This document is part of an archive of postings by John Ray on Dissecting Leftism, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written.
This is a backup copy of the original blog
Below is the backup of this blog for June, 2024. To access the backups in earlier years, click here
26 June, 2024
Early Treatment With Fluvoxamine May Reduce Severe COVID-19 Outcomes: Review
A surprising finding. An anti-depression drug is not an obvious choice to combat Covid. It is good that some doctors thought outside the box and were insightful enough to see a connection. The drug does actually seem to have saved lives
A side benefit seems to be that Fluvoxamine recipients were less depressed by their illness!
An antidepressant commonly used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may significantly reduce the risk of clinical deterioration in COVID-19 patients, according to new research published in Scientific Reports.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 clinical studies involving 7,153 patients found that early treatment with fluvoxamine, especially at doses of 200 milligrams or more, notably reduced COVID-19 clinical deterioration, mortality, and long-COVID complications.
The authors defined clinical deterioration as needing hospitalization after testing positive for COVID. About 7 percent of patients who took fluvoxamine needed hospitalization after testing positive for COVID-19, whereas about 19 percent of those who did not take fluvoxamine required hospitalization, the authors found.
Eight of the studies analyzed were placebo-controlled and used proper blinding methods. The STOP COVID trial was among the first to explore repurposing fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In this trial, 80 patients received 300 milligrams of fluvoxamine daily. None experienced clinical worsening of their symptoms, while six out of 72 patients in the placebo group did.
Another early trial, the TOGETHER trial, was significantly larger than the STOP COVID trial and involved 1,497 participants—741 of whom received 200 milligrams of fluvoxamine daily and 756 of whom received a placebo.
The study found that 11 percent of patients in the fluvoxamine group versus 16 percent of patients in the placebo group needed observation for COVID-19 in an emergency setting for more than six hours or were transferred to a tertiary hospital. Moreover, there were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group.
Early Outpatient Treatment for COVID-19: The Evidence
In the STOP COVID 2 trial, initiated in late 2020, researchers found that a lower 100-milligram dose twice daily would also effectively reduce COVID-19 hospitalization.
Open-Label and Retrospective Studies Favor Fluvoxamine
In an early open-label study on fluvoxamine, researchers investigated the drug’s effects on intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19. They did not find that fluvoxamine reduced ICU time or time on ventilators but did find a statistically significant improvement in mortality in those treated with fluvoxamine.
Open-label studies are not blinded, meaning participants know they are receiving fluvoxamine, and no placebo drug is given to patients in the placebo group.
A larger clinical study from Honduras and smaller studies from Uganda and Greece showed similar results. In Greece, data indicated fluvoxamine was associated with reduced development of dyspnea (shortness of breath) and pneumonia in COVID-19 patients, as well as reduced mortality.
A 2021 study of 162 patients in Thailand analyzed multiple drugs alone and in combination with fluvoxamine. Researchers found that none of the patients taking fluvoxamine experienced deterioration requiring hospitalization by day nine compared to 67.5 percent of the patients who received standard care.
Fluvoxamine May Reduce Mortality
Since open-label studies may not provide complete data, the researchers also conducted a meta-analysis using only “gold standard” placebo-controlled double-blind studies.
The meta-analysis examined seven studies involving 5,080 patients. Just over 9 percent of the standard-care group and 6 percent of the fluvoxamine-treatment group experienced clinical deterioration.
The researchers also investigated the effect of fluvoxamine on COVID-19-related mortality in 12 studies involving 7,722 patients. Results showed that 4.8 percent in the standard-care group died, compared to about 1.6 percent in the fluvoxamine group. Among five studies that reported deaths in either group, fluvoxamine demonstrated greater benefits than the placebo or standard care.
How Fluvoxamine Works
Fluvoxamine is a generic selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat OCD and depression. It is also known to have anti-inflammatory properties and gained popularity during the pandemic for its potential to treat COVID-19, reduce mortality, and potentially mitigate long-COVID symptoms.
All SSRIs, including fluvoxamine, target the serotonin transporters localized throughout the body in the brain, lungs, and platelets. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that SSRIs can mediate inflammation. According to a 2021 paper in Frontiers in Pharmacology, SSRIs can positively affect numerous inflammatory processes that have a direct antiviral effect on severe COVID-19.
Dr. Syed Haider, a physician who has treated thousands of COVID-19 patients, told The Epoch Times he is one of the first physicians to begin widely prescribing fluvoxamine for COVID-19. He saw the benefits of using it early in the pandemic in severe cases that needed “everything we could throw at them,” he said.
“It was very early for me personally, and I had only thus far seen about 10 or 20 patients for acute COVID-19,” said Dr. Haider. One of his patients had been hospitalized.
“After I added fluvoxamine to the protocol, the next few hundred patients had no hospitalizations for COVID-19, though one young male was briefly admitted due to a severe psychological adverse reaction to fluvoxamine itself, though that quickly wore off,” he added.
As time went on, Dr. Haider said it became apparent that a minority of patients couldn’t tolerate the side effects of fluvoxamine and stopped taking it, while others were concerned about the potential impacts of taking a psychiatric drug.
Side effects of fluvoxamine include nausea, diarrhea, indigestion, and neurological symptoms such as asthenia (weakness), insomnia, anxiety, headache, and, rarely, suicidal ideation.
Fluvoxamine May Reduce Long-COVID Complications
All but one of the studies reviewed by researchers found that fluvoxamine may reduce long-COVID complications. In a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study investigating neuropsychiatric symptoms in mildly to moderately affected long-COVID patients, researchers found fewer neuropsychological symptoms in those who used the drug. Additionally, fluvoxamine-treated patients experienced less fatigue and depression.
In follow-up data of the STOP COVID 1 and 2 trials, researchers found that most trial patients reported that they had not fully recovered. Those who received fluvoxamine during the acute COVID-19 trial were about half as likely to report having recovered less than 60 percent. According to the authors, other reviewed studies suggested SSRIs may be beneficial for treating long COVID due to their anti-inflammatory properties.
*************************************************
25 June, 2024
Long COVID Clarity—Three-Year Study of VA Population in America
Those who were hospitalized with acute SARS-CoV-2 have a significantly higher risk for ongoing death and long COVID symptoms
Researchers affiliated with the VA St. Louis Health Care System as well as well-known physician-scientist Eric Topol at Scripps Research Institute using national health care databases designed a cohort of 135,161 US veterans who survived the first 30 days of COVID-19 and a control of 5,206,835 users of the VA healthcare system with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
To ensure 3-year follow-up, these cohorts were enrolled between March and December 2020, an era that pre-dated the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and antivirals and when the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus predominated. These cohorts were followed longitudinally for 3 years to estimate the risks of death and incident of long COVID symptoms throughout the 3-year follow-up and cumulatively at 3 years in mutually exclusive groups according to care setting of the acute phase of the disease (in non-hospitalized and hospitalized).
The net summary of this important study, albeit one with limitations.
Those who were hospitalized with acute SARS-CoV-2 have a significantly higher risk for ongoing death and long COVID symptoms. While the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections were mild to moderate and the authors here minimize the risk of death and significant long COVID symptoms in the non-hospitalized COVID-19 infection population, they acknowledge the vast population meaning there are many people struggling with issues, while deemed mild to moderate under long COVID symptom category, nonetheless see overall decline in quality of life. The authors acknowledge the need for more research and eventually therapeutic options.
An important point TrialSite emphasizes is that the vast majority of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections were mild to moderate meaning no hospitalization. While this study highlights the greater risks of persons in the VA system who were hospitalized, a great toll on individuals and society now impacts persons who could be considered a mild long COVID. Meaning they had a mild to moderate COVID-19 and continue to face long COVID symptoms, ones that adversely impact quality of life. Even the authors herein acknowledge this vast cohort.
They declare “Consequently, much of the burden of PASC in populations is attributed to mild infection. According to an analysis by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) collaborators, about 90% of people with PASC had mild COVID-19, suggesting that, although preventing severe disease is important, strategies to reduce the risk of post-acute and long-term health loss in people with mild COVID-19 are also needed.”
Findings
There were 114,864 participants (13,810 (12.0%) females and 101,054 (88.0%) males) in the non-hospitalized COVID-19 group and 20,297 participants in the hospitalized COVID-19 group (1,177 (5.8%) females and 19,120 (94.2%) males), plus 5,206,835 participants in the control group with no infection (503,509 (9.7%) females and 4,703,326 (90.3%) males).
The researchers ensured these patients all had follow up totaling 344,592, 60,891 and 15,620,505 person-years of follow-up in the non-hospitalized COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 and control groups, respectively. In total this all equaled 16,025,988 person-years of follow-up. The researchers investigated the demographic, health characteristics and standardized mean differences of the non-hospitalized COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 and control groups before and after inverse probability weighting for baseline covariates.
Examining the risks and burdens of death and a set of pre-specified PASC as well as sequelae aggregated by organ system and aggregated as an overall outcome of PASC by care setting during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (non-hospitalized (n = 114,864) and hospitalized (n = 20,297) groups) in the first, second and third year after SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Among non-hospitalized study subjects, there was no longer an increased risk of death post the first year of infection, and the risk of long COVID declined over the three year duration, however still contributed 9.6 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4–18.7) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 1,000 persons in the third year.
Among hospitalized individuals, risk of death declined but remained significantly elevated in the third year post infection (incidence rate ratio: 1.29 (95% CI: 1.19–1.40)). Risk of incident PASC declined over the 3 years, but substantial residual risk remained in the third year, leading to 90.0 (95% CI: 55.2–124.8) DALYs per 1,000 persons.
With risks diminishing over time, a death mortality continues in addition to overall loss of good health by year three in that cohort that was hospitalized.
Breakdown
Is it the finding that the risk after 3 years among non-hospitalized persons goes down, and in fact the risk of mortality goes away?
Yes. The risk of death goes away after the first year of infection, plus the risk of long COVID symptoms also declines substantially by year 3.
What about hospitalized persons with COVID-19?
Their risk declines as well but remains significantly “elevated” on into the third year post infection (29% increased risk and excess burden of death of 8.16 per 1,000 persons).
So, does this mean that persons that were hospitalized have higher chances of long COVID incidence as well?
Yes. While the risks for post-acute sequelae went down over the years, nonetheless a material “residual risk remained in the third year, leading to 252.8 sequelae per 1,000 persons and 90.0 DALYs per 1,000 persons.”
How can the risks be summarized?
The totality of the study finds overall lower risks of symptoms over 3 years of follow-up, however, continued amplified risks of major adverse outcomes among hospitalized individuals.
***********************************************
Supreme Court Turns Away COVID-19 Vaccine Appeals
This case was about compulsory vaccination but it failed on the purely legal ground that the petitioners "lacked standing"
U.S. Supreme Court justices on June 24 rejected appeals brought over COVID-19 vaccines by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent candidate running for president.
The nation’s top court rejected an appeal seeking to overturn lower court rulings that found that CHD and its members lacked standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its emergency authorizations of COVID-19 vaccines for minors.
The justices also rebuffed another CHD appeal in a case that challenged the COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed on students at Rutgers University, a public college in New Jersey.
The Supreme Court did not comment on either denial. It included them in a lengthy list dealing with dozens of cases.
“Disappointing that the courts are closed to FDA fraud harming millions of Americans,” Robert Barnes, an attorney representing CHD in the FDA case, told The Epoch Times in an email.
He called for Congress to pass reforms.
Julio Gomez, an attorney representing CHD in the Rutgers case, told The Epoch Times in an email that the Supreme Court’s denials marked a sad day because clarity is needed on vaccines and the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a city’s law requiring vaccination against smallpox.
Mr. Gomez pointed to a recent federal appeals court ruling that determined that Jacobson did not apply to a case filed against a vaccine mandate in California because plaintiffs had produced evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Lawyers for Rutgers and the government did not return requests for comment.
In the FDA case, CHD and parents in Texas and Florida argued that the regulatory agency cleared COVID-19 vaccines under emergency authorization despite COVID-19 posing less risk than influenza to children and without adequate clinical testing. The FDA also wrongly promoted the vaccines, the plaintiffs alleged.
U.S. District Judge Alan Albright tossed out the lawsuit in 2023, finding that CHD and the parents did not meet the requirements for standing, or the ability to sue over the actions, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
While the parents said their children were at risk of being vaccinated by other people, they did not show that they faced imminent harm because of the FDA issuing emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines, the judge said. Imminent harm is one requirement for standing.
The judge also said CHD had not shown that its resources were drained in responding to the FDA’s conduct and that it was airing a “generalized grievance,” which is not allowed under Supreme Court precedent.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in January upheld the ruling.
“Plaintiffs contend that the injury-in-fact element is satisfied because a third party might vaccinate their children over their objections, and that such vaccine could allegedly injure them and their children,” the panel stated. “Be that as it may, we agree with the district court that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate an injury in fact because the alleged injury is neither concrete nor imminent.”
Mr. Barnes had urged the Supreme Court to look at the case.
“Can no one sue the FDA? Is that what Article III means?” he wrote in a filing
Government lawyers waived their right to file a brief to the court.
In the case against Rutgers, CHD and some of its members said the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional in part because the Constitution’s due process clause enables people to refuse medical treatment.
U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled against the plaintiffs in 2022, finding that Rutgers mandated vaccination as part of a legitimate goal of protecting the school community from COVID-19 and that the students either brought claims that had become moot because they were granted religious exemptions to the mandate or failed to state a claim.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the decision in February.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-turns-away-covid-19-vaccine-appeals-5674328
*************************************************24 June, 2024
First-of-Its-Kind Study Explains Why Some People Don’t Get COVID-19
Yes. I have long been aware of genetic factors in the response to Covid. I am one of the lucky ones with a very good immune system. No exposure to the illness infected me nor did I have even a sore arm after I got two shots of AstraZenica. Life isn't fair
Researchers have discovered why some people remain uninfected by the COVID-19 virus—even after their nasal cavities are exposed to it.
According to a recent study, these people have faster and more subtle immune responses than those who develop symptomatic COVID-19.
“These findings shed new light on the crucial early events that either allow the virus to take hold or rapidly clear it before symptoms develop,” Dr. Marko Nikoli?, senior author of the study and honorary consultant in respiratory medicine at the University College London, said in the press release.
The study, published in Nature on Wednesday, was a human challenge study conducted by researchers from the UK and the Netherlands. It is the first of its kind wherein participants were deliberately exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Researchers recruited 16 young, healthy participants under 30 for the study. None had comorbidities, and none had ever previously been infected with COVID-19 or vaccinated.
The 16 individuals responded to the virus exposure differently and were grouped accordingly.
The first group contained six symptomatic people. The study authors categorized them as having sustained infections.
People in the second group were asymptomatic but still tested positive for COVID-19 with PCR tests. These participants were categorized as having transient infections.
The third type of people were asymptomatic and continuously received negative COVID-19 PCR test results. The authors confirmed that these participants were infected but cleared their infections so rapidly that the infections were dubbed “abortive.”
The second and third groups, who had asymptomatic COVID-19, had faster or more subtle immune responses, according to the authors.
On Day 1, the authors detected immune cells that migrated to the nose—the site of infection—in the asymptomatic groups.
However, people who tested negative for COVID-19 recruited fewer immune cell types, while the COVID-19-positive group recruited all immune cell types.
Symptomatic people with sustained COVID-19 infections had slower and more systematic immune responses. These participants had all types of immune cells going into the nose on Day 5 rather than Day 1.
Genetic Factors
Individuals with high expression of specific genes, such as HLA-DQA2, “are better at preventing the onset of a sustained viral infection,” the authors wrote.
Other studies have shown that increased activity of HLA-DQA2 in the blood is associated with milder COVID-19 progression.
HLA-DQA2 is one of many human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes. HLA genes make proteins displayed on the cell surface. When pathogens infect cells, HLA proteins signal to immune cells that they have been infected.
The authors said their data confirm that HLA-DQA2 activity protects against further production of SARS-CoV-2 virus in infected cells.
Symptomatic People Had Systematic Responses
Only people with symptomatic COVID-19 displayed systematic interferon responses. Interferons are messengers of the immune system that help reduce or aggravate immune and inflammatory activities.
The authors were surprised to find that interferons in the blood were activated before those at the infection site. Interferon activity in the blood peaked on Day 3 of the infection; however, interferon activity at the infection site—the nose—was not detected until Day 5.
In the press release, the authors said that slow immune responses in the nose could have allowed the infection to establish itself quickly.
Asymptomatic people did not have systemic interferon reactions and rarely had infected cells.
Unsurprisingly, “infected cells were almost exclusively found” in the nasal cavities of symptomatic people, the authors wrote. The cells lining participants’ nasal cavities start producing SARS-CoV-2 virus, contributing to increased viral load.
“We now have a much greater understanding of the full range of immune responses, which could provide a basis for developing potential treatments and vaccines that mimic these natural protective responses,” said Dr. Nikoli?.
*******************************************
Review of Autopsy Reports Sees Sunlight
Systematic Review of COVID-19 Vaccination in Death Autopsies Now Available
Recently, a paper that had been censored and now published in Forensic Science International, an Elsevier publication and based on a systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths post COVID-19 vaccination finds out of 325 autopsy cases, 73.9% of the deaths according to the authors including TrialSite contributor Peter McCullough, MD, MPH were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.
So, what does this data suggest? What are the implications of this study?
According to a review of the paper, the probability of a causal link becomes significantly more substantial--that at least in rare cases, very real deaths have and do occur with the COVID-19 vaccines.
Apparently, after The Lancet censorship, first author Nicolas Huslcher kept pursuing options for other publishing outlets. Some of the authors such as Canadian oncologist William Makis have taken to X declaring that “Big Pharma” was behind the pulling of pieces at The Lancet, but he doesn’t offer any definitive proof. TrialSite suggests more than likely if there were any conspiracy involving this situation it was likely linked to government ties. Makis also continues to intensify the sensationalist claims on X declaring that because of the delay of this paper, many deaths could have been prevented. This too is a claim with no real evidence.
The group of authors scoured PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18, 2023. All autopsy and necropsy studies that included COVID-19 vaccination as an antecedent exposure were included. Three physicians reviewed each case, adjudicating whether or not the COVID-19 vaccine was a direct causal factor, or if it contributed to the death.
Limitations
Numerous limitations may impact the force of veracity of this paper. For example, various biases may impact the interpretation of the results. However, the authors believe their methodology mitigated much of the risk.
However, their interpretation of the autopsy findings is based on the evolving understanding of COVID-19 vaccines, which differs markedly from when the referenced studies were published, making a biased assessment for those studies inapplicable.
This systematic review shares the limitations of other previously published case reports including selection bias at the level of referral for autopsy and acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.
The authors put it out there that they “believe publication bias could have had a large influence on our findings because of the global push for mass vaccination by governments, medical societies, and academic medical centers coupled with investigator hesitancy to report adverse developments with new genetic products widely recommended for both caregivers and patients.”
Another important limitation to this paper that the authors acknowledge-- confounding variables, such as concomitant illnesses, infection, drug interactions, and other factors not accounted for. These could be a factor in the causal pathway to death.
Ready for Sunlight
Nonetheless, now in the journal Forensic Science International the authors review of the literature and their findings come to light for others to review, digest and contemplate. The findings and the authors' interpretation are indeed troubling and should prompt more serious investigation into COVID-19 vaccine safety.
*************************************************
23 June, 2024
Government Misinformation On Australian Excess Mortality
Written by Dr Wilson Sy
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has deviated from international standards of calculating excess deaths during the pandemic (based on 2015-19 average) by using computer
models ‘adjusted’ for factors like population growth, resulting in significantly lower statistics
The ABS approach, questioned by the Australian Senate inquiry, effectively reduces excess deaths to merely COVID-19 fatalities.
Both the Australian Government and ABS have conflated scientific theory with statistical data. Unlike scientific research bodies, the ABS’s role is in national statistics collection and publication.
Despite this, the ABS has proposed a hypothesis that its model assumptions adequately explain Australian excess deaths as attributable solely to COVID-19. Hypothetical estimates have been published as data.
The disclosure of excess death data should initiate rigorous scientific inquiries into their underlying causes, rather than conclude them. By endorsing ABS’s interpretations, the Government will risk misleading the public into believing that Australian excess deaths require no further investigation.
I formally addressed these concerns in an individual submission to the Senate Committee on excess mortality, highlighting the Government’s inadequate scientific approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although my submission was censored, its content is reproduced below.
My main concern is the lack of scientific rigour in the Australian response to the COVID pandemic, in which misguided government policy has caused high excess mortality.
Flawed COVID Data
The health policy response to COVID in Australia has been marred by reliance on selective and biased research, leading to misinformation. Official COVID data, upon which much of this research is based, has been shown to be flawed and unreliable due to inadequate scientific rigor in data collection processes [1].
In the realm of formal logic, it’s well understood that a false premise can be used to validate any arbitrary conclusion. This concept, epitomized by Bertrand Russell’s famous quip which demonstrated that from the false statement “1=0,” one could deduce absurdities like he was the Pope.
This fallacy is commonly summarized as “garbage in, garbage out.” During the COVID crisis, Australian authorities have relied on flawed data to draw conclusions, resulting in numerous erroneous assertions.
A critical flaw in much of published research is the failure to cross-validate official COVID data against independent sources. Despite the availability of alternate datasets often aligning more closely with common sense and broader empirical observations, these were systematically disregarded. Such selective acceptance of evidence, without rigorous scrutiny or falsification, undermines the integrity of scientific inquiry.
Cherry-Picking Evidence
The practice of cherry-picking evidence by purported “experts” lacks scientific validity. In genuine scientific practice, the collective body of evidence, not the opinions of select individuals, guides conclusions. Without proper evaluation, the Australian government has dismissed contrary evidence of elevated excess deaths during the pandemic, which is antithetical to sound scientific methodology.
Through flawed research methodologies, the Australian government has misled both itself and the public, asserting that elevated excess deaths can be solely attributed to COVID-related fatalities. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has further exacerbated this issue by manipulating raw data through complex modelling, resulting in significantly diminished excess death statistics [2]. Such manipulations obscure the true extent of excess mortality and hinder meaningful investigations into its causes.
Comparisons with pre-pandemic all-cause mortality benchmark (2015-19 average) reveal a stark increase in excess deaths during and after the COVID outbreak, far exceeding benchmark figures. This high excess deaths suggest a systemic failure in accurately recording COVID-related deaths, which fall short of being able to account for Australian excess deaths.
Unreliable COVID Deaths
Contrary to official narratives, substantial evidence challenges the assertion that COVID alone is responsible for excess mortality. Instances such as the spike in deaths in England in April 2020, coinciding with the widespread misuse of Midazolam and opioids in elderly care, underscore the errors in attributing deaths to COVID [3]. Similarly, evidence from Australia suggests that a significant portion of reported COVID deaths may actually be misclassified cases of influenza and pneumonia [4].
While COVID may indeed contribute to excess mortality, the rush to attribute all excess deaths to the virus overlooks other potential causes, including systemic issues within healthcare systems and inappropriate medical interventions. The correlation between rising excess deaths and the rollout of mass vaccination campaigns warrants thorough investigation, particularly considering the possibility of adverse effects associated with vaccination.
A different approach is needed, not relying on flawed official COVID data, to address the issue of Australian excess deaths in the pandemic.
Granger Causality
Granger causality analysis, named after a 2003 Nobel Laureat, offers a methodological framework [5] for examining causal relationships between variables, such as COVID vaccination and excess mortality. By analysing independent time series data, it’s possible to establish temporal associations and assess the likelihood of causality. Granger causality hinges on the principle that a cause must precede its effect, and that the causal variable should consistently lead the outcome variable by a fixed period with high correlation.
Our Granger causality analysis reveals a significant relationship between Australian COVID vaccination and subsequent excess deaths, with a lag time of five months or 21 weeks and an accuracy rate of approximately 70 percent. In our initial study [4], we shifted the COVID vaccination data forward by five months or 21 weeks and observed a strong and consistent correlation with excess deaths, as depicted in Figure 1.
Notably, the vaccination data, extending until May 2023, which also provides an out-of-sample prediction of future excess deaths.
Conclusion
Due to flawed official COVID data, Australian governments and the public have been misled by research based on that unreliable data. The numbers of COVID deaths are inaccurate, probably exaggerated, but regardless, the numbers fall well short of being able to explain excess deaths.
Australian excess deaths may have several causes, but we have shown by Granger causality that COVID vaccination explains about 70 percent of Australian excess deaths. The issue extends beyond my individual submission.
The government’s practice of collecting data to support its policies raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding accountability.
Australia requires a data integrity commission to rectify official data inaccuracies.
https://principia-scientific.com/government-misinformation-on-australian-excess-mortality/
*************************************************20 June, 2024
Troubling nursing home statistics: Deaths RISE after vaccination
The statistics below seem very firm but we should be careful about generalizing the finding to people in general. Most peole do have SOME adverse reaction to a COVID jab but survive it. People that are already in a nursing home will however quite probably have compromised immune systems so might die from reactions that younger people would survive. So the findings below are compatible with saying that the vaccines are not GENERALLY harmful.
But it also follows that elderly people were actually the LAST people who should have got the vaccines. As it was, however, elderly people were in fact prioritized to get the vaccine on the assumption that they were most in need of protecton from the virus. So what actually happened was the opposite of what was intended: For the elderly, the cure was worse than the disease.
Steve Kirsch
The single most stunning data point that nobody can explain;
the single most stunning piece of official US government data is the US Nursing home data. I first wrote about this nearly a year ago. Since then, there have been no investigations. Nobody wants to talk about it. Here’s why…
I was tipped off by an insider that her nursing home, Apple Valley Village Health Care Center, located in Apple Valley, MN started rolling out the injections on December 28, 2020. The insider also told me that shortly thereafter staff members were called back from their Christmas vacations to deal with all the deaths.
Nobody at Apple Valley Village will talk to me. Does the Chaplain think she is helping to save lives by keeping her mouth shut? Apparently. None of them would return my phone calls.
Let’s see what the official US Medicare records that anyone can download here say about COVID cases and deaths before the shots rolled out.
I went on the query page on that site and downloaded the records for Apple Valley Village, highlighted the two key columns in red, and saved them in an Excel spreadsheet here so you can see for yourself. It took me about 60 seconds to do that.
For the 32 week period ending 12/27/20 (right before the shots started being rolled out), there were 27 COVID cases, and 0 COVID deaths. There was an average of 1 death per week (there were 32 deaths in the 32 weeks listed).
Now let’s look at what happened in just a 3 week period right after the shots were administered (rows 35 to 37 in the spreadsheet): 90 COVID cases resulting in 28 COVID deaths. In that 3 week period after the shots, AVV averaged 8 all-cause deaths per week, which is 8X higher than normal.
This is not a statistical anomaly. That is impossible if the vaccine isn’t killing people. You can’t keep injecting people with something that you know is killing people like this unless you give them informed consent.
I’ve filed a criminal complaint with the Apple Valley Police Department.
Which means that the people at AVV are criminally negligent for not stopping the shots. So I’ve reported this
The COVID death rate at AVV suggests we should have seen at most 1.5 deaths in the 90 COVID cases, but we observed 28. The chance of that happening by pure random chance is 6.6e-26. In short, we are 99.999999999999999999999999% confident this didn’t happen by chance.
And this didn’t happen because they changed the criteria for dying from COVID, because the weekly all-cause death rate jumped from 1 to 8 for three weeks straight after the rollout. That can happen by chance, but it is nearly impossible (probability 2.6e-14). So it’s unlikely Apple Valley Village just got “unlucky.”
Something caused a lot of people to die from COVID right after the shot rollout.
If it wasn’t the shots, what was it? Nothing else can explain both the rise in COVID death rate (from 0% to 30%) as well as the 8X increase in all-cause mortality.
There is no possible explanation other than the deaths were caused by the “safe and effective” COVID vaccine.
This is why Apple Valley Village staff will never comment.
This is why the FDA and CDC won’t comment. This is why the New York Times will never cover this story. There is no place to hide on this data.
I’m not claiming this is happening everywhere. I’m only saying that the vaccine was supposed to significantly REDUCE all-cause mortality from COVID. If that were the case, this anecdote is statistically impossible. And yet it happened.
In science, if you can’t explain a data point, you don’t just write it off. You have to explain it or at least publicly admit that your hypothesis could be wrong until you can explain it.
And this wasn’t cherry picked either. In the entire time I’ve been a “misinformation spreader,” I’ve only gotten one insider call from someone in a nursing home who would reveal the date that the vaccine was rolled out in her facility. One.
And even if I scoured all 15,000 nursing homes for a case like this, it still can’t happen because the probabilities are too small.
So I had two independent ways at looking at this data: the tip from the insider and the data reported to the government. Both aligned.
Does this deserve investigation? Of course! But there will be no investigations. Ever.
Because that’s the way science works nowadays. It’s all about ignoring all credible evidence that doesn’t support the narrative. And that should be troubling for everyone.
Apple Valley isn’t talking, even when a MN State Representative calls! Shane Mekeland, House District 27A Minnesota, reached out to Apple Valley Village to ask them if they were investigating the excess deaths.
They said, “No comment” and immediately hung up the phone.
Why did they do that? It looks like they have something to hide.
Aggregate CFR data from all 15,000 nursing homes
Some people erroneously claim that anecdotes are meaningless. This is false because anecdotes are easy to 100% verify and a single anecdote, if statistically significant, can reveal serious flaws in a hypothesis that should cause further investigation as to whether the hypothesis is consistent with the data.
But I’m fine looking at all the US Nursing home data.
I spend a ton of time doing that. You can look at my GitHub repo for all the work I did (including the R code I wrote and all the results.
I summarized it all in my Substack article: The US nursing home data is devastating for the narrative: FINAL GRAPHS.
It shows that over 50% of nursing home residents were fully vaccinated by 2/7/2021. But as you can see, the case fatality rate (CFR) from COVID actually spiked up after 50% of the shots were delivered and then dropped down as we’d expect as the people with the weakest immune systems succumb to the virus early on leaving people with more robust immune systems. And look at the dramatic instant drop in CFR when Omicron rolled out. This is what should have happened after the vaccine rollout if it worked: it should never have spiked up like it did; it should have gone from the .17 baseline and dropped monotonically half of that amount; there shouldn’t have been any spike after the vaccine rollout if the variant didn’t change (which it didn’t).
The IFR in this chart is mislabelled; it should technically be CFR because we don’t know if there was 100% testing of everyone in the nursing homes.
The JAMA paper clearly shows no hospitalization benefit for the COVID or flu vaccines in the VA elderly
One of my personal favorite papers was a Research Letter published in JAMA on April 6, 2023 described in my Substack article entitled VA study published in JAMA shows that COVID *and* Flu shots don't reduce your risk of hospitalization.
The study looked at the official US government VA data.
Hidden in this Table was a gem that none of the authors noticed: extremely strong evidence that neither COVID nor flu vaccines reduced hospitalization. It showed the vaccination breakdown in both cohorts (hospitalized for flu vs. COVID) was nearly identical (in both raw and adjusted numbers).
Truly revolutionary. A paper in JAMA unintentionally demonstrating that the COVID and flu vaccines DO NOT work!
These are large numbers. If the vaccine worked, there would have been a significant difference between the two groups. But there wasn’t.
The Z-score for influenza group is over 24, and for the COVID shots it is over 47 (assuming a 50% reduction is expected). Which means the results are highly statistically significant (a Z-score of 1.96 is generally considered statistically significant).
I contacted the senior author of the research letter, Ziyad Al-Aly, who is a highly published epidemiologist with an h-index of 82 who works for the VA.
I asked him how, if the vaccines worked, you could get a result like this where it clearly shows the net hospitalization benefit is near ZERO for both vaccines.
He couldn’t explain it either.
I suggested to him that he write a follow up Letter to JAMA to point out this truly game-changing observation in his paper, but he said he didn’t have time.
But I thought this was pretty darn important. So I collaborated with Mark Mead and Paul Marik and we wrote a Letter to the Editor to JAMA to point out this stunning result.
JAMA rejected it as not important enough for their journal. Wow. You show that the COVID and flu vaccines are a complete scam and that isn’t good enough to make it into JAMA?!?!?
We have the rejection letter, but it is marked confidential at the request of Gregory Curfman, MD, Executive Editor, JAMA.
It’s been accepted by another journal and will be available soon.
Lack of a compelling positive anecdote in the US
I’m not aware of reading or hearing about any nursing home facility (which largely have stable populations so we can look at their statistics over time) which noticed a significant drop in CFR, and lower all-cause mortality after the shot rollout.
And apparently, the success examples are so rare that if you asked 5,000 people, they aren’t aware of one either.
If the vaccine worked as promised, nearly every single facility of the 15,000 US facilities would be a huge success story where the COVID CFR went down by at least a factor of 2 after the shots were given to most of the patients in that facility.
But apparently, after over 5,000 views now, nobody knows of one. How is THAT possible? Ask 5,000 people and nobody can cite a success case? Is it that rare?
If you look at the stats for nearly 15,000 nursing homes (which I did in the “ALL” analysis in the github code), you find that there are nearly 3 nursing homes where the CFR went up (i.e., worse) after the demarcation date (vax rollout) for every one that got better. This is simply impossible if the vaccine worked as advertised.
There is no possible way that anyone in their right mind could call that a success.
This is a huge failure since if we did nothing, the CFR naturally goes down over time. This strongly suggests that the vaccine made things worse.
And for those who think the tests are random
The CFR drops over time, exactly as expected. And when Omicron hit, the CFR nearly instantly ticked downward, exactly as expected.
So where is the evidence that the trends are random?
Summary
If the COVID shots worked, I wouldn’t be able to find any data points like this. Not in anecdotes, and also not in large databases like the VA and Medicare.
If the COVID shots worked, they’d be able to explain these data points. Instead, they ignore them and ghost me when I ask for explanations.
Nobody has ever explained how the all-cause mortality dropped from 1 death a week to 8 deaths a week over a 3 week period right after the shots at Apple Valley. They won’t answer any calls. Nor will they be held accountable by lawmakers in their state.
And we aren’t hearing a single success anecdote from any of the over 15,000 US Nursing homes how COVID mortality dropped like a rock after the shot rollout.
Come on. 15,000 nursing homes and they can’t find A SINGLE success anecdote that anyone knows about??? Are you kidding me????
So we have strong evidence that the shots didn’t protect people and we also have a lack of success anecdotes. And the numbers are damning with 3 nursing homes getting worse after the shots for every one that got better. That’s not a success. That’s a huge failure.
We were conned into believing these shots worked.
Over 21 million people are paying the price for this fraud and they are still perpetuating it.
The stories of harm caused by these shots are extremely sad and it is very troubling that our government is looking the other way when these people are trying to get the help they deserve.
https://stophumansacrifice.substack.com/p/murder-by-vaccine-steve-kirsch-with
*************************************************19 June, 2024
More Evidence Covid ‘Vaccines’ Cause Aggressive Cancers
Google may well take this post down. Their AI seems to be programmed to block any claims that the vaccines can be harmful. Rather childish
Written by Phillip Altman
I keep saying it, but it worth repeating……everything, I mean everything, we have been told about the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines” has been a lie
Among some of the most important lies was the lie about the lack of potential genotoxicity and cancer.
Our “health experts” continue to deny the genotoxicity risk and cancer risk despite any safety testing to support this claim.
The manufacturers even said when the injections were released that there was no data on genotoxicity and cancer potential – they said it in black and white in the officially approved Product Information.
Dr. Maryanne Demasi has now published a pertinent Substack in relation to dangerous DNA contamination contained in the shots. Apparently, Pfizer’s dirty shots have been cleaned up a little but Moderna’s shots had far less DNA contamination and they even patented the process to remove the DNA.
Part of the Moderna’s patent admits contaminating DNA is a cancer risk.
Now, cancers around the world have been on the increase since the Covid injection rollouts but our government refuse to admit this might have been caused by the injections themselves. Our government refuses to seriously investigate.
Shame on them all.
The Covid-19 “vaccines” were never tested for cancer potential when released but our health experts (who have been showered with Australian Honours ) claimed they were “safe”.
How did the experts know these injections were safe if the tests to prove them safe were never conducted?
Previous Victorian Premiere Daniel Andrews, who many say was directly responsible for some of the world’s worst pandemic policies including the longest lockdowns, loss of personal freedoms, loss of life, thrashing of the State economy, destruction of businesses, demonising of those choosing not to be jabbed and police brutality…..has now received Australia’s highest civilian honour, Companion of Australia, in part for his role in the pandemic.
This tells you everything you need to know about the King’s Birthday Honours List and those responsible for this nauseating tribute. There will be no apology…there will be no accountability…there will be no transparency…there will be no compensation… and, worst of all, history is bound to repeat itself.
The way the game will be played from here is that it will be up to damaged individuals or families of the dead to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their cancers were caused or exacerbated by the Covid injections – an almost impossible legal task which will be steadfastly refuted by the manufacturers and government.
While cancer deaths soar around the globe, our government will try and run out the clock, taking decades to reveal the truth while senior bureaucrats receive huge pensions, grab lucrative board positions and eventually die without remorse without facing justice.
https://principia-scientific.com/more-evidence-covid-vaccines-cause-agressive-cancers/
****************************************************Closing schools for a year was a mistake admits Antony Fauci
Anthony Fauci, the former director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has admitted that it was a mistake to close schools for more than a year during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Dr Fauci, who was a top adviser to two presidential administrations during crisis, made the admission during an interview with CBS TV, in a dramatic U-turn over the draconian policy that forced millions of children into remote learning.
During the interview, aired to publicise his new memoir: On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service, Dr Fauci argued the initial decision to close classrooms was correct.
“Keeping it for a year was not a good idea,” he said.
“So, that was a mistake in retrospect?” host Tony Dokoupil asked. “We will not repeat it?”
“Absolutely, yeah,” Dr Fauci responded.
Dr Fauci, 83, has previously stood by the recommendation that forced children out of classrooms and into learning from home, and has even claimed there should have been “much, much more stringent restrictions” in the early stages of the pandemic.
In the northern summer of 2020, when some US schools were considering reopening, Dr Fauci advised against the move, warning there might be some areas were the level of the virus was so high it “would not be prudent” to allow children back into school. Asked on PBS that same month whether “many months of virtual learning” would be the norm, he answered, “In some places, that may be the case,” The New York Post reports.
Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says Anthony Fauci had “made up” social distancing rules which became the norm in the US during the COVID pandemic. Dr Anthony Fauci has admitted there were no clinical trials to back up the recommended six feet social distancing guidelines during More
In January 2021, a CDC study showed “little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission’’ but schools remained closed until later that year.
However Dr Fauci refused to admit that the school closures had been an error, telling the ABC in 2022:. “I don’t want to use the word ‘mistake.’”
In his interview with CBS Dr Fauci said schools should have been shut down “immediately” then reopened “as quickly and safely as you can.”
However he refused to admit that children’s education had suffered due to remote learning.
“One clear area seems to be the school closures, which did enormous harm to kids on multiple levels and didn’t seem to save lives,” Doukoupil said. “And I wonder, can we say today that that is a mistake?”
“No,” Dr Fauci replied.
The New York Post reports that according to US Department of Education statistics released in September 2022, reading scores among nine-year-olds plummeted over the course of the pandemic to their lowest point in 30 years, while maths scores fell for the first time ever in a half-century of tracking.
In testimony at a Congressional hearing this year, Dr Fauci conceded the “six feet apart” rule, the intellectual underpinning of lockdowns, wasn’t based on science or even logic. “It just sort of appeared,” he said.
“Just an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data or even data that could be accomplished.
“It was felt that transmission was primarily through droplets, not aerosols, which is incorrect because we know now aerosol does play a role,” he said, pointing out that Covid-19 floats in the air, making a mockery of masks, and social distancing.
In a separate interview today (AEST) on MSNBC, Dr Fauci blamed “misinformation related to ideology” for deaths during Covid.
Defending his record and that of other public-health officials, who were accused of “flip-flopping” during the pandemic on issues such as the need to wear face masks and socially distance, he said: “What we needed to do better was to let people understand that we were dealing with a moving target.
“Science is self-correcting.”
As experts learned more about the virus, they were able to change their advice and recommendations, he noted.
*******************************************************
Scotland: An embarrassed silence
Politicians’ pandemic decisions changed – sometimes ruined – our lives, so why aren’t they part of the debate?
I’m not one for conspiracy theories. A surfeit of human incompetence leaves me believing cock-up theories far better explain the calamities that confront us. Even when conspiracies do exist they too are subject to cock-ups, such as the Prime Minister conspiring to catch his opponents on the hop by calling an earlier than expected election, only to be drenched in the rain as he announced it.
I say all of this for I believe there is today a conspiracy of sorts taking place before us in plain sight. We are halfway through a general election and yet the political parties have not sought to discuss their or their opponent’s record, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is a conspiracy of silence, an omertà between combatants that has not even required them to speak to each other to agree the code. Why should such a potential mass-scale existential event – the likes of which Hollywood horror movies are made about – not be a core issue?
Could it be that it suits them all, government and opposition alike, to not talk about their almost universally poor conduct during that time?
The government’s reaction to the pandemic resulted in us being under 24-7 supervision, often house bound, it caused early deaths, wrecked businesses, denied education, delayed healthcare, cost jobs, savings and ruined lives.
The Covid-19 pandemic was not that long ago. The last UK lockdown ended only three years ago in July 2021 – Scotland’s lasted longer. Yet while we hear our politicians talk about today’s consequences of the decisions taken then, such as the cost-of-living crisis, the enormous NHS waiting lists, the cancer treatment backlog, the education gaps, the rising mental health symptoms, they do not want to talk about the root cause of the challenges we face now.
Why is no-one asking questions about why our politicians closed the schools when other countries managed to keep them open – and still managed comparatively better outcomes?
Why is there not a demand to know why Nightingale hospitals were built at great expense only never to be used for their purpose of mass triage and treatment centres?
Where is the outrage at the way care home residents were treated or how “Do Not Resuscitate” protocols were put in place across many healthcare settings?
How could our governments adopt a conscious programme of Project Fear to scare us into obedience – to snitch on our neighbours for walking their dogs, to wear masks despite there being no evidence of benefits, to adopt entirely arbitrary social distancing so we could not see our dying loved ones or easily attend their funerals?
Well, I have not forgotten those times and I’m absolutely certain our politicians have not either.
The reality is that as the various public inquiries have held their evidence sessions, so we have become aware of how badly our politicians behaved, either in conducting their decision making, or in callously turning dreadful situations to their own advantage. They know we see this too.
Is it not strange Rishi Sunak only mentions his generous furlough scheme, but not his agreement to the massive pumping of money into the economy through quantitative easing that contributed to our inflation and subsequent higher taxes? Is it not stranger Keir Starmer does not seek to press Sunak on these weaknesses, or does he fear being shown to have wanted to do more that would have made the after-effects even worse?
Sunak dare not talk about Boris Johnson receiving a police fine for accepting a birthday cake he did not ask for, nor eat – because he too was fined for being in the room at the same time. But why does Starmer not raise the episode? Is it because of dubiety around his beer and pizza in Labour campaign offices?
Is it not odd the SNP campaign does not make more of Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s chief mammy at the time? Or does the SNP leadership now recognise her deletion of texts, her bouncing of the UK into mask wearing, her doing things differently in Scotland just for the sake of it, and her grandstanding at daily information sessions in advance of the Holyrood elections might bring back the sort of memories that will cost votes?
The international and domestic evidence has been gathering for months now. The lockdowns made no significant difference to the spread of Covid-19, but have cost our economies, our personal finances – even if it’s just the taxes we now face – our health and our kids’ education irreparable damage. Those like Sunak who introduced them and those like Starmer who clamoured for them to be sooner, harder and longer dare not talk about it.
Likewise those Labour politicians in Wales and SNP politicians in Scotland who made their lockdowns even more extensive dare not talk about it. Ironically it was Boris Johnson who fought to end the last lockdown early and Starmer who said we dare not.
Today our politicians want to talk about their offers of shiny things and free stuff – but cannot face the reckoning for the way they behaved.
*************************************************
18 June, 2024
U.S. Federal Court Opens Up Litigation on the Question: Was it Really a Vaccine?
The week before last, a panel of three federal judges at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco did something unusual – it called out a government agency for lying and, in the process, opened up for litigation one of the crucial questions of the pandemic response: when is a ‘vaccine’ not a vaccine?
What is so important about the decision is that it is the first time a court has even opened the door to deciding the question the efficacy of the ‘vaccine’ itself.
In other words, what it means is that whether or not the Covid shot was an actual traditional vaccine – one that stopped transmission and kept people from getting the illness at hand – could be litigated in court for the first time ever.
The lawsuit itself involves the dissembling – as usual – of the Los Angeles Unified School District and its on-again, off-again Covid shot mandate and its subsequent firing of hundreds of workers for refusing to get an experimental medical treatment.
Between March of 2021 and last autumn, LAUSD both instituted and dropped, and re-instituted and re-dropped its Covid shot mandate. And the district made these decisions for legal reasons only – the decisions had nothing to do with the actual shot itself, whether or not it worked, or what did it really do, or what are the side-effects, etc.
Essentially, each time the district changed its mind was because of either the filing of a lawsuit – dropped the mandate – or the dismissal of a lawsuit – re-instituted mandate. In fact, the LAUSD attorney even taunted the attorneys for the Health Freedom Defence Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom and the number of individual plaintiffs who brought the suit.
The Covid shot mandate resulted in the firing of hundreds of teachers and other district employees, turning lives upside down for people who were leery of getting an experimental medical treatment (the suit for monetary damages etc. against the district for those employees is a separate but parallel effort).
The ruling, said plaintiffs’ attorney Scott Street, does not automatically mean that a Government agency cannot impose public health mandates but it “better be right and be able to prove it” if and when it does. Additionally, the ruling does not specifically say the Covid shot is not a traditional vaccine, but – incredibly importantly – it does allow that issue to be litigated going forward.
Legal precedent holds that a Government may enforce mandatory public health laws. In 1905, the State of Massachusetts was sued over a mandate for the smallpox vaccine and the court found that “mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox”, therefore the mandate was appropriate.
The case, known as Jacobson, has been cited across the nation when mandates were challenged previously. But what the Ninth Circuit panel did was “appropriately apply” for the first time the diktats of Jacobson, said plaintiffs’ attorney John Howard.
Briefly, a Government agency can ‘rationally’ act to protect the health of the general public, but only if said mandate actually protects the public, i.e., stops the transmission of the virus and stops people from getting the virus in the first place. The Covid shots neither stopped transmission nor conferred immunity, a fact that should have been clear from the very beginning of the vaccination craze. In fact, the shots were not even tested to see if they prevented transmission of the virus, only if they helped prevent infection or ease symptoms.
But Government agencies either ignored or hid those data in order to justify the mandates, to ‘get back to normal’ as so many politicians and ‘experts’ said.
What this all means is that while Jacobson has been used as a justification numerous times, it may not actually apply in the case of the Covid shot.
For unlike in Jacobson – in which the smallpox vaccine had been shown to stop the spread of the disease – the ruling states that the “plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a ‘traditional’ vaccine. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively ‘prevent the spread’ of COVID-19.”
To get to this point, the court also ruled that the lawsuit was not “moot”, as has been ruled in a number of other pandemic-related cases.
The problem for the district – which had basically argued the suit was moot because the pandemic was over – is that for something to be legally moot it has to be, in part, incapable of being repeated. In other words, it has to be clear the party – in this case the school district – could not or would not do it again, a fact clearly at odds with LAUSD’s actions. Add in that the mandate droppings were “recisions in the face of judicial review”, i.e., done solely to get a lawsuit thrown out, and it was not terribly difficult for the court to decide the suit is clearly not moot and can continue.
Just to emphasise – the district dropped its mandate for the second time days after the hearing in federal court; in fact, the wheels to get the decision in front of the board reportedly started turning literally that afternoon and you just can’t do that.
“What are you going to do when we drop the mandate?” sneered the district lawyer to plaintiff’s attorney, San Diego lawyer John Howard, after the oral arguments before the panel last fall.
During the course of the mandates, LAUSD fired hundreds of teacher and employees for refusing to comply with its order. In fact, considering the sketchy performance of the Covid shot, the mandate may not have been about Covid at all but was used as a tool to cull the district of employees who will do not blindly follow orders and may cause all sorts of the trouble in the future.
Note: this particular suit is not about the damages the employees suffered – being fired, loss of pension, etc. That issue is being addressed in a separate, but essentially parallel, legal action.
The ruling remands the case back to federal district court, leaving the LAUSD with pretty much four options.
The district can go back into the district court to re-litigate the matter; it could appeal to the United States Supreme Court; it could ask the Ninth Circuit to hold an en banc hearing which involves having a much large panel of judges review the issue; or it could settle the case.
The Supreme Court route is almost certainly too early for consideration, but the en banc request would at the very least delay – and possibly change – the results of the outcome from the Ninth Circuit.
As to settling: in one sense, that is highly unlikely. LA government institutions, as has been shown in the past (the freedom of speech case against Barbara Ferrer’s health department for example) are surprisingly arrogant (considering their track records,) especially when it comes to legal matters. The government institutions aren’t spending their own money so they tend to let the lawyers loose to litigate to their hearts content.
But there could be another aspect to that decision. It is also highly unlikely that the feds, the CDC, the Deep State, the ‘experts’, etc. – in other words, the entire pandemic response crowd that upended society and is still lying about it – wants the the question of whether or not the vaccine is an actually vaccine litigated in public, let alone in court.
A ruling to the contrary of what has been claimed could open a tsunami of litigation and political consequences for the powers that be, hence the pressure that could be brought to bear on the LAUSD to shut up and move on.
The district – which said it is reviewing the ruling and its options – is expected to make its choice in the next month or so.
The ruling was hailed by those who have been questioning the pandemic response strategy for years.
“At the beginning of Covid lockdowns, the courts themselves were closed, so there was no hope for legal relief. Even after the courts reopened, for about three years they largely displayed a closed-minded, deference to Government experts, even when their policies were demonstrably nonsensical from a medical standpoint,” said Dr. Clayton Baker, internist and former Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester. “This decision gives hope that the courts will finally reject a know-nothing attitude, and be willing to assess the scientific merit of plaintiffs’ arguments on a consistent basis.”
Though the mistrust sown by the draconian, nonsensical Covid response has only grown, whether or not this ruling – and the pretty much for certain appeals and legal back-and-forths to come – will help rebuild public confidence in the concept of public health is not yet clear.
Dr. Steven Kritz was cautious about that outcome
“In the end, it really doesn’t matter, since from a public trust and public health perspective, we ended up with an ‘original sin’ that is irreversible and unpardonable,” Kritz said. “Had the courts done their job, they had the tools to intervene early, and may have short-circuited this disaster before it began.”
Oh – one more thing: In Jacobson, the plaintiff – unlike the LAUSD teachers and countless other victims of the pandemic response – did not lose his livelihood, he wasn’t quarantined and he was not forced to take the vaccine.
He was fined five bucks ($161 today) and that was it.
Really.
*************************************************
17 June, 2024
Panic over Dutch Study Raising Possibility of COVID-19 Vax and Excess Death
The heat is on a Dutch Academic Medical Center for some of its prominent physician-researchers conducting a population health study raising the possibility of a link of excess deaths to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.
The Princess Máxima Center, part of the University Medical Center Utrecht Wilhelmina Kinderziekenhuis (WKZ) announced the academic medical center was distancing itself from the publication published in a prominent, peer-reviewed scientific journal. The paper “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022” was featured in TrialSite.
The authors of this population-based study pointed to the data in their study, suggesting excess deaths could possibly be tied to the COVID-19 vaccines. They did not make any claims and emphasized that they simply came across a possible signal. But the authors, seriously credentialed including a literal Dutch knight, apparently crossed a no-no boundary.
According to a Princess Máxima Center media entry, serious questions have arisen regarding the publication “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022”.
Serious pressure is now applied to this institution for one paper that Saskia Mostert, Assistant Professor, CCA, Professor Pediatrics and prominent colleagues, including a Dutch knight, authored—the manuscript was peer-reviewed and published by BMJ Public Health.
Now, suddenly the Dutch academic medical center announces publicly the need to “further investigate the scientific quality of this study.”
And it goes further showing the intensity of the underlying inquiry: “The Princess Máxima Center deeply regrets that this publication may give the impression that the importance of vaccinations is being questioned.”
Princess Máxima Center now goes on the record, finding it needs to explain the original purpose of the study. The “idea was to look at the effect of COVID measures on, among other things, the mortality rate of children with cancer in low-income countries. During the course of the study, the focus shifted and diverted in a direction that we felt was too far from our expertise: pediatric oncology.”
So essentially the institution on behalf of the authors of the study are explaining that they are “Not experts in epidemiology, nor do we want to give that impression.”
Consequently, the academic medical center “…emphatically distances itself from this publication. We should have been more alert to the formation and results of this publication and will further investigate the way it was created. If it turns out that carelessness was involved in the realization of this publication, it will of course be withdrawn.”
The media release concludes, “Princess Máxima Center, wants to emphasize that we strongly support vaccination, and that this publication should certainly not be read as an argument against vaccination. The study in no way demonstrates a link between vaccinations and excess mortality; that is explicitly not the researchers' finding. We therefore regret that this impression has been created.”
Ironically, one of the authors, Prof Dr Gertjan Kaspers, a prominent oncology-focused principal investigator was knighted by the King of Netherlands, the husband of Queen Maximia. He allocates considerable time working with less privileged countries.
Interestingly, another author, Minke Huibers, MD, PhD, while employed at Princess Máxima Center is also an instructor at Global HOPE, Baylor College of Medicine & Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston.
Daniel O’Connor, founder of TrialSite said, “These authors have serious credentials and they by no means downplay the importance of vaccination. They merely suggest a possible signal should be looked into. This pressure and resulting distancing by their institution evidenced serious problems associated with the COVID-19 countermeasure response, which included draconian measures such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates.”
Yes, clearly some serious pressure was applied to these Dutch institutions based on one obscure population-based study that never purports to connect vaccination to excess deaths—only that it should be looked into further.
Why is there so much concern for such an obscure paper that was reviewed and published in a notable peer reviewed journal? Is the topic of any issues with the mRNA vaccines too inconvenient?
In the Netherlands, the pressure to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 was intense, and some ugly divisions emerged.
Note, also that there is a power shift in the Netherlands, as in the rest of Europe. A new government representing the extreme right is coming into power. How will that impact the perception of the COVID-19 vaccines?
********************************************
‘The treaty is done’: WHO pandemic treaty defeated, at least for now
Negotiations for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement” – or “pandemic treaty” – and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) have failed, for now at least.
The New York Times reported that negotiators failed to submit final texts of the two documents before the May 24 deadline for consideration and a vote at this year’s World Health Assembly taking place this week in Geneva, Switzerland.
The WHO said the proposals are intended to prepare for the “next pandemic.”
But critics called the proposals a global “power grab” that threatened national sovereignty, health freedom, personal liberties and free speech while promoting risky gain-of-function research and “health passports.”
“Sticking points,” according to The Times, included “equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”
Instead of considering a full set of proposals from both documents, a more modest “consensus package of [IHR] amendments” will be presented this week, according to the proposed text of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR).
The text does not represent a fully agreed package of amendments and is intended to provide an overview of the current status and progress of the WGIHR’s work. …
The mandate of the WGIHR Co-Chairs and Bureau has now ended but we stand ready to support the next steps agreed by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, including facilitating any further discussions if so decided.
The final report of the International Negotiating Body (INB) for the “pandemic agreement,” dated May 27, states “The INB did not reach consensus on the text.”
Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), credited global opposition to the WHO’s proposals for shutting them down. She told The Defender:
It is a huge tribute to civic action that the WHO treaty and regulations have apparently failed. While delegates to the World Health Assembly are still engaged in last-minute negotiations, outside of approved procedures they do not have a consensus to move forward with a legal infrastructure to conduct COVID operations.
This is great news for the world’s citizens and shows us how powerful we can be when we work together creatively.
The Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time. According to The Straits Times, “Countries have voiced a commitment to keep pushing for an accord.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-treaty-is-done-who-pandemic-treaty-defeated-at-least-for-now/
*****************************************Major apology millions of Australians deserve
We are owed an apology for Covid vaccine mandates.
Mounting evidence shows the vaccines were rushed, less effective than you’d expect of a jab, and, in some cases, dangerous.
The whole premise of mandates was to protect the community. But these vaccines didn’t stop contraction or transmission of Covid – so what exactly were we protecting?
Sure, it may reduce your likelihood of catching Covid. But that should be, and should always have been, your decision.
If you were jabbed then what did it matter whether the person at the table next to you in the pub wasn’t? You’d taken your own precautions. It’s up to others to wear the consequences of their own decisions.
There are plenty of treatments that can help prevent and reduce the severity of myriad other diseases but the government does not force you to take them to participate in society.
Even former deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth now admits he hasn’t had a Covid vaccine for two years.
If one of the most high-profile doctors in the country won’t do it, why would the rest of us?
And most of us haven’t. By May last year, nearly 17 million Australian adults had not had a booster in the past six months.
The sky has not fallen.
News.com.au’s Frank Chung recently detailed the death of 34-year-old Katie Lees less than two weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca Covid jab from vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
She had severe clotting in the brain and became unconscious, being put on life support. The plug was eventually pulled and she died.
At 34, her risk of death from Covid was minimal but in order to go about normal life, thanks to government-imposed rules, she – like the rest of us – had to be vaccinated.
Where there is risk of death or serious side-effects for a medical treatment there is no justification for force or coercion.
But that is what happened and no one has apologised.
AstraZeneca was pulled from Australia last year and its manufacturer discontinued it worldwide last month, saying demand had dropped because of the availablity of newer vaccines.
It followed an admission in a UK court that the vaccine could be deadly.
When the US Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer vaccine for use in December 2020 – long before it was largely rolled out in Australia – it admitted there was no “evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person”.
The federal government set up a $77 million compensation scheme for Covid vaccine injuries in December 2021 in a clear admission of the possible dangers.
About $7 million worth of WorkCover claims have been paid to vaccine-injured people in Victoria who were required to be jabbed by their workplaces.
The last regular report of Covid vaccine safety by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, in November last year, showed 139,654 known adverse reactions.
And Dutch researchers have now sounded the alarm about a possible link between Covid vaccines and excess deaths.
The academics, in a paper published in BMJ Public Health this month, wrote that excess mortality following the introduction of Covid vaccines was “unprecedented and raises serious concerns”, that data on deaths linked to the vaccines was murky and “simultaneous onset of excess mortality and Covid-19 vaccination in Germany provides a safety signal warranting further investigation”.
Excess deaths in Australia were 6.1 per cent higher than expected for the first eight months of 2023 and 14.1 per cent higher than expected in the same period the year prior.
So when will the apology for mandates be forthcoming?
*************************************************
16 June, 2024
Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaigns during Covid pandemic, whistleblowers reveal
There has been a phenomenal amount of propaganda surrounding Covid vaccines
The US military carried out secret campaigns to spread anti-vaccine sentiment and counter China's rising global influence.
The covert operation, which has never been previously reported, targeted people living in the Philippines to instill doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and other life-saving aid that was being supplied to the island nation by China.
The misinformation campaign targeted millions across multiple countries and officials tailored the propaganda to audiences also across Central Asia and the Middle East to spread fear of China's vaccines among Muslims.
Through fake internet accounts meant to impersonate Filipinos, and residents of several other countries, the US military's propaganda efforts were aimed at specifically slamming aid supplied by China, which was doing so to gain favorable public opinion and geopolitical leverage.
America's tactics also included calling into question the quality of face masks, test kits and the first vaccine that would become available in the Philippines – China's Sinovac shot.
The misinformation campaign spanned multiple countries. The above tweet reads: 'Muslim scientists from the Raza Academy in Mumbai reported that the Chinese coronavirus vaccine contains gelatin from pork and recommended against vaccination with the haram vaccine. China hides what exactly this drug is made of, which causes mistrust among Muslims.' Consuming pork or pork products is prohibited in Islam
The misinformation campaign spanned multiple countries. The above tweet reads: 'Muslim scientists from the Raza Academy in Mumbai reported that the Chinese coronavirus vaccine contains gelatin from pork and recommended against vaccination with the haram vaccine. China hides what exactly this drug is made of, which causes mistrust among Muslims.' Consuming pork or pork products is prohibited in Islam
Officials who spoke of the concerted efforts said it's possible the US's actions led to unnecessary Covid infections and potential deaths, as well as spread anti-vax sentiments across the world regarding all available vaccines, including ones made in America.
A Reuters investigation identified at least 300 accounts on X that matched descriptions shared by former US military officials familiar with the Philippines operation.
Almost all were created in the summer of 2020 and centered on the slogan '#Chinaangvirus,' which translated to 'China is the virus' from the Philippine's Tagalog language.
'COVID came from China and the VACCINE also came from China, don't trust China!' a typical tweet from July 2020 said.
The words accompanied a photo of a syringe next to a Chinese flag and a chart of surging infections.
Another post read: 'From China – PPE, Face Mask, Vaccine: FAKE. But the Coronavirus is real.'
After Reuters asked X about the accounts, the social media company removed the profiles, determining they were part of a coordinated bot campaign based on activity patterns and internal data.
In uncovering the operation, Reuters interviewed more than two dozen current and former US officials, military contractors, social media analysts and academic researchers.
Reporters also reviewed Facebook, X and Instagram posts, technical data and documents about a set of fake social media accounts used by the military. Some were active for more than five years.
The American military's anti-vax effort began in the spring of 2020 and expanded beyond Southeast Asia before it was terminated in mid-2021, Reuters determined.
Tailoring the propaganda to audiences across Central Asia and the Middle East, the Pentagon used a combination of fake social media accounts on multiple platforms to spread fear of China's vaccines among Muslims at a time when the virus was killing tens of thousands of people each day.
A key part of the strategy was to amplify the disputed contention that, because vaccines sometimes contain pork gelatin, China's shots could be considered forbidden under Islamic law, which prohibits the consumption of pork.
The military program was started under former President Donald Trump and continued months into Joe Biden's presidency – even after concerned social media executives warned the new administration the Pentagon had been promoting misinformation.
The Biden White House issued an order in spring 2021 banning the effort, which also disparaged vaccines produced by other rivals, and the Pentagon initiated an internal review.
The US military is prohibited from targeting Americans with propaganda, and the investigation found no evidence the Pentagon's influence operation did so.
Spokespeople for Trump and Biden did not respond to Reuter's requests for comment about the program.
A senior Defense Department official acknowledged the military engaged in secret propaganda to disparage China's vaccine in the developing world, but the official declined to provide details.
A Pentagon spokeswoman said the military 'uses a variety of platforms, including social media, to counter those malign influence attacks aimed at the US, allies, and partners.'
She also noted China had started a 'disinformation campaign to falsely blame the United States for the spread of COVID-19.'
In an email, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it has long maintained the US government manipulates social media and spreads misinformation.
A spokesperson for the Philippines Department of Health, however, said the 'findings by Reuters deserve to be investigated and heard by the appropriate authorities of the involved countries.'
Additionally, some American public health experts who were made aware of the campaign also condemned the program, saying it put civilians in jeopardy for potential geopolitical gain.
'I don't think it's defensible,' said Dr Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine.
Lucey, a former military physician who assisted in the response to the 2001 anthrax attacks, added: 'I'm extremely dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned to hear that the US government would do that.'
The effort to stoke fear about Chinese inoculations risked undermining overall public trust in government health initiatives, including U.S.-made vaccines that became available later, Lucey and others said.
Although the Chinese vaccines were found to be less effective than the American-led shots by Pfizer and Moderna, all were approved by the World Health Organization.
Research published recently has shown when individuals develop skepticism toward a single vaccine, those doubts often lead to uncertainty about other inoculations.
Together, the phony accounts used by the military had tens of thousands of followers during the program. Reuters could not determine how widely the disinformation was viewed, or to what extent the posts may have caused Covid deaths by dissuading people from getting vaccinated.
Following the campaign's secret launch, however, then-Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte had grown so dismayed by how few Filipinos were willing to be vaccinated he threatened to arrest people who refused vaccinations.
When he addressed the vaccination issue, the Philippines had among the worst inoculation rates in Southeast Asia. Only 2.1million of its 114million citizens were fully vaccinated – far short of the government's target of 70 million.
By the time Duterte spoke, Covid cases exceeded 1.3million and nearly 24,000 Filipinos had died from the virus.
A spokesperson for Duterte did not make the former president available for an interview.
Some Filipino healthcare professionals and former officials contacted by Reuters were shocked by America's anti-vax effort, which they say exploited an already vulnerable population.
The campaign also reinforced what one former health secretary called an already longstanding suspicion of China.
Filipinos were unwilling to trust China's Sinovac, which first became available in the country in March 2021, said Esperanza Cabral, who served as health secretary under President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
'I'm sure that there are lots of people who died from Covid who did not need to die from Covid,' she said.
To implement the anti-vax campaign, the DoD overrode strong objections from top US diplomats. Sources involved in its planning and execution told Reuters the Pentagon, which ran the program through the military's psychological warfare operations center in Florida, disregarded the impact the propaganda could have had.
Psychological warfare has played a role in US military operations for more than a hundred years, although it has changed in style and substance over time.
'We weren't looking at this from a public health perspective,' said a senior military officer involved in the program. 'We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.'
The Pentagon's anti-vax propaganda came in response to China's own efforts to spread false information about the origins of Covid, which emerged in China in late 2019.
But in March 2020, Chinese government officials claimed, without evidence, the virus may have been first brought to China by an American service member who participated in an international military sports competition in Wuhan the previous year.
Chinese officials also suggested the virus may have originated in a US Army research facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland. There's no evidence for those claims.
Mirroring Beijing's public statements, Chinese intelligence operatives set up networks of fake social media accounts to promote the Fort Detrick conspiracy, according to a US Justice Department complaint.
Beijing didn't limit its influence efforts to propaganda. It announced an ambitious Covid assistance program, which included sending masks, ventilators and its own vaccines – still being tested at the time – to struggling countries.
In May 2020, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the vaccine China was developing would be made available as a 'global public good,' and would ensure 'vaccine accessibility and affordability in developing countries.'
Sinovac was the primary vaccine available in the Philippines for about a year until US-made vaccines became more widely available there in early 2022.
China's offers of assistance were tilting the geopolitical playing field across the developing world, including in the Philippines, which the US already had a tense relationship with.
Duterte said in a July 2020 speech he had made 'a plea' to Xi that the Philippines be at the front of the line as China rolled out vaccines.
He vowed the Philippines would no longer challenge Beijing's aggressive expansion in the South China Sea, upending a key security understanding Manila had long held with America.
Days later, China's foreign minister announced Beijing would grant Duterte's plea for priority access to the vaccine, as part of a 'new highlight in bilateral relations.'
China's growing influence fueled efforts by US military leaders to launch the secret propaganda operation, Reuters uncovered.
'We didn't do a good job sharing vaccines with partners. So what was left to us was to throw shade on China's,' a senior US military officer involved in the campaign told Reuters.
At least six senior State Department officials responsible for the Central Asian region objected to this approach to Pentagon officials and said a health crisis was the wrong time to instill fear or anger through a psychological operation, or psyop.
But in spring 2020, General Jonathan Braga, a senior US military commander responsible for Southeast Asia, turned to a small group of psychological-warfare soldiers and contractors in Tampa to counter Beijing's COVID efforts.
In trailers and buildings at a facility on Tampa's MacDill Air Force Base, US military personnel and contractors would use anonymous accounts on X, Facebook and other social media to spread what became an anti-vax message.
China's efforts to gain geopolitical clout from the pandemic gave General Braga justification to launch the propaganda campaign, sources said.
By summer 2020, the military's operation moved into new territory and darker messaging, eventually drawing the attention of social media executives.
In regions beyond Southeast Asia, senior officers in the US Central Command, which oversees military operations across the Middle East and Central Asia, launched their own version of the COVID psyop, three former military officials told Reuters.
The Pentagon also covertly spread its messages on Facebook and Instagram, alarming executives at parent company Meta who had long been tracking the military accounts, according to former military officials.
Facebook executives had first approached the Pentagon in the summer of 2020, warning the military that Facebook workers had easily identified the military's phony accounts, according to three former US officials and another person familiar with the matter.
The government, Facebook argued, was violating the social site's policies by operating the bogus accounts and by spreading Covid misinformation.
The military argued many of its fake accounts were being used for counterterrorism and asked Facebook not to take down the content, according to two people familiar with the exchange.
The Pentagon pledged to stop spreading Covid-related propaganda, but some of the accounts continued to remain active on Facebook and the anti-vax campaign continued into 2021 as Biden took office.
By spring 2021, the National Security Council ordered the military to stop all anti-vaccine messaging.
'We were told we needed to be pro-vaccine, pro all vaccines,' said a former senior military officer who helped oversee the program.
Even so, Reuters found some anti-vax posts that continued through April 2021 and other deceptive Covid-related messaging that extended into that summer in multiple countries.
Reuters could not determine why the campaign didn't end immediately with the NSC's order. In response to questions from Reuters, the NSC declined to comment.
The senior DoD official said those complaints led to an internal review in late 2021, which uncovered the anti-vaccine operation. The probe also turned up other social and political messaging that was 'many, many leagues away' from any acceptable military objective.
The official would not elaborate.
The review intensified in 2022, the official said, after a group of academic researchers at Stanford University flagged some of the same accounts as pro-Western bots in a public report.
The high-level Pentagon review was first reported by the Washington Post, which also reported that the military used fake social media accounts to counter China's message that Covid came from the United States. But the Post report did not reveal that the program evolved into the anti-vax propaganda campaign uncovered by Reuters.
The Pentagon's internal audit concluded the military's primary contractor handling the campaign, General Dynamics IT, had employed sloppy tradecraft, taking inadequate steps to hide the origin of the fake accounts, said a person with direct knowledge of the review.
The review also found military leaders didn't maintain enough control over its psyop contractors, the person said.
A spokesperson for General Dynamics IT declined to comment.
Nevertheless, the Pentagon's covert propaganda efforts are set to continue.
In an unclassified strategy document last year, top Pentagon generals wrote the US military could undermine adversaries such as China and Russia using 'disinformation spread across social media, false narratives disguised as news, and similar subversive activities [to] weaken societal trust by undermining the foundations of government.'
And in February, General Dynamics IT won a $493million contract with the mission to continue providing clandestine influence services for the military.
*************************************************
13 June, 2024
‘Multibillion-dollar failure’: Australian doctors rip into Covid response
A top doctor has ripped into Australia’s handling of the Covid pandemic, accusing the government of spreading “misinformation” and putting people at risk.
Dr Kerryn Phelps accused the government of fuelling mistrust of health authorities while overselling the “safety and efficacy” of vaccines, and ignoring those suffering serious adverse events from the jabs.
Dr Phelps, who first went public in late 2022 about the “devastating” vaccine injury both she and her wife had suffered after a Pfizer jab, said while there was “a lot that our public health agencies got right during this pandemic”, significant mistakes were made.
The former MP for Wentworth and Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney, and past president of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), is one of dozens of doctors and medical professionals who made public submissions to the federal government’s Covid-19 Response Inquiry.
Dr Phelps slammed “confusing misinformation” spread by authorities early on.
This included claims that Covid was not airborne, there was “no need for masks”, children did not spread the disease and that “herd immunity” could be reached.
All of this turned out to be false.
She said the consequence of the “let it rip” decision in late 2021 led to a “massive number of infections and excess Covid-related deaths estimated by actuaries to be 20,000 in 2022”.
“Political decisions were made, and public health advice was provided based on this misinformation, fuelling mistrust in subsequent advice emanating from those sources,” she said.
Regarding the vaccine rollout, Dr Phelps said “doctors and the public were assured that the vaccines would reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalisations and death from the virus” and the “information being disseminated emphasised their claimed ‘safety and efficacy’”.
“Of course, early in the rollout of the vaccines, little was known about the potential range of adverse effects of the vaccine,” she said.
“In the urgency to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible, patients who had suffered significant vaccine injury were encouraged or mandated to have subsequent doses with inadequate evidence for the potential damage this might do to someone who had already suffered an adverse reaction to the vaccine.
“It was extremely difficult for patients who had been affected to obtain a medical exemption.”
Another consequence of this lack of information about adverse events “was that many patients report that they were not believed, or their doctors initially did not recognise the diagnosis or did not have treatment protocols in place”.
“This meant that patients had to take matters into their own hands and set up advocacy groups such as Coverse to share experiences and provide much needed support,” she said.
“It also became evident that these were not sterilising vaccines, and that while they were reported to provide some protection against severe disease and long Covid, they would not stop infection or transmission or the development of long Covid.”
For future pandemics, Dr Phelps called for a “return to the precautionary principle and the fundamentals of public health and disease prevention” and a “comprehensive plan for research and development of treatments”, including sterilising vaccines.
Among the recommendations in her submission were for greater access to high-quality N95 masks with associated mandates in healthcare facilities, a “concerted and sustained effort” to reduce Covid transmission in schools, a return to isolation for infected individuals during the infectious period with appropriate financial support, and expansion of hybrid work and education.
She also called for research into the underlying mechanisms of vaccine injury, better follow-up of adverse events reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and identification of barriers to reporting such reactions, as well as better information for GPs and a review of the Covid-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme.
In a separate submission to the inquiry, Kooyong MP Dr Monique Ryan was strongly critical of the “extent and severity” of Morrison government’s “failures” during Covid.
In her submission she cited “lack of preparedness” for a global pandemic, inadequate quarantine and testing, delays in procurement and rollout of vaccines and failure to “combat widespread public misinformation” about the jabs.
But the Teal MP also said the government had failed to “adequately address community concerns regarding side-effects of vaccinations”, which she said were “not well communicated to the general public” contributing to “mistrust of the system”.
“Constituents also reported unreasonable delays and rejection of claims by the Covid-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme,” Dr Ryan said.
A number of submissions also highlighted human rights concerns around Covid measures.
The Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC) said it had received more than 1500 complaints, the majority related to border closures, hotel quarantine, and mandatory mask and vaccination requirements.
“Rights raised in relation to these complaints included recognition and equality before the law, the right not to be subject to medical treatment without consent, privacy and reputation, humane treatment when deprived of liberty, and freedom of movement,” it said.
Queensland GP Dr Melissa McCann, who is leading a vaccine injury class action against the federal government, said in her submission it was “difficult to know” whether the key Covid response measures “could have been managed any worse”.
“The Covid-19 vaccinations have been perhaps the most egregious health response measure in recorded history,” she said.
“The success of a vaccination campaign is not measured by the percentage of population who were convinced to be vaccinated, despite this being reported by various official sources as evidence of a successful program.
“A successful vaccination campaign ought to result in the majority of vaccinated persons not becoming infected with the disease the vaccines were designed to protect against.
“A successful campaign would result in reduced number of cases and reduced transmission of disease throughout a population following the vaccination campaign.
“It ought to result in small numbers of adverse events after vaccination and such events comparable with traditional vaccines. It ought to result in an overall reduction in severe disease, deaths caused by the disease and reduction in overall excess mortality across a population.”
By all of these measures, the Covid vaccination campaign “has been a complete failure despite the multibillion-dollar investment”, she argued.
**************************************************
SARS-CoV-2 Hit Some Children Hard, with MIS-C and Neurological Symptoms
Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) pediatrician-scientist Michael Wolf, M.D. recently authored a commentary in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA Network. Affiliated with VUMC’s Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Dr. Wolf articulates that children and adolescents hospitalized with infectious and inflammatory conditions get exposed to the risk of neurological symptoms. This means from the physician’s point of view, he/she must identify those at greatest risk for more serious neurological conditions.
According to one study (Francoeur et al.) looking at the issue from a pediatric neurocritical care perspective, the VUMC physician informs that in the authors’ secondary analysis of the pediatric Global Consortium Study of Neurologic Dysfunction in COVID-19 (GCS-NeuroCOVID), severe neurological manifestations were strikingly common in hospitalized children and adolescents (i.e., from birth to <18 years) with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), occurring in 18.0% and 24.8%, respectively.
TrialSite reminds that children’s hospitalization was always far lower than adults, however, with the delta variant of concern the hospitalization rate increased as did the incidence of MIS-C. Such incidence declined again with the onset of omicron.
But nonetheless, a small sample—rare—but as we describe in TrialSite as “real” damage to our children can occur, as pointed out by Dr. Wolf.
For example, he points out in JAMA Network, “Acute encephalopathy accounted for most of the neurological sequelae in both conditions.”
Acute encephalopathy is a rapidly developing brain dysfunction that can be caused by a number of factors, including metabolic, toxic, epileptic, or infection-related issues. It can also be caused by structural disturbances. Acute encephalopathy can lead to a range of symptoms
According to Dr. Wolf, the study demonstrated an association between severe neurological manifestations and new functional or neurocognitive morbidity, as measured by the Functional Status Scale and the Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category scale.
The study involved a large global cohort of hospitalized young patients with a group of experts backing the diagnoses. The resulting analysis highlights the strengths and also some limitations of such datasets, pointing to the need to better understand risk factors for and downstream consequences of neurological conditions linked to children and adolescents hospitalized with neurological conditions.
*************************************************
12 June, 2024
Katie told her father she was going to get the Covid vaccine. He had no idea it would be their last conversation ever
The issue here is that no young people needed to get the vaccine. It was only the elderly who were at serious risk of dying. And even oldies were often not seriously affected. I am 80 but cruised through it all with two RAT tests showing negative.
So all the vaccination pressure on young people was evil. It just added real risks to them with no benefit
The devastated family of a fit and healthy young actor who died a fortnight after taking a Covid vaccine have called out the callous 'indifference' of society and government to her death.
Katie Lees, 34, took the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in July 2021, driven by her desire to 'do her bit' to help bring lockdown to an end.
But just 13 days later her family were forced to make the harrowing decision to turn off her life support.
Ms Lees, an actor and comedian who lived in Sydney's inner-west, had suffered a severe vaccine-induced blood clot in her brain.
'The last time I ever spoke to her on the morning of July 22 (and) she said, "I’m getting my AstraZeneca this afternoon." She said to me how proud she was for doing it,' Katie's father, Ian, told news.com.au.
'It turned out that was the last time I would ever speak to her. She was actually following the government’s advice, trying to do the right thing for the sake of the community.'
Mr Lees, 66, said the hardest part about his daughter's death was that people didn't believe the vaccine had killed her and met the news with 'silence, mockery, discrediting and disbelief'.
'We’d say to people our daughter died from the AstraZeneca vaccine and they’d say, "Oh really? How do you know?",' he said.
In a public submission to the federal government’s Covid Response Inquiry, Ms Lee's parents said they were galled by the 'indifference of our society to her death'.
'Every morning, our first thought is how Katie died and the sinking feeling that we were used and discarded by our government, by AstraZeneca and by our society,' they wrote.
They added: 'Katie did not need the vaccine — she wouldn’t have died if she got Covid.
'Katie took this action, not because she was worried about getting Covid, but because she was deeply concerned about the impact of lockdowns on the life of communities and the mental health of individuals.'
The AstraZeneca vaccine was estimated to have saved millions of lives during the pandemic but it also caused rare, and sometimes fatal, blood clots.
In April, AstraZeneca admitted in a UK court that its vaccine could, in very rare instances, could lead to Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, which causes people to have blood clots and a low blood platelet count.
The vaccine, which was discontinued in Australia in March 2023, was withdrawn globally last month with the manufacturer citing commercial reasons for the decision.
Of the 14 Australians acknowledged by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to have died from Covid vaccines, 13 were from AstraZeneca and one from Moderna.
Ms Lees developed headaches and a rash immediately after her vaccination but doctors did not think anything of it. Just over a week later on August 1 she woke up with a severe headache and started vomiting. A CT scan showed a severe clot in her brain.
'Katie slipped into deep unconsciousness around 3pm and never regained consciousness,' her parents wrote in their submission to the inquiry.
The devastated family said that they had been left 'emotionally, mentally and physically traumatised by the way Katie died, the lack of support from government and the pharmaceutical industry and the alienation we feel from the mainstream narrative in our society'.
The family who received $70,000 in compensation for Katie’s death, said they hated being branded 'anti-vaxxers'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13512289/Katie-Lees-AstraZeneca-vaccine-died.html
**************************************************Well-Designed Meta-Analysis Suggests Ivermectin Could be Used for Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19; But Proceed with Caution
Medical research affiliated with Xiamen University, Southeast University and Xiamen University Schools of Medicine designed a systematic, meta-analysis, part of an ongoing investigation into the use of ivermectin as an off-label regimen for the COVID-19 indication. A controversial topic, one which is the West among medical establishments is basically settled against use, nonetheless, the drug’s use continues in many parts of the world including the United States. Hence the interest in ongoing study and in this case, the authors led by Zhilong Song at Xiamen University School of Public Health and colleagues scoured key repositories (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv and bioRxiv) to collect all relevant studies tracking till June 2023.
Their meta-analysis endpoint included A) all-cause mortality; B) mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement, C) PCR negative conversion and D) adverse events (AEs) of course representing the safety of the drug. To assess and mitigate bias risk plus evaluate quality of evidence, the authors utilized the Revman 5.4 software package. A total of 33 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering 10,849 patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality rates or PCR negative conversion between ivermectin and controls.
However, when evaluating MV requirement the authors report significant differences (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.96) as well as adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95) between the two groups. The authors conclude, “Ivermectin could reduce the risk of MV requirement and AEs in patients with COVID-19 without increasing other risks. In the absence of a better alternative, clinicians could use it with caution.”
This is an important point given recent studies revealing the leading antiviral against COVID-19 Paxlovid did not have any impact as compared to the placebo. A study TrialSite published yesterday also showed neither Paxlovid nor molnupiravir had the expected impact against important endpoints such as mortality.
Conducted by the prestigious RECOVERY investigators at the University of Oxford, the findings are not a good look for both Pfizer and Merck. The results have not yet been peer-reviewed.
This topic is not trivial, given the fact that COVID-19 vaccination failed to eradicate the pathogen sufficiently to lead to herd immunity. A dynamic, ever-mutating virus, SARS-CoV-2 will continue circling the globe. Hence the importance of various antiviral options.
Interestingly, the Chinese researcher points to multiple changing variants plus “anti-vaccination movements” worldwide as a factor driving the ongoing ivermectin discussion.
Again, while the U.S. medical establishment has come to a consensus that ivermectin offers no benefit even for mild to moderate COVID-19, sufficient data around the world points to the potential sustainability of an alternative account.
The authors point to some focused websites tracking the effectiveness of IVM for COVID-19 (covid19criticalcare.com) and (https://ivmmeta.com). The Chinese authors argue that these resources are considered misinformation. Why? “Most of which are not peer-reviewed, do not present the eligible criteria used in the selection process, and do not display statistical criteria for assessing the effectiveness and heterogeneity among included studies.”
Regardless, the authors behind this latest study acknowledge the criticality of drug repositioning, a tried-and-true pathway to new potential indications.
Does ivermectin fit the classic candidate as a repositioned drug—with the prerequisite safety and pharmacokinetic profiling? A semisynthetic, anti-parasite agent associated with Nobel Prize-winning scientists, at least in a cell culture in a lab setting, the drug inhibits viral and replication scenarios. In fact, it can reduce the concentration of viral RNA by nearly 5000-fold as was demonstrated in Australia in Spring 2020.
Especially when including long COVID, the demand for effective pharmacotherapies targeting SARS-CoV-2 will likely only grow.
Findings
No significant difference in all-cause mortality rates or PCR negative conversion between IVM and controls. There were significant differences in MV requirement (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.96) and AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95) between the two groups. Ivermectin could reduce the risk of MV requirement and AEs in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. In the absence of a better alternative, clinicians could use it with caution.
***********************************************
Dr Nick Coatsworth makes a stunning admission about the Covid jab
Dr Nick Coatsworth, who helped lead Australia's response to Covid-19, has revealed he will not be getting any more vaccinations for the virus.
Speaking with Ben Fordham on 2GB on Wednesday, the former public face of Australia's fight against Covid-19 made the stunning admission he is done with Covid vaccines.
'Are you still being vaccinated for Covid?' Fordham asked.
'No,' Dr Coatsworth said.
'When did you stop doing that?'
'About two years ago, I had three vaccines, and that's been enough for me.'
'Any reason why?' Fordham asked.
'Because I don't think I need any more Ben, and the science tells me that I don't,' Dr Coatsworth said.
The current advice from the Department of Health and Aged care states: 'Regular COVID-19 vaccinations (also known as boosters) are the best way to maintain your protection against severe illness, hospitalisation and death from Covid-19.
'They are especially important for anyone aged 65 years or older and people at higher risk of severe Covid-19.
'As with all vaccinations, people are encouraged to discuss the vaccine options available to them with their health practitioner.'
This is not the first controversial statement Dr Coatsworth - Australia's former deputy chief health officer - has made about the Covid vaccine.
In February this year Dr Coatsworth admitted that imposing vaccine mandates was wrong in the wake of the Queensland Supreme Court finding that forcing police and paramedics to take the jab or lose their jobs was 'unlawful'.
In his inquiry submission Dr Coatsworth said mandates should only be a 'last resort', 'time limited', and be imposed by governments not employers.
Although Dr Coatsworth noted Australia had assembled a top team of medical experts to advise on managing the pandemic, he said they lacked an ethical framework meaning the focus became too narrow.
'This allowed the creation of a 'disease control at all costs' policy path dependence, which, whilst suited to the first wave, was poorly suited to the vaccine era,' he said.
Dr Coatsworth argued the restriction and testing policies adopted to constrain the first deadliest strain of Covid in 2020 lingered well past their relative benefit, leading to nationwide workforce and testing shortages.
He also thought the differing approaches among states, and between states and the federal government, confused the public and eroded human rights.
'I strongly encourage the inquiry to recommend amendment of the Biosecurity Act to ensure that all disease control powers are vested in the federal government during a national biosecurity emergency,' Dr Coatsworth wrote.
Dr Coatsworth was appointed as one of three new deputy chief medical officers under Brendan Murphy at the start of the pandemic in March 2020.
He now works as a doctor in Canberra and is contracted to Nine-Fairfax channels and newspapers as a presenter and health expert.
He appeared on the Fordham program to spruik a new TV show he is presenting with Tracy Grimshaw, Do You Want To Live Forever?
*************************************************
11 June, 2024
Monaco Study—Failure of Pfizer Vax to Stop COVID-19 Viral Transmission—Openly Question Current mRNA Vaccines as Tool to Manage Pandemic
For the period July 2021 to September 2022, the study team tapped into and organized 20,443 contacts via 6,320 index cases from Monaco’s COVID-19 Public Health Program. Key to the group’s study agenda was better understanding the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine by calculating secondary attack rates (SAR) in Monaco households (n=13,877), schools (n=2,508) as well as occupational settings (n=6,499). Althaus and colleagues utilized binomial regression with a complementary log-log link function to measure adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for index cases to infect contacts and contacts to be infected in households.
The authors candidly express protective limitations with the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine declaring protection “…against transmission and infection was low for delta and omicron BA.1&2, regardless of the number of vaccine doses and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Furthermore, the epidemiological researchers reveal “no significant vaccine effect for omicron BA.4&5.” Perhaps this peer-reviewed study is the first to essentially declare the COVID-19 vaccines not an effective tool for protecting against SARS-CoV-2.
Among the authors of this study are a pair of Directorates of Health Affairs for the city-state who declared, “Health authorities carrying out vaccination campaigns should bear in mind that the current generation of COVID-19 vaccines may not represent an effective tool in protecting individuals from either transmitting or acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The authors suggest that messaging should have focused on the prevention of morbidity and mortality, but that effectiveness rate was not covered in this investigation.
Findings
The authors generated data points to a SAR at 55% (95% CI 54–57) and 50% (48–51) among unvaccinated and vaccinated contacts, respectively. The SAR was 32% (28–36) and 12% (10–13) in workplaces, and 7% (6–9) and 6% (3–10) in schools, among unvaccinated and vaccinated contacts respectively.
When looking at the Monaco households, “the aHR was lower in contacts than in index cases (aHR 0.68 [0.55–0.83] and 0.93 [0.74–1.1] for delta; aHR 0.73 [0.66–0.81] and 0.89 [0.80–0.99] for omicron BA.1&2, respectively).”
The bombshells continued, as Althaus and colleagues found, “Vaccination had no significant effect on either direct or indirect aVE for omicron BA.4&5.” Of course, a handful of different reasons could explain this, but the Monaco-based research finally calls out in plain language the stark reality of their findings.
The direct aVE in contacts was 32% (17, 45) and 27% (19, 34), and for index cases the indirect aVE was 7% (? 17, 26) and 11% (1, 20) for delta and omicron BA.1&2, respectively.
Further, “The greatest aVE was in contacts with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a single vaccine dose during the omicron BA.1&2 period (45% [27, 59]), while the lowest were found in contacts with either three vaccine doses (aVE ? 24% [? 63, 6]) or one single dose and a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aVE ? 36% [? 198, 38]) during the omicron BA.4&5 period.”
What are some of the strengths of this study?
Monaco is small enough to have a well-managed and controlled national program with a robust data set, with routine surveillance and immunization access covering individual data on index cases and contacts for SARS-CoV-2.
The authors point out that the robust data includes several levels of disaggregation (age, gender, presence of symptoms, various dates) to produce vaccine effectiveness outputs in various settings.
So, the sponsor—the Monaco Health Program afforded the authors to prospectively investigate all contacts of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, enabling the quantification of viral infection and direct and indirect vaccine effectiveness in real-world settings over a 14-month period.
Based on the data did vaccination matter much when it came to secondary attack rate in households?
No. The SAR for households was approximately 50%, representing the highest infection attack rates regardless of index cases and contacts’ vaccination statuses.
Did occupational and school settings exhibit lower rates of infection?
Yes.
What could explain this difference?
The authors suggest, “Infection pressure (duration and type for contact) as well as non-pharmaceutical interventions such as mask-wearing or social distancing.”
Do the authors raise troubling questions about how some health authorities issued statements that were not accurate?
Yes. While the authors acknowledge no one really knows how effective the COVID-19 vaccines were at preventing transmission, “some national campaigns promoted COVID-19 vaccine as a protective measure for “protecting others”, which may have created potential distrust, undermining population adherence to future immunization recommendations.”
Do the study authors suggest the messaging should have focused on the prevention of more severe disease, morbidity and mortality?
Yes. The focus of the mRNA vaccines as a tool to help prevent severe disease and mortality and the role of non-pharmacological measures on transmission may help the population to better understand, and therefore accept, public health interventions.
************************************************
Federal Court Revives Lawsuit Against Los Angeles COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit challenging the COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed by the Los Angeles school district, noting that the record doesn’t clearly show whether the vaccines prevent transmission of the illness.
The Health Freedom Defense Fund and other challengers to the mandate asserted that it violated the due process and equal protection rights of district employees, in part because the vaccines, unlike traditional vaccines, “are not effective” in preventing infection.
U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer disagreed, throwing out the case in 2022. She ruled that even if the COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent infection, mandates can be imposed under a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court ruling because the vaccines reduce symptoms and prevent severe disease and death.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 7 reversed that ruling, finding that Judge Fischer extended the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling “beyond its public health rationale—government’s power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others—to also govern ‘forced medical treatment’ for the recipient’s benefit.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the 2–1 majority, added, “At this stage, we must accept plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply.” That position was reached after lawyers for the defendants provided facts about the vaccines that “do not contradict plaintiffs’ allegations.”
Lawyers for the district had pointed out that a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publication describes the COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective” although the publication doesn’t detail effectiveness against transmission.
The majority also concluded that the case isn’t moot even after the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in 2023 rescinded the mandate. That move only came after the appeals court heard arguments in the case, and comments from district board members indicated the mandate could be reimposed in the future. In 2021, the district added an option for employees to be frequently tested for COVID-19 in lieu of a vaccine after being sued, only to remove the option after a different suit was thrown out.
“LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies is enough to keep this case alive,” Judge Nelson said.
He was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins.
The ruling remanded the case back to Judge Fischer “for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.”
In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins said the allegations in the case implicate “the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment,” pointing to more recent Supreme Court rulings, including a 1997 decision in which the court stated that the “‘right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment’ was ‘entirely consistent with this nation’s history and constitutional traditions,’ in light of ’the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.'”
In a dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins said that the school district “has averred that, absent a very unlikely return to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will not reinstate the policy.”
“Neither the speculative possibility of a future pandemic nor LAUSD’s power to adopt another vaccination policy save this case,” the judge said.
Judges Nelson and Collins were appointed by President Donald Trump. Judge Hawkins is an appointee of President Bill Clinton. Judge Fischer is an appointee of President George W. Bush.
Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, said in a statement that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “made clear that [Americans’] cherished rights to self-determination, including the sacred right of bodily autonomy in matters of health, are not negotiable.”
A spokesperson for the school district told The Epoch Times via email, “Los Angeles Unified is reviewing the Ninth Circuit ruling and assessing the district’s options.”
*************************************************
10 June, 2024
Unmasking COVID-19 Deceptions
Dr. Peter McCullough is globally recognized for his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing expert advice when few other doctors would publicly stand for the truth.
MA: I’m so honored to have you here, Dr. McCullough. Could you give us a little background about yourself?
PM: Sure, I’m delighted. It’s great to be with you. I’m Dr. Peter McCullough, a practicing internist and cardiologist in the Dallas Fort Worth area. I’ve been in practice now for decades and am also trained in epidemiology. It turns out that’s an important discipline to have experience in during these pandemic years.
MA: What motivated you to take such an active role in the pandemic response, and how did your experience in epidemiology influence your approach?
PM: For the last five years, I’ve taken a lead in pandemic response, focusing on what we should do to care for those who have gotten sick with COVID-19 and how we should respond. I’ve advised both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate and testified multiple times. You know, Michael, it’s interesting—throughout the pandemic, our public health agencies had no Q&A sessions, no town hall meetings, and the medical schools closed their doors. People have had questions they’ve wanted answered for years now.
MA: You displayed tremendous courage as one of the few doctors who did not comply with the sanctioned COVID-19 pandemic responses. How can others, especially those who are fearful, make decisions that exhibit such bravery in these trying times?
PM: We’re talking about intellectual courage here. Bullets are not flying; buildings are not crumbling. We’re not scrambling for our lives. But we’ve been in this intellectual struggle, of, can we actually face what’s going on? Or do we want to put our heads in the sand? I think many were especially fearful when their jobs were on the line.
MA: Can you share a specific example of a time when you faced significant backlash for your stance?
PM: When it came down to it, many people said, “Something is going on. I don’t fully understand it. But boy, if I stand up and say something, I may lose my job.” Suddenly that job became a real tether for them. I’m so envious of people who are self-employed. They didn’t have to abide by their employer’s wishes. Were you self-employed through this yourself?
MA: Thankfully, yes.
PM: So, I’m so envious. You never had the specter of some large corporation trying to force you to do something against your will. You were fortunate. Those who are independent contractors or self-employed had more options. But can you imagine if you were in the Screen Actors Guild?
MA: It would have been very difficult with my livelihood on the line. Considering the importance of public opinion and the potential backlash even self-employed individuals may face for being outspoken, what advice do you have for those wanting to take a public stand now?
PM: Let’s just talk about courage. Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the ability to overcome that fear. That’s what we’ve learned in this pandemic—the ability to overcome fear or uncertainty is not that common. It’s just not.
I never considered myself particularly courageous. I’ve never gone skydiving or done anything physically amazing. I was an academic, a Professor of Medicine. I did what I was supposed to do throughout my career.
Certainly, I made mistakes—we all do. But there was no checkbox for courage in college, medical school, graduate school, residency, or fellowship, like, ‘Are you particularly courageous?’ No. And I think there are checkboxes for policemen, firemen, or people in the military, where it really does take courage to throw yourself into a burning building to try to rescue somebody, or it takes guts to jump out of an air transport plane.
I’m not sure I could do that. I’m a doctor but I think what I’ve always had in the course of my career is intellectual courage.
MA: How did you navigate the opposition from your peers during your early research and what kept you motivated?
PM: I’ll give you an example. When I was trying to find my way in cardiology research, I was making observations that kidney disease was influencing cardiovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and heart failure. And I remember that with my first observations, people would say, “No. Now that’s just confounding. They just have more diabetes and hypertension.”
I said, “No, I think it’s actually related to the kidneys themselves.” And they said, “No, that can’t be the case.” Finally, I said, “Wait a minute. How do these people know that’s not the case? Let’s investigate.” So, I really launched my career going against the mainstream narrative of cardiovascular epidemiology at the time and it led to many discoveries.
For instance, the kidneys produce a series of hormones that speak to the heart. A seminal paper I published as a senior author explained exactly that. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and other top journals. That was a triumph—it was as good as you can perform in my field in terms of a breakthrough. And it was an in vitro diagnostic breakthrough.
Back then the naysayers said, “No, we don’t need a test to help us with this.” I went lecturing across the globe on this matter. That took intellectual courage.
MA: Did you have any mentors or influences who helped shape your approach to medicine, fostering such intellectual courage?
PM: I do give credit to a mentor: Dr. William O’Neill. When I was a fellow, he was going up against a different narrative. At the time, the most dangerous heart attack was called an ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, and the standard of care was to give an expensive Big Pharma drug called TPA. The company promoting this was Genentech. They were in bed with the Cleveland Clinic, and the Chief of Cardiology, Eric Topol, had a deal where he was getting stock certificates every time doctors prescribed TPA.
MA: What specific lessons from your mentor were most impactful in your approach to handling the COVID-19 pandemic?
PM: Back when I was at another hospital, Dr. William O’Neill, who previously supervised Eric Topol at University of Michigan, recruited me and others. We formed this kind of dream team in cardiology. We set out to successfully demonstrate it was better to get catheters up in the heart and open up the blood vessels. That’s called primary angioplasty. We went up against Genentech as a ragtag team of community hospitals and we prevailed. We published paper after paper.
We changed care in the United States after that because we refused to do what everyone else said. Eventually, the Genentech product died out. Nobody used it. A brand-new revolution began in cardiology. Then sure enough, when COVID started, I proposed we treat patients early to prevent hospitalization and death, something that should be so simple to everyone. But the orthodoxy tried to shut us down. They said, “No. don’t touch this illness.”
MA: You mentioned being brave doesn’t mean proceeding without fear. Rather, it’s being able to summon courage despite feeling fearful. You’re essentially pushing through it. Is that correct?
PM: That’s true. It also takes confidence. Look at the film Braveheart. Mel Gibson plays the Sottish warrior William Wallace who leads the charge to free his country from English tyranny. He’s confident. I’ve always considered myself a very confident person. It’s just in my makeup. Years ago I was blessed to have dinner with Larry King, the famous interviewer, before he died. I asked him, “How could you interview Brezhnev and all these heads of state around the world?”
He said, “Peter, I was born confident. When I was a little kid in New York City, I was always the most confident kid on the block.” So, Larry King was also inherently confident. I’d characterize myself as inherently confident in my approach, my analytics, and my principles. In medicine, of course, we rely on scientific principles as well as strong evidence and data.
I’ve made hundreds and hundreds of media appearances over the last five years. People have repeatedly said, “Dr. McCullough always cites his information.” That’s because I’ve had the discipline to commit things to memory.
MA: How did all that confidence and preparation help you in your media appearances and congressional testimonies?
PM: I testified in the US House of Representatives on January 12, 2024, just a few days after Dr. Anthony Fauci was there before the same committee. They grilled me for hours. All along, I cited paper after paper I’d committed to memory. I’d practice beforehand. I’d get up in the morning and I’d practice. I don’t have a photographic memory.
It’s just that I work hard. At one point, I did get a chance to ask the committee something. “Listen,” I said. “I’ve been at this for hours now, citing dozens and dozens of papers. You just had Dr. Anthony Fauci in this chamber. I bet he didn’t cite a single paper.” They said, “You’re correct, Dr. McCullough. He couldn’t cite a single paper supporting his statements.”
MA: That’s so frustrating. Especially since Dr. Fauci was all but deified by the legacy media.
PM: Dr. Scott Atlas wrote the book A Plague Upon Our House, had face-to-face interactions with Fauci for months. Scott said Fauci did not know the studies he should have been citing, nor did he know the data. According to Scott, Fauci was so incompetent, he couldn’t even pronounce long medical words. At times he was almost worse than a medical student.
MA: Again, that’s disheartening, especially since so many people in legacy media and our politicians still revere him as the definitive COVID expert.
https://principia-scientific.com/unmasking-covid-19-deceptions/
***************************************************Vaccines? Excess deaths? Any link?
Is this the first significant crack in the dam? This week, the UK Telegraph ran a story that should be extremely distressing to all Australians, and even more so to certain politicians, health bureaucrats, medical authorities and CEOs. It concerns the increasingly credible claims of the deadly potential of the Covid mRNA vaccines. ‘Covid vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic, scientists have suggested,’ said the disturbing article by science editor Sarah Knapton. ‘Researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures.’ Her article was based on a paper in the respected medical journal BMJ Public Health.
Ms Knapton then went on to detail the failure of health authorities to adequately explore the well-documented rise in excess mortality rates in many countries, and included a somewhat unnerving diagram showing how risky AstraZeneca was for the under-50s compared to other causes of death, such as scuba diving, receiving a general anaesthetic, drowning in the bath and so on.
Furthermore, the researchers paper which she quoted suggested that it was ‘likely’ that lockdowns, school closures, travel restrictions, curfews and all the other ‘quarantine restrictions’ had contributed to the rise in excess deaths. To say it was not a comforting read is to put it mildly. To top it all off, the article also explained that many serious, vaccine-related, adverse ‘events’ have gone unreported.
In other words, people may have died or been injured due to coercion by governments, health authorities, the media, Big Tech and Big Business which in essence amounted to mandatory vaccination – in clear breach of international health protocols since the second world war. Call it manslaughter or malpractice or political malfeasance, it all amounts to the same thing if you lost a loved one. It seems there are parents, relatives, friends and spouses who may be grieving for the deaths of people who should never have died, who may well have not wanted to take the vaccine, and whose deaths it would appear did nothing to protect anybody else.
Who might be to blame? Will they ever be held to account? Would any of our political leaders have made different choices back then around lockdowns or labelling Covid-19 ‘the pandemic of the unvaccinated’ had they known what we now know about transmission or the efficacy and safety of vaccines? And if so, should they now apologise?
This magazine, alone among the mainstream Australian media, and indeed alone among most of the Western press, was adamantly opposed to any form of mandatory vaccination from the moment the Diamond Princess first sailed over the horizon and into the headlines. We editorialised against mandates from before the vaccines even existed, as politicians like Australia’s then prime minister Scott Morrison began insisting that vaccination when it arrived should be ‘as mandatory as is possible’. No, we said, it should not. Anything other than voluntary vaccination is and was a clear breach of the well-known concept of informed consent, we argued. We also queried from the get-go what evidence there was to support the (false) claim that the vaccines prevented transmission of the virus.
In article after article by writers such as Rebecca Weisser, Ramesh Thakur, James Allan, David Flint, David Adler, Rowan Dean, Robert Clancy, Julie Sladden, Alexandra Marshall and many others, both in this magazine and on our online Flat White, we opposed the insanity of lockdowns, the foolish futility of authoritarian social distancing, the stupidity of ubiquitous mask-wearing and the immorality of vaccine mandates. More recently, several of those same writers have explored the chilling data surrounding excess mortality.
So the UK Telegraph article will have come, perhaps, as less of a surprise to readers of The Spectator Australia than to consumers of other Australian or international media. Coincidentally or otherwise, this magazine, unlike virtually every other mainstream media outlet we can think of, does not look to lucrative advertising commissions from Big Pharma or from government to swell our coffers.
So where to from here? Will this study and report be a one-off, quickly dismissed by the usual suspects and soon forgotten? Already the claims in the article have been rejected by the ‘experts’. When Senator Ralph Babet from the United Australia party managed to get a Senate investigation up into the causes behind the rise in excess mortality data, the federal Health Department was adamant: ‘There is no credible evidence to suggest that Covid-19 vaccines have contributed to excess deaths in Australia or overseas.’
What was it Mandy Rice-Davies famously once said?
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/vaccines-excess-deaths-any-link/
*************************************************9 June, 2024
Former CDC chief Dr Robert Redfield has blasted Covid-19 vaccine mandates, lockdowns as a ‘terrible mistake’
Robert Redfield, the former head of the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, said mandating Covid-19 vaccine was a “terrible decision” and lockdowns and school closures were a “big mistake”.
Dr Redfield, an esteemed virologist who led the CDC from 2018 to 2021, said the pharmaceutical giants had a “huge influence” over convincing governments that everyone including children should be coerced into being vaccinated and boosted during the pandemic.
“We absolutely never should have mandated vaccines, it was a terrible decision … the rationale for mandating vaccines for healthy firefighters and policemen, those in the military, hospital workers, teachers, was emotional, it shouldn’t have happened,” he said in an interview with Chris Cuomo published on Wednesday (Thursday AEST).
Dr Redfield, 72, said the Covid-19 vaccines, which the Biden administration tried to mandate for all workers in late 2021, worked to prevent serious illness and death for vulnerable, older patients “over 65” but weren’t suitable for healthy young people, didn’t prevent transmission and wore off after six months at most.
“If you came down and visited me and interviewed my patients, you’d interview patient after patient that did not have Covid, but are very sick, long covid patients, and it’s all from the vaccine,” he added, in comments that would have been censored on social media and censured publicly during the pandemic.
A ‘v-safe’ survey by the CDC released in late 2022 found 7.7 per cent of around a million American recipients sought medical attention after their Covid-19 vaccination. Western Australian data published last year found the Covid-19 vaccines, which were lauded as safe and effective, caused injuries at 24 times the rate of other approved vaccines.
“I remember Biden saying, you know, this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. … I was saying, wait a minute, two thirds of the people that I’m seeing infected in Maryland have been vaccinated, these vaccines don’t last”.
Dr Redfield, who continues to practise medicine privately in Maryland, was sidelined in 2020 for suggesting SARS-Cov2, the virus that causes Covid-19, might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology rather than ‘spilt over’ from the animal kingdom naturally, a theory that’s since become more credible.
In a one-hour interview with Mr Cuomo, whose brother Andrew Cuomo as New York governor became the face of tough Covid-19 mandates in 2020, Dr Redfield said countries “made a big mistake and paid a big price” by locking down their societies for months, on and off for up to two years.
“You know, I’m not sure people will accept responsibility, those people that really pushed it, because it was unfortunate, it was emotional,” he said. “There’s no question there was overreach,
Following China’s example, most governments imposed lockdowns from March 2020, lasting well into 2021 in some jurisdictions, unprecedented policies that triggered massive public borrowing, record unemployment, inflation, social unrest and permanent learning loss, in the US at least, for students from low-income families.
“I was very much against closing schools, I thought the kids were probably safer in schools, most kids were getting infected in the community and from the dinner table, not from the school, a lot of that was emotionalism with teachers,” he said.
Dr Redfield’s interview emerged a few days after Dr Anthony Fauci, president Joe Biden’s former top Covid-19 adviser, admitted in widely reported congressional testimony that the ‘lab leak theory’ was no longer a conspiracy theory and pandemic measures should “consider the balance” of costs and benefits next time.
***********************************************************
Top oncologists weigh in on the rise of rare and unusual cancers in young people - and the links to Covid
Scientists studying a rise in rare and unusual cancers in young people are turning their attention to an unlikely culprit: Covid.
Preliminary research on cells has indicated the virus may fuel the growth of tumors and shut down the body's defense against them - but the theory is widely disputed.
There is, however a consensus among doctors: they're seeing more young and relatively healthy people with obscure forms of the disease after the pandemic.
One doctor told DailyMail.com the theory that Covid is driving these cases doesn't hold up because the trend predates the outbreak. Early-onset cancers of all forms have been on the rise, increasing by 79 percent globally from 1990 to 2019, the year before the pandemic.
Other experts found the Covid theory more convincing. They pointed to the fact that already one in four cancer have been linked to other viruses, such as HPV.
Kasra Jahankhani, an Iranian immunologist and lead researcher on a 2023 report on the topic told DailyMail.com: 'It's really controversial and there is a lot of debate around the topic, but we think there are many ways SARs Covid infection could affect cancers.'
His research suggested that the coronavirus can change genes that usually stop tumors from forming and cause widespread inflammation throughout the body.
This inflammation in combination with reduced defenses might lead to the development of cancer cells in various organs, they wrote.
Viral associations with cancers are 'unfortunately common,' said Dr Landau, oncologist and contributor for The Mesothelioma Center at Asbestos.com.
With the human papilloma virus (HPV), for example, it is believed that the virus itself can inject its DNA into the body's cells, which can cause a mutation that leads to growth of cancerous cells.
'Essentially, the virus is trying to take over our body's cells to promote its own growth and survival.
'But mutating cells to continuously grow is, at a simple level, how cancers develop,' Dr Landau told DailyMail.com.
However, not all experts are in agreement. Dr Suneel Kamath, an oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic, ruled out a link between Covid and cancer.
'The trends in rising incidence of cancer in younger people, such as bile duct, colorectal, breast, lung and gastric, have been happening for years, even decades before Covid-19 existed, and they are still happening,' he told DailyMail.com.
Colon cancer diagnoses in particular among under-50s have reached epidemic levels. Nearly 18,000 cases are diagnosed among this age group every year in the US compared to 12,000 a year pre-2000.
Colon cancer deaths among young people are also expected to double by 2030, experts have warned.
Uterine cancer has also risen two percent each year in people under 50 since the mid-1990s.
Early-onset breast cancer has also increased by 3.8 percent annually between 2016-2019, and cancer rates do not appear to have sped up dramatically since Covid.
But experts have said that it might be too early to see that impact, as 'the long term implications of the pandemic will evolve over time,' Dr Landau said.
CDC data shows that more people are being told they have cancer now than they were prior to the pandemic. In 2021, 9.8 percent of adults reported having ever been told by a doctor that they had cancer. In 2019, that proportion of adults was 9.5 percent.
One of the possible links between Covid and cancer is a gene called P53, which suppresses cancerous tumors in the body by stopping cells with mutated or damaged DNA from dividing, Jahankhani explained.
His research team found that the tumor suppressor gene P53 may be 'degraded' by SARS-CoV-2 and effectively blocked.
This means it can no longer stop tumors growing. Other research has found that lower levels of P53 can make people more susceptible to cancer.
Another factor involves the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which is a key system that regulates blood pressure in the body.
When the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to ACE2 receptor, it stops the RAAS from functioning properly.
This in turn causes inflammation and oxidative stress, which are factors in cancer progression and development.
Another way Covid and cancer might be linked is by proteins called cytokines.
When the body gets an infection such as Covid, the immune system will begin to fight it off, including using cytokines as a defense system against the virus.
The proteins tell immune cells what to do and also tell the body to produce more of them to ensure a knockout blow is delivered to the infection.
But sometimes too many cytokines can be released, which puts the immune system into overdrive and creates a heightened inflammatory response.
The release of cytokines is often what makes us feel sick when we have an infection, Dr Landau said.
'But these same cytokines can cause harm to the body, and that harm can increase cancer risk, especially if they remain elevated in the long term,' he said.
This heightened inflammatory response occurs with long Covid, he added.
Too much inflammation can damage tissues and DNA and has been linked to the development of autoimmune conditions, as well as cancer.
Inflammation also causes changes to chromosomes in cells, and repeated changes can cause cells to become cancerous.
This abundance of cytokines can also lead to the emergence of cancer stem cells in organs like the lungs and pancreas, as well as bile ducts.
Because Covid infection occurs directly and indirectly in several organs, including the lungs, brain and kidneys, the researchers believe cancer stem cells can develop in multiple organs.
Stem cells are cells that have the ability the develop into many different cell types in the body.
Cancer stem cells, meanwhile, occur in tumors and have the ability to divide and renew, which grows and spreads the tumor.
They can originate from adult tissue stem cells and initiate a tumor, particularly if there is lots of inflammation from Covid.
And while researchers cannot definitively rule out the Covid vaccines as playing a role, Jahankhani said there is no evidence that this is the case.
His team 'didn't find anything' to support the idea that the Covid shot drove up cancer rates.
The evidence supporting the virus theory appears to be much stronger, he added.
Dr Landau acknowledged that although there have been blood clot issues after the Covid vaccine, 'a clear link with development of cancer is not yet known.'
'We suspect the cancer risk would come from the virus itself, rather than the vaccine, but it will take years of follow up studies to truly understand this,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13506321/cancer-Covid-infection-supercharge-tumors.html
*************************************************7 June, 2024
Wow! Google are getting very hot on what they allow you to say about Covid. My posts of 5th have been deleted. I had two posts up that day: One based on an article in the NYT and one based on an academic article. I am not sure which was the "incorrect" one but both are still online in the places where they originated:
And
I may eventually have to move this blog to Substack but I do have already a couple of backup sites that record everything that I write each day but in a less convenient order.
http://jonjayray.com/archive.html
and my draft site
https://jonjayray1.typepad.com/
*******************************************
6 June, 2024
Amsterdam UMC Medical Researchers Population Study Raises Specter of COVID-19 Vaccine Possible Ties to Excess Mortality
Mainstream media dips toes even further into the topic of vaccine injury waters as a major epidemiological study led by researchers in The Netherlands featured high excess mortality during the pandemic, raising the prospect that the COVID-19 vaccines may be tied to the mortality. While the authors cannot make any declarative claims or establish any causation, they call for serious inquiry into this public health crisis.
The UK’s The Telegraph and other media reported on an epidemiological investigation into excess deaths during the period 2020-2022. Are COVID-19 vaccine injuries potentially linked to these excess deaths?
Published in The BMJ Public Health and led by Saskia Mostert, Assistant Professor CA - Cancer Treatment and quality of life, Assistant Professor, Pediatrics and colleagues, the study is titled “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data estimates of January 2020 to December 2022.”
The study team designed an all-cause mortality assessment tapping into the Our World in Data database, assessing mortality as a deviation between the reported number of deaths in a country during a certain week or month in 2020 until 2022, and the expected number of deaths in a country for that period until normal conditions.
For the baseline of expected deaths, the authors embrace the Karlinsky and Kobak model which is based on historical death data in a country from 2015 until 2019 and accounts for seasonal variation and year-to-year trends in mortality.
Findings
Tracking 3,098,456 excess deaths in 47 nations across the Western World from January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, 41 of the countries, or 87% of the total, in 2020 experienced excess mortality. By 2021, however, excess deaths climbed to 42 countries (89%), and in 2022, the excess death count went to 43 countries (91%).
The authors point out, “In 2020, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic onset and implementation of containment measures, records present 1 033 122 excess deaths (P-score 11.4%).” By 2021—a year that included both COVID-19 containment measures and mass vaccination, the excess death toll was 1,256,942 (P-score 13.8%). By 2022, most, if not all, COVID-19 restrictions were lifted while the mass vaccination persisted, and excess deaths continued at 808,292 (P-score 8.8%).
The authors conclude that “Excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. This raises serious concerns. Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.”
What’s Going On?
Mainstream media’s attention on this topic is late but not unexpected. The authors report “unprecedented” figures that “raised serious concerns,” and consequently, they call on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.
As reported in The Telegraph piece, the Amsterdam-based investigators go on the record: “Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.”
“Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”
They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasized by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered, and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”
********************************************
Judge Finally Rejects Victoria Dep. Of Health Bureaucrats, Records Justifying Extreme COVID-19 Response Measures to be Released
Some of the most rigid COVID-19 response policies in the Western world occurred in Australia, in places like the state of Victoria, with its multiple lengthy lockdowns. Melbourne with three major lockdowns, had some of the toughest Covid rules in the world and the longest lockdown at least among the democratic nations.
What was behind those lockdowns? How were decisions made? What was the evidence used to justify a process that would have a profound impact on the economy, children’s education and psychology and more? Local activists have spent four years attempting to access the trove of records and documentation, yet to the Department of Health for Victoria, good government doesn’t come with transparency. Until now that is, however, as the secret documents supporting the state’s COVID-19 lockdowns will soon be released after the state lost a legal battle to maintain secrecy.
So, what happened?
Just this past week, a judge at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered the department to process freedom of information requests it had refused for the briefings provided to the Chief Health Officer, Deputy Chief Health Officer and Minister for Health relating to public health orders made in 2020, reports Chantelle Francis for News.com.
It turns out that the leadership within the Department of Health for Victoria believes it to be above any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the past four years.
David Davis, a Liberal MP made multiple attempts, three in all, to access the justification for the severe lockdowns, and each and every time his effort was rejected by the Department of Health. Why? The request would substantially and unreasonably divert resources.
Davis then initiated a review process, one that’s a legal requirement to be completed within a specific period of time via the Victorian Information Commissioner yet that commissioner failed to follow the law, not reaching a decision within the statutory period.
In that case, the head of the COVID-19 response at the time, Jeroen Weimar, according to the News.com account complained meeting Mr. Davis’s combined FOI requests would take the agency about four years’ worth of work effort.
That claim was backed by Michael Cain, the department’s manager of FOI and legal compliance.
Legal Intervention
But Judge Caitlin English, Vice President of the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), ruled in a different direction. The judge was not convinced that the health department had reasonably estimated the resources required to process the requests and noted the “strong public interest” in the information.
While acknowledging responding to the FOI would take a substantial effort, Judge English declared nonetheless it was manageable for the department.
The judge’s order stated:
“The Department, bearing the onus, has not satisfied me on the evidence that the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.” As a consequence, she emphasized, “I direct the agency to process Mr. Davis’s requests in accordance with the FOI Act.”
Now, this judicial ruled that over 115 briefs backing the state government’s public health orders may be released, at an average of 40 to 60 pages each.
Conclusion
Given the extreme nature of the Victoria COVID-19 response in the form of public health orders, the externalities born by the public, plus limited publicly available information as to the justification, the judge’s decision for transparency points to a significant public interest concern.
According to MP Davis, “The second wave as it surged into effect in July 2020 drove my series of freedom of information requests on 7 July, 13 July, and 17 July of the then Department of Health and Human Services for the briefings behind the decisions to impose the public health orders.”
*************************************************
5 June, 2024
Covid Leaked From a US-Backed Lab
For the New York Times, which started this whole fiasco dating from Feb. 27, 2020 with a podcast designed to drum up disease panic, it’s been a drip, drip, drip of truthiness ever since.
A fortnight ago, the paper finally decided to report on vaccine injury from shots that vast majorities never needed and which stop neither infection nor transmission. And now (mark this day as June 3, 2024) we have as decisive an article as one can imagine that shows, and I quote: “a laboratory accident is the most parsimonious explanation of how the pandemic began.”
Further: “Whether the pandemic started on a lab bench or in a market stall, it is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan institute, as well as contributing to research that enhanced them. Advocates and funders of the institute’s research, including Dr. Fauci, should cooperate with the investigation to help identify and close the loopholes that allowed such dangerous work to occur. The world must not continue to bear the intolerable risks of research with the potential to cause pandemics.”
The author is scientist Alina Chan of MIT. For purposes of documentation, let’s go through the points she makes.
1. The SARS-like virus that caused the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, the city where the world’s foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses is located.
2. The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan Institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS?CoV?2’s defining feature.
3. The Wuhan lab pursued this type of work under low biosafety conditions that could not have contained an airborne virus as infectious as SARS?CoV?2.
4. The hypothesis that COVID-19 came from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is not supported by strong evidence.
5. Key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing.
Keep in mind that people saying exactly this from the very outset of the crisis were censored by social media at the behest of government agencies. Media personalities ridiculed this view. It was called a wild conspiracy theory, unworthy of any respectable and responsible person. This went on for three years, with brutal results. People lost large channels and social media followers and accounts. This ruined whole livelihoods.
Now here we are four years later, and we have the paper of record willing to admit: it was true all along.
Yes, it is infuriating.
Why does this matter? Because it is the turning point in the history of modern civilization. All the top public-health officials had suspicions of this from the very outset. We know this from their own writings.
Instead of opening a clear and open investigation, they pursued a different path: deny the leak, roll out the supposed antidote (vaccine), use experimental technology, and lock down the world’s population to stop the spread so that the shot would get the credit for ending the pandemic.
That’s the summary of what happened, based on my four years of research into this. In other words, in order to deflect blame, these people hatched an audacious plot to wreck rights and liberties the world over, in a futile attempt to prohibit natural exposure from ending the pathogenic wave (as always happened before). Instead, they would use the crisis to shove through approval a technology that had never before received regulatory approval.
This explains: the disparagement of natural immunity, the absence of seroprevalence tests, the removal of repurposed generics from the market that could have helped people, the rise of censorship of any dissident scientists, and the complete absence of any serious research into early spread in the last quarter of 2019. It’s quite simply an astonishing plot of immense importance to the whole of the world, all stemming from an attempt to cover up a lab leak.
That’s why the topic is important. This is not just a technical point. It is the first chapter of a wild and seemingly fictional novel of apocalyptic implications. The House subcommittee now investigating the public-health response is barely scratching the surface in public but, behind the scenes, there is plenty of knowledge among investigators that there is much more going on.
Here’s the key point. The national media does not want this discussed. The agencies don’t want this investigated. The tech companies that censored people all along do not want this considered. The Democrats certainly don’t want this subject pursued. Many Republicans don’t want to examine this in any detail.
There is only one force at work that is pushing any of this forward, and that is public opinion, which in turn is fed by the handful of writers, researchers, scientists, moms, and many other grassroots people who correctly refuse to let this go.
This is the only reason these hearings are happening. It is the only path to getting the truth.
Of this I’m thoroughly convinced. If we think the American people have already lost trust in public health and government, we haven’t seen anything yet. Once the whole story is out in the open, and we are headed in this direction, we’ll see a collapse without precedent.
The timeline is going far too slow. There is no excuse for why we are only getting clarity on the basics fully four years later. Meanwhile, there is absolutely no basis for approving any more funding for these agencies or biodefense research, and no basis for approving any new treaties or agreements from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Let’s not forget that it was the WHO that pushed hard for the world to copy the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its crazy virus-control methods of violating human rights on a scale that should never have been tolerated in the West. And yet based on that advice, the United States, UK, and EU, and nearly every nation in the world adopted these policies, in contradiction to all laws and human rights.
Out of nowhere, our Constitution and Bill of Rights were overridden by bureaucracies about which most Americans knew absolutely nothing.
It boggles the mind that this happened, and we are still paying an egregious price in terms of inflation, learning loss, excess death, collapse of public health, expansion of government, pervasive censorship, and much more.
It felt like martial law at the time and it is not clear that this ever went away. We absolutely must know the truth. More than that, we need to repudiate every bit of the COVID response, including the mandates to get a shot that was in fact never proven to be safe or effective.
So, yes, it matters that this virus likely leaked from a U.S.-funded lab. That was the beginning of the story. There is much more to it.
***************************************************
Big Data Analysis Suggests COVID Vaccination Increases Excess Mortality in Highly Vaccinated North Temperate and Frigid Zone Countries
Independent researchers led by Ken Sakura have published a preprint paper concluding a causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and excess mortality. This conclusion is based on a big data analysis using public data from 29 countries, covering a population of 1.19 billion.
Excess Mortality, COVID-19 and COVID vaccination
During the COVID-19 pandemic, excess mortality has been a crucial metric for monitoring the actual impact of COVID-19, since reported COVID-19 deaths may be underestimated due to factors like insufficient PCR testing. However, concerns have also arisen about the potential serious side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, which did not go through the complete regular drug-approval process, possibly leading to excess mortality.
Unexpected Patterns in Excess Mortality
The researchers began monitoring excess mortality in 2021 and noticed unusual patterns by 2022. After the Omicron wave in the winter of 2021, herd immunity seemed to be developing, with new infections and COVID-19 deaths significantly declining. However, excess mortality did not follow this downward trend. For example, in the UK, COVID-19 deaths have been decreasing since January 2022, but excess mortality has remained high or even increased slightly. Similar trends were observed in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland, indicating a global phenomenon.
In the UK, high excess mortality persisted after May 2022, surpassing the pandemic-level excess mortality of 2021 caused by COVID-19 deaths.
The above suggests that other global factors might be contributing to the high excess mortality observed.
Investigating the Role of COVID-19 Vaccination
The researchers explored whether COVID-19 vaccination could be one such factor. Their analysis was based on two assumptions:
If vaccination causes excess mortality, higher vaccination rates should correlate with higher excess mortality.
The effect on excess mortality may increase over time, necessitating an evaluation of the correlation across different post-vaccination periods.
As in Figure 2, the results showed a clear positive correlation between the amount of COVID-19 vaccination and excess mortality, with the effect increasing over time.
Whether Post-COVID Sequelae is a Confounder
Another assumption was that fatal post-COVID sequelae could confound the results. As more people get infected over time, more could suffer from fatal post-COVID conditions, potentially increasing excess mortality. In that case, the correlation between excess mortality and elapsed time should be positive and show an increasing trend. To test this, the researchers evaluated the correlations between excess mortality and each time period.
The results showed that instead of increasing, the correlation values the correlation between each time period(seasons) and excess mortality were decreasing, indicating that post-COVID sequelae is not a confounder of the phenomenon observed in Figure 2 and is not the cause of the current high excess mortality.
Conclusions and Implications
With no other factors appearing to have a global, pandemic-level, and increasing effect on excess mortality, the researchers concluded that the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and excess mortality shown in Figure 2 is causal.
*************************************************
4 June, 2024
COVID-19 Vaccines One Likely Factor Behind 20,000 ‘Excess Deaths’: Scientist
The COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic lockdowns are likely a “strong contributing factor” to the nearly 20,000 excess deaths in Australia from the 2020-2023 period, according to one scientist.
Martin Stewart has 14 years of experience as a biomedical researcher at academic institutions in Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and Australia.
He also worked at the Robert Langer laboratory, named after the founder of Moderna, who produced an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic.
On March 26, the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs opened its inquiry into “excess mortality”—a term that refers to the number of deaths in a country that exceed the yearly average.
According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), excess deaths in Australia during the pandemic era reached 30,332. Of this, the total number of excess deaths deemed unrelated to COVID-19 was 19,401.
In his submission (pdf) to the Senate Committee, Mr. Stewart noted that many countries were experiencing “a high degree of excess mortality event after the worst and most deadly phases of the pandemic are over” and that these excess deaths “cannot be attributed to COVID-19 related illness.”
The “deadliest phase” was from late 2021 to early 2022 onwards, according to Mr. Stewart.
Most Australian states reached a 90 percent or more vaccination rate by December 2021, which was followed by a relaxing of restrictions in the Christmas period of 2021, and then a large-scale removal of restrictions and lockdowns in 2022.
However, 2022 and 2023 are the years when the country saw the most COVID deaths (10,301 for 2022, and 4,525 for 2023) and excess deaths not related to COVID-19 (9,644 and 8,361).
Mr. Stewart noted that the excess deaths “may be associated with long-term effects after COVID-19 (e.g. long COVID), longer term problems due to the healthcare system being inhibited from properly caring for people throughout 2020-2022, or due to government-sanctioned interventions such as lockdowns and COVID-19 vaccinations.”
“It is a complex and multi-factorial problem, however the data presented in this report strongly indicates that unproven and novel COVID-19 vaccinations are likely to be a contributing factor in excess deaths.”
The scientist added that as products such as mRNA- and viral vector-based vaccines are “newly developed and haven’t had the extensive background of human testing,” these vaccines have a high chance of “causing unforeseen problems.”
“This issue deserves a thorough and full-scale investigation,” he noted.
How Might the Vaccines Contribute To Excess Deaths?
Mr. Stewart argued that the cardiac damage caused by the mRNA vaccines could potentially be one area where COVID-19 vaccines are causing excess deaths.
He cited a 2023 study in Switzerland, led by Christian Mueller, professor of cardiology at the University of Basel, which indicated mRNA recipients experienced cardiac damage at a higher rate than untreated people.
“Among 777 participants, 40 participants exhibited elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T blood concentration on day 3 and mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated in 22 participants,” Mr. Stewart noted.
“Although none developed major adverse cardiac events within 30 days, the patients who exhibited signs of cardiac damage were warned to rest and not to over-exert themselves.”
Mr. Stewart said that from now on, every COVID-19 vaccination “must be monitored with rates of illness and death compared to unvaccinated control groups for up to a year.”
“To do anything less than this is gross negligence and a lack of care for human life.”
Excess Deaths Higher in Wealthier Countries
He also urged the Australian and other developed governments to investigate why their excess death rates have been much higher than less developed countries from 2022-2024.
“What is it about our approach and interventions that have caused excess death rates of 10-30 percent in many of the highest GDP per person countries in the world?” Mr. Stewart added.
“The evidence indicates that a high rate of COVID-19 and mRNA vaccination are strong contributing factors to this trend, and thus, the issue deserves urgent investigation and intervention in order to bring excess mortality rates back down to normal, or even below normal, once again.”
Thousands Of Adverse Events, Myocarditis
The opinion was echoed by Monique O'Connor, a medical practitioner and consultant psychiatrist with over 30 years of medical experience.
In her submission (pdf) to the committee, she noted that in 2021, there were 8,422 adverse events reported to the Western Australian Vaccine Safety Surveillance (WAVSS) following COVID-19 vaccination, with 81 percent of all reports in the working age group of 18-64.
“Of particular concern ... is the high rate of adverse events in the young age groups, especially with Moderna vaccination, such as the 30-39 year age group of 383 per 100,000 doses,” she said.
“In 2021, 138 confirmed cases of myocarditis/myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccinations were reported to WAVSS.
“A total of 365 confirmed cases of pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccinations received in 2021.”
In addition, she noted that prior to COVID-19 (2017-2021), the numbers of patients admitted to hospital was 40 to 63. Meanwhile, in 2021, 961 patients were admitted to hospital following COVID-19 vaccination.
Ms. O'Connor listed 10 factors that might have contributed to excess mortality.
This includes: management of SARS-CoV-2 illness; suicide; COVID-19 vaccine injury and death; long COVID and role of COVID-19 vaccination; elderly individuals at risk from “misclassification of post vaccine death” and poor care due to denial of family visitors; myocarditis, sudden death, and heart-related harms; pregnancy and births—especially post-vaccine; vaccine associated enhanced disease; plasmid DNA contamination of vaccines; and “frameshifting and junk mRNA.”
“The mRNA covid-19 vaccines used novel biologic therapy, a gene-based therapy, never previously licenced for human use,” she argued.
“It is recognised that there were high levels of contamination with plasmid DNA and that aberrant, unintended ‘junk proteins’ were produced through ‘frameshifting’ or misreading of the mRNA sequences or fragments,” she added.
“When introduced, it was impossible to predict whether/to what extend vaccine associated enhanced disease might occur.”
Ms. O'Connor also criticised the “politicisation of medicine,” arguing that SARS-CoV-2 infection, a highly contagious respiratory virus, “was always destined to become endemic especially since vaccination did not prevent infection or transmission the risk of infection.”
“However, pro-vaccine lobbyists used emotional blackmail to promote vaccination by impinging on our instinct to care and protect the vulnerable. Guilt and shame were used to smear those who did not agree with ‘experts’ assessment of safety.”
*************************************************
3 June, 2024
Dr. Anthony Fauci confesses he 'made up' covid rules including 6 feet social distancing and masking kids
Bombshell testimony from Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals he made up the six foot social distancing rule and other measures to 'protect' Americans from covid.
Republicans put out the full transcript of their sit down interview with Fauci from January just days before his highly-anticipated public testimony on Monday.
They plan to grill him about covid restrictions he put in place, that he admitted didn't do much to 'slow the spread' of the virus.
Kids' learning loss and social setbacks have been well documented, with one National Institute of Health (NIH) study calling the impact of mask use on students' literacy and learning 'very negative.'
And the impacts from social distancing caused 'depression, generalized anxiety, acute stress, and intrusive thoughts,' another NIH study found.
Speaking to counsel on behalf of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic earlier this year, Fauci told Republicans that the six foot social distancing rule 'sort of just appeared' and that he did not recall how it came about.
'You know, I don't recall. It sort of just appeared,' he said according to committee transcripts when pressed on how the rule came about.
He added he 'was not aware of studies' that supported the social distancing, conceding that such studies 'would be very difficult' to do.
In addition to not recalling any evidence supporting social distancing, Fauci also told the committee's counsel that he didn't remember reading anything to support that masking kids would prevent COVID.
'Do you recall reviewing any studies or data supporting masking for children?' he was asked.
'I might have,' he responded before adding 'but I don't recall specifically that I did.'
The pandemic patriarch also testified that he had not followed any studies after the fact regarding the impacts that forced mask wearing had on children, of which there have been many.
And his answer was an ironic COVID-esque pun, 'I still think that's up in the air,' Fauci said about whether masking kids was a solid way to prevent transmission.
Further, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) told the counsel that he believes the lab leak theory - the idea that COVID began at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) - is a real 'possibility.'
'I think people have made conspiracy aspects from it,' he said, adding 'it could be a lab leak.'
'So I think that in and of itself isn't inherently a conspiracy theory, but some people spin off things from that that are kind of crazy.'
His admission that COVID may have began at the WIV comes four years after he backed the publication of a paper which threw cold water on the lab leak theory called the 'Proximal Origin' paper.
The coronavirus committee has dedicated months to discovering the origins of the virus that upended so many lives and resulted in the deaths of 6 million people globally.
Recently they have discovered that Fauci's former top aide, Dr. David Morens, routinely conducted work on his personal email account and deleted files to avoid government transparency laws under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
His disregard for FOIA requests was so blatant that be bragged in emails to colleagues that he learned how to make official correspondence 'disappear' and that he would delete things he didn't 'want to see in the New York Times.'
Emails from Morens uncovered by the committee further revealed that he boasted about having a 'secret back channel' to Fauci where he could clandestinely communicate with the former NIAID director.
That revelation shocked the committee's chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, so thoroughly that he demanded Fauci turnover his personal email and phone records to the investigative body.
Also shocking, is Fauci's admission to the committee in January that he 'never' looks at the grants that he signed off on, some of which total to millions of taxpayer dollars.
'You know, technically, I sign off on each council, but I don't see the grants and what they are. I never look at what grants are there,' he told the committee's counsel.
Further, he said he was 'not certain' that foreign labs that receive U.S. grant money, such as the WIV - which was studying coronaviruses using U.S. taxpayer dollars at the time the pandemic began - operate at the same standards of American labs.
Fauci also said that the money he gave out as a part of the NIAID grant process did not go through any national security reviews.
Additionally, the former director said he was unaware of any conflicts of interest among his staff, which included his senior advisor Dr. Morens.
However, Morens testified before the committee on May 22 that he helped his 'best friend' EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak with his nonprofit's work.
Morens said he helped edit press releases for EcoHealth and worked to restore grant funding for the nonprofit after it's funding was terminated in the wake of the COVID outbreak in 2020.
NIH, which employs Morens, funded Daszak's EcoHealth to the tune of millions of dollars.
Still, Fauci said he was unaware that Morens had any conflicts of interests.
The committee will surely seek to clarify Fauci and Moren's 'secret back channel' of communication during the June 3 hearing.
*******************************************************
Drugmakers’ Secret Royalty Payments to Fauci’s NIAID Exploded After Pandemic: Report
Secret royalty payments from drug companies to scientists, researchers, executives, and other employees of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) exploded following the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2021, according to a new report from a non-profit government watchdog.
“In 2022 and 2023, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies paid the [NIH] a sum of $710,381,160 in third-party royalties. These were payments healthcare companies made to NIH, its leadership and scientists to license medical inventions created in federal, taxpayer-funded labs,” OpenTheBooks.com reports in an analysis being made public Monday as former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci testifies before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The Epoch Times obtained a copy of the full report.
“The National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led until recently by Dr. Anthony Fauci, collected nearly all of it: $690,218,610 of the $710 million,” the report said.
The $710 million total for 2022-2023 is double the $325 million OpentheBooks.com previously reported was paid to NIH employees between 2009 and 2021. The non-profit watchdog has had to take NIH to federal court twice for failing to provide requested data not covered by any of the nine exemptions to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Among the recipients of royalties was NIAID’s John Mascola, who was selected to manage Operation Warp Speed, the government’s crash program to develop a vaccine for the Coronavirus.
More than 1.2 million Americans have been reported as dying as a result of contracting the virus since January 2020.
Dr. Mascola, who managed NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center since 2013, received royalty payments from Moderna since 2018, when he selected the company as one of the government’s partners in Operation Warp Speed.
Moderna received more than $10 billion from the government between 2020 and 2022 for its work developing a vaccine and delivering millions of doses to health care agencies. In the years 2013 to 2017, the government paid Moderna $60 million for development work on the mRNA technology that is the basis of the Coronavirus vaccine.
OpentheBooks.com obtained the data on which its report is based from NIH after the agency resisted providing the information in response to the group’s second FOIA request, which was filed in conjunction with Judicial Watch, a non-profit legal firm that specializes in FOIA litigation.
Media Claims It Was Duped by Fauci-Funded Scientists on Covid Origins, but Is That Really True? | Truth Over News
The NIH was required to provide the names of government employees receiving the royalty payments, the amounts paid, and when they were paid. But OpenTheBooks.com claims in its report that the government is still refusing to disclose the names of NIH employees in connection with 4,851 royalty payments between 2009 and 2021.
In addition, nearly 1,000 names of NIH employees getting royalty payments made in 2022 and 2023 are being withheld. The government cites the FOIA’s exemption, which is meant to protect private firms’ commercial trade secrets.
“Why the names of NIH scientists are considered ‘confidential’ or ’trade secrets’ is unexplained, and something we are fighting in our ongoing FOIA litigation ... We have no idea who these scientists are, what they are in charge of, or why their names are redacted. All of this raises significant questions about conflicts-of-interest within the royalty structure at the NIH for obvious reasons,” the report said.
Dr. Fauci is expected to be questioned by members of the subcommittee about the secret royalty payments and why agency officials are defying the FOIA’s requirement that all federal documents that are not covered by the exemptions must be made available to the public on request.
Dr. David Morens, formerly one of Dr. Fauci’s closest advisers at NIH, testified before the panel about how he was advised by officials in the NIH FOIA office on how to avoid disclosure of emails, text messages, and other communications considered potentially embarrassing.
A spokesman for NIH could not be reached late Sunday for comment.
*************************************************
2 June, 2024
Emails Show Dr. Fauci Bribed Scientists to Discredit the Lab Leak Theory
Since he appears to have had some role in financing the lab studies concerned, his motive can be guessed
Newly released emails unearthed by the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic show Dr. Anthony Fauci bribed scientists with taxpayer funded grants to discredit the lab leak theory. Fauci rewarded scientists with millions of dollars for doing this bidding. Then, his chief-of-staff covered his tracks by illegally evading Freedom of Information Act laws.
Fauci had an interest in discrediting the lab leak theory on behalf of EcoHealth, the group that partnered with Fauci through National Institute of Health grants to conduct illegal and dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology -- where COVID-19 was engineered according to intelligence assessments. Ecohealth was debarred and banned from receiving federal grants for conducting the illegal and unethical experiments. In January 2020, Fauci was informed through email by an NIH scientist that the virus looked "engineered."
Fauci was regularly referred to as "the Godfather" of gain-of-function research and created an intimidating environment conducive to corruption and retribution for not bowing to his demands -- which manipulated "scientific" conclusions.
"The head of the funding, the head of the entire field, really, is Anthony Fauci," Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin said during an interview with Megyn Kelly in April 2021. "He's the godfather of gain-of-function research as we know it. That, again, just what I said right there, is too hot for TV because people don’t want to think about the fact that our hero of the pandemic… might also have been connected to this research, which might also have been connected to the outbreak."
In addition to bribing scientists, Fauci enlisted Facebook to censor all stories about the lab leak theory on the social media platform.
A newly surfaced email from CEO Mark Zuckerberg, which was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Buzzfeed, may explain why Facebook was censoring the information.
"Tony: I wanted to send a note of thanks for your leadership and everything you're doing to make our country's response to this outbreak as effective as possible. I also wanted to share a few ideas of ways we could help you get your message out but I understand you're incredibly busy, so don't feel a need to reply unless these seem interesting," Zuckerberg wrote in an email to Fauci on March 15, 2020, adding that he wanted to help get "authoritative" information out to the masses.
Fauci responded to Zuckerberg directly and worked with him on a number of messaging projects for the platform.
When Fauci was asked about the lab leak theory in April 2020, he downplayed the idea. Facebook then started removing posts and conversations about the lab leak theory from their platform.
***********************************************
UK: One in 20 infected with mild Covid in the first wave are STILL battling illness, study shows
One in 20 people infected with mild Covid in the first wave of the pandemic were left with lingering symptoms up to three years later, research has suggested.
US scientists found respiratory and neurological issues were the common problems still reported by those struck down with the virus in 2020.
And the researchers, who tracked more than 135,000 Americans with Covid, also discovered a 34 per cent higher risk of problems with all organs among people hit hardest with Covid and hospitalised.
Experts today labelled the findings an 'important new lesson' and warned the virus 'should not be trivialized'.
Dr Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University and senior author of the study said: 'We aren't sure why the virus's effects linger for so long.
'Possibly it has to do with viral persistence, chronic inflammation, immune dysfunction or all the above.
'We tend to think of infections as mostly short-term illnesses with health effects that manifest around the time of infection.
'Our data challenges this notion. I feel Covid continues to teach us — and this is an important new lesson — that a brief, seemingly innocuous or benign encounter with the virus can still lead to health problems years later.'
He added: 'Addressing this knowledge gap is critical to enhance our understanding of long Covid and will help inform care for people suffering from long Covid.'
US Government data suggests up to 10 per cent of people infected with virus have experienced long Covid.
Often self-diagnosed, the term was coined for a number of symptoms following Covid infection, which can persist for months or even years after the initial infection.
Around 1.9million people in the UK are reported to suffer with it, with the term covering everything from fatigue and breathlessness to muscle and joint pain.
The researchers analyzed data from 114,000 veterans with mild Covid who did not require hospitalisation, over 20,000 patients hospitalised with the virus and 5.2million veterans who never received a Covid diagnosis.
All were enrolled in the study between March and December 2020.
Over a follow-up of three years, they found the risk of long Covid stood at 23 per cent one year after infection.
This fell to 16 per cent or roughly one in six after two years.
Concerningly, they also found that among those who weren't hospitalised, Covid had contributed to 10 lost years of healthy life per 1,000 people, three years after infection.
By comparison, those who were hospitalised with Covid had lost 90 years of healthy life per 1,000 people.
In the US, heart disease and cancer cause around 50 years of lost healthy life, while strokes contribute to roughly 10 years, per 1,000 people.
Writing in the journal, Nature Medicine, the researchers, said: 'Although preventing severe disease is important, strategies to reduce the risk of post-acute and long-term health loss in people with mild Covid are also needed.'
However, they also acknowledged the study mainly involved veterans who were 'mostly older', white and male and may not be reflective of other populations.
Participants also contracted the virus in 2020 — an era predating Covid vaccines — suggesting their infection may have been more severe.
Dr Al-Aly added: 'Covid is a serious threat to the long-term health and well-being of people and it should not be trivialized.
'Even three years out, you might have forgotten about Covid, but it hasn’t forgotten about you.
'People might think they're out of the woods, because they had the virus and did not experience health problems.
'But three years after infection, the virus could still be wreaking havoc and causing disease or illness in the gut, lungs or brain.'
It comes as Covid cases continue to slowly increase across the UK, after infection rates dwindled over the spring.
Earlier this month, health chiefs issued an alert over a new variant, nicknamed FLiRT, they had begun monitoring.
It makes up around 30 per cent of new cases in the UK currently.
FLiRT also accounts for roughly a quarter of new cases in the US, surveillance data suggests.
Virologists are using the term FLiRT to describe a family of different variants — KP.2, KP.3, JN.1.7, JN.1.1, and KP.1.1.
They are all descendants of the JN.1 variant that has been dominant in the UK for the past few months. That itself was dubbed Juno.
Ministers have repeatedly said that they won't resort to imposing lockdowns unless a doomsday variant.
A wall of immunity among the population — built up by repeated waves of infection and vaccine rollouts — has given officials confidence to consign pandemic-era measures to history.
Spikes in Covid cases can still cause mass illness across the country, sparking chaos in schools, the health service and public transport.
Officials also no longer track the prevalence of the virus in the same way they used to, as part of the Government's ushering in of pre-Covid normalities.
*************************************************
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
*********************************************************