called post-COVID-19 conditions (PCC), is a condition in which individuals continue to experience a range of symptoms over an extended period after their initial COVID-19 infection. These can affect various parts of the body and can last for months and even years. Common symptoms of long COVID include fatigue, headache, shortness of breath, cough, chest pain, depression, and anxiety. According to an article by The Lancet, over 200 million people will develop the condition worldwide.<br/>
<br/>
Vaccines may reduce the risk of long COVID<br/>
<br/>
Studies highlighted by Scientific American shed light on the intricate interplay between vaccination and long COVID.<br/>
<br/>
One was an observational cohort study published by JAMA in July 2022. The study included 2560 participants out of which 29% experienced COVID-19 and about 31% of those experienced long-COVID. Among unvaccinated individuals, the prevalence of long-COVID was 41.8%, while in vaccinated individuals, it was 30% with one dose, 17.4% with two doses, and 16% with three doses. Importantly limitations accompany this study, and the observational study cannot prove causation.<br/>
<br/>
A systematic literature review published in Cambridge University Press in December 2022 concluded that receiving COVID-19 vaccination before or after getting an infection plays a major role in reducing post-COVID-19 conditions. This evaluation was based on ten studies with over 1.6M individuals. The vaccine efficacy in preventing long-COVID was 35.3% among individuals who received vaccination before infection and 27.4% among those who received vaccines after getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.<br/>
<br/>
A meta-analysis published in the same journal in October 2023 was performed to investigate the long-term effects of vaccines on individuals. This analysis was based on 24 articles. The efficacy of vaccines against long-COVID was 36.9% among those individuals who received two doses before COVID-19 infection and 68.7% among those who received three doses before getting the infection. However, the analysis indicated that the vaccines did not protect from long-COVID symptoms for those who received vaccination after getting the infection. Ironically, some studies show that a combination of infection plus full vaccination (hybrid immunity) represents the strongest protection against future symptomatic COVID-19.<br/>
<br/>
Another population-based cohort study was published in November 2023 by BMJ. This study was based on almost 600,000 individuals split into two approximately equal groups: one set that got vaccinated before getting an infection and the other that was unvaccinated at the time of infection. People who received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine were 21% less likely to develop long-COVID symptoms. Having two and three doses of vaccine reduced the risk by 59% and 73% respectively. Based on the study results which are associated with its own limitations, the involved researchers suggest the more vaccine doses an individual gets, the more protection from long-COVID symptoms is observed.<br/>
<br/>
Mixed effects of vaccines on long COVID symptoms<br/>
<br/>
In addition to the peer-reviewed articles and meta-analyses looking at the incidence of long COVID, several studies have examined the effect of vaccines on the symptoms experienced by patients.<br/>
<br/>
A study published in 2021 in the journal Vaccines was based on a survey of 396 patients who received at least one dose of vaccine within a year of becoming infected with COVID-19. Persistent symptoms at the time of vaccination were reported in 380 patients. After vaccination, 201 patients reported a change in their symptoms: 21.8% experienced improvement while 31% experienced worsening of symptoms, regardless of the vaccine type used.<br/>
<br/>
Another study, published in the Journal of Medical Virology in 2022, investigated the changes in long COVID symptoms in COVID-19 patients after getting vaccinated. It reported a different conclusion. They evaluated the symptoms of 42 patients before and 14–21 days after their first dose of the vaccine. Results showed that the symptoms in 61.9% of patients remained unchanged, improved in 16.7%, and worsened in 21.4%. Importantly, the group that experienced worsening symptoms had higher antibody levels. The authors suggested that the vaccine might trigger an overly strong immune response that leads to the worsening of symptoms in long-COVID patients. They concluded that there is a need for careful monitoring to handle the additional concerns that may arise.<br/>
<br/>
An observational study published by JIM in July 2023 aimed to examine the COVID-19 vaccine's potential to change the clinical presentation of long COVID. This study involved 477 individuals, of whom 245 were vaccinated. The results indicated that vaccinated people experienced fewer symptoms compared to unvaccinated individuals. The symptoms reduced with vaccination included abdominal pain, anosmia (loss of sense of smell), parosmia (distorted sense of smell), chest pain, dyspnea (shortness of breath), numbness, dizziness, and weakness.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/does-covid-19-vaccination-lower-the-risk-of-long-covid-59aeb9de">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/does-covid-19-vaccination-lower-the-risk-of-long-covid-59aeb9de</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-84532801174711562292024-03-12T19:17:00.003+13:002024-03-12T19:28:35.527+13:00<br><br/>
<b> According to Documents, Amazon “Felt Pressured” by White House to Censor COVID-19 Vaccine Books During Pandemic</b><br/>
<br/>
In the midst of the Covid Pandemic, there was no question the Biden White House was deeply involved with Big Pharma to the point where a “Covid Summit” was held in the president’s residence. The event included all the major players who pushed the Covid vaccines, including Dr. Ashish Jah, who was the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, Dr. Anthony Fauci then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Dr. Francis Collins the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Also in attendance were the representatives of pharmaceutical companies, including Moderna and Pfizer.<br/>
<br/>
When Dr. Fauci addressed the summit, he pointed out that “vaccines have saved over 2 million lives and prevented 17 million hospitalizations,” and the emphasis on the summit was how vaccines will be developed and distributed. The summit extolled the virtues of the COVID-19 vaccine and was all in with Big Pharma, but how far did the Biden Administration go with their support of their Covid policy? Last month, it was revealed the White House may have ventured into censorship.<br/>
<br/>
Email Trove<br/>
<br/>
In early February, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee obtained internal emails from the White House which indicated that in early 2021, the Biden Administration pressured Amazon to censor books related to the COVID-19 vaccines. The White House was concerned the books available on the shopping site contained “propaganda” and “misinformation.” Andrew Slavitt, a former White House senior advisor on COVID-19, wrote in an email, “Who can we talk to about the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon? If you search for ‘vaccines’ under books, I see what comes up,” Slavitt wrote in a follow-up message the same day. “I haven’t looked beyond that but if that’s what’s on the surface, it’s concerning.”<br/>
<br/>
Jordan has called the email trove “The Amazon Files” and said, "Never-before-released internal emails subpoenaed by [House Republicans] reveal that the Biden White House pressured Amazon to censor books that expressed views the White House did not approve of." On his X account, Jordan added, “Why was the Biden White House so upset with Amazon? Because Amazon believed retailers are different than social media communities and provided their customers with access to a variety of viewpoints.” “For the Biden Admin, letting Americans think for themselves was unacceptable.”<br/>
<br/>
Amazon Resisted, At First<br/>
<br/>
In an email between Amazon executives, the White House idea of censorship was initially rebuffed. "We will not be doing a manual intervention today," one email said. "The team/PR feels very strongly that it is too visible and will further compound the Harry/Sally narrative (which is getting the Fox News treatment today apparently) and won’t fix the problem long-term … because of customer behavior associates." The company sought not to attract attention regarding the government’s concern but later met with officials because Amazon was “feeling pressure from the White House” and finally agreed to meet with administration officials. Later, Amazon instituted a "Do Not Promote" policy for books that were skeptical of vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
TrialSite has experienced censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic firsthand, and this is why among other things the media company agreed to file a lawsuit along with presidential hopeful Robert Kennedy Jr against the Trusted News Initiative. See the link.<br/>
<br/>
While TrialSite is an independent platform, censorship occurred when we shared information on social networks such as Facebook and YouTube. In all cases, TrialSite shared factual information that was censored, nonetheless. The situation has worsened. Now, on YouTube, if the World Health Organization hasn’t blessed the topic, then YouTube will censor it, even if the news story is factual!<br/>
<br/>
An example is the mass litigation against the HPV vaccine Gardasil manufactured by Merck. A TrialSite News story about the lawsuit was censored on YouTube, even though it was a 100% factual story. Why the censorship? Because the WHO hasn’t addressed the Gardasil lawsuit topic, and that means it's labeled as “Mal-information!” Anyone using their critical thinking skills can see it’s a slippery slope toward fascism.<br/>
<br/>
Back to the nationwide censorship during the pandemic, in a statement, the Biden Administration defended its actions, saying, "When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety. But our position has been clear and consistent: Although we believe tech companies and other private actors should take account of the effects their actions are having on the American people; they make independent choices about the information they promote."<br/>
<br/>
But apparently, there are First Amendment questions. Jim Jordan is the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee and Weaponization subcommittee and said he will hold investigations into how the White House dealt with Amazon.<br/>
<br/>
And, this isn’t the first time the Biden Administration has had issues regarding online content about the Covid Pandemic. In Missouri v. Biden three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states, had posts and stories removed or downgraded by platforms. The plaintiffs’ content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab leak theory. They claim the government stifled their free speech, so they sued government officials for violations of their First Amendment rights. The case implicates the executive and other branches of the government’s ability to impose policies and opinions, not through legislation but through verbal persuasion and “jawboning”. The Supreme Court has already started hearing cases regarding the First Amendment and whether or not online content can be edited.<br/>
<br/>
But the question here remains, regardless of motivation, did the Biden Administration cross the First Amendment line with their “concern” for the American public? Based on information coming out of discovery from trials such as Missouri and our own experience, we’d have to say, unfortunately, our own government is, in some cases, spreading misinformation in a bid to disrupt the expression of accurate information. That’s not to say that there is not a whole lot of garbage mis- and disinformation on X, formerly Twitter, for example. There is that as well. It’s ugly out there<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/according-to-documents-amazon-felt-pressured-by-white-house-to-censor-covid-19-vaccine-books-during-pandemic-e8668bd9">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/according-to-documents-amazon-felt-pressured-by-white-house-to-censor-covid-19-vaccine-books-during-pandemic-e8668bd9</a>
</p>
*****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Court Finds Emergency Doctor Guilty of Misconduct for Questioning COVID Vaccine</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Must not mention clinical experience?</i><br/>
<br/>
A junior emergency room doctor in Western Australia has been found guilty of professional misconduct after giving a series of speeches and interviews critical of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and questioning the safety of the Pfizer vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Mitch Sambell, who has not practiced medicine since April 2023, has had his registration suspended for three months, and will be subject to a 12-month mentorship by another doctor.<br/>
<br/>
Further, he has been ordered to pay a contribution of $2,500 toward the costs of the Medical Board of Australia, which sought review by the State Administrative Tribunal.<br/>
<br/>
In a schedule of agreed facts, Dr. Sambell admitted to telling an interviewer that administering the vaccine to the wider populations was “at best manslaughter, and at worst, like, outright murder.”<br/>
<br/>
He also described the director-general of the World Health Organisation as a “communist.” That interview was published on a video platform, Rumble, titled “Medical Cover-Up in Australia—Albany Doctor Speaks Out.”<br/>
<br/>
ED was ‘Flooded’<br/>
<br/>
When asked by the interviewer, “Could you confidently say that people died in Australia from the vax jab?'’<br/>
<br/>
Dr Samball responded, “Oh, a 100 percent. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it in ED. I saw so many people die in the hospital, so many people. I’ve got people who are 40 that have heart failure after taking this vaccine ...”<br/>
<br/>
“When it started getting rolled out I started seeing ED just got flooded; our hospital was at 117 percent pretty much all the time. And people say, ‘Oh it’s just a lack of staff, it’s flu season,’ but it wasn’t. We rolled out an experimental therapy to supposedly 95 percent of the population, and then our healthcare system couldn’t cope.”<br/>
<br/>
He noted that the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has threatened disciplinary action against medical professionals who spoke out against the vaccine and said: “The truth always come out. And you can hide, and you can use your money, and you can manipulate things, but when people find out, you’re in big trouble.”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Samball repeated similar views at a public meeting in the Shire of Denmark in Western Australia in March 2022, saying, “If you are injected you can still acquire and spread the disease, so why are we allowing this issue to tear apart families, destroy businesses, and ultimately remove people’s ability to choose a medical intervention without coercion, and therefore consent? ... I’m disgusted that the career I love has been used to destroy people’s lives, and honestly I’m ashamed to be called a doctor.”<br/>
<br/>
The State Administrative Tribunal found these remarks “legitimised anti-vaccination sentiments and/or were contrary to accepted medical practice and/or were untrue or misleading,” they were also “designed to, or had the potential to, undermine public trust in the medical profession” and were inconsistent with the Code of Practice with which doctors are expected to abide.<br/>
<br/>
In setting the penalty, the Tribunal noted that Dr. Samball had no previous disciplinary history, has made no public comment on the issue since 2022, and had “shown insight and remorse.”<br/>
<br/>
The ruling has been criticised by newly appointed One Nation member and former Liberal Party MP, Craig Kelly, who said on social media it was “Medical Fascism in Action” and that “Australia is officially a medical fascist state.”<br/>
<br/>
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/court-finds-emergency-doctor-guilty-of-misconduct-for-questioning-covid-vaccine-5604647
<br/><br/>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-10932910572690613062024-03-11T19:44:00.003+13:002024-03-12T19:29:57.840+13:00<br>
<b> Colchicine saved lives among people with Acute COVID-19 -- a 32% Reduction in Mortality</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Colchicine is normally used for the treatment and prevention of gout. It reduces inflammation which causes pain, swelling and other symptoms of gout. From the early days of the pandemic, some doctors have prescribed it to help with Covid</i><br/>
<br/>
Umbrella reviews (sometimes called ‘overview of systematic reviews’, ‘overview’, ‘review of reviews’, etc) are a new type of meta-evidence synthesis that has emerged in recent years to provide a bird’s eye summary on a wide body of evidence on a determinate topic.5 6 Overall, umbrella reviews provide a single document that synthesizes an extensive body of information that could not be generated within a single publication for feasibility reasons and that direct readers to the current best evidence.<br/>
<br/>
Danjuma et al performed an umbrella review of the meta-analyses summarizing the oral colchicine trials in acute COVID-19. Colchicine has been in the McCullough Protocol since 2020. The authors main findings were:<br/>
<br/>
We included eighteen meta-analyses (n = 199,932 participants) in this umbrella review. Colchicine exposure was associated with an overall reduction of about 32% in the risk of mortality (odds ratio 0.68, confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.78; I2 = 94%, p = 0.001). Further examination of pooled estimates of mortality outcomes by the quality effects model (corrected for the methodological quality and risk of bias of the constituent reviews) reported similar point estimates (OR 0.73; CI 0.59 to 0.91; I2 = 94%).<br/>
<br/>
This is great news for those who were prescribed and took colchicine during the acute phase particularly early in the pandemic. The drug reduces inflammation in the chest an is commonly used now for myopericarditis, long-COVID, and other vaccine injury syndromes. Colchicine has a well-characterized safety profile.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/colchicine-reduces-mortality-in-acute-covid-19-umbrella-review-of-published-meta-analyses-bd43040d">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/colchicine-reduces-mortality-in-acute-covid-19-umbrella-review-of-published-meta-analyses-bd43040d</a>
</p>
********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Hearing Delayed Again for BC Doctor Accused by College of COVID Vaccine Misinformation</b><br/>
<br/>
WHITE ROCK, B.C.—The B.C. regulatory body for doctors has again postponed a disciplinary hearing for a member accused of spreading “misleading, incorrect, or inflammatory” information in 2021 about COVID-19 vaccines and the government’s pandemic response.<br/>
<br/>
After having his earlier Feb. 13, 2023, hearing postponed, Dr. Charles Hoffe was rescheduled to appear on March 4–15 before the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.<br/>
<br/>
However, on Feb. 16, nine businesses days before the hearing, the college submitted “a 189-page application, referencing 43 case authorities and over 40 new documents, totaling in excess of a thousand pages,” Dr. Hoffe’s lawyer, Lee Turner, told The Epoch Times in an email.<br/>
<br/>
Because he wouldn’t have proper time to review the materials, Mr. Turner asked for an adjournment, and the college agreed.<br/>
<br/>
The college has posted a notification of the adjournment on its website, but no new hearing date was provided.<br/>
Mr. Turner said he was subsequently informed that the college had applied for judicial notice—a rule surrounding evidence where, if some information is deemed commonly understood as fact, a judge can acknowledge it as such without requiring evidence to be provided and proven in court.<br/>
<br/>
‘Entirely Inappropriate’: BC Government’s Proposed Changes to Oversight of Regulated Health Professions Draws Criticism<br/>
“The College alleges that the facts they seek judicial notice of are so notoriously known and well accepted that no reasonable person would dispute them,” Mr. Turner wrote, adding, “The importance of such an application is obvious, as Dr. Hoffe disputes the facts alleged by the College.”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Hoffe told The Epoch Times that if the request is granted, he would have no defence, as “the fact that they’re applying for judicial notice means they are trying to block me from being able to defend myself.”<br/>
<br/>
“If the disciplinary panel grants judicial notice, they are saying that all of the facts stated by the College are indisputable and there’s no debate,” he said, and thus, effectively, “there’s no trial, because I can’t give any defence.”<br/>
<br/>
In an email to The Epoch Times, the college confirmed that it hasn’t rescheduled the hearing and that it would not comment on the proceedings as they remain unsettled.<br/>
<br/>
‘We’re Not Scientists’<br/>
<br/>
Barry Bussey, a partner with law firm Bussey Ainsworth and president of the not-for-profit First Freedoms Foundation, said the rule of judicial notice has merit but its implementation should have a much higher standard than what he’s seen in recent years, especially regarding information related to the COVID-19 pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
“In Canada, we have yet to have a court that challenges the public health narrative that the government has been using,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Bussey said what’s most frustrating for him is that tribunals or courts “give a path to who they’ve determined are the experts” concerning COVID.<br/>
<br/>
“We give deference to the experts they have, and what the courts have often said under the COVID regime is ‘We’re not scientists. We’re not physicians. We’re not public health. We are judges, and therefore, who are we to question the experts?’ And yet, judges do it all the time.”<br/>
<br/>
One recent case is that of Dr. Mark Trozzi, an Ontario physician who had expressed concerns about the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccination and in January had his medical licence revoked. This came after the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal ruled in October 2023 that he “engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct” and “failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession.”<br/>
<br/>
In its ruling, the tribunal said it “relies on Health Canada regulatory approval of the COVID-19 vaccines as evidence of their safety and effectiveness,” adding that “judicial notice should be taken of regulatory approval, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness.”<br/>
<br/>
The tribunal also cited an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in February 2023 on a different case related to COVID vaccination, which said, “It is not the subject of dispute among reasonable people that Health Canada has, in the area of safety and efficacy of medical treatment, ‘special knowledge … going beyond that of the trier of fact.’”<br/>
<br/>
The Court of Appeal ruling attributed the “special knowledge” quotation to an even earlier ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, from 1993, and added: “Requiring that opinion to be tendered viva voce in every case via live, human experts would be— especially in family court—unnecessarily burdensome.”<br/>
<br/>
‘A Serious Issue’<br/>
<br/>
However, in another COVID-19 vaccination case decided by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in August 2022, the judge said he was not comfortable accepting government information and opinion on COVID vaccines as safe and effective for children, and therefore, judicial notice could not be used.<br/>
As part of his decision, Justice Corkery outlined how judicial notice regarding COVID vaccine safety had been taken in several court cases to date but refused in others.<br/>
<br/>
“The issue before the court in taking judicial notice of scientific facts is not assessing whether the science is ‘fake science,’ but whether scientific facts that would normally require expert opinion to be admitted, may be judicially noticed without proof,” he wrote.<br/>
<br/>
“The science relating to COVID-19 is developing. The ‘facts’ are changing,” he added, saying, “I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.”<br/>
<br/>
Balancing whether a court or tribunal takes judicial notice amid a contested set of facts demands an even higher level of scrutiny, particularly when someone’s career is at stake, says Marty Moore, litigation director with Charter Advocates Canada.<br/>
<br/>
“I would expect that judicial notice needs to be applied robustly in either sense, especially when you’re prosecuting a doctor,” Mr. Moore told The Epoch Times.<br/>
<br/>
“The potential consequence of removing a licence—a serious issue—needs to be dealt with requiring fairness to the individual. And if you’re going to say you can only challenge the facts that we allow you to challenge, that’s obviously not a fair process.”<br/>
<br/>
‘Decisions Based Upon Ideology or Partisanship’<br/>
<br/>
Leighton Grey, senior partner with Grey Wowk Spencer LLP, says he believes judicial notice has been overused in cases related to vaccines and government measures applied to the public.<br/>
In emails to The Epoch Times, he described how he feels judicial notice has been misused and how Dr. Hoffe’s hearing may be challenging for the doctor.<br/>
<br/>
“Judicial notice is where the court regards as proven a fact that could not possibly be disputed,” Mr. Grey wrote.<br/>
<br/>
“Courts did this throughout the pandemic in relation to the government and mass media COVID narratives such as ‘vaccines are safe and effective.’ I am speaking of how courts repeatedly accepted the government narrative about COVID-19 and ‘vaccines,’ and that they continue to do so. Rather than being a Constitutional check upon government overreach, they became a branch of the administrative state.”<br/>
<br/>
Noting that Dr. Hoffe has to first defend himself at an administrative tribunal, Mr. Grey said winning the battle against judicial notice is only his first hurdle.<br/>
<br/>
“The other problem with administrative tribunals is that they are populated by persons appointed by government for their politics, so that they will render decisions based upon ideology or partisanship,” Mr. Grey said.<br/>
<br/>
“It may very well be that Dr. Hoffe is dealing with just such a situation,” he added.<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Hoffe says he began noticing patients experiencing severe adverse events from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine injections at his practice in the rural town of Lytton, B.C., in early 2021, shortly after the vaccine rollout. He reported these reactions to other medical personnel in his community, but was quickly rebuked by Interior Health, the provincial health authority that oversees his area, and asked not to direct his concerns to his colleagues.<br/>
<br/>
After Interior Health ignored his repeated requests to address his concerns, he went public with an open letter to B.C. Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry in April 2021. Interior Health responded by removing his hospital privileges.<br/>
Then in February 2022, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. issued a citation against him.<br/>
<br/>
The college alleged that he “contravened standards imposed under the Health Professions Act, including but not limited to the Canadian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics and Professionalism by publishing statements on social media and other digital platforms that were misleading, incorrect or inflammatory about vaccinations, treatments, and public measures relating to COVID-19.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/hearing-delayed-again-for-bc-doctor-accused-of-covid-vaccine-misinformation-5601774?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=world-left-3">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/hearing-delayed-again-for-bc-doctor-accused-of-covid-vaccine-misinformation-5601774?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=world-left-3</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-25679971812495708652024-03-10T22:19:00.004+13:002024-03-10T22:20:47.012+13:00<br><b>Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate in Place Without Evidence</b><div><br /></div><div>The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.</div><div><br /></div><div>VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”</div><div><br /></div><div>He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The agency searched for such data and did not find any.</div><div><br /></div><div>“The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.</div><div><br /></div><div>“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.</div><div><br /></div><div>The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.</div><div><br /></div><div>The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.</div><div><br /></div><div>There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.</div><div><br /></div><div>President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.</div><div><br /></div><div>President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.</div><div><br /></div><div>“By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.</div><div><br /></div><div>The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.</div><div><br /></div><div>“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.</div><div><br /></div><div>“This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.</div><div><br /></div><div>A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”</div><div><br /></div><div>https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/veterans-affairs-kept-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-in-place-without-evidence-5601173?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=us-news-left-3</div><div><br /></div><div>*******************************************************</div><div><br /></div><div><b>BMI, Inflammation and Cognitive Damage in Long-COVID: Findings from Vortioxetine Trial</b></div><div><br /></div><div>A new study suggests that the antidepressant Vortioxetine may improve cognitive function in long COVID patients, especially those with elevated BMI. The findings underscore the interconnected impact of inflammation, metabolism, and obesity on cognitive health in post-COVID syndrome.</div><div><br /></div><div>Up to 20% of COVID-19 cases may develop post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCC), otherwise known as long-COVID. PCC is characterized by persistent symptoms for at least two months following infection, with cognitive impairment being among the most common. This includes difficulty focusing and memory and is often described as “brain fog.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Researchers don’t know exactly what causes cognitive impairment in PCC, but it’s suggested that disruptions in inflammation–the body’s natural defense system–may lead to immune cells attacking and damaging neural circuits. Dysfunction in metabolism, energy production, may also play a role. </div><div><br /></div><div>With obesity being a major risk factor in long COVID, a recent study sought to characterize the relationship between body mass index (BMI), metabolic disruption, inflammation, and cognitive impairment in long COVID patients. </div><div><br /></div><div>The patients were part of a randomized control trial investigating the usefulness of Vortioxetine, an antidepressant, to treat long COVID-related cognitive impairment. The research team was based at the University of Toronto, and led by Professor Roger McIntyre from the University’s Psychiatry and Pharmacology unit. </div><div><br /></div><div>Half of the 149 Canadian patients were treated with Vortioxetine and the other half with a placebo over the course of eight weeks. The researchers explained that “vortioxetine has immunomodulatory and antioxidative properties that are relevant to the neurobiology of PCC.” As well as cognitive symptoms, studies show vortioxetine could also help mood and physical symptoms of long COVID, including sleep problems, depression, and anxiety, though it’s not an approved treatment. </div><div><br /></div><div>By the end of the treatment, there was an overall improvement in cognitive function but little difference between the groups. However, if vortioxetine-treated participants had high levels of inflammation, metabolic disruption, and elevated BMI, their cognition improved more significantly than the placebo group.</div><div><br /></div><div>“We hypothesize that individuals with these factors may positively respond to vortioxetine treatment, potentially showing a distinct treatment response profile. Larger studies with predefined variables are required to validate these hypotheses,” the authors wrote. </div><div><br /></div><div>The researchers also showed that those with high levels of inflammation and insulin resistance had higher levels of cognitive impairment. Insulin resistance is a defining feature of diabetes and is when cells become less responsive to the effects of insulin, leading to impaired glucose uptake and potential disruptions in metabolic health.</div><div><br /></div><div> “Our data are consistent with a compelling body of evidence showing that disruptions in inflammation, metabolic function and obesity hazardously affect brain health, increasing susceptibility to central nervous system and psychiatric disorders,” they wrote. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, they noted there were several limitations to their study. For instance, they only used one measure for inflammation, the production of C-reactive protein (CRP) which increases in the liver as part of an inflammatory response. They wrote, “We only used one variable (e.g., TGHDL) as a proxy measure for metabolism and CRP for inflammation, which is a nonspecific marker that can be elevated for reasons unrelated to disease.”</div><div><br /></div><div>In line with the findings, several studies show that inflammation and metabolic disruption alter nerve pathways and processes in the brain associated with cognition. For instance, one animal experiment showed that over-inflammation could inhibit neurogenesis in the hippocampus, which is essential for learning and memory. Moreover, insulin resistance and impaired energy production in nerve cells is thought to explain why those with type 2 diabetes often experience cognitive difficulties.</div><div><br /></div><div>Based on this science, a research team from the University of Glasgow is currently investigating whether a weight loss management program could improve symptoms in long COVID patients. The research team will work closely with overweight people who are experiencing long COVID to adapt and evaluate the weight management program, which can be followed remotely from home. </div><div><br /></div><div>“This package of research will provide much needed hope to people with long-term health problems after COVID-19, accelerating development of new ways to diagnose and treat long COVID, as well as how to configure healthcare services to provide the absolute best care,” described Professor Nick Lemoine, Chair of NIHR’s long COVID funding committee and study contributor in a press release.</div><div><br /></div><div>Going forward, the authors of the current study recommend that further studies should validate their findings on the interrelationship between inflammation, metabolism, BMI, and long COVID. “If confirmed, these results could open promising avenues for therapeutic interventions targeting inflammation and metabolism, aiming to alleviate symptoms and reduce the overall disease burden,” they wrote. </div><div><br /></div><div>They also suggested clinicians supporting long COVID patients should be cautious about and monitor the patients’ metabolic functions. </div><div><br /></div><div>https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/bmi-inflammation-and-cognitive-damage-in-long-covid-findings-from-vortioxetine-trial-1c470fa0</div><div><br /></div><div>*************************************************</div><div><br /></div><div>Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:</div><div><br /></div><div>http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH) </div><div><br /></div><div>http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)</div><div><br /></div><div>https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)</div><div><br /></div><div>https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)</div><div><br /></div><div>http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs</div><div><br /></div><div>*********************************************************</div><div><br /></div>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-26069562321658086702024-03-07T19:54:00.002+13:002024-03-07T19:54:58.390+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Excess Deaths Since 2022 Primarily in Vaccinated, Official Data Suggest</b><br/>
<br/>
Excess deaths since 2022 were primarily in the vaccinated, official data suggest, fuelling fears that the Covid vaccines may be playing a significant role in the high excess deaths in recent years.<br/>
<br/>
Data from the Office for National Statistics show that the proportion of total deaths in England among unvaccinated people dropped sharply in early 2022, even as excess deaths soared. The proportion then remained low throughout the following two years, indicating that the additional deaths during this period were concentrated in the vaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
Is this why the authorities continue to resist releasing the full data on deaths by vaccination status? A cross-party group of 21 MPs and peers are the latest to write to request the data be released. Are the authorities refusing because they know the data show excess deaths predominantly in the vaccinated?<br/>
<br/>
The striking effect was seen in every age group. The charts showing these results can be seen below (find the data here, table 5). The blue lines show the total deaths by month in the age group (left-hand axis) while the red lines show the proportion of deaths in the unvaccinated in the age group (right-hand axis; unvaccinated here means receiving no doses). The most striking feature on each chart is the steep drop in the red line in early 2022, which denotes a sharp and sustained drop in the proportion of deaths in the unvaccinated and a corresponding rise in the proportion in the vaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
Note this is not because more people got vaccinated at that time, as the number getting their first dose in these age groups was almost zero by this point (see chart below, taken from here, data here). People getting their first dose may affect the trends seen in 2021, particularly in the first part of the year, though the over-60s were largely done with first doses by June 2021.<br/>
<br/>
It’s worth pointing out that by using only death data they avoid the problems with the ONS population estimates highlighted by Professor Norman Fenton and others that have tended to exaggerate the death rate in the unvaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
Note that the red lines during 2022 and 2023 are mostly flat, particularly for those in their 60s, 70s and 80s, even during many of the peaks in total deaths. This is particularly noticeable during winter 2022-23, where despite a large peak in deaths the red lines stay largely flat. This suggests that vaccine efficacy against death, at least from the Omicron variants, is very low, since if the virus was disproportionately killing the unvaccinated (i.e., the vaccines were protecting the vaccinated) the proportion of deaths in the unvaccinated should spike during waves. That it usually does not suggests low vaccine efficacy.<br/>
<br/>
These charts include no comparison with death rates before the vaccination period so don’t allow us to say very much about the pre-Omicron period as there is little to compare it to. However, there are notable spikes in the red lines for those over 70 during the Delta wave of late 2021. On first sight this would seem to indicate vaccine efficacy against the Delta variant during that winter. Things may not be so straightforward, however. Notice that the other largish spike for those over 80 is in summer 2022. Importantly, this was not associated with a Covid wave; instead it was associated with a heatwave – that was when the heat dome was sitting over Europe causing record temperatures. This is significant because the vaccine obviously does not protect against heatwaves. This means the reason for the summer 2022 spike is not vaccine efficacy. What is it then?<br/>
<br/>
It seems likely it is related to the ‘healthy vaccinee effect’ i.e., the fact that people who take vaccines tend to be people with better background health outcomes than those who don’t take vaccines. A number of studies indicate that vaccinated people have a background death rate around half that of unvaccinated people (this is a background death rate not related to vaccine efficacy or safety).<br/>
<br/>
The poorer background health of the unvaccinated group means that any general cause of death that disproportionately affects the frail or those with comorbidities, such as a virus epidemic or a heatwave, will naturally, other things being equal, disproportionately affect the unvaccinated group, for reasons unrelated to the vaccine. This would explain the summer 2022 spike in the red lines and it may also explain some or much of the spike during the Delta wave as well. Assuming this is right, it makes the lack of spikes during other waves, such as winter 2022-23, even more striking, as one would normally expect the unvaccinated group to be disproportionately affected by a virus wave or a winter, yet instead the lines remain flat. These flat red lines during waves of deaths are therefore also potentially indicative of a concentration of excess deaths in the vaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
The headline finding from these charts is the striking concentration of excess deaths in the vaccinated after early 2022, just as Omicron appeared. This worrying observation may be why the authorities are keeping the full data, which would confirm or rule out such a finding, firmly under wraps.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/05/excess-deaths-since-2022-primarily-in-vaccinated-official-data-suggest/">https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/05/excess-deaths-since-2022-primarily-in-vaccinated-official-data-suggest/</a>
</p>
********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Lockdowns Are a “Failed Experiment”, Welsh First Minister Tells Covid Inquiry</b><br/>
<br/>
The BBC reports that Wales’s First Minister Mark Drakeford has told the Covid Inquiry that local Covid lockdowns were a “failed experiment”.<br/>
<br/>
He could have said it was a failed policy or intervention, but Drakeford chose to say lockdowns were an “experiment”.<br/>
<br/>
An experiment is a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery and test a hypothesis.<br/>
<br/>
However, at the time, lockdowns were a policy enforced by law.<br/>
<br/>
Mark Drakeford announced in May 2020 that the maximum fine for repeated breaches of the lockdown rules in Wales rose from £120 to £1,920. Up to June 8th, 2,282 Fixed Penalty Notices were issued for – as it seems now – failing to participate in an experiment. People in Wales were twice as likely as English to be fined for breaking lockdown rules. Some experiment.<br/>
<br/>
We are at a loss to explain how the people who set the laws can do so based on experiments. As for experiments, where was the consent procedure, where was the control group and where was the evaluation?<br/>
<br/>
The Welsh Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser for Health, Rob Orford, read from the evidence Drakeford provided to the inquiry that “in hindsight perhaps they weren’t the best idea”.<br/>
<br/>
Yet again, we learned that policy wasn’t based on any evidence. “I’m not sure where the origin of the idea around local interventions came from, whether that was the U.K. Government or Welsh Government.”<br/>
<br/>
We utterly reject the “hindsight” argument, which Sir John Edmunds also used as an excuse for some of his most extreme advice.<br/>
<br/>
We reject it because we pointed out the obvious on April 8th 2020: you cannot affect the circulation of an endemic respiratory virus with any of the interventions known to us, including vaccines, which were not on the table then.<br/>
<br/>
We pointed out that wrecking society and the economy to chase an evidence fallacy was the stuff of nightmares. We and the rest of society have paid a heavy price for this temerity.<br/>
<br/>
Policy must be based on expertise and evidence. If there is no evidence, you either generate it or sit on your hands as the precautionary principle suggests, until such time as the costs and benefits of alternative actions are clear.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/06/lockdowns-are-a-failed-experiment-welsh-first-minister-tells-covid-inquiry/">https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/06/lockdowns-are-a-failed-experiment-welsh-first-minister-tells-covid-inquiry/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Airline Fined $250,000 For Standing Down Worker Concerned With COVID-19</b><br/>
<br/>
Australian national carrier Qantas has been fined $250,000 after standing down a worker—who was an elected health and safety representative—after he raised concerns about the risk of COVID-19 to staff cleaning aircraft that had arrived from China—an action the judge described as “shameful.”<br/>
<br/>
Lift truck driver Theo Seremetidis was employed by subsidiary Qantas Ground Services (QGS) at Sydney International Airport, and was sidelined in early 2020, before which he had worked for Qantas for nearly seven years as a ground crew fleet member.<br/>
<br/>
Last year, NSW District Court Judge David Russell found the airline engaged in discriminatory conduct, ruling that Mr. Seremetidis was unfairly cut off from other staff who were seeking his help.<br/>
<br/>
“The conduct against Mr Seremetidis was quite shameful,” the judge said. “Even when he was stood down and under investigation, QGS attempted to manufacture additional reasons for its actions.”<br/>
<br/>
Last week Qantas agreed to pay Mr. Seremetidis $21,000 for economic and non-economic loss.<br/>
<br/>
On March 6, Judge Russell ordered that QGS be convicted and fined $250,000, finding that the company’s conduct involved significant culpability and was deliberate, rather than inadvertent and that QGS had “deliberately ignored” the consultation and other provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act. He said there was a “gross power imbalance” between Mr. Seremetidis and senior managers at QGS.<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Seremetidis was “most conscientious” in carrying out his role as a health and safety representative, the judge found, staying up-to-date with official announcements about the pandemic and even doing research on his day off.<br/>
<br/>
Judge Russell found QGS saw Mr. Seremetidis’s directions to cease unsafe work as a “threat” to the conduct of the business, in particular to its ability to clean and service aircraft and get them back in the air, and pointed out that the role of health and safety representatives was “vital” to the protection of workers and the running of any business.<br/>
<br/>
During the hearing last year, Qantas said it had taken the action because Mr. Seremetidis had been “creating anxiety amongst the workforce.”<br/>
<br/>
It was revealed the airline had told concerned workers that the risk of them contracting COVID-19 from their work was “negligible,” and they could not “be reasonably concerned about contracting the virus.”<br/>
<br/>
Prosecutor Matthew Moir said Qantas gave priority to its commercial interests over the health and safety of its workers. But Qantas lawyer Bruce Hodgkinson argued the airline had been doing its best to deal with the fast-unfolding pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
Qantas Apologises<br/>
<br/>
A Qantas spokesperson said the airline accepted the penalties. “We agreed to compensation for Theo Seremetidis and the court has today made orders for that compensation to be paid,” the spokesperson said.<br/>
<br/>
“We acknowledged in court the impact that this incident had on Mr. Seremetidis and apologised to him. Safety has always been our number one priority and we continue to encourage our employees to report all safety-related matters.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/qantas-fined-250000-for-standing-down-worker-concerned-with-covid-19-post-5601460">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/qantas-fined-250000-for-standing-down-worker-concerned-with-covid-19-post-5601460</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-43992118224759187572024-03-06T17:09:00.002+13:002024-03-06T17:09:24.884+13:00<br> <br/>
<b> Large Real World-Evidence Study Finds COVID-19 Vax + Paxlovid Benefit Against Hospitalization</b><br/>
<br/>
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) developed by Pfizer, is an antiviral medication that is indicated for individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at risk of progression to severe COVID-19. While initially studied on unvaccinated persons, a growing number of observational investigations provide evidence of the potential for significant protection by Paxlovid against hospitalization among vaccinated individuals at elevated risk for severe COVID-19.<br/>
<br/>
Not a lot of data avails scientists seeking to assess the risk reduction from antivirals together with vaccination. Here, the study team led by researchers from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as the U.S. market’s leading electronic health record (EHR) vendor Epic to estimate the stepwise benefit of monovalent vaccination and Paxlovid against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States. Overall, the findings complement previous research indicating Paxlovid affords additional protection in high-risk individuals, even if vaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
The findings here, according to the joint CDC and Epic team, complement previous research pointing to the protective overlay afforded by Paxlovid in high-risk individuals, even if vaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
This line of research had not yet examined the protection of treatment and vaccination combined. Treatment with Paxlovid without vaccination does not reduce risk of hospitalization to levels seen in treated individuals with three or more vaccinations.<br/>
<br/>
While the burden and impact of COVID-19 in future respiratory seasons are uncertain, the authors of this study suggest the combination of vaccination and oral antiviral treatment for eligible patients remains an important tool against COVID-19 hospitalization and death. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recently recommended the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB-containing) COVID-19 vaccines in persons ≥ 6 months of age. The CDC-led study paper suggests clinicians should consider treatment with Paxlovid among all adults who are at high-risk of severe COVID-19 disease, including vaccinated persons.<br/>
<br/>
Important Caveat<br/>
<br/>
Importantly, this study was limited to adults infected with COVID-19 during the period April and August 2022, and may not be applicable in the current landscape of population hybrid immunity and SARS-CoV-2 strain evolution. The authors acknowledge that more updated estimates over time are necessary to better understand the impact of vaccination and antiviral treatment. The risk-benefit analyses for COVID-19 vaccination have likely changed. Plus, the medical establishment to date has yet to accept the dozens of peer reviewed manuscripts showing risk with the mRNA induced spike protein, capable of distribution in tissue and organs throughout the body, albeit in rare to relatively rare cases.<br/>
<br/>
There are risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination that are not openly talked about in mainstream media, or even to this day in the trade press; but they are discussed in TrialSite, an independent, objective unbiased (as humanly possible) media platform tracking the world of biomedical research. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen has become milder during the Omicron stage, with a case fatality rate similar to influenza. Of course, the risk increases with age as well as co-morbidities and immunocompromised status.<br/>
<br/>
The Study<br/>
<br/>
The CDC and Epic research team conducted the retrospective analysis of patient records in Cosmos, a real world-evidence dataset that, at the time of this study, included EHR information from >160 million individual users of U.S health systems covered by Epic. Inclusion criteria and definitions were described previously in a prior study of real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in this population. Non-pregnant adults were eligible for inclusion if aged ≥50 years or if aged ≥18 years with an underlying health condition associated with progression to severe COVID-19 disease documented in their medical record. All included patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis (defined as a diagnostic code or positive SARS-CoV-2 test result) associated with an outpatient encounter during April 1–August 31, 2022, indicating mild-to-moderate COVID-19.<br/>
<br/>
The investigational team considered patients to have received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) if verified it was prescribed during the five days after their COVID-19 diagnosis. Vaccination status was categorized on the date of COVID19 diagnosis using data available in the Cosmos system. As reported in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, vaccination categories included 1) unvaccinated if no COVID-19 vaccine had been received; 2) 2 mRNA vaccine-dose recipients if ≥14 days had elapsed since receipt of the second dose and no subsequent doses had been received or <7 days receipt of third dose; 3) ≥3 mRNA vaccine-dose recipients if ≥7 days had elapsed since receipt of the third dose; and 4) other vaccine recipient if any Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine, other vaccine, or only 1 mRNA vaccine dose had been received any time before COVID19 diagnosis.<br/>
<br/>
The primary outcome was COVID-19 hospitalization within 30 days after diagnosis. A COVID-19 hospitalization was defined as having a COVID-19 specific diagnosis associated with the admission.<br/>
<br/>
The group estimated protection against hospitalization by the Paxlovid combination combined with COVID19 mRNA vaccination based on statistics generated from Cox regression. Presenting adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for hospitalization adjusting for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, social vulnerability index of the address of residence, number of underlying health conditions, region of residence, and previous infection defined as having a COVID-19 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) >90 days prior to the included COVID-19 diagnosis.<br/>
<br/>
The reference group comprised unvaccinated individuals who had not received Paxlovid.<br/>
<br/>
Results<br/>
<br/>
Among the unvaccinated, 35,826/141,931 (20.2%) received Paxlovid compared to 42,355/157011 (27.0%) of patients who received 2 mRNA doses, and 130,778/330,448 (33.0%) of those who had received 3 or more mRNA vaccine doses.<br/>
<br/>
During April–September 2022, 5,296 of 731,349 patients (0.72%) with COVID-19 were hospitalized within 30 days after their initial diagnosis.<br/>
<br/>
Hospitalization Rates<br/>
<br/>
After receipt of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 3 or more mRNA vaccine doses, there were an estimated 16.9 fewer hospitalizations per 100,000 person-days compared to those who were unvaccinated and untreated.<br/>
<br/>
According to the group of authors:<br/>
<br/>
“Compared with patients who were unvaccinated and had not received a COVID-19 treatment, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was lower among both those who were vaccinated but did not receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (two mRNA doses, aHR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.67–0.80; three or more mRNA doses, aHR 0.51, 95%CI: 0.47–0.55) and those who were unvaccinated but after receipt of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (0.47, 95%CI: 0.40–0.55).<br/>
<br/>
After receipt of both treatment and vaccination, the hospitalization rate was reduced further (two mRNA doses and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir aHR 0.33, 95%CI: 0.29–0.39) with the lowest rate of COVID-19 hospitalization among those after receiving three or more mRNA vaccine doses and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (aHR 0.22, 95%CI: 0.19– 0.24).”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-real-world-evidence-study-finds-covid-19-vax-paxlovid-benefit-against-hospitalization-f87de1a6">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-real-world-evidence-study-finds-covid-19-vax-paxlovid-benefit-against-hospitalization-f87de1a6</a>
</p>
***********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> How low can Covid catastrophists go?</b><br/>
<br/>
Who’d have guessed that there would be two startling revelations about the great Covid over-reach in the space of about a week, upholding claims previously dismissed as conspiracy theories and misinformation?<br/>
<br/>
First came a peer-reviewed scientific study which linked Covid vaccines to a range of serious health disorders. It was soon followed by the Queensland Supreme Court ruling that vaccine mandates imposed on police and ambulance workers in the state were unlawful.<br/>
<br/>
Both provided a welcome dose of reality after the worst days of lockdowns and vaccine roll-outs when we were bombarded with the message that the jabs were ‘safe and effective’. Years later, we know for certain that they do not prevent contraction or transmission of the virus and there’s an acknowledged chance they could cause serious harm and even death.<br/>
<br/>
Some of us have been aware of this for a long time, but vaccine promoters, including Big Pharma and government bureaucrats, insist that the risk is ‘very low’, the acknowledged disorders are ‘rare’, and that vaccines provide the best means of protection against Covid.<br/>
<br/>
But how low is ‘very low’ and how ‘rare’ is rare? Let’s look at the latest findings from the largest vaccine safety study to date conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network. A research division of the World Health Organisation, it reportedly looked at 99 million vaccinated individuals across six continents.<br/>
<br/>
The study confirmed connections between Covid vaccines produced by Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca to several serious but ‘rare conditions’.<br/>
<br/>
According to a report in Forbes:<br/>
<br/>
While the side effects are serious, the chance of experiencing them is low. Some highlighted increases include a 6.1-fold increase in myocarditis from the second dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. Cases of pericarditis had a 6.9-fold increase as a result of the third dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. There is a 2.5-times greater risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome from the AstraZeneca vaccine along with a 3.2-times greater risk of developing blood clots from the same vaccine. There is a 3.8-times greater risk of getting acute disseminated encephalomyelitis from the Moderna vaccine, and a 2.2-fold increase in the AstraZeneca vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
When choosing to get vaccinated, it is important to weigh the benefits and risks of the vaccine. Information like this makes it easier to make the right choice…<br/>
<br/>
Well thanks, but my wife and I made that choice a few years ago and we remain very glad we did, given there are some still trying to pedal the message that a six to seven times chance of contracting a serious heart condition is ‘low’.<br/>
<br/>
I’m reminded of the old Chubby Checker hit Limbo Rock, ‘How low can you go’? Much lower than that, if you want to convince people the vaccines are safe – let alone effective.<br/>
<br/>
My own long-term scepticism possibly has links back to my first job after leaving high school many moons ago, when I undertook a pharmacy apprenticeship in a very busy regional pharmacy.<br/>
<br/>
Maybe it didn’t help when I was questioned by a detective when a patient died after taking a sleeping mixture I had dispensed, even though I was later cleared after forensic tests showed the medicine contained the correct level of ingredients and the poor bloke had swallowed an overdose. But possibly the last straw had something to do with a drug I had dispensed many times to pregnant young women suffering morning sickness. Finally, the authorities woke up to the fact that the ‘cure’ – thalidomide – was causing horrific birth defects. Sound familiar?<br/>
<br/>
Fast forward to February 2021, when the novel Covid vaccines were rolled out in Australia after being developed and approved in record time without long-term human trials. Manufacturers were granted immunity from liability for subsequent mishaps despite some of these companies having records of huge fines for past problems.<br/>
<br/>
There were also experts, including highly qualified epidemiologists, sounding warning bells, particularly in Europe and America. Some adverse events might only become apparent months or even years after the jabs were administered, but that was dismissed as ratbag conspiracy theory, disinformation, and misinformation.<br/>
<br/>
Well not any more, and hopefully the Queensland Supreme court ruling that some of these vaccine mandates were unlawful will lead to justifiable and wide-ranging compensations.<br/>
<br/>
As Rowan Dean wrote in The Spectator Australia, ‘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…’<br/>
<br/>
Here, here! And let’s hope that the issue does not become bogged down in appeals courts by a government with a guilty conscience and deep pockets.<br/>
<br/>
Finally, my short-lived dispensing career was never a waste of time and it actually saved one of our young son’s lives when a pharmacist dispensed the wrong medication which I recognised as a potent heart drug that could have stopped his from beating!<br/>
<br/>
Again, that’s another story.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/how-low-can-covid-catastrophists-go/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/how-low-can-covid-catastrophists-go/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-68001202663202481852024-03-05T17:40:00.002+13:002024-03-05T17:40:35.795+13:00<br><b> COVID-19 Vaccines Can Affect Menstrual Cycle, Researchers Find</b><br/>
<br/>
Researchers confirmed that COVID-19 vaccines are linked to changes in the menstrual cycle, according to a study published in March.<br/>
<br/>
Published in the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal on March 1, Oregon Health & Science University researchers found that women who received a COVID-19 shot in the first half of their menstrual cycle are more likely to receive cycle length changes than those who received the vaccine in the second half.<br/>
<br/>
Those researchers used data from 20,000 users of a birth control app that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine what effects the vaccine has on the cycle. Most of the women whose data was analyzed were under the age of 35, while 28 percent were from North America, 33 percent were from Europe, and another 32 percent were from the United Kingdom, they said.<br/>
<br/>
Some were vaccinated and some were not. For those who were vaccinated, 63 percent received an mRNA vaccine, the paper said.<br/>
<br/>
“Individuals vaccinated in the follicular phase experienced an average 1-day longer adjusted cycle length with a first or second dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with their pre-vaccination average,” the authors of the paper said, referring to women who got a dose of the vaccine during the first half of their cycle.<br/>
<br/>
Those who got the vaccine in the second half or those who were not vaccinated experienced no changes, they found.<br/>
<br/>
The authors added that there is now “a body of evidence demonstrating that the ... vaccine is associated with temporary menstrual cycle disturbances at the population level,” adding that “the underlying mechanism for a vaccine-related cycle length disturbance is still under investigation.”<br/>
<br/>
“The leading hypothesis is that these disturbances are due to the immune response that vaccines are designed to produce,” the study said, adding that “the immune and reproductive systems interact closely with one another.” Cytokines, which are small proteins that control the immune system’s activity and are produced “as an early event in the vaccine response,” can impact that process, they added.<br/>
<br/>
Little research has been conducted in the past on how vaccines—whether for COVID-19 or others—could influence the menstrual cycle, the study’s authors further noted.<br/>
<br/>
Responding to the study’s findings, Dr. Alison Edelman, the lead author of the paper with the Oregon university, said that “we do know the immune and reproductive systems interact closely with one another,” adding that with vaccinations, “it is certainly plausible that individuals may see temporary changes in their menstrual cycle due to the immune response.”<br/>
Their findings also suggested that there may be changes in the length of the cycle, although they appear to be short-lived. But they added that women who notice significant changes should contact a healthcare provider.<br/>
<br/>
And earlier in 2022, another set of researchers wrote that for women who received one of the COVID-19 vaccines, around 42 percent of respondents said they experienced increased menstrual bleeding. A majority of those who weren’t menstruating reported breakthrough bleeding after getting the shot, including two-thirds of women who were post-menopausal and slightly less than two-thirds of women who were using hormone treatments.<br/>
<br/>
Most respondents received an mRNA vaccine made by either Moderna or Pfizer. But some also received Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca shots, according to the paper.<br/>
<br/>
“We focused our analysis on those who regularly menstruate and those who do not currently menstruate but have in the past. The latter group included postmenopausal individuals and those on hormonal therapies that suppress menstruation, for whom bleeding is especially surprising,” Kathryn Clancy, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said in a statement about the study’s findings at the time.<br/>
<br/>
And it is not the first time that the same Oregon Health & Science University researchers found COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a change in the cycle. In 2022, they found that the change was pegged at under one day, and no change in menses length was detected.<br/>
<br/>
While the study did not find vaccination associated with changes in menses length, “questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding,” they wrote.<br/>
<br/>
Pfizer Official’s Concerns<br/>
<br/>
About a year ago, a Pfizer employee was seen in an undercover video telling a reporter with Project Veritas that he was concerned about the mRNA shot’s possible side-effects relating to menstrual cycles.<br/>
<br/>
“There is something irregular about the menstrual cycles. So people will have to investigate that down the line because that is a little concerning,” the Pfizer official said in the video, adding that it “shouldn’t be interfering” with the cycles.<br/>
<br/>
“I hope we don’t discover something really bad down the line,” he later added.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-19-vaccines-can-impact-menstrual-cycle-researchers-find-5599612?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=undefined-title-0">https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-19-vaccines-can-impact-menstrual-cycle-researchers-find-5599612?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=undefined-title-0</a>
</p>
****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> COVID-19 Shot Hesitancy Driven by Knowledge of Adverse Events</b><br/>
<br/>
People who did not comply with COVID-19 vaccine requirements were hesitant because they knew someone who had experienced a health problem after getting the injection, according to recent research.<br/>
<br/>
“Knowing someone who experienced a health problem following COVID-19 injection reduced the likelihood of injection, the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research reported.<br/>
<br/>
Such people “were more likely to oppose injection mandates and passports.<br/>
<br/>
Conversely, “knowing someone who had health problems following the COVID-19 illness increased the likelihood of injection,” the journal said.<br/>
<br/>
Among those who were aware of at least one individual who experienced COVID-19 injection adverse events, they said they knew about 57 deaths following vaccination.<br/>
<br/>
“The health issues reported ranged from serious problems such as cardiac arrests and other heart-related problems, blood clots and other circulatory problems, to neurological issues, as well as milder effects such as feeling sick, headache, fever, etc.”<br/>
<br/>
The study, published on Feb. 16, investigated the factors that made people support or protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports. Researchers collected information from an online survey completed by 2,840 individuals in December 2021.<br/>
It found that 22 percent of the respondents knew at least one person who experienced a health issue after getting vaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
The authors cited other studies on vaccine hesitancy in the context of influenza to point out that “vaccination status [in these studies] is influenced by beliefs regarding vaccine safety, effectiveness in infection prevention, and the gravity of the illness that might be prevented.”<br/>
<br/>
They cited a survey published by Rasmussen Reports in March last year which found that “nearly as many Americans believe someone close to them died from side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as died from the disease itself.”<br/>
This survey combined with the results of the present study “affirms that opposition to COVID-19 injection mandates and passports has increased over time,” the researchers wrote.<br/>
<br/>
Moreover, the findings of the study suggest that policymakers may find it difficult to “engender a consensus” when it comes to pushing for vaccine mandates and passports, the researchers stated.<br/>
<br/>
The study found that having COVID-19 illness was not associated with preferences for injection mandates. However, those who were injected were found to be “much less likely to oppose injection mandates than are those that did not receive the injection.”<br/>
<br/>
Race was a “strong predictor” of injection mandates, with minority populations like African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians being “less inclined” to oppose such regulations than Caucasians.<br/>
<br/>
“Political identity is also important: Compared to Democrats, those who self-identify as Republicans are more likely to oppose mandates. Those who identify as Independent also tend to oppose injection mandates.”<br/>
<br/>
One of the authors of the study is Mark Skidmore, a professor and Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy at Michigan State University (MSU). He has previously published research in several journals like Economic Inquiry, Economics Letters, and the Journal of Urban Economics. The second author, Fernanda Alfaro, is a Ph.D. student at MSU.<br/>
Regarding funding and conflicts of interest, researchers said they received funds from an individual donor.<br/>
<br/>
Safety Concerns and Vaccine Hesitancy<br/>
<br/>
In a recent post at the International Center for Law and Economics, health economist Roger Bate points out that the COVID-19 vaccines “were not as effective as originally claimed, and were effectively forced onto many people in order for them to work, attend school, or travel.”<br/>
“There is early evidence that these and other factors may currently be contributing to heightened vaccine hesitancy, with potentially serious consequences for public health.”<br/>
<br/>
A July 2022 analysis published in BMJ Global Health also raised similar concerns. It argued that mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies were “scientifically questionable” and were more likely to result in harm than good.<br/>
<br/>
“Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport, and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being,” it said.<br/>
<br/>
The restrictive COVID-19 policies “may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunizations.”<br/>
<br/>
In an interview with Fox News last year, Dr. Robert Redfield, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that federal officials pushed a “false perception” that the COVID-19 vaccines provided “complete” immunization.<br/>
“There was such an attempt to not let anybody get any hint that maybe vaccines weren’t foolproof, which, of course, we now know they have significant limitations,” he stated.<br/>
<br/>
“I always said … my position was just tell the American public the truth: There are side effects to vaccines. Tell them the truth, and don’t try to package it.”<br/>
<br/>
Commenting on the Feb. 16 study, cardiologist Peter A. McCullough said in a Substack post that vaccine hesitancy would be higher in 2024 “as more injuries, disabilities, and deaths have been reported as a result of the novel genetic products” since the 2021 survey.<br/>
<br/>
“When it comes to COVID-19 vaccination, hesitancy is a good thing demonstrating the population is concerned about consumer product safety of the mRNA and adenoviral DNA technology,” he wrote. Dr. McCullough also criticized the American Medical Association’s (AMA) view on vaccine hesitancy.<br/>
<br/>
The AMA website has this statement: “While the AMA is a strong advocate for the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, we recognize that some members of the public may have historical, cultural, or religious reasons to distrust the vaccination process.”<br/>
<br/>
The AMA’s views on the factors driving vaccine hesitancy are inapplicable, Dr. McCullough said. “Attempts to overcome vaccine hesitancy are likely to be harmful.”<br/>
<br/>
Some experts have also raised concerns about vaccine hesitancy triggered during COVID-19 extending to other vaccines as well.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/covid-19-shot-hesitancy-driven-by-knowledge-of-adverse-events-5599981?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=undefined-title-1">https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/covid-19-shot-hesitancy-driven-by-knowledge-of-adverse-events-5599981?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=undefined-title-1</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-55471862559124289022024-03-04T18:20:00.002+13:002024-03-04T18:20:51.659+13:00<br><br/>
<b> CDC drops 5-day isolation guidance for COVID-19 cases</b><br/>
<br/>
The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control on Friday rolled back its longstanding five-day isolation guidance for people who come down with COVID-19.<br/>
<br/>
Under the updated guidelines, the CDC says those infected with the coronavirus can return to work or the public just one full day after their fever subsides.<br/>
<br/>
“Today’s announcement reflects the progress we have made in protecting against severe illness from COVID-19,” agency Director Dr. Mandy Cohen said in a statement.<br/>
<br/>
“However, we still must use the commonsense solutions we know work to protect ourselves and others from serious illness from respiratory viruses—this includes vaccination, treatment, and staying home when we get sick.”<br/>
<br/>
The guidelines for isolation have not been updated since Dec. 2021, when CDC had shortened the recommended isolation time for Americans with asymptomatic cases to five days from the previous guidance of 10 days.<br/>
<br/>
The announcement follows reports last month that the policy change was in the works due to a decrease in infections.<br/>
<br/>
The US has seen an overall decline in COVID-19 cases — 17,300 people were hospitalized and 510 people died from the virus during the week of Feb. 17, the most recent CDC data available.<br/>
<br/>
The updated guidelines, however, do not affect workers at nursing homes and other health care facilities. Medical personnel should follow recommendations to stay home at least seven days after symptoms first appear, and that they test negative within two days of returning to work, according to the CDC.<br/>
<br/>
While the guidelines have been significantly scaled back, health officials are still urging sick persons to take extra precautions in the first five days following an infection.<br/>
<br/>
Those with COVID-19 are encouraged to stay home until 24 hours after a fever, stay up to date with vaccinations, wearing a mask and social distancing — all of which reflects guidelines similar to other highly contagious viruses.<br/>
<br/>
“While every respiratory virus does not act the same, adopting a unified approach to limiting disease spread makes recommendations easier to follow and thus more likely to be adopted and does not rely on individuals to test for illness, a practice that data indicates is uneven,” the CDC said in the announcement.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://nypost.com/2024/03/01/us-news/cdc-drops-five-day-isolation-rules-for-covid-19-infections/">https://nypost.com/2024/03/01/us-news/cdc-drops-five-day-isolation-rules-for-covid-19-infections/</a>
</p>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Covid pandemic could have been avoided and contained to Wuhan, professor claims</b><br/>
<br/>
The Covid pandemic could have been avoided and contained to Wuhan, a professor has claimed in a damning book that lifts the lid on Chinese blunders that allowed the virus to spread across the globe and kill millions of people.<br/>
<br/>
'Wuhan: How the Covid-19 Outbreak in China Spiraled Out of Control', by leading author Professor Dali Yang was published on Friday and explores the pandemic in forensic detail.<br/>
<br/>
Prof Yang draws a devastating conclusion that the pandemic, which started with the first known patients in the eastern Chinese city in late December 2019, was not inevitable.<br/>
<br/>
The book explores key events that came before a lockdown was imposed on Wuhan, including how a mass banquet was held on January 18 that saw more than 100,000 people come together despite health officials knowing the virus was spreading.<br/>
<br/>
Prof Yang offers a deep analysis of who knew what and when about the virus, but barely touches on the origins of Covid-19, The Telegraph reports.<br/>
<br/>
It instead looks at the individual heroism seen during the pandemic as well as the flawed decision-making and lack of clarity as officials tried to deal with a mysterious 'pneumonia of unknown etiology'.<br/>
<br/>
Prof Yang concludes that the global pandemic, which led to the deaths of an estimated 13.3 to 16.6million people worldwide, could have been prevented.<br/>
<br/>
'I do think there was a meaningful chance that the pandemic could have been avoided,' Prof Yang, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, told The Telegraph.<br/>
<br/>
The professor believes that Chinese health authorities were dealt a 'remarkably strong hand of cards' in the early days of the virus breaking out.<br/>
<br/>
'China is a country with significant capabilities, which could have advanced the knowledge and response more rapidly at the end of December 2019,' he added.<br/>
<br/>
But he says any advantage was destroyed by a authoritarian political system that was not prepared for the emergency.<br/>
<br/>
The pandemic dates back to when several of Wuhan's doctors at some of China's best hospitals discovered that a 'pneumonia of unknown etiology' in the city was showing sign of 'human-to-human' transmission.<br/>
<br/>
Experts had feared that the virus was linked to the SARS coronavirus that plagued East Asia between 2002 and 2004. On doctor told the local Centre for Disease Control (CDC): 'It's a disease we've never encountered before, it's also a family [cluster of] infections. Something is definitely wrong!'<br/>
<br/>
Coronavirus was confirmed by Vision Medicals, a lab based in Guangzhou, who tested 'Patient A' - a 65-year-old man with severe pneumonia and 'multiple scattered patchy faint opacities in both lungs'.<br/>
<br/>
'Due to the sensitivity of the diagnostic results', the lab only confirmed the positive test result for a SARS-like coronavirus to the hospital over the phone and not in writing.<br/>
<br/>
Doctors found it was 81 per cent similar to the first SARS coronavirus outbreak. And screenshots that appeared online showed the virus was instantly recognised as something that 'should be treated in the same class as the plague' in order to contain it.<br/>
<br/>
Despite growing evidence pointing towards a possible pandemic, the local CDC was slow in its response.<br/>
<br/>
Gao Fu, the director general of the national CDC, only head about the Wuhan outbreak via social media on December 30.<br/>
<br/>
And while he acted swiftly with emergency responses, the next few weeks were marred by mistakes, censorship and political interests which failed to stop the virus spreading rampantly.<br/>
<br/>
'The first week in January became a pivotal turning point for handling the outbreak. Just the wrong kind,' the book states. 'The failure to act before January 20 was monumental.'<br/>
<br/>
One of the biggest mistakes was failing to respond to several cases in Wuhan that were not linked to the Huanan Seafood Market - the location of the first clusters.<br/>
<br/>
Prof Yang suggests that when the market was therefore closed, people believed the virus was under control and the virus was able to spread amid a false sense of security.<br/>
<br/>
Other factors that contributed to working against containing the virus was China's political tradition of suppressing information to maintain social stability.<br/>
<br/>
'Clearly many [doctors] are heroes but, if you read between the lines, they also operated within constraints,' Prof Yang said.<br/>
<br/>
'It's clearly not a black and white picture but shades of grey. Some of the most heroic doctors happened to be also ones who might not have spoken up like they could have. It's a very complicated picture.'<br/>
<br/>
Doctors who did speak out were reprimanded by police and infections among hospital staff were covered up .<br/>
<br/>
Even as Wuhan moved closer towards a lockdown, high-profile events such as Chinese New Year celebrations were still showcased to try and prove everything was under control.<br/>
<br/>
It was Taiwan’s Dr Chuang Yin-ching who said the outbreak was much worse than feared on January 13 2020. When he returned, Taiwan issued a travel alert for Wuhan and tightened border controls.<br/>
<br/>
But back in Wuhan, the severity of the virus continued to be downplayed and it was left to Dr Zhong Nanshan, 83, a trusted veteran of the first SARS epidemic, to warn that Covid was 'certainly transmissible from human to human'.<br/>
<br/>
He confirmed that cases were being seen in Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai, and Zhejiang and even abroad in Japan, South Korea and Thailand. At this point, China was put on alert and citizens were advised to wear face masks.<br/>
<br/>
However, New Year celebrations still took place in the Wuhan and Hubei province, with residents invited to apply for 200,000 free passes to visit landmark sites. Local media praised performers for continuing despite being sick.<br/>
<br/>
By the time Wuhan was sealed off from the rest of the world on January 23, some 500,000 people had left the country for the holidays.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13147891/Covid-pandemic-avoided-contained-Wuhan-professor-claims-Experts-book-lifts-lid-Chinese-blunders-allowed-virus-spread-globe.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13147891/Covid-pandemic-avoided-contained-Wuhan-professor-claims-Experts-book-lifts-lid-Chinese-blunders-allowed-virus-spread-globe.html</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Lockdowns may be GOOD for you</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Strange findings</i><br/>
<br/>
Lockdowns during the Covid pandemic led to two 'fascinating' changes in babies bodies that may have protected them against disease and allergies, a study has found.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers from University College Cork in Ireland found that children born while the world was locked down during Covid had an altered gut microbiome - the ecosystem of 'good' and 'bad' bacteria in the gut that aid in digestion, destroys harmful bacteria and helps control the immune system.<br/>
<br/>
The biome was found to be more beneficial in the infants.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers believe this led 'Covid babies' to have lower than expected rates of allergic conditions, such as food allergies, compared to pre-pandemic babies, the scientists found.<br/>
<br/>
They also required fewer antibiotics to treat illnesses.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers analyzed fecal samples from 351 Irish babies born in the first three months of the pandemic, between March and May 2020, and compared them to samples from babies born before the pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
Online questionnaires were used to collect information on diet, home environment and health to account for variables.<br/>
<br/>
Stool samples were collected at six, 12 and 24 months and allergy testing was performed at 12 and 24 months.<br/>
<br/>
The Covid newborns were found to have more of the beneficial microbes gained from their mother after birth, which could act as a defense against allergic diseases.<br/>
<br/>
If individuals have a disrupted gut microbiome, this may lead to the development of food allergies.<br/>
<br/>
Babies born in the pandemic had lower allergy rates: About five percent of the Covid babies had developed a food allergy at age one, compared to 22.8 percent in the pre-Covid babies.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers said that mothers had passed on the beneficial microbes to their babies while pregnant, and they gained additional ones from the environment after they were born.<br/>
<br/>
The study also found that babies born during lockdowns had fewer infections because they were not exposed to germs and bacteria.<br/>
<br/>
This meant they needed fewer antibiotics - which kill good bacteria - leading to a better microbiome.<br/>
<br/>
The lockdown babies were also breastfed for longer, which provided additional benefits.<br/>
<br/>
Of the Covid babies, only 17 percent of infants required an antibiotic by one year of age.<br/>
<br/>
In the pre-pandemic cohort, meanwhile, 80 percent of babies had taken antibiotics by 12 months.<br/>
<br/>
This was 'fascinating outcome,' joint senior author Liam O'Mahony, professor of immunology at the University College Cork, said, and 'correlated with higher levels of beneficial bacteria such as bifidobacteria.'<br/>
<br/>
Professor Jonathan Hourihane, consultant pediatrician at Children's Health Ireland Temple Street and joint senior author of the study, said: 'This study offers a new perspective on the impact of social isolation in early life on the gut microbiome.<br/>
<br/>
'Notably, the lower allergy rates among newborns during the lockdown could highlight the impact of lifestyle and environmental factors, such as frequent antibiotic use, on the rise of allergic diseases.'<br/>
<br/>
The researchers hope to re-examine the children when they are five years old to see if there are any long-term impacts of the early changes in gut microbiome.<br/>
<br/>
The study was published in the journal Allergy.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13146861/Covid-pandemic-babies-two-fascinating-biological-changes-study-finds.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13146861/Covid-pandemic-babies-two-fascinating-biological-changes-study-finds.html</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-50430252785608536362024-03-03T04:04:00.003+13:002024-03-03T04:07:17.817+13:00<br>
<b> CDC Tracking BA.2.87.1, New Omicron Subvariant With Potential to Evade Immunity</b><br/>
<br/>
Experts detected a strain of SARS-CoV-2 with more than 30 changes in its spike protein compared with Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced. The newer Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2.87.1, has infected at least 9 people in South Africa since September 2023. No cases have been reported in the US or outside South Africa, the CDC noted in its update.<br/>
<br/>
The large number of changes in spike proteins raises the possibility that the new strain could escape the immunity people have acquired from vaccines or infection. Still, the relatively few cases suggest the variant is not highly transmissible right now.<br/>
<br/>
Although the CDC is carefully monitoring the new strain, the agency expects that current vaccines and treatments will continue to be effective.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2815864">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2815864</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Scientist claims ‘smoking gun’ evidence COVID-19 intentionally created by researchers in Chinese lab</b><br/>
<br/>
COVID-19 may have been created in a Chinese lab, a British professor told the UN Wednesday, with another expert claiming that evidence of the likelihood has reached “the level of a smoking gun.”<br/>
<br/>
Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, was quoted saying in a new Wall Street Journal article that the virus that killed millions around the world may actually have been manmade in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.<br/>
<br/>
He cited evidence found in a 2018 document from the lab that talked of making such a virus.<br/>
<br/>
“[The document] elevates the evidence provided by the genome sequence from the level of noteworthy to the level of a smoking gun,” Ebright said in the piece by former New York Times editor Nicholas Wade.<br/>
<br/>
The papers from the lab cited by Ebright contained drafts and notes regarding a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, which sought to test engineering bat coronaviruses in a way that would make them more easily transmissible to humans.<br/>
<br/>
The proposal was ultimately rejected and denied funding by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but Wade suggested that their work could have been carried out by researchers in Wuhan who had secured Chinese government funding.<br/>
<br/>
“Viruses made according to the DEFUSE protocol could have been available by the time Covid-19 broke out, sometime between August and November 2019,” wrote Wade, a former science editor of the New York Times.<br/>
<br/>
“This would account for the otherwise unexplained timing of the pandemic along with its place of origin.”<br/>
<br/>
Along with the research notes, Wade claimed the specific genetic structure of the coronavirus that allowed it to infect humans served as another strong indication of “the virus’s laboratory birth.”<br/>
<br/>
“Whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol,” Wade wrote.<br/>
<br/>
While scientists continue to debate whether the coronavirus pandemic was a natural occurrence or manmade, Ebright believed there was credibility that the work proposed by the now-controversial EcoHealth Alliance led to the development COVID-19.<br/>
<br/>
Following the release of the 2018 documents — which were published by US Right to Know through a Freedom of Information Act request — Ebright said there was clearer evidence that the virus was manufactured in a lab, the Daily Telegraph reported.<br/>
<br/>
The 2018 documents contained drafts and notes regarding Project DEFUSE and how to synthesize bat coronaviruses to make them more transmissible.<br/>
<br/>
The researchers proposed introducing “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” to the spike proteins of SARS-related viruses in the lab, the same method several biologists have said could have been used to synthesize the coronavirus that led to the pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
According to the documents, the researchers had planned to conduct a portion of the research at the Wuhan lab where they noted that safety conditions were not up to US standards, to the point where they claimed American scientists would “likely freak out.”<br/>
<br/>
While COVID-19’s origins remain a mystery, Dr. Filippa Lentzos, an associate professor of science and international security at King’s College London, said the world needed to acknowledge that the possibility exists that the virus was synthesized.<br/>
<br/>
Speaking before the UN in New York on Wednesday, Lentzos presented the work of the Independent Task Force on Research with Pandemic Risks, which calls on scientists the world over to follow stricter regulations lest another worldwide breakout occur, the Telegraph reports.<br/>
<br/>
“We have to acknowledge the fact that the pandemic could have started from some research-related incident,” Lentzos said.<br/>
<br/>
“Are we going to find that out? In my view, I think it’s very unlikely that we will. We need to do better in the future,” she added. “We are going to see more ambiguous events.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/world-news/scientists-may-have-started-the-covid-pandemic-article/">https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/world-news/scientists-may-have-started-the-covid-pandemic-article/</a>
</p>
**********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Angry nurses rally at Gold Coast University Hospital, demand jobs back</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> A vindictive bureaucracy at work. They don't like admitting that they were wrong</i><br/>
<br/>
Dozens of placard-waving nurses and other healthcare workers took part in the rally outside Gold Coast University Hospital on Saturday.<br/>
<br/>
It followed fury this week after The Courier-Mail revealed leaked Queensland Health emails telling a veteran nurse that “we are unable to re-employ any staff who were officially terminated” for refusing the jab.<br/>
<br/>
Queensland Health boss Michael Walsh said the edict was incorrect and wrote to all hospital and health services in the state on Friday telling them there was no directive not to reinstate sacked workers.<br/>
<br/>
Health Minister Shannon Fentiman this week repeatedly denied there were any barriers to hundreds of workers who refused to comply with the vaccination mandate from returning to work.<br/>
<br/>
But nurses protesting on the Gold Coast said they were still struggling to get their jobs back.<br/>
<br/>
They included 23-year veteran intensive care nurse Michelle Williams, who said she tried to reapply at the major hospital she was sacked from in 2021 but was told there were no vacancies - only to see a job ad for a position.<br/>
<br/>
“It’s frustrating, it’s really frustrating,” she said. “Patients are suffering and they’ve got very junior staff looking after them. “There’s so many of us with so much experience and our experience is just going to waste.”<br/>
<br/>
Ms Williams said Ms Fentiman needed to “stop lying to us”.<br/>
<br/>
“We want to come back to work, we’ve done nothing wrong except not follow this one (vaccine) direction,” she said. “We’re not criminals. We’re people who love our jobs, we love looking after patients and we just want to help people. “We just want to come back to work and do what we love doing, and that’s helping people get better.”<br/>
<br/>
Ella Leach, secretary of the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland, said Ms Fentiman had not responded to an invitation to attend or at least endorse the rally.<br/>
<br/>
Ms Leach said the minister had been sent the names and experience of 350 sacked health care workers who wanted to return and “Shannon should be reaching out to them directly” instead of making them reapply.<br/>
<br/>
“There’s just zero excuse … we want her to take some actual action,” she said.<br/>
<br/>
“These people were born to be nurses and health professionals - they want to work. It doesn’t make them happy hearing that the system’s crumbling, it makes them desperately angry and upset. “All they want to do is work.”<br/>
<br/>
Ms Leach was herself sacked from Queensland Children’s Hospital for refusing the vaccine - in January this year, four months after the mandate was lifted, and despite being seven months’ pregnant. She launched unfair dismissal action against Queensland Health.<br/>
<br/>
Ms Leach said many sacked healthcare workers who had reapplied for jobs with Queensland Health were still being rejected because of their “disciplinary action history” in refusing the vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
“These people have decades of experience and they are desperately needed,” she said.<br/>
<br/>
Ms Leach said 6000 nurses were predicted to retire in 2024 but Queensland Health was hiring nurses from interstate or overseas, with incentives of up to $70,000.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/angry-nurses-rally-at-gold-coast-university-hospital-demand-jobs-back/news-story/37d0412f8b3f3371999b35dc15483c12">https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/angry-nurses-rally-at-gold-coast-university-hospital-demand-jobs-back/news-story/37d0412f8b3f3371999b35dc15483c12</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-6532111014496790092024-02-29T21:24:00.003+13:002024-02-29T21:28:26.411+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Top Cardiologist Reports 47-Fold Increase in Serious Myocarditis Post Covid Vaccinations</b><br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
February 19th 2024<br/>
Charlie Massey<br/>
Chair of Executive Board<br/>
The General Medical Council<br/>
<br/>
Dear Mr. Massey,<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
In the U.K. we use in the main 1.5 Tesla MRI scanners. More power equals more noise!<br/>
<br/>
It is my opinion that the GMC must not only support whistleblowers like Dr. Malhotra, but urgently put in place the following:<br/>
<br/>
* 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.<br/><br>
* A helpline to support doctors afraid of speaking out.<br/><br>
* 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.<br/><br>
* 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.<br/><br>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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?<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Dean Patterson MBCHB, FRCP<br/>
<br/>
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”.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/27/top-cardiologist-reports-47-fold-increase-in-serious-myocarditis-post-covid-vaccinations-as-he-calls-on-gmc-to-investigate/">https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/27/top-cardiologist-reports-47-fold-increase-in-serious-myocarditis-post-covid-vaccinations-as-he-calls-on-gmc-to-investigate/</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australia: Queensland Supreme Court finds some Covid vaccine orders unlawful</b><br/>
<br/>
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’.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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:<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
In any free society, the government’s role is to persuade, not to coerce or to mandate.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Then on 3 July 2021, we wrote:<br/>
<br/>
"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"<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/mandatory-vindication/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/mandatory-vindication/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-8818950600150439342024-02-28T16:13:00.002+13:002024-02-28T16:14:57.397+13:00<br><b> The Excess Death Disappearing Act</b><br/>
<br/>
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the United Kingdom has unfurled a new methodology for calculating excess deaths.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
In place of the old method, Ms. Stanborough has ushered in a statistical model that she explains will rely on age-specific mortality rates.<br/>
<br/>
The ONS is now posing the question—how many deaths would we expect there to be within the context of an evolving population?<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
This open-ended commitment to iterative adjustment begs the question: What necessitated this methodological metamorphosis in the first place?<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
Thus, while statistical manipulations may have obscured relative increases in mortality, the immutable facts of absolute death counts remain more resistant to concealment.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Lifting the Shroud<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Far from reducing mortality, the data suggested a sinister association between vaccination campaigns and subsequent increases in death rates.<br/>
<br/>
This revelation has cast a long shadow over the global push for COVID-19 vaccinations, demanding a sober reassessment of their safety and efficacy.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/the-excess-death-disappearing-act-5595747">https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/the-excess-death-disappearing-act-5595747</a>
</p>
*******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> CDC Reveals ‘Changing Threat’ of COVID-19</b><br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.<br/>
“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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Major COVID Study<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
“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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/cdc-reveals-changing-threat-of-covid-19-post-5596131?ea_src=ai_recommender&ea_med=desktop_health">https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/cdc-reveals-changing-threat-of-covid-19-post-5596131?ea_src=ai_recommender&ea_med=desktop_health</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-4601313922550050132024-02-27T20:31:00.002+13:002024-02-27T20:31:18.645+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Study Finds Hearing and Balance Disorders Among COVID-19 Vaccinated</b><br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“Healthcare providers and vaccinees should be alert to potential audiovestibular complaints after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.<br/>
<br/>
Increase in Incidences of Vertigo, Tinnitus<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.<br/>
<br/>
No Rise in Cases of Hearing Loss<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
As such, the authors concluded that their analysis “supports the opinion that there is no increased incidence of hearing loss following COVID-19 vaccines.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“COVID-19 infection is an important potential confounder of the association between COVID-19 vaccination and audiovestibular events,” they wrote.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers recorded the impact of two types of vaccines—AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vector vaccine and mRNA-based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.<br/>
<br/>
The researchers found an increase in vertigo incidence following mRNA vaccines, and an increase in tinnitus incidence following both AstraZeneca and mRNA vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Sudden Deafness<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
Tinnitus Takes Toll on Quality of Life<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
At the time, Mr. Poland said there could be tens of thousands of people affected in the United States and potentially millions globally.<br/>
<br/>
“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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
The organization also separately reported 164 cases of hearing loss, of which 104 cases (63 percent) were found among females.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“But it’s my own experience, and the fact that I was afraid to say that is really sad.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/study-finds-hearing-and-balance-disorders-among-covid-19-vaccinated-5594475?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=top-news-australia-top-news-0-large-2">https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/study-finds-hearing-and-balance-disorders-among-covid-19-vaccinated-5594475?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=top-news-australia-top-news-0-large-2</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australia: Leftist health commentator admits some Covid vaccines had serious side effects after largest ever study released</b><br/>
<br/>
See:<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270?via%3Dihub#s0090">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270?via%3Dihub#s0090</a>
</p>
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'.<br/>
<br/>
Dr Swan was commenting on the largest ever study done into adverse reactions from Covid vaccines which was published last week.<br/>
<br/>
'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.<br/>
<br/>
However, Dr Swan stressed that the side effects seen in the study's 99million subjects who received Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca shots were 'rare'.<br/>
<br/>
He said Guillain-Barre syndrome was a side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine that received particular attention in the study.<br/>
<br/>
He described it as a 'descending paralysis of the body that affects the nervous system'.<br/>
<br/>
'Usually in most people it is a temporary phenomenon but it can be quite serious at the time,' Dr Swan said.<br/>
<br/>
An unexpected side effect of the Moderna vaccine was acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.<br/>
<br/>
'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.<br/>
<br/>
'He described the condition as 'self-limiting and quite nasty'.<br/>
<br/>
Dr Swan said that this condition was still extremely rare with only seven cases seen out of 10million injections.<br/>
<br/>
He likened the probability of getting it to 'winning the biggest lotto three times in your lifetime'.<br/>
<br/>
Asked how applicable the study was to Australians, Dr Swan said it included Aussies and people from similar countries such as Canada.<br/>
<br/>
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'.<br/>
<br/>
In July 2022 the Scottish-born medical commentator revealed he had caught Covid for the second time despite having four jabs.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
However, the team says the absolute risk of developing any one of the conditions remains small.<br/>
<br/>
They said 13billion doses of vaccines had been administered and there have only been 2,000 cases of all conditions.<br/>
<br/>
Their research was published in the journal Vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13128663/ABC-health-expert-Dr-Norman-Swan-admits-Covid-vaccines-effects-largest-study-released.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13128663/ABC-health-expert-Dr-Norman-Swan-admits-Covid-vaccines-effects-largest-study-released.html</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-51107568446536999422024-02-26T18:33:00.000+13:002024-02-26T18:33:01.130+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Voters, Not the Doctor’s Union, Will Elect or Reject Vaccine Critic</b><br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) wants her deselected.<br/>
<br/>
AMA Tasmania vice president, Dr. Annette Barratt, says Dr. Sladden’s candidacy is “untenable.” Premier Jeremy Rockliff is standing by her.<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Sladden closed her practice in 2021 because of strong objections to the COVID-19 vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
Writing in the Spectator Australia in 2022, she explained that as a well-travelled doctor, she was more vaccinated than most people.<br/>
<br/>
When the COVID vaccines arrived on the scene, she calculated her COVID infection survival rate was 99 percent.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
She concluded that for her, “the risks did not outweigh the benefits, especially if it meant I could still infect my patients.”<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
She has penned many thoughtful, informative, and well-written articles since then.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
This worldwide ongoing debate is being conducted by well-qualified and highly credentialed people.<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Barratt believes “COVID vaccines have saved lives and continue to do so.” This remains the prevailing opinion in the medical establishment.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Although the threat was carried out in only a few instances, the modest numbers do not invalidate the tactic.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Diversity viewpoints on contested elements of knowledge, and rejection of attempts to suppress dissenting voices, provide necessary guardrails against reverses of knowledge.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Who appointed the AMA as the custodians of Australian democracy?<br/>
<br/>
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?<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Core Principles<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
All four principles were gravely compromised with COVID.<br/>
<br/>
Colleges and bureaucrats operating at a remote distance are not better placed than the doctor to assess the best interests of the patient.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Instead, Dr. Barratt and the AMA are betraying authoritarian instincts in seeking to remove Dr. Sladden as a duly pre-selected candidate.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
They are free to challenge Dr. Sladden to a debate and argue their case for mandatory vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
The criticism of Dr. Sladden is a bad development for the health of Australian democracy.<br/>
<br/>
In fact, it is the AMA that owes the people of Tasmania an apology for this unwarranted intrusion into the electoral process.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/tasmanian-voters-not-the-doctors-union-will-elect-or-reject-sladden-5594626">https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/tasmanian-voters-not-the-doctors-union-will-elect-or-reject-sladden-5594626</a>
</p>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> UK Health Advisory Team Calls For Suspension Of Covid Boosters</b><br/>
<br/>
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<br/>
<br/>
This letter was appended with dozens of physician-scientist signatures.<br/>
<br/>
To: The Right Hon Victoria Atkins, MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care<br/>
<br/>
CC: Dame Jenny Harries, CEO UKHSA; Professor Sir Christopher Whitty, CMO; Maria Caulfield MP<br/>
<br/>
Dear Ms Atkins<br/>
<br/>
Re: Urgent Review of Excess Deaths<br/>
<br/>
Firstly, congratulations on your recent appointment as Secretary of State at the DHSC.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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).<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
The health of the nation’s citizens is of paramount concern and must surely be a high priority for an incoming Minister.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
Pausing their use is now becoming widely recognised to be the only rational, responsible and morally justifiable course of action.<br/>
<br/>
We wish you well in the challenging job you have ahead.<br/>
<br/>
Yours sincerely<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/uk-health-advisory-team-calls-for-suspension-of-covid-boosters/">https://principia-scientific.com/uk-health-advisory-team-calls-for-suspension-of-covid-boosters/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-43377508402731658402024-02-25T17:02:00.004+13:002024-02-25T17:03:40.314+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19. A Randomized Clinical Trial</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> The article below appeared in JAMA, a prestigious medical journal. Like previous similar articles, it found no benefit for Ivermectin in treating Covid-19.<br/>
<br/>
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</i><br/>
<br/><br>
Susanna Naggie, et al.<br/>
<br/>
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?<br/>
<br/>
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%.<br/>
<br/>
Meaning These findings do not support the use of ivermectin among outpatients with COVID-19.<br/>
<br/>
Abstract<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827</a>
</p>
*********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Large COVID-19 vaccine study finds risks</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> A Leftist take on the matter from "Salon"</i><br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
Notably, the risk was not observed in the mRNA vaccine design.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
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.”<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
He added there are “small but real increases in rare risks after vaccination, compared to large increases in very common risks with COVID-19.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
She emphasized that any pharmaceutical has risk of side effects.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
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.<br/>
<br/>
“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.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.salon.com/2024/02/23/major-vaccine-study-finds-heart-risks-are-rare--and-the-real-is-being-unvaccinated/">https://www.salon.com/2024/02/23/major-vaccine-study-finds-heart-risks-are-rare--and-the-real-is-being-unvaccinated/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-85496762672705284742024-02-22T19:27:00.002+13:002024-02-22T19:27:32.377+13:00<b> Immunosuppression Prevalence Doubled, Linked to Medication Use and COVID: Experts</b><br/>
<br/>
Between 2013 and 2021, rates of immunosuppression in adults have doubled, according to estimates from a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) research letter.<br/>
<br/>
In 2021, an estimated 6.6 percent of U.S. adults were immunosuppressed. “This rate of immunosuppression was higher than the previous national estimate of 2.7 percent using the 2013 [National Health Interview Survey],” the authors wrote in their paper.<br/>
<br/>
The researchers estimated immunosuppression prevalence by analyzing National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) results.<br/>
<br/>
Specifically, the authors analyzed responses to five questions. Over 29,000 individuals were asked if they had a health condition or were taking medication or treatments that would weaken their immune system. They were also asked if they had cancer or malignancy, the type of cancer, and their age at the time of cancer diagnosis.<br/>
<br/>
In 2013, over 34,000 people were interviewed, garnering a response from 75 percent of households. In 2021, only about half of the households contacted responded to the survey.<br/>
Why the Rise in Immunosuppression?<br/>
<br/>
“Given the documented increase in immunosuppression, studies are needed to understand the causes for this increase,” the authors wrote. However, they mentioned that the rise in self-reported immunosuppression may be due to increased use of immunosuppressive medications.<br/>
<br/>
The use of adalimumab, a drug used to treat autoimmune conditions, has increased 3.5-fold between 2014 and 2021.<br/>
<br/>
Immunosuppression carries significant risks, “including an increased susceptibility to infections, potential organ rejection, side effects of immunosuppressant drugs, elevated cancer risk, and pregnancy-related concerns,” Mohammad Razzaque, professor of pathology at the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, told The Epoch Times.<br/>
<br/>
Immunosuppression occurs naturally with age, but it can also occur due to the individual being on various immunosuppressive therapies. People undergoing such therapies include organ transplant patients and those with autoimmune diseases or cancer.<br/>
<br/>
Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of medicine and preventative medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, reasoned that the rising prevalence could signify progress in science and health.<br/>
<br/>
“There are more and more people being kept alive and are being treated with immunosuppressant agents in the United States, and that treatment is extending life, which means that the proportion of the population that is immunosuppressed is increasing,” Dr. Schaffner said.<br/>
<br/>
Crude data from NHIS have also shown a rise in self-reported rates of cancer. According to 2015 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, 8.7 percent of adults reported cancer. In 2021, it was estimated that 9.8 percent of adults had cancer.<br/>
<br/>
NHIS' most recent survey in 2022 estimated that a slight decrease of 9.6 percent of adults had cancer.<br/>
<br/>
The COVID-19 pandemic may have also made individuals more aware of their immune health and whether they are immunosuppressed, the research letter authors added.<br/>
<br/>
COVID-19 and Immunosuppression<br/>
<br/>
Studies have shown that the COVID-19 virus can disrupt the function and order of the immune system, leading to immune dysfunction and possible immunodeficiency.<br/>
<br/>
One 2o23 study published in Nature Reviews Rheumatology found that people with a COVID-19 infection are at a greater risk of developing autoimmune diseases, which may be linked to potential immunodeficiencies.<br/>
<br/>
The COVID-19 pandemic may have been particularly challenging to those already immunocompromised.<br/>
<br/>
Immunocompromised people tend to have an increased disease severity if they become infected with COVID-19, and the vaccine appears to be less effective for them. Public health measures put in place during the pandemic may also have created obstacles for these people to access health care and therapies for their immunosuppression, said Mr. Razzaque.<br/>
<br/>
Other researchers and physicians argue that the COVID-19 vaccines may also contribute to immunosuppression and deficiencies, though some research has opposite findings.<br/>
<br/>
Research from Cleveland Clinic suggests that repeated boosting of COVID-19 vaccinations has been shown to put a person at risk of future COVID-19 infections. Another letter to the editor from Columbia University authors published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that people with higher vaccine antibody levels after vaccination were more strongly associated with breakthrough infections.<br/>
<br/>
Most recently, an Australian review suggested that repeat COVID-19 vaccine boosting in immunocompromised individuals may impair immune activation within this population, possibly making them more vulnerable to infections and cancers.<br/>
<br/>
In a research paper, Mr. Razzaque pointed to increased influenza infections reported in people who receive repeat influenza vaccinations, speculating if frequent boosting may be linked to immunosuppression.<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Schaffner said whether increased infections linked to repeat vaccinations are a sign of general immunosuppression is debatable.<br/>
<br/>
“It’s a very debatable issue,” he said, adding that even if there is an increased risk of COVID-19 infection linked to repeat vaccination, there does not seem to be “serious evidence” indicating a “general suppression of the immune system.”<br/>
<br/>
However, works by Nordic researchers Drs. Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell Benn suggest that non-live vaccines, including COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, tend to make the immune system “lazy” and less equipped to fight an infection. In contrast, live vaccines train the immune system to become better fighters.<br/>
<br/>
Gastroenterologist and CEO of ProgenaBiome, Dr. Sabine Hazan, has said that the COVID-19 vaccine may cause immunosuppression by reducing good Bifidobacteria in the gut. She showed that after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, Bifidobacteria levels dropped by half among her trial participants.<br/>
<br/>
Bifidobacteria are essential for boosting intestinal immunity. Dr. Hazan’s earlier work showed that people with reduced Bifidobacteria in the gut were at risk of severe COVID-19 infections, and therapeutics that replenished the Bifidobacteria, such as vitamins C and D and ivermectin improved patient survival rates.<br/>
<br/>
“The pandemic appears to have influenced what the public thinks about their immune system. There has been a big jump in perceived weakness in the immune system. More research is needed to determine if either SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccine indeed has impaired human immunity according to these perceptions,” Dr. Peter McCullough, renowned cardiologist and internist, told The Epoch Times.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/immunosuppression-prevalence-doubled-linked-to-medication-use-and-covid-experts-5591430?ea_src=ai_recommender&ea_med=desktop_health">https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/immunosuppression-prevalence-doubled-linked-to-medication-use-and-covid-experts-5591430?ea_src=ai_recommender&ea_med=desktop_health</a>
</p>
******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Nova Scotia Health Authority Rescinds COVID Vaccine Mandate for Health Care Workers</b><br/>
<br/>
The Nova Scotia Health Authority has announced it will be rescinding its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers due to the pandemic entering its endemic phase and its “commitment to respecting the choices and autonomy of our staff members.”<br/>
<br/>
“Based on the current available evidence, Nova Scotia Health and IWK Health are amending their respective policies,” reads a joint statement released on Feb. 21 by the two health authorities, which was originally obtained by The Canadian Independent.<br/>
<br/>
“Effective February 26, 2024, it will no longer be a requirement for employees, preferred candidates and on-site medical staff to submit proof of primary series COVID-19 immunization.”<br/>
<br/>
The health organizations said the change represented the “evolving landscape of COVID-19 in its endemic phase.” They added that vaccination against the disease remained “highly effective” at preventing disease, hospitalization, and death, and encouraged all eligible residents to receive their boosters.<br/>
<br/>
The organizations said the change in policy means health care workers who did not submit proof of vaccination and were subsequently let go from work would have the chance to “return to active employment.” Nova Scotia and IWK Health will be reaching out to those employees on administrative leave to discuss options for them to return to work.<br/>
<br/>
Many Canadian provinces got rid of their vaccine mandates for health care workers in 2022, with Saskatchewan lifting the requirement on Feb. 14, Manitoba lifting the requirement on March 1, Ontario lifting it on March 14, New Brunswick ending it on April 11, Newfoundland ending it June 1, and Alberta lifting it on July 18.<br/>
<br/>
The province of Quebec backed down from making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for health care workers back in November 2021, as a Superior Court judge ruled in favour of a group of unvaccinated health care workers.<br/>
<br/>
British Columbia is the only province that still has a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place for health care workers. In September 2023, a vote was held at the Union of B.C. Municipalities about the mandate, which saw municipal leaders vote against a motion rescinding the policy.<br/>
<br/>
The company Purolator suspended its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on April 13, 2023, asking employees who had been placed on unpaid leave to return to work by May 1. Following nearly a year of arbitration, Arbitrator Nicholas Glass ruled in a Dec. 14 decision that Purolator must compensate employees who were terminated for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
A recent survey conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada found that one-third of doctors and over half of nurses were reluctant to take the COVID-19 vaccine because they feared potential side effects. The research found that despite many health workers being reluctant, 89 percent received the vaccines, with the most commonly reported reason being a fear of job loss.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/nova-scotia-health-authority-rescinds-covid-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers-5592175">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/nova-scotia-health-authority-rescinds-covid-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers-5592175</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-26353037299883784732024-02-21T19:51:00.002+13:002024-02-21T19:51:35.293+13:00<br><br/>
<b> COVID Booster Shots Carry ‘Increased Myocarditis Risk’ for Young Adults: Nordic Study</b><br/>
<br/>
Booster vaccination against COVID-19 is linked to a higher risk of heart inflammation among adolescents, according to a recent study using data from several Nordic nations.<br/>
<br/>
The peer-reviewed study, published in the European Heart Journal on Feb. 15, evaluated the risk of myocarditis among 12- to 39-year-olds after receiving COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. Myocarditis refers to an inflammation of the heart muscle myocardium. The study analyzed data from 8.9 million young adults from four nations: Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.<br/>
<br/>
In total, 1,533 cases of myocarditis were identified with the study concluding that the “booster dose is associated with increased myocarditis risk in adolescents and young adults.”<br/>
<br/>
Among males, a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was associated with an “increased incidence rate of myocarditis” within 28 days of inoculation compared to a longer period after the second dose.<br/>
<br/>
The study noted that the association of myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has appeared “strongest in male adolescents and younger males and after the second dose.”<br/>
<br/>
The study was authored by 12 experts from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Swedish Medical Products Agency, Statens Serum Institut, and the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.<br/>
<br/>
Significant Spike in Cases<br/>
<br/>
Cases of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals in the United States spiked within the first year of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, according to a study published in late January that looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).<br/>
<br/>
“We found the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination in 2021 was 223 times higher than the average of all vaccines combined for the past 30 years. This represented a [2,500 percent] increase in the absolute number of reports in the first year of the campaign when comparing historical values prior to 2021,” the U.S. study said.<br/>
<br/>
Roughly 50 percent of myocarditis cases occurred among youths and 69 percent of affected individuals were males. Out of a total of 3,078 COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis cases as of August 2023, 76 percent resulted in emergency care and hospitalization, and 3 percent died.<br/>
<br/>
New studies are being published looking at reducing myocarditis risk when vaccinating adolescents against COVID-19, appearing to confirm the fact that such a risk exists for the shots.<br/>
<br/>
A Feb. 14 study in the journal Vaccines found that extending the interval between the first and the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines leads to a 66 percent “lower risk of incident carditis among adolescents.”<br/>
<br/>
Carditis is the general term for inflammation of the heart.<br/>
<br/>
The study referred to adolescents as a “vulnerable population” while pointing out that “previous studies indicate an increased carditis risk among adolescents following the two-dose messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine.”<br/>
<br/>
COVID-19 and Myocarditis<br/>
<br/>
There have been suggestions that COVID-19 infections cause more myocarditis cases than the vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, a study published by the American College of Cardiology in 2022 said that “overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination.”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Daniel Jernigan from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently testified at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. In his testimony, Dr. Jernigan claimed that the risk of getting myocarditis is “much lower among those vaccinated than among those that are unvaccinated.”<br/>
<br/>
However, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough disputes the claim that COVID-19 infections cause myocarditis.<br/>
<br/>
In a post on his website, he described this argument as “a twisted rationale for giving out COVID-19 vaccines, and in a perverted manner, creating more myocarditis in the population. If SARS-CoV-2 infection caused myocarditis or inflammation of heart muscle tissue, then it would be seen on autopsy in fatal cases of COVID-19.”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. McCullough cited an October 2022 study involving an autopsy of the hearts of COVID-19 infected individuals. The analysis “concluded the virus does not infect the heart,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
The cardiologist called claims of the COVID-19 virus infecting the heart and causing myocarditis “false claims made from automated hospital data and not adjudicated, autopsy proven cases.”<br/>
<br/>
“The COVID-19 vaccines install mRNA in the heart and the Spike protein directly damages and incites inflammation into the heart muscle causing the pathophysiology we see every day in cardiology practice,” he wrote.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers from a Jan. 24 study who looked into the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines found that their estimated harms “greatly outweigh the rewards.”<br/>
<br/>
They called on world governments to impose a “global moratorium” on the COVID-19 vaccines “given the well-documented [serious adverse events] and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.”<br/>
<br/>
The authors also recommended an “immediate removal” of COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule, pointing out that children were at very low risk of infection.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-booster-shots-carry-increased-myocarditis-risk-for-young-adults-nordic-study-5588852">https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-booster-shots-carry-increased-myocarditis-risk-for-young-adults-nordic-study-5588852</a>
</p>
****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Did lockdowns cause more harm than good?</b><br/>
<br/>
The question of whether lockdowns caused more problems than they solved will be picked over for years to come, even if the official Covid-19 inquiry shows little interest in peering into the matter. The latest contribution, a paper from Lund University in Sweden, provides further evidence that this really is something that a UK inquiry needs to investigate. The paper, published by the Institute for Economic Affairs, seeks correlations between the severity of lockdown restrictions in 25 European OECD members and outcomes in terms of excess deaths, economic growth and public deficits. It seems to provide a fairly clear answer: lockdowns were associated with higher overall levels of excess deaths, poorer economic performance and higher public debt.<br/>
<br/>
It starts by using a marking system for the severity of lockdown, which gives every country a figure of between 0 and 100 – where 0 would be no Covid measures at all and 100 a cessation of all economic and social life. On the this measure the UK comes out at 50, France 48 and Italy 60. Sweden was given a lockdown rating of 39. Interestingly, although Sweden was perceived as an outlier throughout the pandemic, and indeed it did plough a very different furrow in the early weeks, Norway and Finland were given slightly lower overall lockdown scores for the duration of the pandemic, owing to the greater relaxation of measures during the rest of 2020.<br/>
<br/>
Overall, the study establishes a fairly weak positive correlation between severity of lockdown and excess deaths. It establishes stronger negative correlations between severity of lockdown and economic growth, and between lockdown severity and the fiscal cost of the pandemic (as measured by the size of the budget deficit in 2020 and 2021 divided by GDP in 2019).<br/>
<br/>
In other words, lockdowns impacted negatively on the economy and the public finances, as might be expected, but they also appear to be associated with slightly higher rates of excess deaths. The study uses excess deaths rather than Covid deaths because it is trying to assess the total effect of lockdowns: how many lives they saved against how many lives they cost through poverty, loneliness, a failure of people to seek timely healthcare because they had been told to stay at home etc.<br/>
<br/>
There are, however, a number of caveats to be put against these findings. Firstly, as the authors admit, the system for giving countries a lockdown score is largely subjective. This part was not in fact the work of the authors – they used a scoring system developed for an earlier study. Secondly, the study doesn’t account for the fact that different countries had different levels of exposure to the virus – which was bound to spread differently in a country like Britain, which has a high density of population and many interconnections with the rest of the world, than in say Norway, with a much lower population density, smaller urban areas and fewer international flights. Indeed, the pattern of excess deaths in Sweden reflects the number of people who had travelled to the Alps for skiing holidays in early 2020 – the areas where more people went to the Alps suffered higher death rates.<br/>
<br/>
Thirdly, it overlooks the fact that lockdowns were often a consequence of high death rates rather than the other way about – Britain, for example, had two further lockdowns in the autumn and winter of 2020-21 precisely because death rates were high and rising.<br/>
<br/>
Scandinavian countries got by with fewer restrictions because death rates were lower – but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would have ended up with more deaths had they made restrictions tougher. We will never know what would have happened had Britain, say, followed the Swedish approach. Fourthly, there are plenty of other variables which were not measured in this study. You could, for example, see what correlation existed between excess death rates and obesity rates, smoking rates or vaccination rates.<br/>
<br/>
All this said, there is clearly a strong case to be made that severe lockdowns caused more misery – deaths included – than they averted. It is essential that this is properly debated before we plan for future pandemics.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/did-lockdowns-cause-more-harm-than-good/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/did-lockdowns-cause-more-harm-than-good/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-1606562590110917382024-02-20T18:13:00.001+13:002024-02-20T18:13:13.212+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Largest Covid vaccine study ever finds shots are linked to small increased risk of neurological, blood and heart disorders - but they are still extremely rare</b><br/>
<br/>
Covid vaccines have been linked to small increases in heart, blood, and neurological disorders, according to the largest global study of its kind.<br/>
<br/>
An international coalition of vaccine experts looked for 13 medical conditions among 99 million vaccine recipients across eight countries in order to identify higher rates of those conditions after receiving the shots.<br/>
<br/>
They confirmed that the shots made by Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca are linked to significantly higher risk of five medical conditions - including a nerve-wasting condition that leaves people struggling to walk or think.<br/>
<br/>
But the study also warned of several other disorders that they said warranted further investigation, including the links between a brain-swelling condition and Moderna's shot.<br/>
<br/>
Still, the team says the absolute risk of developing any one of the condition remains small. For instance, 13 billion doses of vaccines have been administered and there have only been 2,000 cases of all conditions.<br/>
<br/>
Dr Harlan Krumholz, director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation and a lead investigator behind the study, said: ‘Both things can be true.<br/>
<br/>
'They can save millions of lives, and there can be a small number of people who’ve been adversely affected.’<br/>
<br/>
Covid vaccines are estimated to have averted more than 19 million deaths worldwide, including three million in the US alone.<br/>
<br/>
Among their discoveries was a twofold increase in the risk of a neurological condition known as Guillain-Barre syndrome,an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the body's peripheral nervous system, leading to damage to the protective casing around nerve cells.<br/>
<br/>
The report said that of the 23 million AstraZeneca shots administered worldwide, they would have expected 76 cases of GBS - but 190 events were observed, accounting for a 2.9-fold increased risk.<br/>
<br/>
While it cannot be proven that the vaccine caused these events, there is some evidence the vaccine triggers the immune system to attack its own nerves.<br/>
<br/>
Meanwhile, the study also confirmed a threefold higher risk for a type of heart inflammation called myocarditis, though researchers did not give the number of expected cases versus actual cases.<br/>
<br/>
Myocarditis was seen most commonly in young men. It's believed to be related to immune response triggered my the mRNA vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna, which work by instructing cells to produce the same protein that sits atop the coronavirus.<br/>
<br/>
This prompts the immune system to produce antibodies against the spike protein, providing protection against Covid. In rare cases, this immune response may lead to inflammation in the heart muscle.<br/>
<br/>
Typically, the myocarditis instances have been relatively mild, leading to just 28 deaths.<br/>
<br/>
Additionally, both the first and fourth doses of the Moderna vaccine had between 1.7 and 2.6 times greater number of instances of pericarditis, an inflammation affecting the protective sac encasing the heart.<br/>
<br/>
They looked at more than 39 million Moderna vaccine doses administered.<br/>
<br/>
Like the link between mycarditis and the vaccines, links to pericarditis are still under investigation. It is believed to be caused by the same mechanism, an overactive immune response that attacks the thin sac-like membrane.<br/>
<br/>
There was a greater than 3.7 times risk of a condition called Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), which causes swelling in the brain and spinal cord that damages the protective covering of nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord, after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
Seven instances of ADEM occurred following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, surpassing the anticipated count of two cases.<br/>
<br/>
There were nearly 190 million shots considered in the study.<br/>
<br/>
The study also found that after getting the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there were 1.9 and 3.9 times increased risks of transverse myelitis and ADEM, respectively.<br/>
<br/>
Bell’s palsy, which causes temporary weakness or paralysis of the muscles on one side of the face, had an increased odds of 1.05 after a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
There was also a 1.3 to 1.4 times greater risk of having a seizure following the first and second doses of the Moderna vaccine, as well as the fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
Landmark study finds sudden cardiac deaths in sport fell over time<br/>
<br/>
UK cardiologists say the findings from the 'landmark' Swiss and US study should reassure people about the safety of the mRNA Covid vaccines and the risk of myocarditis.<br/>
<br/>
The researchers added a major caveat to this finding: ‘Chances of having a neurological event following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were up to 617-fold higher than following COVID vaccination, suggesting that the benefits of vaccination substantially outweigh the risks.’<br/>
<br/>
After a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was a 3.2-times-greater than expected risk of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST).<br/>
<br/>
The risks after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and after the second dose were 1.49 and 1.25 times higher.<br/>
<br/>
CVST is a rare but serious condition characterized by the formation of blood clots in the large channels that drain blood from the brain and deliver it back to the heart after the AstraZeneca vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
In total, 21 events were expected, while 69 events were observed.<br/>
<br/>
Also after the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was a 1.07 times higher risk of thrombocytopenia, a condition characterized by a lower-than-normal number of platelets in the blood.<br/>
<br/>
After a third dose of ChAdOx1, the risk notably rose to 1.95.<br/>
<br/>
Their research was published in the journal Vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13100755/Largest-Covid-vaccine-study-finds-shots-linked-small-increased-risk-neurological-blood-heart-disorders-extremely-rare.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13100755/Largest-Covid-vaccine-study-finds-shots-linked-small-increased-risk-neurological-blood-heart-disorders-extremely-rare.html</a>
</p>
**********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Oh, So Shutting Down Schools And Making Kids Dumber Wasn't Required to Stop COVID</b><br/>
<br/>
When the COVID pandemic hit, we shut down the schools to protect the kids. Everyone got subjected to remote learning, which didn’t work. When schools tried to re-open, teachers’ unions rioted, claiming selfish parents were trying to kill them. Teachers once again overshot their mark for a profession that doesn’t work year-round and who constantly want raises for mediocre test scores, especially when the damage from remote learning was revealed.<br/>
<br/>
Besides test scores being the lowest in decades, the mental health crisis caused by extended periods of isolation is going to be a generational issue. The number of suicides was one of the most tragic stories coming out of the pandemic. And now, we have this study out of Canada showing that we never needed to shut down schools in the first place (via CP24):<br/>
<br/>
An “extensive,” two-year review of COVID-19 in schools and daycares has revealed that these settings were not a significant source of transmission of the virus when infection prevention and control measures were used, researchers at McMaster University have found.<br/>
<br/>
The review was published Thursday in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health and examined more than 34,000 references, including databases, websites, and studies, related to transmission in child-care settings and schools across the globe.<br/>
<br/>
The results of the review appear to cast doubt on the necessity of the repeated interruptions to in-person learning during the pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
In Ontario schools were closed for a minimum of 135 days to prevent the spread of COVID-19, with disruptions in three successive school years.<br/>
<br/>
“We found that after that initial shutdown where everything was locked down, schools did not appear to have much impact on community level transmission when infection prevention control measures were in place,” Sarah Neil-Sztramko, an assistant professor at the university and the lead author of the review, said in a written statement.<br/>
<br/>
When the masking rules flopped around, followed by the science fiction that followed once the Omicron wave hit that upended the narrative about getting the COVID vaccine, we should have expected this outcome regarding the educational fallout from keeping kids away from each other.<br/>
<br/>
Meanwhile, teachers’ unions have tried to gaslight who was behind and supported the classroom shutdowns. If this pandemic had hit ten years before the Trump presidency—would we have all lost our minds? Even Dr. Anthony Fauci initially took a blasé attitude to the virus until the 2020 election season blossomed. Would we not have reacted with such insanity? Who knows, but what is a fact is that the chasm in American education created by the lockdowns might be one too great to bridge, especially with the burgeoning bureaucracy associated with this sector.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/16/oh-so-shutting-down-the-schools-and-making-our-kids-dumber-wasnt-required-to-stop-covid-n2635364">https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/16/oh-so-shutting-down-the-schools-and-making-our-kids-dumber-wasnt-required-to-stop-covid-n2635364</a>
</p>
********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> FDA Official Acknowledges VAERS Faced 'Avalanche' of Reports After COVID Vaccine Rollout</b><br/>
<br/>
A top FDA official admitted Thursday during a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing that the government's vaccine safety reporting system was not prepared for the “avalanche” of submissions entered after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
“As of February 2024, VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports for COVID-19 vaccines total significantly higher than all other vaccines combined since 1990 as reported,” said Chairman Brad Wenstrup of Ohio. “This is a surprising figure. Dr. Marks, was the government prepared for an avalanche of reports to VAERS?”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, acknowledged it wasn't.<br/>
<br/>
“We tried to be prepared for that,” he said, "but the avalanche of reports was tremendous. And again, it required re-tasking people on the fly…we had to usually staff up and had many meetings working to increase our ability to go through these reports because as you already mentioned, what the public sees on the public VAERS page is just a small fraction of the information that we ultimately collect and sift through that is very important to determine whether an adverse event is truly related to the vaccine<br/>
<br/>
“One of the things we often receive is that we do not make additional information available,” he added. “I would say to you that it's a challenge. What we have learned is that it is very challenging to make available, essentially, protected health information...”<br/>
<br/>
VAERS is an early-warning system but does not "prove that a vaccine caused a problem," according to the CDC. The information submitted, however, can highlight patterns and important information the agency and FDA can then investigate. Reports can be submitted by anyone<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2024/02/16/hearing-on-covid-vax-n2635349">https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2024/02/16/hearing-on-covid-vax-n2635349</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-44533764059815713412024-02-19T20:22:00.001+13:002024-02-19T20:22:11.292+13:00
<b> Hearing on the Hill Puts Feds on the Spot--Enormous Mistakes, Overreach & No Readiness for the Masses of Injured</b><br/>
<br/>
The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing titled “Assessing America’s Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 1” examined the effectiveness of vaccine safety reporting and injury compensation systems after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. Biden Administration officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) all testified that America’s vaccine injury and compensation systems have serious deficiencies related to inadequate staffing, lackluster surveillance, and overlapping programs.<br/>
<br/>
Select Subcommittee Members were adamant of a false narrative: that rather than the safe and effective mantra touted over and over by health agencies, industry and the medical establishment, the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine was in question. They in some cases pressed witnesses aggressively to explain potentially politically motivated decision-making during the pandemic. In other ways, the event seemed like a COVID-19 kabuki.<br/>
<br/>
TrialSite was one of the few media to announce the event in advance, one that Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman, D.P.M., helped to organize.<br/>
<br/>
Importantly, the Republican-led subcommittee sought out representation of patient groups. For example, Brianne Dressen, founder of React19, the largest COVID-19 vaccine injury group in the U.S. was in attendance and allowed to submit questions.<br/>
<br/>
This first hearing was deemed part one of a two-part series of hearings. The second hearing focuses on the importance of the doctor-patient relationship in order to obtain public trust in vaccines during a future public health crisis.<br/>
<br/>
Summary<br/>
<br/>
In a nutshell, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability reports that the Biden Administration made the reckless move of mandating the COVID-19 vaccine less any kind of working system in place to compensate individuals injured by the policy.<br/>
<br/>
Highlighting just how badly inadequate the government was to deal with any sort of vaccine-related injury HRSA Director at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs CDR George Reed Grimes: “At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff.”<br/>
<br/>
The hearing was also political kabuki for Republicans. They conveniently focus only on the Biden part of the COVID-19 history, excluding the Trump administration’s role in a reckless, relentless race to produce a vaccine first—TrialSite covered how various steps in the standard drug/vaccine development process were bypassed such as IND-enabling preclinical studies and the unreasonably compressed timelines (remember the AstraZeneca study) as examples.<br/>
<br/>
In the hearing, the parties rather started with how the FDA accelerated the COVID-19 vaccine approval process to seemingly meet arbitrary mandate timelines set by the Biden Administration. This precedent was established by the Trump administration.<br/>
<br/>
Executive branch officials from the CDC and FDA did express an accord that the federal government can never guarantee a vaccine is 100% safe. And of course, vaccines are public health tools involving tradeoffs, involving risk-benefit analyses.<br/>
<br/>
Chairman Wenstrup asked: “Is any pharmaceutical 100% safe?”<br/>
<br/>
FDA Director at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr. Peter Marks produced the honest answer: “No pharmaceutical is 100% safe.”<br/>
<br/>
CDC Director at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Dr. Daniel Jernigan: “No medical intervention is risk-free.”<br/>
<br/>
CDR Grimes: “There’s a reason we have a compensation program, and we’re dedicated to diligently carrying that out. I can’t say it any better than my colleagues sitting next to me have.”<br/>
<br/>
Importantly, TrialSite has reported consistently how the U.S. federal government under both the Trump and Biden presidencies completely dropped the ball when it came to planning for the inevitable injuries that would present after the cranking out of a vaccine in such record time.<br/>
<br/>
Is it a surprise to anyone that vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems were not prepared to handle what was described at the hearing as an “avalanche” of injury claims caused by the COVID-19 vaccine?<br/>
<br/>
The FDA’s Dr. Peter Marks:“We tried to be prepared for that, but the avalanche of reports was tremendous. It, again, required re-tasking people on the fly…We had to usually staff up and had many meetings working to increase our ability to go through these reports.”<br/>
<br/>
Not surprisingly, at times the politicians in the room used the forum for grandstanding, not intelligently delving deeper into what kinds of shortcuts the Trump administration allowed or looked the other way during Operation Warp Speed.<br/>
<br/>
The Committee on Oversight and Accountability derived the summary: “Shortcomings in vaccine injury reporting and vaccine compensation systems, as well as ineffective government messaging during the pandemic, deteriorated public trust in vaccine safety.”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Peter Marks: “We probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus what’s in VAERS.”<br/>
<br/>
Of course, not all reports in VAERS are related to the vaccines. However, the magnitude of problems associated with the system, given the “avalanche” of vaccine injury reports, necessitates its investigation plus call for reform.<br/>
<br/>
Member Highlights<br/>
<br/>
Brad Wenstrup organized this event and during the hearing, argued that advancing an accurate narrative about the COVID-19 vaccine through doctor-patient relationships during the pandemic would have decreased misinformation and disinformation.<br/>
<br/>
Chairman Wenstrup: “I want everyone to understand, especially those serving on the government side that the public perception becomes reality. And because of that, words matter. Words matter that are coming out, you know. For those of us as Members of Congress or as physicians at home, we’re face to face with people. We are sitting face to face with somebody. We’re not just looking at data on a sheet and making decisions. It needs to be done, what you’re doing, but there’s a difference and that’s why I say words matter. Let me give you an example. When you say safe and effective, that’s relative in your mind. It’s relative in your mind, but it’s not to the person at home. They hear 100% safe and 100% effective. That’s what they hear. This is why words matter. Dr. Fauci, in his testimony, even said, you can never say that any treatment is 100% safe. Yet, in essence, that’s what people heard and are still hearing today. We’ve got to change that because the doctor on the ground or the Member of Congress on the ground is one one-on-one with somebody and explains that to them.<br/>
<br/>
…<br/>
<br/>
“Let me tell you, I’m grateful we live in a country that has these systems (vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems) in place because they’re there to protect the American people and to provide for better health in America. But there are ways we can do better.”<br/>
<br/>
Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) pressed FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks to admit he ignored warnings from his colleagues about the dangers of accelerating the COVID-19 vaccine approval process. Chairman Comer further noted that the timing of the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate and the FDA’s rushed approval of the vaccine appear to correlate. See the link.<br/>
<br/>
Chairman Comer: “Why were you pressuring the doctors and then removing them from the approval process when they disagreed?”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Marks: “The approval process was one that needed to move as rapidly as possible.”<br/>
<br/>
Chairman Comer: “Do you recall any conversations regarding the need to approve the vaccines in order for it to then be mandated?”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Marks: “There was an acknowledgment that an approval could allow vaccine mandates to occur.”<br/>
<br/>
Chairman Comer: “So, Dr. Gruber wrote that you and Dr. Woodcock expressed your opinion that absent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination. Do you recall this conversation?”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Marks: “I don’t know what you’re what you’re referring to, but there’s probably, it’s just a statement of fact that once you have a license, vaccine and mandate could be placed.”<br/>
<br/>
…<br/>
<br/>
Chairman Comer: “Do you recall seeing safety signals regarding myocarditis in young men during this time?”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Marks: “There were yes. There were safety signals known and they were placed on the label.”<br/>
<br/>
A notable admission given Marks was for accelerating the approval by August 20; the eventual approval came three days later on August 23 and coincidentally the Department of Defense’s vaccine mandate occurred according to the exchange on August 20, 2021. On the timing Comer declared, “And that is interesting.”<br/>
<br/>
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), M.D., argued that the federal government wrongly inserted itself in the doctor-patient relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic. In actuality the feds extended their reach much more than that, working to censor doctors indirectly via pressure on the National Association of Medical and Pharmacy boards as TrialSite chronicled.<br/>
<br/>
Overall, this “overreach” created a lack of trust between Americans and their public health system.<br/>
<br/>
Rep. McCormick: “When you insert yourself between a doctor and a patient, and some doctors contradict you and you censor them, even when you’re not a doctor treating patients, people are going to say, why does the government have authority to do that, to censor my doctor? And then secondly, when you start requiring people to do something instead of encouraging the natural resistance of a freedom-loving people that were founded on those principles, will be to resist what you’re requiring. So, it shouldn’t be any surprise to us when the people say, I’m not going to do what you’re telling me I have to do when my doctor may agree with me and not you. You’re the government. Why do they insert themselves in inappropriate ways?<br/>
<br/>
“And really, when we talk about the evolution of science, when you have immunity and you’re still requiring a vaccination that can cause a hyper-immune response, which we’re all scientists, we can admit to, there’s risk versus benefit on every decision. When the government says we’re going to make a carte blanche requirement without taking science into account, it’s no wonder people are mistrustful of our recommendations.”<br/>
<br/>
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) demanded FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks explain why the publicly reported data on vaccine injuries differs significantly from the confirmed death and injury count available to FDA officials. See the link.<br/>
<br/>
Rep. Lesko: “We spoke over the phone back on August 10th of 2021, and I was asking about VAERS because I had lots of constituents reaching out to me saying there were tons of adverse effects, there were thousands of deaths, etc., and they were very concerned. And I asked how many were confirmed. And at that time, you said four. There were four cases that you confirmed deaths that were caused by the vaccine. I suggested, at that time, that the CDC and FDA do a better job of telling the public not just how many cases were reported, but how many were actually confirmed. And just if I heard you right, just recently, you said, well, we don’t want to give out too much information because of privacy rights. But certainly, we could put out how many were confirmed deaths, couldn’t we?”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Marks: “I fully agree with you that we probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus what’s in VAERS. In fact, we just nearly fell prey to it here at this hearing.”<br/>
<br/>
Rep. Lesko: “It seems very logical to me that if you’re saying the public shouldn’t count on VAERS because anybody can report to that, which they can, why wouldn’t you as actively report to the public — well, we confirmed this really low number of cases that actually were caused by vaccines. I mean, it’s been years now. Why? Why haven’t you done it?”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Marks: “We did present that in various settings, including at, I believe, at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It was mentioned at our vaccine advisory committee. It perhaps did not go as broadly.”<br/>
<br/>
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), M.D., uncovered evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine was mandated for healthy Americans and U.S. service members without a sufficient system in place to compensate those harmed by the coercive policy.<br/>
<br/>
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks: “I understand that there’s a current backlog of claims in CICP, by about more than 10,000. Why is there a backlog of claims for the COVID-19 vaccines?”<br/>
<br/>
CDR Grimes: “At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff. When we received our first direct appropriation in fiscal year 2022, we were able to ramp up quickly and now we have over 35 staff who are assisting to adjudicate claims.”<br/>
<br/>
What have we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic? As healthcare itself became politicized and used by warring factions over access to power and money, the people generally suffer as a result. In a democratic society usurped by pecuniary interests, one normalizing the power of money over all else, little will likely change.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/hearing-on-the-hill-puts-feds-on-the-spot-enormous-mistakes-overreach-no-readiness-for-the-masses-of-injured-d5130c64">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/hearing-on-the-hill-puts-feds-on-the-spot-enormous-mistakes-overreach-no-readiness-for-the-masses-of-injured-d5130c64</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-17004398491781569912024-02-18T19:20:00.002+13:002024-02-18T19:20:44.792+13:00<br> <br/>
<b> Dispute over COVID-19 Vaccination & Children</b><br/>
<br/>
A prominent British Immunologist and Professor in Biomedical Sciences and Public Engagement at the University of Manchester recently declared in an Op-Ed piece in The Guardian that British health authorities are deviating from the rest of the wealthy developed nations by not placing more emphasis on universal COVID-19 vaccination for children and young adults. Sheena Cruickshank argues that the risk-based approach to COVID-19 vaccination recommended by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI)---that the vaccines are generally only available for high-risk groups deviates from the norm of wealthy peer nations.<br/>
<br/>
But is Cruickshank correct? Not really. The JCVI’s recommendations reflect more the norm among most developed nations. Even the New York Times would concur. Just read the recent “Covid Shots for Children.” David Leonhardt reports, “Much of the world has decided that most young children don’t need to receive Covid booster shots. The U.S. is an outlier.” Why is this the case? While the COVID jabs helped mitigate risk during the pandemic, now experts align for the most part that the benefits of these jabs for children in most cases “fail to outweigh the costs.”<br/>
<br/>
Contrary to Professor Cruickshank’s stance, the U.S. is an outlier in this regard. And Britain’s JCVI actually follows most of the peer national COVID-19 vaccine policy, where healthy children are not included in the seasonal vaccination campaign.<br/>
<br/>
Either Professor Cruickshank doesn’t understand very well COVID-19 vaccination policy among the rich nations, which we find hard to believe, or she is using her position and the media platform to promote a particularly biased agenda.<br/>
<br/>
What prompts the British immunologists’ call for a new vaccine strategy? She is trying to force an argument, a case, to spark a movement to pressure the government to open up its “limited” vaccination recommendation by attempting to connect it to problems like long COVID. Allow children to get the vaccines, and first, parents will line up to volunteer their children to get the jab. And this will lower long COVID rates, although there is limited evidence that in the age of Omicron long COVID is materially reduced by vaccination.<br/>
<br/>
“We know vaccination helps protect against long COVID, but we are still seeing new cases, so it’s uncertain how long protection persists from previous vaccinations.”<br/>
<br/>
She cites no studies. And that’s likely because there are no studies anywhere that conclusively prove causation linking COVID-19 vaccination conclusively to reductions in long COVID.<br/>
<br/>
Some observational studies suggest an association, but such investigations must be interpreted cautiously given their limitations. In one prominent recent population-based cohort study in Sweden published in The BMJ, Maria Bygdel and colleagues point out what they found to be “a strong association between COVID-19 vaccination before infection and reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of PCC (Post-COVID condition).<br/>
<br/>
But all sorts of limitations in this Swedish study means such examples should not be used by experts to prove conclusively that the vaccine reduces long COVID.<br/>
<br/>
Bygdel and colleagues point to studies looking into the impact of vaccination on existing PCC, “showing both no effect as well as alleviation and aggravation of PCC symptoms.” This means the science remains uncertain, the situation unfolding and therefore the responsible position of any scientist or doctor should be to acknowledge that reality.<br/>
<br/>
Another reason Cruickshank gives for the UK to open up its COVID-19 vaccination recommendations to more groups such as healthy children and young adults: the “government already negotiated the purchase of millions of doses of COVID vaccines, to be delivered in stages between 2021 and 2024.”<br/>
<br/>
Meaning that under the pretext of emergency the government made prior bulk procurement decisions and now such product would just go to waste because a large segment of the population is excluded from the vaccine category group established by JCVI.<br/>
<br/>
What the University of Manchester professor doesn’t touch on however, are the data involving cost-benefit analysis.<br/>
<br/>
Rather she implies that the JCVI could have some agenda. After all they are using a ‘bespoke, non-standard method of cost-effectiveness assessment” guiding priorities less any details.<br/>
<br/>
Professor Cruickshank fails to make the case for opening up the COVID-19 vaccine category to include healthy children and young people.<br/>
<br/>
She doesn’t’ produce any conclusive evidence of any kind, nor does she point to any morbidity or mortality numbers pressing the current JCVI position on the matter. In fact, she acknowledges the data involving COVID morbidity and mortality is better this year than last. Of course, this is the case, we are out of the pandemic, the emergency has been called off, and the Omicron variant is substantially milder in effect for the substantial majority of the population.<br/>
<br/>
The professor ignores any safety issues, a considerable factor in the young healthy population given the higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis. While she points to the U.S. as an example the JCVI should consider, she considers what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) package insert states about children and the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for example.<br/>
<br/>
Under Section 8.4 of this formal regulatory artifact:<br/>
<br/>
“The safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in individuals younger than 12 years of age have not been established. Evidence from clinical studies in individuals 6 months through 4 years of age strongly suggests that a single dose of COMIRNATY would be ineffective in individuals younger than 6 months of age.”<br/>
<br/>
She also ignores whether someone has been infected or not. Natural immunity also can wear off given the mutating pathogen, but it’s a major contributing factor undoubtedly the JCVI and most other developed countries have factored into their analysis.<br/>
<br/>
Professor Cruickshank cites a couple examples of developed nations making the vaccine universally available for healthy children and young adults--the U.S. and France. But as the New York Times now acknowledges, it’s the U.S that is an outlier, not the other way around, as Professor Cruickshank opines.<br/>
<br/>
Finally, Cruickshank evades the topic of the market’s general rejection of the COVID-19 vaccines in the USA, despite continuous promotional energies across both public health authorities and industry. Less than one fifth of the eligible population stepped forward to get the latest monovalent booster (BA.4/BA.5), and the percentage of children that ultimately received a booster jab targeting Omicron BA.4/BA.5 was far less.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/uk-immunologists-contradictory-take-on-covid-19-vaccination-children-97135ffc">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/uk-immunologists-contradictory-take-on-covid-19-vaccination-children-97135ffc</a>
</p>
***********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Long COVID can destroy your ability to exercise or do simple tasks — now we may know why</b><br/>
<br/>
Extreme fatigue and difficulty exercising are common symptoms of long COVID — now scientists may finally have discovered why.<br/>
<br/>
While most people who test positive for the coronavirus are over their symptoms within a week or two, more research is showing that some people continue to report symptoms — and even develop new ones — three months after their initial positive test, lasting for months or even years.<br/>
<br/>
A new study, published in the journal Nature Communications, suggests that some of these symptoms may persist or worsen as those with long COVID-19 experience biological changes in their bodies after working out — most notably involving their muscles.<br/>
<br/>
“We’re seeing clear changes in the muscles in these patients,” Michèle van Vugt, professor of internal medicine at Amsterdam UMC, said in a statement.<br/>
<br/>
The study found that long COVID patients had extreme fatigue, changes in muscle composition and widespread muscle damage.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers from Amsterdam UMC and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) analyzed data from 25 long-COVID patients with post-exertional malaise (PEM) — meaning their symptoms worsened after the minor physical exertion, causing them to crash from extreme fatigue — and 21 healthy control participants after cycling for 15 minutes.<br/>
<br/>
As patients experience PEM, even daily tasks like carrying groceries and brushing their teeth can be exhausting.<br/>
<br/>
After analyzing blood and muscle tissue samples, the researchers discovered that those with long COVID had various abnormalities in their muscle tissue.<br/>
<br/>
“At the cellular level, we saw that the mitochondria of the muscle, also known as the energy factories of the cell, function less well and that they produce less energy,” Rob Wüst, assistant professor at the Department of Human Movement Sciences at VU University, explained in a statement.<br/>
<br/>
“So, the cause of the fatigue is really biological. The brain needs energy to think. Muscles need energy to move.”<br/>
<br/>
This biological decrease in energy is specific to those with PEM and not seen in other chronic illnesses.<br/>
<br/>
“Normally we know from all the other chronic diseases that exercise is good for you, that exercise is medicine,” Wüst told National Geographic. “However, these patients do get worse.”<br/>
<br/>
Long COVID patients were also found to have a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, which may also explain some of the fatigue.<br/>
<br/>
These muscle fibers deplete energy faster, meaning they exhaust quicker.<br/>
<br/>
“We know that it is difficult to change fiber types in people and that it doesn’t happen with inactivity,” Wüst told National Geographic. “Something else is changing the fiber types.”<br/>
<br/>
The cause of this change is still unclear.<br/>
<br/>
Along with changes to energy production and muscle composition, the research team also found those with long COVID had muscle damage — muscle scarring, inflammation and blood clots before and after working out.<br/>
<br/>
Studies have shown that those with PEM struggle to recover from exercise, but this latest research showed that this may be caused by repeated overexertion — even from daily tasks — that prohibit the body from fully recovering.<br/>
<br/>
The experts noted that this breakthrough will help guide more appropriate treatments for those with long-term COVID, though not everyone would necessarily benefit in the same ways.<br/>
<br/>
“Keep in mind that every patient has a different limit,” Brent Appelman, a researcher at Amsterdam UMC, said in a statement.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://nypost.com/2024/02/16/lifestyle/long-covid-can-destroy-your-ability-to-exercise-or-do-simple-tasks-now-we-may-know-why/">https://nypost.com/2024/02/16/lifestyle/long-covid-can-destroy-your-ability-to-exercise-or-do-simple-tasks-now-we-may-know-why/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-71353632456039501972024-02-15T22:29:00.001+13:002024-02-15T22:29:57.528+13:00
<br/>
<b> Censored again</b><br/>
<br/>
My post of 12th relating Covid to drug side-effects has been deleted by Google, who own Blogspot. The original story that I reproduced is here:<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/was-covid-19-an-iatrogenic-pandemic-financial-quant-analyst-suggests-this-is-the-case-2af9b5ba">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/was-covid-19-an-iatrogenic-pandemic-financial-quant-analyst-suggests-this-is-the-case-2af9b5ba</a>
</p>
It is very iconoclastic<br/>
<br/>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Forced Vaccination In Australia Should Be A Crime</b><br/>
<br/>
Fact 1 – Vaccines did not control the risk from infectious diseases. This is an historical fact that is being erased by big pharma funding.<br/>
<br/>
Fact 2 – Childhood chronic illnesses and deaths have increased significantly in a direct dose-response relationship with the increased use of childhood vaccines for 30 years.<br/>
<br/>
This correlation is being ignored yet is the strongest sign of a causal link when governments do not use scientific methodology to prove the vaccines are harmless before they market them to the public.<br/>
<br/>
Conclusion: There is no empirical evidence that any vaccine is safe or necessary for controlling infectious diseases. Hence, the use of mandatory policies with coercive strategies is a crime against the population.<br/>
<br/>
Individuals have the right to choose which ones they use and this does not make them an ‘antivaxxer’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist’. It makes them a critical thinker who is doing a proper risk analysis of the use of each vaccine (aka drug) in yourself or your child, according to your genetic make-up. (A summary pamphlet of the main arguments de-bunking mandatory vaccination in my PhD)<br/>
<br/>
When government policies are built on fraud society begins to crumble and this is what we are seeing in Australia today. Most people can sense that lies are being told by the government and our institutions but so many people are paid to tell these lies, particularly our politicians and medical profession, that the Australian population is confused, anxious, depressed – and more and more divided. Our young people are struggling.<br/>
<br/>
Australia is turning into a totalitarian state. Mental health and suicides are skyrocketing yet television portrays this country as a ‘paradise on earth’. The inversion of reality.<br/>
<br/>
Does this remind you of 2020 when the television told you we were in a ‘pandemic’ but when you looked out your window nothing had changed – the sun was shining and no one was dropping dead or getting ill around you?<br/>
<br/>
But then you watched the TV and saw those distressing pictures of hospitals and heavily gowned up staff.<br/>
<br/>
Reality can be inverted by a biased media:<br/>
<br/>
‘The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.’ (George Orwell).<br/>
<br/>
Suffice to say you are being told what to think by a corporate-funded media and the lies become truths when history is erased and our government officials receive the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for telling these lies.<br/>
<br/>
Meanwhile, your academics and health professionals get their reputations destroyed by the media for providing evidence of the truth. Speaking truth to power when money is power.<br/>
<br/>
Totalitarianism is building globally as freedom of speech is curtailed by new laws to protect government lies. These laws are already being discussed in the Australian parliament and freedom is being lost by the increase in CCTV cameras and Centrally Managed Smart (CMS) Lights with 5g, in previously peaceful and natural spaces.<br/>
<br/>
This infrastructure is being put up by our councils that are now called ‘The City of …..’ to fit in with the WEF’s Smart City agenda. Look up the UN Agenda 21 and 30.<br/>
<br/>
The Medical Fraud in Government Vaccination Policies<br/>
<br/>
Vaccination policies are promoted to the public as ‘health’ policies but like mainstream media, reality can be inverted when they are not based on empirical (observed) scientific evidence.<br/>
<br/>
That is, when policies are based on claims of safety and efficacy without evidence, they result in the opposite outcomes in the population – sickness not health.<br/>
<br/>
This is happening because of the influence of the medical-industry complex through funding, in every area of scientific methodology – scientific journals, research institutions, education, media and of course Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA) that is 96 percent funded by the industry whose drugs it approves AND monitors for safety.<br/>
<br/>
Who’s interests do you think the TGA is protecting?<br/>
<br/>
This huge conflict of interest in all our institutions results in a biasing of information on drug safety and efficacy, that is presented to the public in government policies. A situation that results in life or death consequences, as well as a decline in quality of life for many who develop chronic illnesses.<br/>
<br/>
The published data clearly shows a significant increase in chronic illness in children that has occurred over the last 30 years in all developed countries, as the vaccination schedule expanded to multiple vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
Young people are also unaware that most people over 30 years old, have NEVER had these vaccines. Why ? Because vaccines did not control the risk from infectious diseases. This is an historical fact that is being erased by big pharma funding and young people are being deceived.<br/>
<br/>
This historical fact makes coercive and mandatory vaccination a crime against the population.<br/>
<br/>
So when did the inversion of these facts start to occur in society? In 1986 the US Congress, under Ronald Reagan, removed all liability from pharmaceutical companies for any drug that they called a ‘vaccine’.<br/>
<br/>
Why would you need to indemnify drug companies if their drug only had ‘rare’ adverse health outcomes?<br/>
<br/>
When governments claim that adverse events (AEs) after vaccines are ‘rare’, an illusion can be created by the corporate-funded mainstream media by rarely reporting adverse events, and those that get compensated, are gagged by their legal contracts from speaking about their injury.<br/>
<br/>
This has gradually been happening over the last three decades.<br/>
<br/>
These public-private partnerships are creating the illusion that childhood vaccines are safe and necessary, through bias and framing of the facts. In a similar way that the illusion of a pandemic was created in 2020 in the media.<br/>
<br/>
When government’s and media moguls work together in public-private partnerships you have fascism under Mussolini’s definition.<br/>
<br/>
The definition of fascism by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th Ed):<br/>
<br/>
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.<br/>
<br/>
This centralised government is well advanced in Australia, and Australians have felt the violent suppression of the totalitarian Liberal and Labor governments over the last decade as we challenged the implementation of coercive and mandatory vaccination policies in Federal policies.<br/>
<br/>
If a parent, researcher, doctor or politician speaks against the use of mandatory vaccination policies, then they are gas lighted and their reputations smeared. This is another strategy that is used to tell you what to think not how to think.<br/>
<br/>
See my website Vaccination Decisions for the reality and why as a parent I put my reputation on the line.<br/>
<br/>
In 2016 the promotion of the childhood vaccination program of 16+ vaccines with multiple doses of each, was reduced to the jingle No Jab No Pay/Play in the media. Anyone who challenged these policies was ridiculed and dismissed as an ‘antivaxxer’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist’.<br/>
<br/>
Even academics and health professionals who were providing the evidence for the right to choose this medical intervention.<br/>
<br/>
Choice is NOT antivaccination.<br/>
<br/>
These are strategies used to tell you what to think about vaccines not how to think. The pro-vaxxers could not rely on evidence because there is NO evidence to support mandatory vaccination with any vaccine.<br/>
<br/>
It is blind faith controlled by money.<br/>
<br/>
This means the coercive vaccination policies in Australia are harming and dividing the population because they have not been supported by empirical (observed) scientific evidence. They are baseless claims.<br/>
<br/>
This government policy is causing death and illness (democide) because the government is ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the destruction of health in the population – and it has ignored this evidence for 30 years.<br/>
<br/>
My book Vaccination: Australian’s Loss of Health Freedom reveals many more of the political strategies used to invert reality for vested interests in government policy, big pharma’s influence and the control of populations.<br/>
<br/>
“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force” (George Orwell)<br/>
<br/>
Here is Elizabeth Hart’s latest substack revealing the time-line of how the Australian government destroyed voluntary informed consent that is a requirement under all doctors and health practitioners ethical guidelines – The Destruction of Voluntary Informed Consent via Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination.<br/>
<br/>
Here is a moving song and video of the Forest of the Fallen showing the thousands of people that died prematurely or lost their quality of life after taking the COVID19 “vaccines” from 2021-2024 (genetically engineered products that were not tested to see if they prevent COVID-19 disease) – Forest of the Fallen by Kelly Newton-Wordsworth<br/>
<br/>
Forest of the Fallen is being set up all over Australia and people are suffering mental health issues from being gas lighted and not acknowledged as as having a vaccine-injury.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/forced-vaccination-in-australia-should-be-a-crime/">https://principia-scientific.com/forced-vaccination-in-australia-should-be-a-crime/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-21606794262314192872024-02-15T00:09:00.002+13:002024-02-15T00:09:56.390+13:00<br><br/>
<br/>
<b> Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients at Higher Odds for Long COVID—Large 3+ Million Patient CDC-Backed Study</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> This is not exactly surprising. If they were hospitalized,they were sicker to start with</i><br/>
<br/>
A group of medical researchers targeting real-world data via electronic health records (EHR) known as PCORnet Network Partners sought to better understand post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), another term for long COVID by comparing the occurrence of specific COVID-associated symptoms against conditions as potential PASC 31-to 150-day following a SARS-CoV-2 test among both adults and children with positive and negative test results. The group conducted this retrospective cohort study by tapping into the EHR data from 43 PCORnet sites participating in a national COVID-19 surveillance program.<br/>
<br/>
This study included 3,091,580 adults (316,249 SARS-CoV-2 positive; 2,775,331 negative) and 675,643 children (62,131 positive; 613,512 negative) who had a SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test during March 1, 2020–May 31, 2021, documented in their EHR. The investigators employed use of logistic regression to calculate the odds of having a symptom and Cox models to calculate the risk of having a newly diagnosed condition associated with a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Represented by Harvard Medical School physician-epidemiologist Jason Block, MD, MPH, the authors report, “Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially those who were hospitalized, were at higher risk of being diagnosed with certain symptoms and conditions after acute infection.”<br/>
<br/>
With the outcomes published in BMC Infectious Diseases, the entire study was part of PCORnet, the national research network of health systems set up to facilitate multi-site research using EHR data via a standardized common data model across all sites. The 43 PCORnet sites participating in the national COVID-19 surveillance program were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).<br/>
<br/>
Findings<br/>
<br/>
Once adjusting baseline covariates, Dr. Block and colleagues report, “Hospitalized adults and children with a positive test had increased odds of being diagnosed with ≥ 1 symptom (adults: adjusted odds ratio[aOR], 1.17[95% CI, 1.11–1.23]; children: aOR, 1.18[95% CI, 1.08–1.28]) or shortness of breath (adults: aOR, 1.50[95% CI, 1.38–1.63]; children: aOR, 1.40[95% CI, 1.15–1.70]) 31–150 days following a SARS-CoV-2 test compared with hospitalized individuals with a negative test.”<br/>
<br/>
Those patients who were both hospitalized and tested positive for COVID-19 faced greater odds of diagnoses with ≥ 3 symptoms or fatigue compared with those patients testing negative.<br/>
<br/>
“The risks of being newly diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio[aHR], 1.25[95% CI, 1.17–1.33]), hematologic disorders (aHR, 1.19[95% CI, 1.11–1.28]), or respiratory disease (aHR, 1.44[95% CI, 1.30–1.60]) were higher among hospitalized adults with a positive test compared with those with a negative test.”<br/>
<br/>
According to the PCORnet Network Partners analyses, adult patients non-hospitalized but with a positive COVID-19 test face higher odds, or increased risk, of being diagnosed with certain symptoms or conditions.<br/>
<br/>
Limitations<br/>
<br/>
An observational study this study isn’t designed to conclusively prove causation. The authors identify several limitations included in the published output. For example, there are inherent limitations based on the specific set of medical records used for this study. All sorts of complex assumptions must be made to overcome various biases and the like. The findings must be interpreted cautiously.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/hospitalized-covid-19-patients-at-higher-odds-for-long-covidlarge-3-million-patient-cdc-backed-study-ba230c21">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/hospitalized-covid-19-patients-at-higher-odds-for-long-covidlarge-3-million-patient-cdc-backed-study-ba230c21</a>
</p>
********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Ventricular Tachycardia Cardiac Arrest after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination</b><br/>
<br/>
Researchers Fail to Assess Myocardial mRNA/Spike Protein and Loading Death Reports with Incongruous "Mild" and "Benefits Outweigh Risk" Statements<br/>
<br/>
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH<br/>
<br/>
As the modern world is recognizing record numbers of unexpected deaths with no antecedent disease as a result of cardiac arrest, the medical literature is begrudgingly allowing sporadic case reports to be published. It is reasonable to conclude there must be tremendous resistance against publishing large series of cardiac arrests. The bias probably starts with the doctors who are receiving these cases in the emergency room with CPR in progress.<br/>
<br/>
Minato et al, reported a fatal vaccine-induced ventricular tachycardia arrest in a man around age 40 years the day after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. As a cardiologist, I see this case as a straightforward myocarditis cardiac arrest. However the manuscript is laced with statements that seem to placate fellow authors, reviewers and editors on continued mass vaccination. For example, without presenting any data, the authors state “in most cases the symptoms are mild and tend to resolve on their own.” Later in the abstract “the benefits of vaccination appear to outweigh the benefits.”<br/>
<br/>
These statements are juxtaposed to their description of a completely unnecessary death of a Japanese man in his forties. The authors fail to stain for mRNA or Spike protein or in heart tissue. When evaluated, both have been found in fatal cases such as this making it abundantly clear it was a vaccine death (Krauson et al, Baumeier et al).<br/>
<br/>
This paper serves the purpose of 1) reporting a exemplary case of fatal COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis, 2) to show the biased psychology of researchers, reviewers, and editors who are still in mass formation and pursuing continued vaccination no matter how many more cardiac arrests occur among the vaccinated.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/ventricular-tachycardia-cardiac-arrest-after-mrna-covid-19-vaccination-6f63afac">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/ventricular-tachycardia-cardiac-arrest-after-mrna-covid-19-vaccination-6f63afac</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-43125040564421377432024-02-13T17:57:00.001+13:002024-02-13T17:57:14.568+13:00<br><b> Was the Covid cure worse than the disease?</b><br/>
<br/>
A lot of Australians are dying. Many politely say: We need to know why. …but really now, how long must polite company continue this faux naivety?<br/>
<br/>
The Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), is the only body in Australia that undertook the task to investigate why Australian Excess Deaths continue to equate to about two jumbo jet crashes each week, and every week, since early 2021. That is two jumbo jets of dead Australians a week.<br/>
<br/>
Why did AMPS step up thus?<br/>
<br/>
Because the Australian Senate voted down a motion last year to hold hearings into why Australia has been experiencing this surge in Excess Deaths. Again this week, Labor and the Greens voted against investigating why Australia is experiencing continued excess mortality that began early 2021. Our elected officials turned their backs on us.<br/>
<br/>
You see, the two major federal political parties were instrumental in motivating state governments to lock down Australians, confining essentially millions of people to their homes, with the only hope of release back into the general community being dependent on receiving a Covid vaccine, all to be recorded, of course, on vaccine passports. Millions of others had no choice – no jab meant no job. With bills to pay, mortgages to service, and kids to feed, many surrendered to this State-sponsored coercion.<br/>
<br/>
With no equivalent Bill of Rights to protect the Australian people, and the almost complete abolition of human rights, many among the millions desperate to regain their fundamental freedoms succumbed to this disgusting and brutal authoritarianism. Australia’s political overlords had successfully revived our early penal colony history, where throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022, we became ruled by physical force and rubber bullets.<br/>
<br/>
And it worked – by the end of 2021, somewhere between 85-95 per cent of Australians had fallen victim to the many tactics employed by our federal and state governments, to receive the ‘safe and effective’ gene-based injections.<br/>
<br/>
Now, a lot of Australians are dying. People are asking, why?<br/>
<br/>
To be clear, in 2020 Australia experienced below average All-Cause Mortality, despite apparently the presence of a highly infectious and deadly virus said to be circulating amongst us. In fact, deaths due to respiratory disease were 16.2 per cent lower, while influenza and pneumonia deaths were 36 per cent lower. Does that read like a pandemic to you? Covid deaths didn’t even break into our top 10 leading causes of death, and were at 832, far below the more than 3,000 suicides. So low were Covid deaths that Australia did not appear to have data to support the urgent cries from politicians, here and globally, to the effect that we all were facing imminent death from SARS-CoV-2. In truth, we faced and experienced a political theatre.<br/>
<br/>
It is our opinion that this is why the Australian Senate continues to look the other way, now that it finds itself confronted by the fallout from a theatre of the absurd, the violent, and the dishonest.<br/>
<br/>
In October 2023, AMPS released the investigative findings of over 30 science and medical authors into Australia’s Excess Deaths. In brief, we suspect that Australia may be suffering from an iatrogenic disaster potentially caused by the uptake of Covid vaccines.<br/>
<br/>
The book is simply titled out of respect for the dead – Too Many Dead: An Inquiry into Australia’s Excess Mortality.<br/>
<br/>
Some of the generous co-authors include Associate Professor Peter Doshi, Edward Dowd, Phillip Altman PhD, Andrew Madry PhD, Geoff Pain PhD, Wilson Sy PhD, Dr Monique O’Connor, Conni Turni PhD and Astrid Lefringhausen PhD, Jessica Rose PhD, Dr Tess Lawrie, Professor Norman Fenton, Dr Clare Pain, and Dr Aseem Malhotra, together with another 21 science and medical doctors of great distinction.<br/>
<br/>
To say no stone was left unturned by such an esteemed ensemble of scientific and medical expertise would be an understatement. As the book notes:<br/>
<br/>
This book has been assembled by an aggregation of highly-qualified and experienced doctors and researchers who take their ethics seriously. Here, information has not been withheld, or, worse, blocked.<br/>
<br/>
AMPS did also fairly invite Australian medical regulators to contribute their analysis and synthesis of the Australian data, where it was hoped they would call upon the over 3,500 international case studies casting extreme doubt over the integrity of the Covid vaccines. Instead of a comprehensive contribution, there was silence; no response was provided. In correspondence to a previous letter, former head of the Department of Health, Mr Brendan Murphy, sent a rather brief letter, which read in part:<br/>
<br/>
Regarding excess mortality statistics, there is no credible evidence to suggest that excess mortality is related to Covid vaccination either in Australia or internationally.<br/>
<br/>
‘No credible evidence’?<br/>
<br/>
In pondering these words from Australia’s (former) chief health bureaucrat, Too Many Dead observes:<br/>
<br/>
For three years Australia succumbed to the will of corporate ideologues in big pharma, big media, big finance, and big government who seem to prioritise profit over people. This enslavement, and it is nothing less, may help to explain these high excess death rates being witnessed now at more than 15 per cent above baseline mortality. Put another way, AMPS and all ethical and informed doctors are horrified at the ten or twenty or thirty thousand excess deaths in this country in the time since March, 2021. Australian and other Western data show a mass casualty event; peculiarly, the higher figures are occurring in the countries that are highly injected, but our political and medical authorities seem to think there is nothing worth scrutiny. Now, with this book, it has been probed. This investigation has had to cut straight across the lockstep media messaging, the medical misinformation and the censorship.<br/>
<br/>
Too Many Dead shall be seen through the years as a book of the age of Covid, a historic document gathering together meticulous facts that cause governments everywhere fear for what they have wrought and brought upon their people, death, and the pestilence of a thousand forms of injury brought and wrought by their ‘safe and effective’ solution to a non-pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
I commend the authors of Too Many Dead for bravely stepping into the pages of history bearing the torch of Truth.<br/>
<br/>
And to you good readers on far away shores I commend Too Many Dead as a systematic and disciplined account, and blueprint, for beginning the same journey into your Truth, for what has befallen every nation that opted to secure benefits for big pharma first, before the peace and health of their people … their mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, and our innocent infants.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/the-dying-of-down-under/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/the-dying-of-down-under/</a>
</p>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> COVID-19 Likely Linked to Higher Risk of Dementia</b><br/>
<br/>
Researchers from Columbia University, University of Oxford and Lancaster University conducted a thorough search across several prominent medical databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, medRxiv, and PQDT Global) for studies published in English from January 2020 to December 2023. The medical researchers sought to understand the risk of developing new-onset dementia (NOD) using the Risk Ratio (RR) for measurement.<br/>
<br/>
Established control groups were segmented as (i) a non-COVID cohort with other respiratory infections [control group (C1)]; and (ii) a non-COVID cohort with otherwise unspecified health statuses [control group (C2)]. Ensuing follow-up periods were divided into intervals of 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-COVID. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023491714).<br/>
<br/>
What was the study authors’ aim? The relationship between COVID-19 infection and the increased likelihood of older adults developing NOD, given this connection, remains elusive. Hence the study mostly sought to investigate the potential role of COVID-19 in leading to NOD among older adults aged 60 years and older over various time intervals.<br/>
<br/>
While the study did not generate conclusive evidence, the study team does conclude that “COVID-19 infection may be linked to a higher risk of NOD in recovered old adults at the subacute and chronic stages following COVID-19 diagnosis. This risk appears to be on par with that associated with other respiratory infections.”<br/>
<br/>
Recently accepted to Preprints with The Lancet, the study was represented by Dan Shan, Columbia University.<br/>
<br/>
The Findings<br/>
<br/>
The study team’s investigation included 11 studies, consisting of 939,824 post-COVID-19 cases and 6,765,117 controls.<br/>
<br/>
Applying the pooled analysis pointed to “a significant link between COVID-19 infection and an increased risk of NOD (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.21–2.08). In subgroup analyses, NOD risk was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group compared to C2 at 12 months post-COVID (RR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.41–2.38), but not at 3 (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.46–1.65) or 6 months (RR = 1.73, 95% CI 0.72–4.14).”<br/>
<br/>
When comparing to C1, “the risk increase was not significantly remarkable at 3 (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.35–2.57), 6 (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.07–1.20), and 12 months (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.91–1.38), and overall (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.92–1.38).”<br/>
<br/>
The authors disclose that females are associated with a higher risk of developing NOD in the COVID-positive group (RR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.53–1.78) and C2 group (RR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.22–1.44).<br/>
<br/>
Using definitions from the American Thoracic Society guidelines, patients with severe COVID-19 “were significantly much more prone to developing NOD than those with non-severe infections (RR = 17.58, 95% CI 10.48–29.49).” A striking finding was that “cognitive impairment was nearly twice as likely in COVID-19 survivors compared to those uninfected (RR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.52–2.43).”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/pooled-analysis-finds-covid-19-likely-linked-to-higher-risk-of-new-onset-dementia-8f0e7222">https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/pooled-analysis-finds-covid-19-likely-linked-to-higher-risk-of-new-onset-dementia-8f0e7222</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://antigreen.blogspot.com">http://antigreen.blogspot.com</a> (GREENIE WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com">http://snorphty.blogspot.com</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://immigwatch.blogspot.com">https://immigwatch.blogspot.com</a> (IMMIGRATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://awesternheart.blogspot.com">https://awesternheart.blogspot.com</a> (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0