Blog Dissecting Leftism by John Ray -- backup

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

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

14 March, 2024

‘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

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

13 March, 2024

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

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

12 March, 2024

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

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

11 March, 2024

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

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

10 March, 2024

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate in Place Without Evidence

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

“The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

“By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

“This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/veterans-affairs-kept-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-in-place-without-evidence-5601173?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=us-news-left-3

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

BMI, Inflammation and Cognitive Damage in Long-COVID: Findings from Vortioxetine Trial

A new study suggests that the antidepressant Vortioxetine may improve cognitive function in long COVID patients, especially those with elevated BMI. The findings underscore the interconnected impact of inflammation, metabolism, and obesity on cognitive health in post-COVID syndrome.

Up to 20% of COVID-19 cases may develop post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCC), otherwise known as long-COVID. PCC is characterized by persistent symptoms for at least two months following infection, with cognitive impairment being among the most common. This includes difficulty focusing and memory and is often described as “brain fog.”

Researchers don’t know exactly what causes cognitive impairment in PCC, but it’s suggested that disruptions in inflammation–the body’s natural defense system–may lead to immune cells attacking and damaging neural circuits. Dysfunction in metabolism, energy production, may also play a role.

With obesity being a major risk factor in long COVID, a recent study sought to characterize the relationship between body mass index (BMI), metabolic disruption, inflammation, and cognitive impairment in long COVID patients.

The patients were part of a randomized control trial investigating the usefulness of Vortioxetine, an antidepressant, to treat long COVID-related cognitive impairment. The research team was based at the University of Toronto, and led by Professor Roger McIntyre from the University’s Psychiatry and Pharmacology unit.

Half of the 149 Canadian patients were treated with Vortioxetine and the other half with a placebo over the course of eight weeks. The researchers explained that “vortioxetine has immunomodulatory and antioxidative properties that are relevant to the neurobiology of PCC.” As well as cognitive symptoms, studies show vortioxetine could also help mood and physical symptoms of long COVID, including sleep problems, depression, and anxiety, though it’s not an approved treatment.

By the end of the treatment, there was an overall improvement in cognitive function but little difference between the groups. However, if vortioxetine-treated participants had high levels of inflammation, metabolic disruption, and elevated BMI, their cognition improved more significantly than the placebo group.

“We hypothesize that individuals with these factors may positively respond to vortioxetine treatment, potentially showing a distinct treatment response profile. Larger studies with predefined variables are required to validate these hypotheses,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also showed that those with high levels of inflammation and insulin resistance had higher levels of cognitive impairment. Insulin resistance is a defining feature of diabetes and is when cells become less responsive to the effects of insulin, leading to impaired glucose uptake and potential disruptions in metabolic health.

“Our data are consistent with a compelling body of evidence showing that disruptions in inflammation, metabolic function and obesity hazardously affect brain health, increasing susceptibility to central nervous system and psychiatric disorders,” they wrote.

However, they noted there were several limitations to their study. For instance, they only used one measure for inflammation, the production of C-reactive protein (CRP) which increases in the liver as part of an inflammatory response. They wrote, “We only used one variable (e.g., TGHDL) as a proxy measure for metabolism and CRP for inflammation, which is a nonspecific marker that can be elevated for reasons unrelated to disease.”

In line with the findings, several studies show that inflammation and metabolic disruption alter nerve pathways and processes in the brain associated with cognition. For instance, one animal experiment showed that over-inflammation could inhibit neurogenesis in the hippocampus, which is essential for learning and memory. Moreover, insulin resistance and impaired energy production in nerve cells is thought to explain why those with type 2 diabetes often experience cognitive difficulties.

Based on this science, a research team from the University of Glasgow is currently investigating whether a weight loss management program could improve symptoms in long COVID patients. The research team will work closely with overweight people who are experiencing long COVID to adapt and evaluate the weight management program, which can be followed remotely from home.

“This package of research will provide much needed hope to people with long-term health problems after COVID-19, accelerating development of new ways to diagnose and treat long COVID, as well as how to configure healthcare services to provide the absolute best care,” described Professor Nick Lemoine, Chair of NIHR’s long COVID funding committee and study contributor in a press release.

Going forward, the authors of the current study recommend that further studies should validate their findings on the interrelationship between inflammation, metabolism, BMI, and long COVID. “If confirmed, these results could open promising avenues for therapeutic interventions targeting inflammation and metabolism, aiming to alleviate symptoms and reduce the overall disease burden,” they wrote.

They also suggested clinicians supporting long COVID patients should be cautious about and monitor the patients’ metabolic functions.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/bmi-inflammation-and-cognitive-damage-in-long-covid-findings-from-vortioxetine-trial-1c470fa0

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

7 March, 2024

Excess Deaths Since 2022 Primarily in Vaccinated, Official Data Suggest

Excess deaths since 2022 were primarily in the vaccinated, official data suggest, fuelling fears that the Covid vaccines may be playing a significant role in the high excess deaths in recent years.

Data from the Office for National Statistics show that the proportion of total deaths in England among unvaccinated people dropped sharply in early 2022, even as excess deaths soared. The proportion then remained low throughout the following two years, indicating that the additional deaths during this period were concentrated in the vaccinated.

Is this why the authorities continue to resist releasing the full data on deaths by vaccination status? A cross-party group of 21 MPs and peers are the latest to write to request the data be released. Are the authorities refusing because they know the data show excess deaths predominantly in the vaccinated?

The striking effect was seen in every age group. The charts showing these results can be seen below (find the data here, table 5). The blue lines show the total deaths by month in the age group (left-hand axis) while the red lines show the proportion of deaths in the unvaccinated in the age group (right-hand axis; unvaccinated here means receiving no doses). The most striking feature on each chart is the steep drop in the red line in early 2022, which denotes a sharp and sustained drop in the proportion of deaths in the unvaccinated and a corresponding rise in the proportion in the vaccinated.

Note this is not because more people got vaccinated at that time, as the number getting their first dose in these age groups was almost zero by this point (see chart below, taken from here, data here). People getting their first dose may affect the trends seen in 2021, particularly in the first part of the year, though the over-60s were largely done with first doses by June 2021.

It’s worth pointing out that by using only death data they avoid the problems with the ONS population estimates highlighted by Professor Norman Fenton and others that have tended to exaggerate the death rate in the unvaccinated.

Note that the red lines during 2022 and 2023 are mostly flat, particularly for those in their 60s, 70s and 80s, even during many of the peaks in total deaths. This is particularly noticeable during winter 2022-23, where despite a large peak in deaths the red lines stay largely flat. This suggests that vaccine efficacy against death, at least from the Omicron variants, is very low, since if the virus was disproportionately killing the unvaccinated (i.e., the vaccines were protecting the vaccinated) the proportion of deaths in the unvaccinated should spike during waves. That it usually does not suggests low vaccine efficacy.

These charts include no comparison with death rates before the vaccination period so don’t allow us to say very much about the pre-Omicron period as there is little to compare it to. However, there are notable spikes in the red lines for those over 70 during the Delta wave of late 2021. On first sight this would seem to indicate vaccine efficacy against the Delta variant during that winter. Things may not be so straightforward, however. Notice that the other largish spike for those over 80 is in summer 2022. Importantly, this was not associated with a Covid wave; instead it was associated with a heatwave – that was when the heat dome was sitting over Europe causing record temperatures. This is significant because the vaccine obviously does not protect against heatwaves. This means the reason for the summer 2022 spike is not vaccine efficacy. What is it then?

It seems likely it is related to the ‘healthy vaccinee effect’ i.e., the fact that people who take vaccines tend to be people with better background health outcomes than those who don’t take vaccines. A number of studies indicate that vaccinated people have a background death rate around half that of unvaccinated people (this is a background death rate not related to vaccine efficacy or safety).

The poorer background health of the unvaccinated group means that any general cause of death that disproportionately affects the frail or those with comorbidities, such as a virus epidemic or a heatwave, will naturally, other things being equal, disproportionately affect the unvaccinated group, for reasons unrelated to the vaccine. This would explain the summer 2022 spike in the red lines and it may also explain some or much of the spike during the Delta wave as well. Assuming this is right, it makes the lack of spikes during other waves, such as winter 2022-23, even more striking, as one would normally expect the unvaccinated group to be disproportionately affected by a virus wave or a winter, yet instead the lines remain flat. These flat red lines during waves of deaths are therefore also potentially indicative of a concentration of excess deaths in the vaccinated.

The headline finding from these charts is the striking concentration of excess deaths in the vaccinated after early 2022, just as Omicron appeared. This worrying observation may be why the authorities are keeping the full data, which would confirm or rule out such a finding, firmly under wraps.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/05/excess-deaths-since-2022-primarily-in-vaccinated-official-data-suggest/

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

Lockdowns Are a “Failed Experiment”, Welsh First Minister Tells Covid Inquiry

The BBC reports that Wales’s First Minister Mark Drakeford has told the Covid Inquiry that local Covid lockdowns were a “failed experiment”.

He could have said it was a failed policy or intervention, but Drakeford chose to say lockdowns were an “experiment”.

An experiment is a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery and test a hypothesis.

However, at the time, lockdowns were a policy enforced by law.

Mark Drakeford announced in May 2020 that the maximum fine for repeated breaches of the lockdown rules in Wales rose from £120 to £1,920. Up to June 8th, 2,282 Fixed Penalty Notices were issued for – as it seems now – failing to participate in an experiment. People in Wales were twice as likely as English to be fined for breaking lockdown rules. Some experiment.

We are at a loss to explain how the people who set the laws can do so based on experiments. As for experiments, where was the consent procedure, where was the control group and where was the evaluation?

The Welsh Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser for Health, Rob Orford, read from the evidence Drakeford provided to the inquiry that “in hindsight perhaps they weren’t the best idea”.

Yet again, we learned that policy wasn’t based on any evidence. “I’m not sure where the origin of the idea around local interventions came from, whether that was the U.K. Government or Welsh Government.”

We utterly reject the “hindsight” argument, which Sir John Edmunds also used as an excuse for some of his most extreme advice.

We reject it because we pointed out the obvious on April 8th 2020: you cannot affect the circulation of an endemic respiratory virus with any of the interventions known to us, including vaccines, which were not on the table then.

We pointed out that wrecking society and the economy to chase an evidence fallacy was the stuff of nightmares. We and the rest of society have paid a heavy price for this temerity.

Policy must be based on expertise and evidence. If there is no evidence, you either generate it or sit on your hands as the precautionary principle suggests, until such time as the costs and benefits of alternative actions are clear.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/06/lockdowns-are-a-failed-experiment-welsh-first-minister-tells-covid-inquiry/

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

Airline Fined $250,000 For Standing Down Worker Concerned With COVID-19

Australian national carrier Qantas has been fined $250,000 after standing down a worker—who was an elected health and safety representative—after he raised concerns about the risk of COVID-19 to staff cleaning aircraft that had arrived from China—an action the judge described as “shameful.”

Lift truck driver Theo Seremetidis was employed by subsidiary Qantas Ground Services (QGS) at Sydney International Airport, and was sidelined in early 2020, before which he had worked for Qantas for nearly seven years as a ground crew fleet member.

Last year, NSW District Court Judge David Russell found the airline engaged in discriminatory conduct, ruling that Mr. Seremetidis was unfairly cut off from other staff who were seeking his help.

“The conduct against Mr Seremetidis was quite shameful,” the judge said. “Even when he was stood down and under investigation, QGS attempted to manufacture additional reasons for its actions.”

Last week Qantas agreed to pay Mr. Seremetidis $21,000 for economic and non-economic loss.

On March 6, Judge Russell ordered that QGS be convicted and fined $250,000, finding that the company’s conduct involved significant culpability and was deliberate, rather than inadvertent and that QGS had “deliberately ignored” the consultation and other provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act. He said there was a “gross power imbalance” between Mr. Seremetidis and senior managers at QGS.

Mr. Seremetidis was “most conscientious” in carrying out his role as a health and safety representative, the judge found, staying up-to-date with official announcements about the pandemic and even doing research on his day off.

Judge Russell found QGS saw Mr. Seremetidis’s directions to cease unsafe work as a “threat” to the conduct of the business, in particular to its ability to clean and service aircraft and get them back in the air, and pointed out that the role of health and safety representatives was “vital” to the protection of workers and the running of any business.

During the hearing last year, Qantas said it had taken the action because Mr. Seremetidis had been “creating anxiety amongst the workforce.”

It was revealed the airline had told concerned workers that the risk of them contracting COVID-19 from their work was “negligible,” and they could not “be reasonably concerned about contracting the virus.”

Prosecutor Matthew Moir said Qantas gave priority to its commercial interests over the health and safety of its workers. But Qantas lawyer Bruce Hodgkinson argued the airline had been doing its best to deal with the fast-unfolding pandemic.

Qantas Apologises

A Qantas spokesperson said the airline accepted the penalties. “We agreed to compensation for Theo Seremetidis and the court has today made orders for that compensation to be paid,” the spokesperson said.

“We acknowledged in court the impact that this incident had on Mr. Seremetidis and apologised to him. Safety has always been our number one priority and we continue to encourage our employees to report all safety-related matters.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/qantas-fined-250000-for-standing-down-worker-concerned-with-covid-19-post-5601460

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

6 March, 2024

Large Real World-Evidence Study Finds COVID-19 Vax + Paxlovid Benefit Against Hospitalization

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) developed by Pfizer, is an antiviral medication that is indicated for individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at risk of progression to severe COVID-19. While initially studied on unvaccinated persons, a growing number of observational investigations provide evidence of the potential for significant protection by Paxlovid against hospitalization among vaccinated individuals at elevated risk for severe COVID-19.

Not a lot of data avails scientists seeking to assess the risk reduction from antivirals together with vaccination. Here, the study team led by researchers from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as the U.S. market’s leading electronic health record (EHR) vendor Epic to estimate the stepwise benefit of monovalent vaccination and Paxlovid against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States. Overall, the findings complement previous research indicating Paxlovid affords additional protection in high-risk individuals, even if vaccinated.

The findings here, according to the joint CDC and Epic team, complement previous research pointing to the protective overlay afforded by Paxlovid in high-risk individuals, even if vaccinated.

This line of research had not yet examined the protection of treatment and vaccination combined. Treatment with Paxlovid without vaccination does not reduce risk of hospitalization to levels seen in treated individuals with three or more vaccinations.

While the burden and impact of COVID-19 in future respiratory seasons are uncertain, the authors of this study suggest the combination of vaccination and oral antiviral treatment for eligible patients remains an important tool against COVID-19 hospitalization and death. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recently recommended the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB-containing) COVID-19 vaccines in persons ? 6 months of age. The CDC-led study paper suggests clinicians should consider treatment with Paxlovid among all adults who are at high-risk of severe COVID-19 disease, including vaccinated persons.

Important Caveat

Importantly, this study was limited to adults infected with COVID-19 during the period April and August 2022, and may not be applicable in the current landscape of population hybrid immunity and SARS-CoV-2 strain evolution. The authors acknowledge that more updated estimates over time are necessary to better understand the impact of vaccination and antiviral treatment. The risk-benefit analyses for COVID-19 vaccination have likely changed. Plus, the medical establishment to date has yet to accept the dozens of peer reviewed manuscripts showing risk with the mRNA induced spike protein, capable of distribution in tissue and organs throughout the body, albeit in rare to relatively rare cases.

There are risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination that are not openly talked about in mainstream media, or even to this day in the trade press; but they are discussed in TrialSite, an independent, objective unbiased (as humanly possible) media platform tracking the world of biomedical research. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen has become milder during the Omicron stage, with a case fatality rate similar to influenza. Of course, the risk increases with age as well as co-morbidities and immunocompromised status.

The Study

The CDC and Epic research team conducted the retrospective analysis of patient records in Cosmos, a real world-evidence dataset that, at the time of this study, included EHR information from >160 million individual users of U.S health systems covered by Epic. Inclusion criteria and definitions were described previously in a prior study of real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in this population. Non-pregnant adults were eligible for inclusion if aged ?50 years or if aged ?18 years with an underlying health condition associated with progression to severe COVID-19 disease documented in their medical record. All included patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis (defined as a diagnostic code or positive SARS-CoV-2 test result) associated with an outpatient encounter during April 1–August 31, 2022, indicating mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

The investigational team considered patients to have received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) if verified it was prescribed during the five days after their COVID-19 diagnosis. Vaccination status was categorized on the date of COVID19 diagnosis using data available in the Cosmos system. As reported in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, vaccination categories included 1) unvaccinated if no COVID-19 vaccine had been received; 2) 2 mRNA vaccine-dose recipients if ?14 days had elapsed since receipt of the second dose and no subsequent doses had been received or <7 days receipt of third dose; 3) ?3 mRNA vaccine-dose recipients if ?7 days had elapsed since receipt of the third dose; and 4) other vaccine recipient if any Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine, other vaccine, or only 1 mRNA vaccine dose had been received any time before COVID19 diagnosis.

The primary outcome was COVID-19 hospitalization within 30 days after diagnosis. A COVID-19 hospitalization was defined as having a COVID-19 specific diagnosis associated with the admission.

The group estimated protection against hospitalization by the Paxlovid combination combined with COVID19 mRNA vaccination based on statistics generated from Cox regression. Presenting adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for hospitalization adjusting for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, social vulnerability index of the address of residence, number of underlying health conditions, region of residence, and previous infection defined as having a COVID-19 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) >90 days prior to the included COVID-19 diagnosis.

The reference group comprised unvaccinated individuals who had not received Paxlovid.

Results

Among the unvaccinated, 35,826/141,931 (20.2%) received Paxlovid compared to 42,355/157011 (27.0%) of patients who received 2 mRNA doses, and 130,778/330,448 (33.0%) of those who had received 3 or more mRNA vaccine doses.

During April–September 2022, 5,296 of 731,349 patients (0.72%) with COVID-19 were hospitalized within 30 days after their initial diagnosis.

Hospitalization Rates

After receipt of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 3 or more mRNA vaccine doses, there were an estimated 16.9 fewer hospitalizations per 100,000 person-days compared to those who were unvaccinated and untreated.

According to the group of authors:

“Compared with patients who were unvaccinated and had not received a COVID-19 treatment, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was lower among both those who were vaccinated but did not receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (two mRNA doses, aHR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.67–0.80; three or more mRNA doses, aHR 0.51, 95%CI: 0.47–0.55) and those who were unvaccinated but after receipt of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (0.47, 95%CI: 0.40–0.55).

After receipt of both treatment and vaccination, the hospitalization rate was reduced further (two mRNA doses and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir aHR 0.33, 95%CI: 0.29–0.39) with the lowest rate of COVID-19 hospitalization among those after receiving three or more mRNA vaccine doses and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (aHR 0.22, 95%CI: 0.19– 0.24).”

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/large-real-world-evidence-study-finds-covid-19-vax-paxlovid-benefit-against-hospitalization-f87de1a6

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

How low can Covid catastrophists go?

Who’d have guessed that there would be two startling revelations about the great Covid over-reach in the space of about a week, upholding claims previously dismissed as conspiracy theories and misinformation?

First came a peer-reviewed scientific study which linked Covid vaccines to a range of serious health disorders. It was soon followed by the Queensland Supreme Court ruling that vaccine mandates imposed on police and ambulance workers in the state were unlawful.

Both provided a welcome dose of reality after the worst days of lockdowns and vaccine roll-outs when we were bombarded with the message that the jabs were ‘safe and effective’. Years later, we know for certain that they do not prevent contraction or transmission of the virus and there’s an acknowledged chance they could cause serious harm and even death.

Some of us have been aware of this for a long time, but vaccine promoters, including Big Pharma and government bureaucrats, insist that the risk is ‘very low’, the acknowledged disorders are ‘rare’, and that vaccines provide the best means of protection against Covid.

But how low is ‘very low’ and how ‘rare’ is rare? Let’s look at the latest findings from the largest vaccine safety study to date conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network. A research division of the World Health Organisation, it reportedly looked at 99 million vaccinated individuals across six continents.

The study confirmed connections between Covid vaccines produced by Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca to several serious but ‘rare conditions’.

According to a report in Forbes:

While the side effects are serious, the chance of experiencing them is low. Some highlighted increases include a 6.1-fold increase in myocarditis from the second dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. Cases of pericarditis had a 6.9-fold increase as a result of the third dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. There is a 2.5-times greater risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome from the AstraZeneca vaccine along with a 3.2-times greater risk of developing blood clots from the same vaccine. There is a 3.8-times greater risk of getting acute disseminated encephalomyelitis from the Moderna vaccine, and a 2.2-fold increase in the AstraZeneca vaccine.

When choosing to get vaccinated, it is important to weigh the benefits and risks of the vaccine. Information like this makes it easier to make the right choice…

Well thanks, but my wife and I made that choice a few years ago and we remain very glad we did, given there are some still trying to pedal the message that a six to seven times chance of contracting a serious heart condition is ‘low’.

I’m reminded of the old Chubby Checker hit Limbo Rock, ‘How low can you go’? Much lower than that, if you want to convince people the vaccines are safe – let alone effective.

My own long-term scepticism possibly has links back to my first job after leaving high school many moons ago, when I undertook a pharmacy apprenticeship in a very busy regional pharmacy.

Maybe it didn’t help when I was questioned by a detective when a patient died after taking a sleeping mixture I had dispensed, even though I was later cleared after forensic tests showed the medicine contained the correct level of ingredients and the poor bloke had swallowed an overdose. But possibly the last straw had something to do with a drug I had dispensed many times to pregnant young women suffering morning sickness. Finally, the authorities woke up to the fact that the ‘cure’ – thalidomide – was causing horrific birth defects. Sound familiar?

Fast forward to February 2021, when the novel Covid vaccines were rolled out in Australia after being developed and approved in record time without long-term human trials. Manufacturers were granted immunity from liability for subsequent mishaps despite some of these companies having records of huge fines for past problems.

There were also experts, including highly qualified epidemiologists, sounding warning bells, particularly in Europe and America. Some adverse events might only become apparent months or even years after the jabs were administered, but that was dismissed as ratbag conspiracy theory, disinformation, and misinformation.

Well not any more, and hopefully the Queensland Supreme court ruling that some of these vaccine mandates were unlawful will lead to justifiable and wide-ranging compensations.

As Rowan Dean wrote in The Spectator Australia, ‘The news, of course, is to be welcomed. It is the first crack in the dam wall and will hopefully be followed by significant class actions and further court cases…’

Here, here! And let’s hope that the issue does not become bogged down in appeals courts by a government with a guilty conscience and deep pockets.

Finally, my short-lived dispensing career was never a waste of time and it actually saved one of our young son’s lives when a pharmacist dispensed the wrong medication which I recognised as a potent heart drug that could have stopped his from beating!

Again, that’s another story.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/how-low-can-covid-catastrophists-go/

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

5 March, 2024

COVID-19 Vaccines Can Affect Menstrual Cycle, Researchers Find

Researchers confirmed that COVID-19 vaccines are linked to changes in the menstrual cycle, according to a study published in March.

Published in the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal on March 1, Oregon Health & Science University researchers found that women who received a COVID-19 shot in the first half of their menstrual cycle are more likely to receive cycle length changes than those who received the vaccine in the second half.

Those researchers used data from 20,000 users of a birth control app that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine what effects the vaccine has on the cycle. Most of the women whose data was analyzed were under the age of 35, while 28 percent were from North America, 33 percent were from Europe, and another 32 percent were from the United Kingdom, they said.

Some were vaccinated and some were not. For those who were vaccinated, 63 percent received an mRNA vaccine, the paper said.

“Individuals vaccinated in the follicular phase experienced an average 1-day longer adjusted cycle length with a first or second dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with their pre-vaccination average,” the authors of the paper said, referring to women who got a dose of the vaccine during the first half of their cycle.

Those who got the vaccine in the second half or those who were not vaccinated experienced no changes, they found.

The authors added that there is now “a body of evidence demonstrating that the ... vaccine is associated with temporary menstrual cycle disturbances at the population level,” adding that “the underlying mechanism for a vaccine-related cycle length disturbance is still under investigation.”

“The leading hypothesis is that these disturbances are due to the immune response that vaccines are designed to produce,” the study said, adding that “the immune and reproductive systems interact closely with one another.” Cytokines, which are small proteins that control the immune system’s activity and are produced “as an early event in the vaccine response,” can impact that process, they added.

Little research has been conducted in the past on how vaccines—whether for COVID-19 or others—could influence the menstrual cycle, the study’s authors further noted.

Responding to the study’s findings, Dr. Alison Edelman, the lead author of the paper with the Oregon university, said that “we do know the immune and reproductive systems interact closely with one another,” adding that with vaccinations, “it is certainly plausible that individuals may see temporary changes in their menstrual cycle due to the immune response.”
Their findings also suggested that there may be changes in the length of the cycle, although they appear to be short-lived. But they added that women who notice significant changes should contact a healthcare provider.

And earlier in 2022, another set of researchers wrote that for women who received one of the COVID-19 vaccines, around 42 percent of respondents said they experienced increased menstrual bleeding. A majority of those who weren’t menstruating reported breakthrough bleeding after getting the shot, including two-thirds of women who were post-menopausal and slightly less than two-thirds of women who were using hormone treatments.

Most respondents received an mRNA vaccine made by either Moderna or Pfizer. But some also received Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca shots, according to the paper.

“We focused our analysis on those who regularly menstruate and those who do not currently menstruate but have in the past. The latter group included postmenopausal individuals and those on hormonal therapies that suppress menstruation, for whom bleeding is especially surprising,” Kathryn Clancy, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said in a statement about the study’s findings at the time.

And it is not the first time that the same Oregon Health & Science University researchers found COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a change in the cycle. In 2022, they found that the change was pegged at under one day, and no change in menses length was detected.

While the study did not find vaccination associated with changes in menses length, “questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding,” they wrote.

Pfizer Official’s Concerns

About a year ago, a Pfizer employee was seen in an undercover video telling a reporter with Project Veritas that he was concerned about the mRNA shot’s possible side-effects relating to menstrual cycles.

“There is something irregular about the menstrual cycles. So people will have to investigate that down the line because that is a little concerning,” the Pfizer official said in the video, adding that it “shouldn’t be interfering” with the cycles.

“I hope we don’t discover something really bad down the line,” he later added.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-19-vaccines-can-impact-menstrual-cycle-researchers-find-5599612?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=undefined-title-0

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

COVID-19 Shot Hesitancy Driven by Knowledge of Adverse Events

People who did not comply with COVID-19 vaccine requirements were hesitant because they knew someone who had experienced a health problem after getting the injection, according to recent research.

“Knowing someone who experienced a health problem following COVID-19 injection reduced the likelihood of injection, the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research reported.

Such people “were more likely to oppose injection mandates and passports.

Conversely, “knowing someone who had health problems following the COVID-19 illness increased the likelihood of injection,” the journal said.

Among those who were aware of at least one individual who experienced COVID-19 injection adverse events, they said they knew about 57 deaths following vaccination.

“The health issues reported ranged from serious problems such as cardiac arrests and other heart-related problems, blood clots and other circulatory problems, to neurological issues, as well as milder effects such as feeling sick, headache, fever, etc.”

The study, published on Feb. 16, investigated the factors that made people support or protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports. Researchers collected information from an online survey completed by 2,840 individuals in December 2021.
It found that 22 percent of the respondents knew at least one person who experienced a health issue after getting vaccinated.

The authors cited other studies on vaccine hesitancy in the context of influenza to point out that “vaccination status [in these studies] is influenced by beliefs regarding vaccine safety, effectiveness in infection prevention, and the gravity of the illness that might be prevented.”

They cited a survey published by Rasmussen Reports in March last year which found that “nearly as many Americans believe someone close to them died from side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as died from the disease itself.”
This survey combined with the results of the present study “affirms that opposition to COVID-19 injection mandates and passports has increased over time,” the researchers wrote.

Moreover, the findings of the study suggest that policymakers may find it difficult to “engender a consensus” when it comes to pushing for vaccine mandates and passports, the researchers stated.

The study found that having COVID-19 illness was not associated with preferences for injection mandates. However, those who were injected were found to be “much less likely to oppose injection mandates than are those that did not receive the injection.”

Race was a “strong predictor” of injection mandates, with minority populations like African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians being “less inclined” to oppose such regulations than Caucasians.

“Political identity is also important: Compared to Democrats, those who self-identify as Republicans are more likely to oppose mandates. Those who identify as Independent also tend to oppose injection mandates.”

One of the authors of the study is Mark Skidmore, a professor and Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy at Michigan State University (MSU). He has previously published research in several journals like Economic Inquiry, Economics Letters, and the Journal of Urban Economics. The second author, Fernanda Alfaro, is a Ph.D. student at MSU.
Regarding funding and conflicts of interest, researchers said they received funds from an individual donor.

Safety Concerns and Vaccine Hesitancy

In a recent post at the International Center for Law and Economics, health economist Roger Bate points out that the COVID-19 vaccines “were not as effective as originally claimed, and were effectively forced onto many people in order for them to work, attend school, or travel.”
“There is early evidence that these and other factors may currently be contributing to heightened vaccine hesitancy, with potentially serious consequences for public health.”

A July 2022 analysis published in BMJ Global Health also raised similar concerns. It argued that mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies were “scientifically questionable” and were more likely to result in harm than good.

“Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport, and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being,” it said.

The restrictive COVID-19 policies “may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunizations.”

In an interview with Fox News last year, Dr. Robert Redfield, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that federal officials pushed a “false perception” that the COVID-19 vaccines provided “complete” immunization.
“There was such an attempt to not let anybody get any hint that maybe vaccines weren’t foolproof, which, of course, we now know they have significant limitations,” he stated.

“I always said … my position was just tell the American public the truth: There are side effects to vaccines. Tell them the truth, and don’t try to package it.”

Commenting on the Feb. 16 study, cardiologist Peter A. McCullough said in a Substack post that vaccine hesitancy would be higher in 2024 “as more injuries, disabilities, and deaths have been reported as a result of the novel genetic products” since the 2021 survey.

“When it comes to COVID-19 vaccination, hesitancy is a good thing demonstrating the population is concerned about consumer product safety of the mRNA and adenoviral DNA technology,” he wrote. Dr. McCullough also criticized the American Medical Association’s (AMA) view on vaccine hesitancy.

The AMA website has this statement: “While the AMA is a strong advocate for the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, we recognize that some members of the public may have historical, cultural, or religious reasons to distrust the vaccination process.”

The AMA’s views on the factors driving vaccine hesitancy are inapplicable, Dr. McCullough said. “Attempts to overcome vaccine hesitancy are likely to be harmful.”

Some experts have also raised concerns about vaccine hesitancy triggered during COVID-19 extending to other vaccines as well.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/covid-19-shot-hesitancy-driven-by-knowledge-of-adverse-events-5599981?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=undefined-title-1

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

4 March, 2024

CDC drops 5-day isolation guidance for COVID-19 cases

The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control on Friday rolled back its longstanding five-day isolation guidance for people who come down with COVID-19.

Under the updated guidelines, the CDC says those infected with the coronavirus can return to work or the public just one full day after their fever subsides.

“Today’s announcement reflects the progress we have made in protecting against severe illness from COVID-19,” agency Director Dr. Mandy Cohen said in a statement.

“However, we still must use the commonsense solutions we know work to protect ourselves and others from serious illness from respiratory viruses—this includes vaccination, treatment, and staying home when we get sick.”

The guidelines for isolation have not been updated since Dec. 2021, when CDC had shortened the recommended isolation time for Americans with asymptomatic cases to five days from the previous guidance of 10 days.

The announcement follows reports last month that the policy change was in the works due to a decrease in infections.

The US has seen an overall decline in COVID-19 cases — 17,300 people were hospitalized and 510 people died from the virus during the week of Feb. 17, the most recent CDC data available.

The updated guidelines, however, do not affect workers at nursing homes and other health care facilities. Medical personnel should follow recommendations to stay home at least seven days after symptoms first appear, and that they test negative within two days of returning to work, according to the CDC.

While the guidelines have been significantly scaled back, health officials are still urging sick persons to take extra precautions in the first five days following an infection.

Those with COVID-19 are encouraged to stay home until 24 hours after a fever, stay up to date with vaccinations, wearing a mask and social distancing — all of which reflects guidelines similar to other highly contagious viruses.

“While every respiratory virus does not act the same, adopting a unified approach to limiting disease spread makes recommendations easier to follow and thus more likely to be adopted and does not rely on individuals to test for illness, a practice that data indicates is uneven,” the CDC said in the announcement.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/01/us-news/cdc-drops-five-day-isolation-rules-for-covid-19-infections/

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

Covid pandemic could have been avoided and contained to Wuhan, professor claims

The Covid pandemic could have been avoided and contained to Wuhan, a professor has claimed in a damning book that lifts the lid on Chinese blunders that allowed the virus to spread across the globe and kill millions of people.

'Wuhan: How the Covid-19 Outbreak in China Spiraled Out of Control', by leading author Professor Dali Yang was published on Friday and explores the pandemic in forensic detail.

Prof Yang draws a devastating conclusion that the pandemic, which started with the first known patients in the eastern Chinese city in late December 2019, was not inevitable.

The book explores key events that came before a lockdown was imposed on Wuhan, including how a mass banquet was held on January 18 that saw more than 100,000 people come together despite health officials knowing the virus was spreading.

Prof Yang offers a deep analysis of who knew what and when about the virus, but barely touches on the origins of Covid-19, The Telegraph reports.

It instead looks at the individual heroism seen during the pandemic as well as the flawed decision-making and lack of clarity as officials tried to deal with a mysterious 'pneumonia of unknown etiology'.

Prof Yang concludes that the global pandemic, which led to the deaths of an estimated 13.3 to 16.6million people worldwide, could have been prevented.

'I do think there was a meaningful chance that the pandemic could have been avoided,' Prof Yang, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, told The Telegraph.

The professor believes that Chinese health authorities were dealt a 'remarkably strong hand of cards' in the early days of the virus breaking out.

'China is a country with significant capabilities, which could have advanced the knowledge and response more rapidly at the end of December 2019,' he added.

But he says any advantage was destroyed by a authoritarian political system that was not prepared for the emergency.

The pandemic dates back to when several of Wuhan's doctors at some of China's best hospitals discovered that a 'pneumonia of unknown etiology' in the city was showing sign of 'human-to-human' transmission.

Experts had feared that the virus was linked to the SARS coronavirus that plagued East Asia between 2002 and 2004. On doctor told the local Centre for Disease Control (CDC): 'It's a disease we've never encountered before, it's also a family [cluster of] infections. Something is definitely wrong!'

Coronavirus was confirmed by Vision Medicals, a lab based in Guangzhou, who tested 'Patient A' - a 65-year-old man with severe pneumonia and 'multiple scattered patchy faint opacities in both lungs'.

'Due to the sensitivity of the diagnostic results', the lab only confirmed the positive test result for a SARS-like coronavirus to the hospital over the phone and not in writing.

Doctors found it was 81 per cent similar to the first SARS coronavirus outbreak. And screenshots that appeared online showed the virus was instantly recognised as something that 'should be treated in the same class as the plague' in order to contain it.

Despite growing evidence pointing towards a possible pandemic, the local CDC was slow in its response.

Gao Fu, the director general of the national CDC, only head about the Wuhan outbreak via social media on December 30.

And while he acted swiftly with emergency responses, the next few weeks were marred by mistakes, censorship and political interests which failed to stop the virus spreading rampantly.

'The first week in January became a pivotal turning point for handling the outbreak. Just the wrong kind,' the book states. 'The failure to act before January 20 was monumental.'

One of the biggest mistakes was failing to respond to several cases in Wuhan that were not linked to the Huanan Seafood Market - the location of the first clusters.

Prof Yang suggests that when the market was therefore closed, people believed the virus was under control and the virus was able to spread amid a false sense of security.

Other factors that contributed to working against containing the virus was China's political tradition of suppressing information to maintain social stability.

'Clearly many [doctors] are heroes but, if you read between the lines, they also operated within constraints,' Prof Yang said.

'It's clearly not a black and white picture but shades of grey. Some of the most heroic doctors happened to be also ones who might not have spoken up like they could have. It's a very complicated picture.'

Doctors who did speak out were reprimanded by police and infections among hospital staff were covered up .

Even as Wuhan moved closer towards a lockdown, high-profile events such as Chinese New Year celebrations were still showcased to try and prove everything was under control.

It was Taiwan’s Dr Chuang Yin-ching who said the outbreak was much worse than feared on January 13 2020. When he returned, Taiwan issued a travel alert for Wuhan and tightened border controls.

But back in Wuhan, the severity of the virus continued to be downplayed and it was left to Dr Zhong Nanshan, 83, a trusted veteran of the first SARS epidemic, to warn that Covid was 'certainly transmissible from human to human'.

He confirmed that cases were being seen in Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai, and Zhejiang and even abroad in Japan, South Korea and Thailand. At this point, China was put on alert and citizens were advised to wear face masks.

However, New Year celebrations still took place in the Wuhan and Hubei province, with residents invited to apply for 200,000 free passes to visit landmark sites. Local media praised performers for continuing despite being sick.

By the time Wuhan was sealed off from the rest of the world on January 23, some 500,000 people had left the country for the holidays.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13147891/Covid-pandemic-avoided-contained-Wuhan-professor-claims-Experts-book-lifts-lid-Chinese-blunders-allowed-virus-spread-globe.html

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

Lockdowns may be GOOD for you

Strange findings

Lockdowns during the Covid pandemic led to two 'fascinating' changes in babies bodies that may have protected them against disease and allergies, a study has found.

Researchers from University College Cork in Ireland found that children born while the world was locked down during Covid had an altered gut microbiome - the ecosystem of 'good' and 'bad' bacteria in the gut that aid in digestion, destroys harmful bacteria and helps control the immune system.

The biome was found to be more beneficial in the infants.

Researchers believe this led 'Covid babies' to have lower than expected rates of allergic conditions, such as food allergies, compared to pre-pandemic babies, the scientists found.

They also required fewer antibiotics to treat illnesses.

Researchers analyzed fecal samples from 351 Irish babies born in the first three months of the pandemic, between March and May 2020, and compared them to samples from babies born before the pandemic.

Online questionnaires were used to collect information on diet, home environment and health to account for variables.

Stool samples were collected at six, 12 and 24 months and allergy testing was performed at 12 and 24 months.

The Covid newborns were found to have more of the beneficial microbes gained from their mother after birth, which could act as a defense against allergic diseases.

If individuals have a disrupted gut microbiome, this may lead to the development of food allergies.

Babies born in the pandemic had lower allergy rates: About five percent of the Covid babies had developed a food allergy at age one, compared to 22.8 percent in the pre-Covid babies.

Researchers said that mothers had passed on the beneficial microbes to their babies while pregnant, and they gained additional ones from the environment after they were born.

The study also found that babies born during lockdowns had fewer infections because they were not exposed to germs and bacteria.

This meant they needed fewer antibiotics - which kill good bacteria - leading to a better microbiome.

The lockdown babies were also breastfed for longer, which provided additional benefits.

Of the Covid babies, only 17 percent of infants required an antibiotic by one year of age.

In the pre-pandemic cohort, meanwhile, 80 percent of babies had taken antibiotics by 12 months.

This was 'fascinating outcome,' joint senior author Liam O'Mahony, professor of immunology at the University College Cork, said, and 'correlated with higher levels of beneficial bacteria such as bifidobacteria.'

Professor Jonathan Hourihane, consultant pediatrician at Children's Health Ireland Temple Street and joint senior author of the study, said: 'This study offers a new perspective on the impact of social isolation in early life on the gut microbiome.

'Notably, the lower allergy rates among newborns during the lockdown could highlight the impact of lifestyle and environmental factors, such as frequent antibiotic use, on the rise of allergic diseases.'

The researchers hope to re-examine the children when they are five years old to see if there are any long-term impacts of the early changes in gut microbiome.

The study was published in the journal Allergy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13146861/Covid-pandemic-babies-two-fascinating-biological-changes-study-finds.html

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

3 March, 2024

CDC Tracking BA.2.87.1, New Omicron Subvariant With Potential to Evade Immunity

Experts detected a strain of SARS-CoV-2 with more than 30 changes in its spike protein compared with Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced. The newer Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2.87.1, has infected at least 9 people in South Africa since September 2023. No cases have been reported in the US or outside South Africa, the CDC noted in its update.

The large number of changes in spike proteins raises the possibility that the new strain could escape the immunity people have acquired from vaccines or infection. Still, the relatively few cases suggest the variant is not highly transmissible right now.

Although the CDC is carefully monitoring the new strain, the agency expects that current vaccines and treatments will continue to be effective.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2815864

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

Scientist claims ‘smoking gun’ evidence COVID-19 intentionally created by researchers in Chinese lab

COVID-19 may have been created in a Chinese lab, a British professor told the UN Wednesday, with another expert claiming that evidence of the likelihood has reached “the level of a smoking gun.”

Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, was quoted saying in a new Wall Street Journal article that the virus that killed millions around the world may actually have been manmade in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

He cited evidence found in a 2018 document from the lab that talked of making such a virus.

“[The document] elevates the evidence provided by the genome sequence from the level of noteworthy to the level of a smoking gun,” Ebright said in the piece by former New York Times editor Nicholas Wade.

The papers from the lab cited by Ebright contained drafts and notes regarding a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, which sought to test engineering bat coronaviruses in a way that would make them more easily transmissible to humans.

The proposal was ultimately rejected and denied funding by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but Wade suggested that their work could have been carried out by researchers in Wuhan who had secured Chinese government funding.

“Viruses made according to the DEFUSE protocol could have been available by the time Covid-19 broke out, sometime between August and November 2019,” wrote Wade, a former science editor of the New York Times.

“This would account for the otherwise unexplained timing of the pandemic along with its place of origin.”

Along with the research notes, Wade claimed the specific genetic structure of the coronavirus that allowed it to infect humans served as another strong indication of “the virus’s laboratory birth.”

“Whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol,” Wade wrote.

While scientists continue to debate whether the coronavirus pandemic was a natural occurrence or manmade, Ebright believed there was credibility that the work proposed by the now-controversial EcoHealth Alliance led to the development COVID-19.

Following the release of the 2018 documents — which were published by US Right to Know through a Freedom of Information Act request — Ebright said there was clearer evidence that the virus was manufactured in a lab, the Daily Telegraph reported.

The 2018 documents contained drafts and notes regarding Project DEFUSE and how to synthesize bat coronaviruses to make them more transmissible.

The researchers proposed introducing “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” to the spike proteins of SARS-related viruses in the lab, the same method several biologists have said could have been used to synthesize the coronavirus that led to the pandemic.

According to the documents, the researchers had planned to conduct a portion of the research at the Wuhan lab where they noted that safety conditions were not up to US standards, to the point where they claimed American scientists would “likely freak out.”

While COVID-19’s origins remain a mystery, Dr. Filippa Lentzos, an associate professor of science and international security at King’s College London, said the world needed to acknowledge that the possibility exists that the virus was synthesized.

Speaking before the UN in New York on Wednesday, Lentzos presented the work of the Independent Task Force on Research with Pandemic Risks, which calls on scientists the world over to follow stricter regulations lest another worldwide breakout occur, the Telegraph reports.

“We have to acknowledge the fact that the pandemic could have started from some research-related incident,” Lentzos said.

“Are we going to find that out? In my view, I think it’s very unlikely that we will. We need to do better in the future,” she added. “We are going to see more ambiguous events.”

https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/world-news/scientists-may-have-started-the-covid-pandemic-article/

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

Angry nurses rally at Gold Coast University Hospital, demand jobs back

A vindictive bureaucracy at work. They don't like admitting that they were wrong

Dozens of placard-waving nurses and other healthcare workers took part in the rally outside Gold Coast University Hospital on Saturday.

It followed fury this week after The Courier-Mail revealed leaked Queensland Health emails telling a veteran nurse that “we are unable to re-employ any staff who were officially terminated” for refusing the jab.

Queensland Health boss Michael Walsh said the edict was incorrect and wrote to all hospital and health services in the state on Friday telling them there was no directive not to reinstate sacked workers.

Health Minister Shannon Fentiman this week repeatedly denied there were any barriers to hundreds of workers who refused to comply with the vaccination mandate from returning to work.

But nurses protesting on the Gold Coast said they were still struggling to get their jobs back.

They included 23-year veteran intensive care nurse Michelle Williams, who said she tried to reapply at the major hospital she was sacked from in 2021 but was told there were no vacancies - only to see a job ad for a position.

“It’s frustrating, it’s really frustrating,” she said. “Patients are suffering and they’ve got very junior staff looking after them. “There’s so many of us with so much experience and our experience is just going to waste.”

Ms Williams said Ms Fentiman needed to “stop lying to us”.

“We want to come back to work, we’ve done nothing wrong except not follow this one (vaccine) direction,” she said. “We’re not criminals. We’re people who love our jobs, we love looking after patients and we just want to help people. “We just want to come back to work and do what we love doing, and that’s helping people get better.”

Ella Leach, secretary of the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland, said Ms Fentiman had not responded to an invitation to attend or at least endorse the rally.

Ms Leach said the minister had been sent the names and experience of 350 sacked health care workers who wanted to return and “Shannon should be reaching out to them directly” instead of making them reapply.

“There’s just zero excuse … we want her to take some actual action,” she said.

“These people were born to be nurses and health professionals - they want to work. It doesn’t make them happy hearing that the system’s crumbling, it makes them desperately angry and upset. “All they want to do is work.”

Ms Leach was herself sacked from Queensland Children’s Hospital for refusing the vaccine - in January this year, four months after the mandate was lifted, and despite being seven months’ pregnant. She launched unfair dismissal action against Queensland Health.

Ms Leach said many sacked healthcare workers who had reapplied for jobs with Queensland Health were still being rejected because of their “disciplinary action history” in refusing the vaccine.

“These people have decades of experience and they are desperately needed,” she said.

Ms Leach said 6000 nurses were predicted to retire in 2024 but Queensland Health was hiring nurses from interstate or overseas, with incentives of up to $70,000.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/angry-nurses-rally-at-gold-coast-university-hospital-demand-jobs-back/news-story/37d0412f8b3f3371999b35dc15483c12

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

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

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