New Canadian vaccine works

As SARS-CoV2 evolves into more distant Omicron variants, companies continue to invest in research and development and potentially vie for lucrative government contracts for future COVID-19 vaccine deals. In this context, the Canada based Providence Therapeutics mRNA platform appears to support the acceleration of next-generation COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

Researchers affiliated the clinical-stage mRNA platform company developing vaccines for cancers and infectious disease, report on a study comparing their investigational mRNA vaccine with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 (Comirnaty). When considering this approach to mRNA vaccine development the company touts its “dynamic and adaptable responses, emphasizing the importance of sustained vaccination strategies.”

How did the Canadian company’s experimental vaccine targeting COVID-19 compare against Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 in a Phase 2 clinical trial?

With results of this study (NCT05175742) published in Nature Scientific Reports, the study team based out of Canada reports on the results of the head on comparison study leveraging trial sites in Canada and South Africa.

The Study

In this investigation, the sponsor-funded study looks at their COVID-19 vaccine called PTX-COVID19-B mRNA Humoral Vaccine, developed to prevent COVID-19 in a general population. Importantly, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine does not stop viral transmission but reduces the probability of morbidity and mortality.

For comparison of the vaccines, the study’s protocol was designed to produce the data to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of PTX-COVID19-B compared to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in healthy seronegative adults aged 18 to 64.

An observer-blind, double-dummy, randomized immunobridging phase 2 study, the researchers compared the immunogenicity induced by two doses of 40 μg PTX-COVID19-B vaccine candidate administered 28 days apart, with the response induced by two doses of 30 µg Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2), administered 21 days apart, in Nucleocapsid-protein seronegative adults, again ranging in age from 18–64 years.

The study team reports that both vaccines were administrated via intramuscular injection in the deltoid muscle. Two weeks after the second dose, the neutralizing antibody (NAb) geometric mean titer ratio and seroconversion rate met the non-inferiority criteria, successfully achieving the primary immunogenicity endpoints of the study. PTX-COVID19-B demonstrated similar safety and tolerability profile to BNT162b2 vaccine.

Importantly, a non-inferiority trial is a study that determines if a new treatment is not worse than an active treatment it is being compared to. These trials are used when a placebo (an inactive treatment) cannot be used, or when the incremental benefits of newly developed treatments may be only marginal over existing treatments, which appears to be the case here.

While NAb with lowest response was detected in subjects with low-to-undetectable NAb at baseline or no reported breakthrough infection, the study investigators also found that the study result demonstrates induction of cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses by PTX-COVID19-B.

Cell-mediated immunity (CMI), also known as cell-mediated immune response or cell-mediated immune defense, is a crucial aspect of the immune system's defense mechanism. It involves specialized cells, primarily T lymphocytes (T cells), which directly attack and destroy infected or abnormal cell

Summary

According to the entry, the candidate PTX-COVID19-B demonstrated favorable safety profile along with immunogenicity similar to the active comparator BNT162b2 vaccine.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/canadian-mrna-develop-phase-2-head-on-evaluation-versus-pfizers-bnt162b2-meets-non-inferiority-endpoint-a726d6b1

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

Now That Puberty Blockers Have Been Banned, it’s Time to Ban Covid Vaccines for Children Too

Puberty blockers have finally been banned in the U.K. The decision came after an independent review of services for children under 18 and a sharp rise in referrals to the Gender Identity Development Service run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, which is closing at the end of March.

“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty-suppressing hormones” an NHS spokesperson told the Telegraph on March 12th 2024.

MPs and media personalities have come out in support of this move. But in reality, most of them have remained silent on this issue up until now. It has previously been considered too politically sensitive and controversial to comment on, with the threat of being branded a ‘transphobe’ or ‘bigot’ no doubt playing a significant role in their collective silence. Nonetheless, I have yet to meet a single person, outside of social media, who agrees that puberty blockers are either ethical or safe. Thankfully, strong and courageous voices, such as J.K. Rowling, Allison Pearson, Molly Kingsley and Jordan Peterson have been calling out the dangers of this practice from the start. They are now clearly vindicated.

When the issue is stripped back to its essence, puberty blockers have been banned on the basis of long established medical ethics. Specifically, that children should never be given a medical intervention which they do not need and which poses known and serious risks to them – a view which before 2020 would have been the reasonable position to take. Indeed, to argue otherwise would have been regarded as extreme. The factor which changed after 2020 was the rollout of the Covid vaccines to children. Seemingly overnight, medical ethics was suspended and inverted in favour of pushing ahead with the vaccine rollout. However, if we apply the same principles behind the banning of puberty blockers to the Covid vaccines, they would also be banned for children with immediate effect.

The Covid vaccine rollout to children has always been controversial. Consider:

Covid vaccinations were not recommended by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) for under-16s, a decision overridden by the Chief Medical Officers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

When Matt Hancock was Health Secretary, he stated in Parliament that the Covid vaccines were for the adult population only. He said that children would not be offered the vaccine because it had not been tested on children and that they were at low risk from Covid. Despite this, he then supported the rollout to the nation’s children.

There are still no long-term safety data for the Covid vaccines (and at the time of the rollout to children, incomplete short-term and no medium-term safety data).
Covid vaccines pose known and very serious risks (these include potentially fatal myocarditis, pericarditis etc.) Tragically, there have also been coroner confirmed deaths caused by the Covid vaccines.

A child can still catch and spread Covid when vaccinated against the virus.

Healthy children are at extremely low risk of serious illness from Covid, so the risks posed by the vaccines outweigh any possible benefit for a child.

When Sajid Javid was Health Secretary, he stated that 12 to 15 year-old children would have the final say on whether or not to receive the Covid vaccine. Children were told that they were allowed to override their parents’ decision. This remains, in my opinion, the most egregious act of the entire pandemic.

The Government chose Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company with a long history of criminal and medical negligence (and which paid the biggest criminal fine in U.S. history) as the company to provide the Covid vaccine for our children. This really should have been a red flag from the start.

One of the most controversial points was the decision by the U.K. Government to shut down its own Ethics Committee when its members raised serious concerns about the Covid vaccine rollout to children.

Like puberty blockers, the general public appears to have been opposed to the Covid vaccine rollout to children. In the end, 89.4% of five to 11-year-olds did not receive a single Covid vaccine or booster. This is despite a multi-million pound marketing campaign directed at children and their parents. Over 50% of the 12-15 year old cohort did not receive a single dose either.

The evidence keeps stacking up against the Covid vaccines

MPs have said they believe the MHRA were aware of heart and clotting issues caused by the Covid vaccines in February 2021 but did not highlight the problems for several months. The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on pandemic response and recovery raised “serious patient safety concerns”, claiming that “far from protecting patients” the regulator operates in a way that “puts them at serious risk”. Some 25 MPs across four parties wrote to the Health Select Committee asking for an urgent investigation.

The group also warned that the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system – which encourages patients and doctors to flag-up medicine side effects – “grossly” underestimates complexities, and in some instances picks up just one in 180 cases of harm.

MPs and peers have also accused the Health Secretary of withholding data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths, and criticised a “wall of silence” on the topic. A cross-party group has written to Victoria Atkins to sound alarm about the “growing public and professional concerns” at the U.K.’s rates of excess deaths since 2020.

With the growing evidence that something is seriously amiss with the Covid vaccines, surely we should stop giving them to our children? Currently within the U.K., children who are considered vulnerable (including those with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and ADHD) and those living with clinically vulnerable adults are eligible for the vaccine. It is also possible for parents to privately purchase the Covid vaccine for their children if they are 12 years old or over. In light of the ban on puberty blockers, it makes sense to apply this thinking to the Covid vaccines too.

Things will change when members of the public speak up

Being critical of puberty blockers will become the accepted narrative now that they have been banned. Members of the public, media personalities and politicians will begin to openly express this position (which has always been the majority view). However, we need to get to a point when people begin to express opinions which they genuinely hold but are still considered controversial. Expressing lawful opinions about sensitive topics, particularly when it comes to safeguarding children against harm, should be encouraged and not vilified.

All of the safeguarding training across workplace sectors is easily dismantled and destroyed in the face of moral cowardice. As a former headteacher, with 30 years’ experience within the education sector, I had to attend annual safeguarding training which laid out what an education professional must do when he or she has concerns about a child. The training always highlighted examples in which entire organisations have been complicit in widespread abuse.

We are told that it is not just the perpetrators of the abuse who are accountable. Those who are not directly involved in the abuse, but who remain silent about it, are equally accountable under law. These individuals, woefully lacking in moral courage, place their self-preservation ahead of the needs of the children in their care. It is also a serious breach of their legal duty to safeguard children against harm.

Of course, cancel culture, as well as employers evangelised by whatever the latest thing happens to be, inhibits free speech. If an opinion goes against the current narrative, employees are likely to be attacked for expressing it. Whether that be criticism of puberty blockers, the Covid vaccines, climate alarmism, drag queen storytime or anything else. Expressing lawful opinions about controversial and politically sensitive topics will almost always result in some sort of attack. However, we must draw a line when it comes to safeguarding children against harm.

As the only U.K. headteacher to publicly express concerns about lockdowns, masking kids and the Covid vaccines for children, I have experienced multiple attacks and personal losses. This is why I am now taking my former employer, East Sussex County Council, to court. In the end, expressing my valid concerns in a lawful and moderate manner cost me my career. My employer tried to silence me through the complaints and investigation process, but I continued to express my concerns. I was fulfilling my legal and moral duty in doing so. My philosophical belief in the importance of critical thinking, freedom of speech and safeguarding children underpins my case. It is predicted to set an important legal precedent for free speech in the workplace and has gained the overwhelming support of the public, high-profile free speech advocates and the Daily Telegraph.

But it needn’t result in expensive court cases and conflict if everyone expressed their lawful opinions about the things which matter. The ban on puberty blockers is a fantastic development in the battle to protect our children, but those who were silent about it are partly responsible for the delay. This abhorrent medical intervention should have been banned long ago. The same principles applied to the ban on puberty blockers should now be applied to the Covid vaccines for children. Children do not need this medical intervention, which is ineffective and known to cause harm. The general public is clearly in agreement so the time to speak up about it is now. Silence should never be an option when safeguarding children against harm.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/19/now-that-puberty-blockers-have-been-banned-its-time-to-ban-covid-vaccines-for-children-too/

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murthy v. Missouri Puts Government Censorship on Trial

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, formerly Missouri v. Biden, the president whose administration has been accused of strong-arming Big Tech to remove “objectionable posts.” The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, joined by doctors such as Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, argue that the administration censored dissenting speech on COVID-19 and other policies by pressuring tech platforms to remove or restrict posts.

Consider this account from Martin Kulldorff, former professor of medicine at Harvard and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBR) with Dr. Bhattacharya and Oxford University’s Sunetra Gupta, a leading infectious-disease epidemiologist. The GBR, signed by thousands of medical scientists, advocated an approach to the pandemic similar to the one taken by Kulldorff’s native Sweden, which declined to shut down schools.

Kulldorff recalls that although Sweden had the lowest excess mortality among major European countries and “despite being a Harvard professor, I was unable to publish my thoughts in American media. Twitter (now X) put me on the platform’s Trends Blacklist.” Twitter did the same to Dr. Bhattacharya.

“Seeking to prop up Anthony Fauci and the lockdown policies he promoted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the plaintiffs explain, “Twitter (and other Big Tech companies) intentionally blacklisted, censored, suppressed, and targeted the GBD and its signers.”

National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins smeared the GBD authors as “fringe epidemiologists,” but they were far more qualified than Collins, a “lab scientist with limited public-health experience,” according to Kulldorff. Fauci, longtime boss of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a nonpracticing physician whose bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry. The government’s white-coat supremacists were causing extensive damage, and the GBD scientists called them out.

“It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage,” notes Kulldorff, “not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world—all will suffer.”

As the ousted Harvard professor explains, “The pursuit of truth requires academic freedom with open, passionate, and civilized scientific discourse, with zero tolerance for slander, bullying, or cancellation.” That sort of activity has been going on at Facebook for some time.

In 2018, in his first public testimony before Congress, CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook was collaborating with the investigation of President Trump by former FBI director Robert Mueller. The FBI had interviewed some Facebook employees, but Zuckerberg would not say who they were “because our work with the special counsel is confidential.”

When Sen. Ted Cruz asked Zuckerberg if Facebook was a “neutral forum,” the CEO seemed puzzled by the concept. Sen. Cory Gardner asked if the government had ever demanded that Facebook remove a page from the site. “Yes, I believe so,” said Zuckerberg. He did not reveal the content of the page or when the removal had taken place.

Joe Biden has accused Facebook of “killing people” with vaccine misinformation. From the ordeals of Kulldorff, Bhattacharya and others, it’s now clear that the Biden administration was peddling misinformation, slandering the GBD scientists, and blocking them from setting forth the truth to the widest possible audience.

“In an environment where just about every decision tech platforms make becomes highly politicized,” one article previewing Murthy v. Missouri explains, “lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have grown accustomed to making pointed—if, often empty—threats at Big Tech. Now, the Supreme Court will decide just how far those threats can go.”

Murthy v. Missouri aside, it’s clear that white-coat supremacy and government censorship are incompatible with a free, safe, and healthy society.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/03/15/murthy-v-missouri-puts-government-censorship-on-trial/?omhide=true&trk=rm

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

Mandatory lockdowns had almost no benefit—but did significant economic and health-related damage

Four years ago this week Vice President Mike Pence announced the White House’s “15 days to slow the spread” campaign. What followed was the unprecedented use of lockdowns, school closings and other sweeping measures to mitigate Covid-19.

Four years later, we know what many of us suspected then: None of those policies were successful, and many were gravely damaging.

The Covid health benefits of mandatory lockdowns were tiny. Lockdowns in the U.S. prevented between 4,000 and 16,000 Covid deaths. In an average year 37,000 Americans die from the flu, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lockdowns also failed to reduce infections more than a trivial amount, in part because people voluntarily alter their behavior when a bad bug is in the air. Coercive government policies generated few benefits—and massive costs.

Public-health agencies exacerbated the damage by failing to keep their heads and follow standard pandemic-management protocols. Before 2020, it was recognized that communities respond best to pandemics when government measures are only minimally disruptive. During Covid, however, officials junked that practice by green-lighting restrictive practices and intentionally stoking fear. That response overlaid enormous economic, social, educational and health harms on top of those caused by the virus.

Those harms are captured, in part, in excess deaths—the number beyond what would have been expected without a pandemic. Non-Covid excess deaths from lockdowns, the shutdown of non-Covid medical care, and societal panic are estimated at nearly 100,000 between April 2020 and at least the end of 2021. The number of lockdown and societal-disruption deaths since 2020 is likely around 400,000, as much as 100 times the number of Covid deaths the lockdowns prevented.

The best measure of health performance during the pandemic is all-cause excess mortality, which captures the overall number of deaths relative to the expected level, encompassing Covid and lockdown-related deaths. On this measure Sweden—which kept most schools open and avoided strict lockdown orders—outperformed nearly every country in the world.

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the U.S. “would have had 1.60 million fewer deaths if it had the performance of Sweden, 1.07 million fewer deaths if it had the performance of Finland, and 0.91 million fewer deaths if it had the performance of France.” In America, states that imposed prolonged lockdowns had no better health outcomes when measured by all-cause excess mortality than those that stayed open. While no quantifiable relationship between lockdown severity and a reduction in Covid health harms has been found, states with severe lockdowns suffered significantly worse economic outcomes.

Closing hospitals and cutting off access to non-Covid healthcare generated a fear of entering medical facilities. That was a profound mistake, as was encouraging the false belief that hospitals were too busy to treat people who needed care. Healthcare utilization rates were at low levels between 2020 and 2022. In spring 2020, nearly half of the nation’s some 650,000 chemotherapy patients didn’t get treatment, and 85% of living organ transplants weren’t completed. One study found that there were 35.6% fewer calls for cardiac emergencies after March 10, 2020, compared with the year prior. Emergency-room visits were down between 40% and 50%, according to an estimate in May 2020. That doubtless contributed to observed non-Covid excess deaths and may continue to do so, as Americans suffer from undetected cancers and other long-term conditions. Healthcare uptake is still lower than pre-pandemic levels.

The economic costs of lockdowns were also staggering. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as many as 49 million Americans were out of work in May 2020. This shock had health consequences. A National Bureau of Economic Research study found that the lockdown unemployment shock is projected to result in 840,000 to 1.22 million excess deaths over the next 15 to 20 years, disproportionately killing women and minorities.

Perhaps the worst policy error was prolonged school closings. Learning loss for children, especially in poor families, is already showing up in reduced standardized-test scores. These losses will affect earnings for decades. By one estimate today’s children will lose $17 trillion in lifetime earnings owing to school closings. They may also suffer shorter life expectancy, which is linked to income and educational attainment.

While school closings had no offsetting public-health benefits, the attendant isolation led to massive increases in psychiatric illness, self-harm, obesity and substance abuse. Healthy children were always at vanishingly small risk from Covid, and nearly all of them were infected at some point anyway, according to CDC data. Like a regressive tax, these harms were severest for lower-income and minority students.

One result of the government’s Covid response is that Americans have lost faith in public-health institutions. To earn back their confidence, Congress and the states should rewrite their statutes regarding public-health emergencies. Legislatures should place strict limitations on the powers conferred to public-health executives, in addition to implementing sunset clauses that require legislative majorities to extend them. Congress should likewise set term limits for all senior positions in U.S. health agencies.

The CDC, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes for Health should be fully transparent about their deliberations. They should publish transcripts of their formal discussions on digital forums for public consumption. Congress should also restate that the CDC’s guidance is strictly advisory and that the agency doesn’t have power to set laws or issue mandates. The U.S. should halt all binding agreements with the World Health Organization until it also enhances transparency and accountability.

Most important, these institutions must acknowledge that lockdowns, school closings and mandates were egregious errors that won’t be repeated. Until they do, the American people should continue to withhold their trust.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-lessons-learned-four-years-later-596a9fa9

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report claims Covid-19 lab leak theory ‘more probable’ than natural occurrence

What was once considered a far-fetched conspiracy theory has now been floated as a “more probable” answer to the million dollar Covid-19 question.

The origins of Covid-19 have been pontificated on by millions around the world after the first wave exploded through Wuhan, China in 2019.

The US National Library of Medicine claimed the virus that turned planet Earth on its head originated from pangolin samples “obtained by anti-smuggling operations in the Guangdong province of China”.

But sceptics have been highly critical of the assumption the virus, which was highly infectious to humans, naturally developed in the wild.

The Lancet, another major medical journal, boldly proclaimed that those suggesting the virus originated from a laboratory were attempting to “manipulate public opinion with political language”.

“Peer-reviewed evidence available to the public points to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a result of spillover into humans from a natural origin,” the Lancet published in 2023.

But now, a major scientific paper led by Australian pandemic expert Professor Raina MacIntyre suggests that a lab leak is actually “equally or more probable” than Covid-19 springing from nature.

The paper, featuring scientists from the Kirby Institute at the University of NSW, says that while a lab leak theory is plausible, the true origin of the pandemic may never be confirmed.

The research used the Grunow-Finke tool, an epidemiological risk scoring method, contrasting with the genetic analysis methods more commonly used to investigate the virus’s origins.

“An unnatural origin of SARS-COV-2 is plausible, and our application of the Grunow-Finke tool suggests it is equally or more probable than a natural origin, although both remain possible,” the researches wrote.

“The gathering of intelligence may include open source, signals or satellite intelligence, political factors, as well as other ‘detective work’ to piece together the complex question of the origin of SARS-COV-2.

“This would include full records of viruses housed at the relevant laboratories, of experiments conducted, and records of accidents and illness among staff. The question of origin cannot be answered solely by phylogenetic analysis, as viruses resulting from gain-of-function research using serial passage in an animal model cannot easily be distinguished from naturally emerged ones.”

This analysis is presented against a backdrop of widespread dismissal of the lab leak hypothesis in scientific circles and by the World Health Organisation, which deemed a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology “extremely unlikely”.

The study analysed various factors, including the peculiar biological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, its rapid human-to-human transmission rate, and unusual actions at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak, such as military control takeover and removal of a large virus database from public access.

The paper’s findings, suggesting a 68 per cent likelihood of an unnatural origin of SARS-CoV-2 based on the modified Grunow-Finke tool, contrast sharply with other scientific opinions and WHO conclusions.

The research has been criticised by some international scientists, including Alice Hughes from the University of Hong Kong, who labelled the analysis method as potentially “dangerous and misleading” due to its subjective nature and reliance on conjecture.

As the world emerges from one of the most destabilising periods in recent history, more and more information about the potential cause of the pandemic has risen to the surface.

In November 2023, a whistleblower came forward to claim CIA analysts who favoured the lab leak theory were bribed to change their position.

The bribe was allegedly made to take the focus off China and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The National Intelligence Council’s Director for Global Health Security, Adrienne Keen, worked as an independent consultant for the WHO from 2016.

Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno said that Ms Keene tried to push Covid-19 was a natural occurrence, rather than a lab leak.

“I had found out that apparently she was an outside adviser also to the World Health Agency – they are a political agency, they are a UN agency,” Mr DiNanno said.

“It’s just not appropriate to do work for a foreign power and that would include in the United Nations.”

A few months prior, a report claimed that Covid-19’s “patient zero” was a Wuhan scientist carrying out experiments on souped-up coronaviruses,

According to the report, the scientist, Ben Hu, was conducting risky tests at the Wuhan Institute of Virology with two colleagues, Ping Yu and Yan Zhu.

It’s understood all three fell ill with Covid-like symptoms and needed hospital care weeks before China disclosed the virus outbreak to the world.

A bombshell report by journalists Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi alleged the scientists were experimenting with coronaviruses when they became sick in 2019.

Many experts and intelligence officials have long suspected scientists at the lab accidentally spread Covid-19 during so-called “gain of function” experiments on bat coronaviruses.

The naming of “patient zero” could be the so-called smoking gun – adding to mounting circumstantial evidence of a lab leak.

It’s not clear who in the US government had the intelligence about the sick lab workers, how long they had it, and why it was not shared with the public.

Jamie Metzl, a former member of the World Health Organisation advisory committee on human genome editing, described it as a possible “game changer”.

“It’s a game changer if it can be proven that Hu got sick with Covid before anyone else,” he said.

“That would be the ‘smoking gun’. Hu was the lead hands-on researcher in (virologist Shi Zhengli’s) lab.”

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/report-claims-covid19-lab-leak-theory-more-probable-than-natural-occurrence/news-story/49d637b898a604e52839a3091f0fd6f1

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

UK: Up to 20,000 prostate cancer diagnoses could have been missed during the pandemic, research suggests

Up to 20,000 diagnoses of prostate cancer could have been missed during the pandemic, research suggests.

Analysis of 24million patient records since 2020 found tens of thousands of men have missed potentially life-saving cancer diagnoses.

The study by the University of Surrey and the University of Oxford said there was 'unprecedented disruption' in the diagnosis of cancer with a drop in urgent referrals from GPs, caused by difficulties accessing care and longer waiting times.

They analysed prostate cancer incidence between January 2015 and July 2023 using data representing 40 per cent of the country. This revealed a 31 per cent drop in diagnoses of prostate cancer in 2020 and 18 per cent in 2021, returning to normal in 2022.

When extrapolated across the country, there were 19,800 fewer cases, according to the findings published in the British Journal of Urology International.

Lead author Dr Agnieszka Lemanska, of the University of Surrey, said: 'Understandably, during the pandemic, resources and attention in healthcare systems shifted towards preventing and managing the virus.

'It is important that we learn the lessons from the pandemic. However, to do this, we need to understand the scale of how diagnosis rates were impacted during this time.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13207815/Up-20-000-prostate-cancer-diagnoses-missed-pandemic.html

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA Experts acknowledge many faults in mRNA vaccines

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

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.”

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.

For example, TrialSite recently reported on the ex-Moderna scientists and the Northeastern University professor that recently had a similar paper published.

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..”

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.

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.

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?”

These breakthroughs, or better, incremental advancements are what is needed to validate the “development of the next generation of targeted mRNA therapeutics.”

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.

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?

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/mrna-nobel-prize-winner-drew-weissman-verifies-mrna-platform-needs-significant-advancement-before-prime-time-for-therapeutics-fb89e163

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catching Covid has made people less intelligent - with severe infections reducing IQ the most, new study suggests

Catching Covid makes people less intelligent, with severe infections reducing IQ the most, a study suggests.

Britons who avoided the disease typically performed best in intelligence tests, while those who ended up in hospital scored worst.

But even those who suffered only mild disease are likely to have had their cognitive abilities decline, it is believed.

Scientists from Imperial College London analysed data on more than 112,000 volunteers who took Covid tests during the pandemic.

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.

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.

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. 

Further examination found long-lasting cognitive impacts, even in people infected a year or more earlier.

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.

Professor Hampshire said the implications of the figures are 'quite scary'.

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.

Professor Benedict Michael, director of the University of Liverpool's infection neuroscience laboratory, said there is 'clearly a very severely affected group'. 

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.'

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.

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13203253/Catching-Covid-intelligent-reducing-IQ.html

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

Covid DID come from Wuhan lab, says new analysis of patients, records and virus' makeup: '70% chance'

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

Covid received a score of 68 percent. 

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.'

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.'

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.'

In the study, the virus and pandemic scored the maximum number of points in three categories. 

The first was the 'existence of a biological risk,' which is considered to be a geopolitical environment from which a biological threat could originate. 

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. 

Covid scored nine out of nine. 

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.  

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. 

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.  

Lastly, Covid scored the maximum nine-out-of-nine points in the 'special insights' category.

This was defined as 'suspicious circumstances and other insights identified prior to the outbreak, during the period of outbreak or post-outbreak.'

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.  

Overall, out of a possible maximum 60 points, the Covid virus and the pandemic scored 41 - or 68 percent.  

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. 

Those subscribing to the zoonotic theory believe the virus originated in animals and jumped from host to humans.

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. 

The discovery led the scientists to theorize that the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 likely jumped from pangolins to immunocompromised people. 

This gave the novel virus ample opportunity to mutate and replicate until it reached its full pandemic potential. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

'Poor biosafety procedures in bat sampling and at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were documented but lab accidents are common all over the world.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13198689/covid-19-originated-lab-new-study.html

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Laissez-Faire’ Sweden Had the Lowest COVID Mortality in Europe

Gore Vidal once said “I told you so” are the four most beautiful words in the English language.

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.

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.

Here’s a sample of headlines:

• “Why the Swedish Model for Fighting COVID-19 Is a Disaster” (Time, October 2020).

• “The Inside Story of How Sweden Botched Its Coronavirus Response” (Foreign Policy, December 2020).

• “Sweden Stayed Open and More People Died of Covid-19, but the Real Reason May Be Something Darker” (Forbes, 2020).

• “Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale” (New York Times, July 2020).

• “I Just Came Home to Sweden. I’m Horrified by the Coronavirus Response Here” (Slate, April 2020).

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.”

Even then-president Trump got in on the action of smacking Sweden around.

“Sweden is paying heavily for its decision not to lockdown,” the tweeter-in-chief warned.

Despite the foreboding rhetoric, the worst-case predictions for Sweden never materialized. In fact, they were not even close.

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.

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.

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.

“Across Europe, Sweden saw [the] lowest total death during and after Covid,” Lomborg said on X (formerly Twitter).

One Economic Fallacy to Rule Them All

Lomborg’s analysis provides yet more evidence that the Covid state was a disaster.

Some will say, How could we have known?

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.

I wrote these things not because I’m a prophet, but because I’ve read a bit of history and understand basic economics.

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.

“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.’”

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.

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.

This is the great economic fallacy Henry Hazlitt warned of decades ago.

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.

“[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.”

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).

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.

The dark truth is that lockdowns were not based on science and came with a rather unfortunate side effect: they killed people.

‘A Giant Experiment’

The secondary consequences of lockdowns and other non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) did irreparable harm to humans that will be experienced for decades to come.

In the words of New York magazine, lockdowns were “a giant experiment” that failed.

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.

“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.

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.

Today, many more people in Sweden are alive because of it. And Anders Tegnell should not be shy in saying, “I told you so.”

https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/03/12/laissez-faire-sweden-mortality/

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

Court Strikes Down $3,000 Fine for Person Trying to Leave City During Pandemic

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.

This is the second such ruling.

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.

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.

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.

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.

‘Withdraw and Repay’: Redfern Legal Centre

“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.”

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.”

However, Ms. Lee urged Mr. Johnston to “come to his senses.”

“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.”

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.

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.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/court-rules-a-3000-fine-for-leaving-sydney-during-covid-invalid-5605371

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand regulator ignored vaccine risks

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.”

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.

In New Zealand, where Sir Ray resides, such tragic adverse event reports and records derive from The New Zealand Medsafe. The website states:

“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.”

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.”

According to Medsafe’s website on the topic of Post-marketing surveillance:

“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:

monitoring adverse reactions to medicines used in New Zealand and monitoring the international literature and other information sources.

testing marketed medicines against product quality standards.
handling complaints and investigations; and
auditing and licensing medicine manufacturers.

Filing for OIA Request: Are they doing their job?

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.

The New Zealand Government’s official response:

“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.

What?

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.”

Truly Troubling if True Reality

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.

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.

According to Sir Ray, “If you don’t measure it, you don’t know it is safe.”

TrialSite has sent an email request to the Group Manager via multiple email contact addresses for clarification from the agency’s point of view.

A Message to New Zealand Ministry of Health

The health-related activist, philanthropist and entrepreneur has a serious message for the New Zealand government agencies responsible for this terrible gap in responsibility:

“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.”

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.

More on Medsafe

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.

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.”

It would appear the agency falls short of their responsibility and their mission based on Sir Ray’s investigational probing.

Who is running this agency?

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.

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.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/did-kiwi-medsafe-acknowledge-lack-of-post-market-surveillance-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-related-side-effects-06cb7089

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

Does COVID-19 Vaccination Lower the Risk of Long-COVID?

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.

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.

Vaccines may reduce the risk of long COVID

Studies highlighted by Scientific American shed light on the intricate interplay between vaccination and long COVID.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mixed effects of vaccines on long COVID symptoms

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/does-covid-19-vaccination-lower-the-risk-of-long-covid-59aeb9de

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Documents, Amazon “Felt Pressured” by White House to Censor COVID-19 Vaccine Books During Pandemic

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.

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.

Email Trove

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.”

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.”

Amazon Resisted, At First

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.

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.

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!

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/according-to-documents-amazon-felt-pressured-by-white-house-to-censor-covid-19-vaccine-books-during-pandemic-e8668bd9

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

Court Finds Emergency Doctor Guilty of Misconduct for Questioning COVID Vaccine

Must not mention clinical experience?

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

ED was ‘Flooded’

When asked by the interviewer, “Could you confidently say that people died in Australia from the vax jab?'’

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 ...”

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/court-finds-emergency-doctor-guilty-of-misconduct-for-questioning-covid-vaccine-5604647

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

Colchicine saved lives among people with Acute COVID-19 -- a 32% Reduction in Mortality

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

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.

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:

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%).

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.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/colchicine-reduces-mortality-in-acute-covid-19-umbrella-review-of-published-meta-analyses-bd43040d

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

Hearing Delayed Again for BC Doctor Accused by College of COVID Vaccine Misinformation

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.

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.

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.

Because he wouldn’t have proper time to review the materials, Mr. Turner asked for an adjournment, and the college agreed.

The college has posted a notification of the adjournment on its website, but no new hearing date was provided.
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.

‘Entirely Inappropriate’: BC Government’s Proposed Changes to Oversight of Regulated Health Professions Draws Criticism
“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.”

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.”

“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.”

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.

‘We’re Not Scientists’

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.

“In Canada, we have yet to have a court that challenges the public health narrative that the government has been using,” he said.

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.

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.’”

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.”

‘A Serious Issue’

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.
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.

“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.

“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.”

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.

“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.

“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.”

‘Decisions Based Upon Ideology or Partisanship’

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.
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.

“Judicial notice is where the court regards as proven a fact that could not possibly be disputed,” Mr. Grey wrote.

“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.”

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.

“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.

“It may very well be that Dr. Hoffe is dealing with just such a situation,” he added.

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.

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.
Then in February 2022, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. issued a citation against him.

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.”

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

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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