Science and Pseudo-Science

1 in 30 U.S. Kids Diagnosed With Autism in 2020 — What’s Behind the Surge?

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 14, 2022

Roughly 1 in 30 — 3.49% — of children and adolescents ages 3 to 17 were diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in 2020, according to a JAMA Pediatrics research letter published this month by a team of researchers in China.

The letter also referenced a new study showing a 53% increase in ASD in American young people since 2017.

The researchers used data, gathered in 2019 and 2020, from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which collects health-related information via household interviews conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

During the NHIS interviews, a parent or guardian reported on ASD diagnoses made by a physician or other healthcare professional.

Of the 12,554 individuals ages 3 to 17 surveyed in 2019 and 2020, 410 were reported to have a diagnosis of ASD.

The research team, including corresponding author Dr. Wenhan Yang, M.D., Ph.D., from the School of Public Health, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University in China, compared the 2019 and 2020 NHIS results to NHIS results from the years 2014 to 2018.

“We found the prevalence of ASD increased from 2014 to 2016, decreased from 2016 to 2017, and then increased again from 2017 to 2020,” Yang and colleagues wrote.

The study showed an ASD diagnosis rate of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.39% in 2020 — which is a 53% increase since 2017 — and reported an overall ASD diagnosis rate of 3.14% in 2019 and 2020.

The researchers said the 2019 and 2020 prevalence rates were higher than those reported in other countries and geographical areas since 2014 — including Europe (0.42% to 3.13%), the Middle East (0.11% to 1.53%) and Australia (1.41% to 2.52%).

The data showed a higher prevalence of ASD in boys. For 2019 and 2020, 4.64% of boys were reported as having been diagnosed with ASD versus 1.56% of girls.

The study authors also found a statistically significant higher rate of ASD diagnosis among lower-income demographics.

The authors noted a limitation of their research is that it relied on parents’ recall of information, which may biased or incomplete.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., said the researchers’ findings are important because their data capture ASD diagnosis information that other measurements of ASD diagnosis rates may have missed.

Hooker, chief science advisor at Children’s Health Defense, said every four years the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes an update on its estimate of the rate of autism in children, through the agency’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network.

The ADDM data, however, tends to underestimate the rate of autism, according to Hooker, because it draws largely from reports of higher-income families and looks only at diagnosis rates of 8-year-olds.

The NHIS data used by Yang and colleagues “are more accurate and more reflective of where cases are missing in the CDC’s numbers because people in the ADDM Network tend to be of a higher-income demographic,” he said. “This study has really captured the lower end of poverty-level income demographics.”

Hooker added:

“I think it’s stunning that there’s a statistically significant difference [showing] that the higher levels of autism are now being diagnosed in those with lower income.

“It’s interesting because it’s something that we suspected all along, but we haven’t seen it quantified like this.”

There is no immediately clear explanation for why the child autism rate is now higher among lower-income families compared to higher-income families.

However, Hooker thought it might reflect the fact that more children in schools serving lower-income demographics are being diagnosed in order to get those children access to services.

Or, he said, it might be that people in lower-income demographics tend to be more vaccine-compliant because they’re participating in the CDC’s Vaccines for Children program, where they get their vaccines for free.

“You do have to wonder about vaccination rates because higher-income families tend to vaccinate less.”

In May 2020, Hooker and colleagues found negative health outcomes, including developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders, to be associated with adherence to the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule for children.

The CDC’s website states that vaccines do not cause autism. However, in the high-profile vaccine-injury case involving Hannah Poling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conceded that Poling’s autism was caused by a vaccine.

The concession document in the Poling case stated:

“The vaccinations Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

Future research must focus on ‘risk factors and causes of ASD’

Though the study authors said their findings warrant investigation into the risk factors for developing autism, they did not suggest what potential risk factors future researchers should consider.

“ASD is a complicated neurodevelopmental disability with an increasing prevalence worldwide and considerable implications for individuals and their families,” the authors of the JAMA Pediatrics letter wrote.

“Given that ASD is a lifelong disease in most children, future research needs to focus on understanding risk factors for and causes of ASD.”

Much recent research has focused on identifying the possible genetic components of the condition.

Autism geneticists are now studying “the final frontier” of the non-coding genome, according to Spectrum, an online outlet for autism news and analysis. The non-coding genome is the largely unexplored 99% of the human genome that lies beyond the protein-coding exome.

However, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, attributes risk factors beyond genetics to the development of the condition.

Seneff — who for decades has investigated possible causes for the high rates of ASD in American children — said exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller that is also present in many foods, is a probable risk factor.

Nonetheless, the CDC’s research through the ADDM Network does not investigate what external factors might impact the prevalence of autism diagnoses.

According to the CDC website, the ADDM Network’s goals are to:

Compare how common ASD is in different areas of the country.
Measure progress in early ASD identification.
Identify changes in ASD occurrence over time.
Understand the impact of ASD and related conditions in U.S. communities.

Public health experts ‘tap dance’ on new high numbers, attributing rise to ‘greater awareness’

Some experts attributed the increase in ASD diagnoses to greater awareness of the condition among parents and doctors, the New York Post reported.

Dr. Marc Siegel, internal medicine doctor and clinical professor at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, told FOX News he believes the rise in autism diagnoses is largely a function of more parents being on the lookout for signs of ASD in their children.

Siegel said:

“This [study] was pre-pandemic, so I want to start with that. It’s because parents were more on the lookout for resistance in routines, not meeting your glances, emotional withdrawal, obsessive behavior — all of that is what could go into being diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder.

“Raising awareness is a big, big part of it, but there’s also probably something that women are exposed to in the womb that we don’t yet know about that could be causing it.

“And a third thing is all of the bombardment of the internet, of social media, of iPhones, all of that leads to an inability to socialize.”

However, Kim Rossi, managing editor of Age of Autism, found Siegel’s reasons unconvincing and inadequate.

Age of Autism is a non-profit that gives “voice to those who believe autism is an environmentally induced illness, that it is treatable and that children can recover.”

Rossi, mother of three adult children with autism, said in a July 12 post that Siegel “tap danced” on the new autism numbers and failed to provide any substantial answers about what parents need to know regarding the surge in ASD diagnoses reported by the study.

Rossi wrote:

“Autism numbers continue to rise unabated. But no one is really concerned. It’s just this or that or tra la la … And no one cares in public health, pediatrics, or Washington.

“Notice how Siegel alludes to ‘something women are exposed to in the womb’ which is ‘probably’ also a factor. After thirty years of exploding autism statistics, we’re still totally uninterested in what that ‘something’ might be.”

According to Rossi, the surge in ASD diagnoses among U.S. children is largely “coming from the outside” in the form of environmental toxins, including vaccines — and these potential risk factors should be researched.

“Something on the outside is affecting the inside,” she told The Defender in an interview.

Rossi speculated environmental factors, including exposure to chemicals and eating non-organic foods, may play a role.

“Parents have reported for decades vaccine injury and then an autism diagnosis,” she said.

Rossi also expressed concern about the recent trend to frame autism in terms of “neurodiversity” — a view that emphasizes the potential gifts of autism and downplays the challenges presented by the condition.

“Autism has fallen under the umbrella of identity politics,” she said.

While people with autism should be proud, she said, the current framing of ASD as a personality trait does not adequately respect and honor the situation of many individuals with ASD — particularly those with severe autism — and their family members who care for them.

When ASD is no longer considered a medical condition, everyone is “off the hook” for identifying and mitigating the possible environmental risk factors.

No one is held responsible, she said. No one, except the parents caring for autistic children and the school districts serving them.

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Fairfield, Iowa.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

July 16, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science | United States | Leave a comment

Second call to WHO: Please, don’t vaccinate against Omicron.

Dr. Geert Vanden-Bossche | December 24, 2021

Transcription:

Dear colleagues at the WHO, I think the time has come to admit that the mass vaccination program that you have been proposing in an attempt to put an end to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a complete failure. At the beginning of this year, I’ve been urging you to open a scientific debate on the potential risks of mass vaccination with these vaccines – in the midst of a pandemic. I’ve never received a response to that request. But shortly thereafter one of the most renowned vaccinologists on this planet wrote me an email saying; ‘vaccinating with these vaccines would only breed new variants. But that it wouldn’t make sense for me to go against the mainstream because nobody would listen to me anyway, and hopefully that second-generation vaccines would solve the problem.’

So, I wanted to let you know that it is not because you are the WHO, that you can afford to ignore the opinion of people who have long-standing expertise – in all of the different disciplines involved in this pandemic: virology, immunology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, zoonoses, etc. Whereas, some of us have been predicting that mass vaccination with these vaccines in the midst of a pandemic would inevitably lead to the expansion of more infectious variants, your leading scientists have been preaching the simplistic mantra that the more we vaccinate the less the virus will replicate, and the lower the likelihood that new variants will emerge. Now, the consequences of these simplistic and erroneous viewpoints is that today we are dealing with dominant circulation of Omicron, the most infectious SARS-CoV-2 variant that we have seen so far, and probably the most infectious virus that we have seen so far.

So, given the fact that we are now dealing with a number of variants that are circulating and a multitude, of course, of sub-variants, and that infection rates are going through the roof, and that also we are already most likely having a number of animal populations that are serving as a reservoir for the virus, the likelihood that viral variants are now recombining and building reassortments within one and the same host is becoming increasingly likely. So, what that means is that it will become increasingly difficult to trace the origin of new variants, and that it will be even more challenging to predict the characteristics of those new variants in terms of infectiousness, in terms of virulence, pathogenicity, and also in terms of resistance to vaccinal antibodies or to vaccines in general.

But what is very clear is that if those new variants are to survive on a background of high population-level immune pressure, then those variants will need to be more infectious – like, for example, the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant, however, is offering a very nice opportunity, because Omicron has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal antibodies, and that means that the vaccinal antibodies are less likely to outcompete the innate antibodies, which is very good news, because we know that innate antibodies can protect against SARS-CoV-2. This has been repeatedly reported in the literature. We also know that innate antibodies can be trained, and therefore they can even improve their recognition and protection against the virus. Innate antibodies can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained, by repeated exposure to what we call pathogen-associated molecular patterns. This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England – where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced, and even to an extent such that vaccine efficacy, or we should say, in the population, vaccine effectiveness, would become negative. There is also increased evidence, or increasing evidence, that training of innate antibodies as a result of natural infection can enhance the abrogation of the infection, and that training of adaptive immunity – particularly the induction of T-cell memory, also as a result of natural infection – can enhance the abrogation of disease.

Thanks to the increased resistance of Omicron to vaccinal antibodies, the innate antibodies are set free and can now enable the vaccinees to eliminate the virus, to control viral transmission, and to lead to a dramatic decrease in the viral infection rate, just like healthy unvaccinated people are doing. So, in other words, the resistance to Omicron means, in fact, that we are freeing up a huge capacity of sterilizing immunity in vaccinees because the vaccinees are, in fact, regaining full functionality of their innate immune antibodies. That, of course, will lead to herd immunity because herd immunity requires that you induce a type of immunity that can sterilize the virus, that can dramatically diminish transmission. This would also mean: by freeing up this huge capacity of sterilizing immunity in the vaccinees – after certainly a very important incline of infectious cases – we would have a rapid decline of this wave. And we would also have a rapid decline of disease cases, and even more importantly and more dramatically, of severe disease. Now we know with (moderate) disease, when you recover from disease, you develop acquired immunity, which is long-lived and will protect you. And the few cases of severe disease, we have, of course, to treat – that is what we’ve always said.

It is important to realize that, in fact, Omicron is more or less serving, indeed, as a live attenuated vaccine, and that this is a unique opportunity. The fact that we free up the sterilizing capacity in the vaccinees, thanks to the increased level of resistance of Omicron to the vaccinal antibodies – those are no longer capable of outcompeting the innate antibodies – we may have a unique opportunity to achieve herd immunity, or to start building herd immunity. And so, it is very, very important that we leave people alone, and that we leave the children alone, and that we let the virus spread. And so, we shouldn’t have any vaccination against this Omicron variant, and we shouldn’t have lockdowns.

If we are now going to vaccinate against Omicron, we are going to take away this window of opportunity for the population to generate herd immunity, thanks to freeing up our innate antibodies. And what we are going to do is in fact we would build against antibodies, against the spike protein of Omicron, and particularly against the receptor-binding domain of this Omicron spike protein.

We know that this receptor-binding domain has already undergone a number, or several, important mutations. So, if we put again full pressure on this domain, there is a high likelihood that we are now going to promote variants that will be able to use a receptor that is different from ACE-2 to enter into the cell. And we know that SARS-CoV-2 can do that because it has already been described that SARS-CoV-2 can use receptors other than ACE-2 to enter into the cell. But so far this way of entering – this alternative way of entry into the cell – has not been the preferred way for the virus for entering the cells. But it would only take probably one or two mutations for the virus to make these alternative receptors the preferred receptors for viral entry.

By doing mass vaccination against Omicron, we may be putting enough immune pressure on viral infectiousness to give variants that are capable of entering into the cell through an alternative receptor – to give them a competitive advantage, and so, to provide them with a fitness advantage so that they can now become dominant in the population. What this means is pretty catastrophic, because this would mean that basically we end up with a situation where we have antibodies that still strongly bind to the virus, to the receptor binding domain, but that can no longer neutralize the virus because the virus is now using another domain to enter into the cell, a domain which is different from the domain that is blocked by the antibodies.

Such a situation is in fact, a textbook example, for how you provoke antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease. So, this would mean that such a situation, the virus covered with strongly binding antibodies but not being able to neutralize the virus, would basically lead, or would be similar, to a situation where the virus has acquired a higher level of virulence. This would be – this situation would really, really, really be at risk of provoking the kind of disastrous consequences that I have been warning against at the beginning of this year. And we know that industry is already gearing up for mass vaccination against Omicron. And, as this, according to my humble opinion, could potentially be – with a high likelihood – a real disaster. We must prevent such a thing from happening.

So in order to – or I would say unless – unless immediate action is taken to prevent this, it is clear that decision-makers in your organization, the WHO, will be held responsible, accountable, and liable for the dramatic consequences that this biological experiment on human beings could possibly entail. So I hope that this time you will take my warning very seriously into consideration.

Thank you.

July 16, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, WHO | Leave a comment

Magnesium Is a Cornerstone Mineral for Health

This article was previously published April 1, 2019, and has been updated with new information.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Magnesium is the fourth most abundant element in your body,¹ and one of the seven essential minerals we can’t live without.² It’s necessary for the healthy functioning of most cells, but especially your heart, kidneys and muscles. Low levels of magnesium impede cellular metabolic function and deteriorate mitochondrial function.

As it is also required for the activation of vitamin D, deficiency may hamper your ability to convert vitamin D from sun exposure and/or oral supplementation. Unfortunately, deficiency is common and research shows even subclinical deficiencies may jeopardize your health.

If you’ve recently had a blood panel drawn, you may assume it would reveal a magnesium deficiency. However, only 1% of magnesium is distributed in your blood, which means a blood test is not useful to determine whether you are deficient at the cellular level.³ Recent research confirms optimal levels of magnesium are necessary for your heart⁴ and kidney health.⁵

Magnesium Deficiency Affects the Vast Majority

Statistics show that at least 50% of Americans are deficient in magnesium, with some estimations going as high as 75% overall, and as many as 84% of postmenopausal women being deficient in it.^6,^7,⁸ Other scientists believe the deficiency affects the vast majority of individuals based on current dietary habits, saying:⁹

“[B]ecause of chronic diseases, medications, decreases in food crop magnesium contents and the availability of refined and processed foods, the vast majority of people in modern societies are at risk for magnesium deficiency.”

The recommended daily allowances (RDA) for magnesium are based on age, gender and pregnancy status.¹⁰ Although it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact percentage of individuals who suffer from magnesium deficiency, data do demonstrate subclinical levels of magnesium contribute to a number of widespread health problems.

The number who suffer from deficiency increases with an aging population as the elderly tend to consume less and don’t efficiently absorb magnesium from what is eaten.¹¹

Digestive disorders, such as Crohn’s disease and celiac, may also affect magnesium absorption.¹² Individuals who suffer from Type 2 diabetes¹³ or use diuretics may lose more magnesium through their urine.¹⁴

As the number of people suffering Type 2 diabetes is growing, and the age at which the condition arises is getting younger,¹⁵ the number who are also at risk for magnesium deficiency is also rising. Type 2 diabetes is associated with a number of health conditions also linked to magnesium deficiency, including heart disease and kidney disease.

Magnesium Integral to Arterial Health

Magnesium is required for energy production and is a cofactor in more than 300 enzyme systems that regulate biochemical reactions, including muscle and nerve function, and blood pressure regulation.¹⁶ Magnesium also helps regulate your blood vessels and helps prevent calcification known as coronary artery calcification (CAC).

CAC is an indicator of advanced atherosclerosis, a common predictor of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease.¹⁷ In 1948, researchers undertook a nearly 70-year-long heart study under the direction of the National Heart Institute.

The Framingham Heart Study¹⁸ became a joint project of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and Boston University with the objective to identify factors contributing to cardiovascular disease.

Magnesium Is Necessary for Optimal Heart and Kidney Health

Researchers¹⁹ recently examined data of magnesium intake in those free of cardiovascular disease at the beginning of the Framingham Heart Study and followed them over a period of 11 years.

They found a strong association between higher self-reported magnesium intake and lower calcification in the coronary arteries, which translates to lower risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.

The researchers believe this may play a role in magnesium’s protective association in stroke and fatal coronary artery disease. The data also revealed a lower risk of abdominal aortic calcification,²⁰ also associated with cardiovascular disease.²¹ A second study²² analyzed the associated risk of hypomagnesemia with diabetes and hypertension, which can contribute to a decline in kidney function.

The hypothesis was that subclinical levels contributed to a decline in glomerular filtration rate. Researchers engaged over 2,000 participants from the Dallas Heart Study. During a median follow-up of seven years, researchers evaluated glomerular filtration rate, biochemical parameters, C-reactive proteins and the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes.

The results led the researchers to conclude subclinical levels of magnesium were independently associated with decline in glomerular filtration rates indicating declining kidney function.²³

Magnesium is a natural calcium antagonist and has several effects on vasodilation, regulation and changes in metabolism enhancing atherosclerotic changes in arterial stiffness, likely in part contributing to heart and kidney disease.²⁴

Magnesium for Your Bone and Muscle Health

Magnesium contributes to the structural development of bone, and adult bone contains nearly 60% of the total magnesium in your body.²⁵ As it is involved in bone formation, subclinical levels may contribute to the development of osteoporosis.

Research²⁶ has found women with osteoporosis have lower serum magnesium levels than those without osteoporosis or osteopenia. Magnesium is also fundamental for physical performance.²⁷ Just as it contributes to heart muscle contraction, skeletal muscles also require magnesium to relax muscle cramping and it is a cornerstone for circulatory health.

Magnesium is also important in energy regulation and plays a role in oxygen delivery and uptake in muscle. The relationship between magnesium and circulation also affects your brain. Dr. Maiken Nedergaard, co-director of the University of Rochester Center for Translational Neuromedicine, commented on the energy supply needed by the brain:²⁸

“Our brains require a tremendous amount of energy and in order to meet this demand the flow of blood must be precisely choreographed to ensure that oxygen is being delivered where it is needed and when it is needed. This study demonstrates that microvessels in the brain play a key role in reacting to spikes in demand and accelerating the flow of blood to respond to neuronal activity.”

Magnesium Deficiency Affects Migraines, Anxiety, Depression

Although the brain is just 2% of your body weight, it uses nearly 20% of your oxygen supply in metabolic processes,²⁹ remaining remarkably constant despite changes in mental and motor activities. Magnesium facilitates processing in the neural networks and is used to keep the blood-brain barrier healthy.³⁰

Magnesium has proven to be essential for learning, concentration and memory and enables the brain’s plasticity, or its ability to adapt to challenges.³¹ Additionally, maintaining optimal levels of magnesium has proven effective in reducing the number of attacks and the number of days per month you may experience a migraine.³²

In a comparison against valproate sodium, a medication used to help prevent migraine headache attacks, a randomized, controlled, double-blind study indicated 500 milligrams (mgs) of magnesium per day was an effective prophylaxis, similar to the effectiveness experienced by those taking valproate sodium, without side effects.

Anxiety disorders affect up to 13% of the population in the U.S.³³ The condition may be debilitating, and like other mental disorders, it exists on a spectrum. Low levels of magnesium have been associated with increasing levels of noradrenaline, leading to a higher heart rate and blood pressure.

Conversely, optimal levels of magnesium may decrease the release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), responsible for the controlled release of cortisol. Essentially, this means the release of fewer stress hormones and the modulation of the ones released.³⁴

Optimal levels of dietary intake are also inversely associated with anxiety and depression.³⁵ In an outpatient clinic treating 126 adults with mild to moderate symptoms, researcher found supplementation with magnesium chloride for six weeks resulted in clinically significant improvements in depression and anxiety without side effects.³⁶

Higher Magnesium Intake Lowers Risk of Vitamin D Deficiency

Vitamin D levels below 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) or 50 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) have repeatedly been shown to raise your risk of a number of health conditions, including depression and Type 2 diabetes. According to the most recent research, a vitamin D level between 60 and 80 ng/mL (150 and 200 nmol/L) appears to offer the greatest protection against cancer and other chronic diseases.³⁷

Adequate vitamin D levels may also help prevent or treat dry eye syndrome,³⁸ macular degeneration,³⁹ neurological diseases,⁴⁰ fractures⁴¹ and obesity.⁴² Adequate levels of vitamin D also lower your mortality risk associated with heart disease,⁴³ and may lower your risk of mortality from all causes.⁴⁴

However, without adequate levels of magnesium, any vitamin D supplementation may be ineffective,⁴⁵ as magnesium is required for the activation of vitamin D, and vitamin D may trigger vascular calcification if magnesium and vitamin K2 levels are not optimal.⁴⁶ Higher levels of magnesium may actually lower your risk of vitamin D deficiency by allowing for the activation of more vitamin D.⁴⁷

Magnesium — Supplementation and Natural Sources

One of the biggest culprits behind deficiencies is processed foods, which unfortunately has become a staple in the American diet. Some of the magnesium rich foods you may add to your diet include:^48,⁴⁹

Spinach
Swiss chard
Avocado
Papaya
Bok Choy
Beet greens
Turnip greens
Seeds and nuts, such as pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds, cashews and raw almonds
Fatty fishes like wild-caught Alaskan salmon
Dried seaweed or agar
Brussels sprouts

An interesting number of factors may affect your ability to absorb magnesium from your foods. Herbicides like glyphosate act as agricultural chelators, effectively obstructing the uptake of minerals from the soil in many foods grown today. As a result, it may be quite difficult to find truly magnesium-rich foods. Cooking and processing further depletes magnesium.

Meanwhile, certain foods may actually influence your body’s absorption of magnesium. High levels of sugar intake may trigger excretion of magnesium through your kidneys, “resulting in a net loss,” according to Dr. Danine Fruge, associate medical director at the Pritikin Longevity Center in Florida.⁵⁰

When it comes to oral supplementation, my personal preference is magnesium threonate, as it appears to be the most efficient at penetrating cell membranes, including your mitochondria and blood-brain barrier. Other effective ways to boost your magnesium level include:

•Taking Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) baths, as the magnesium will effectively absorb through your skin.

•Using a topical solution — I prepare a supersaturated solution of Epsom salt by dissolving 7 tablespoons of the salt into 6 ounces of water and heating it until all the salt has dissolved. I pour it into a dropper bottle and then apply it to my skin and rub fresh aloe leaves over it to dissolve it.

This is an easy and inexpensive way to increase your magnesium and will allow you to get higher dosages into your body without having to deal with its laxative effects.

Magnesium can be taken with or without food. If you’re also taking calcium, take them together. If you exercise regularly, consider taking your calcium and magnesium in a ratio of one part calcium to two parts magnesium with your pre-workout meal.

While the ideal ratio of magnesium to calcium is thought to be 1-to-1, most people get far more calcium than magnesium from their diet, so your need for supplemental magnesium may be two to three times greater than calcium.

Sources and References

¹ Austin Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences, March 31, 2015
² Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, March 28, 2018
^3, ⁹ Open Heart, 2018;5(1):e000668
^4, ³² Acta Neurologica Belgica 2019; doi: 10.1007/s13760-019-01101-x [Epub ahead of print]
^5, ^22, ²³ Journal of Investigative Medicine, 2019; doi: 10.1136/jim-2018-000966
⁶ Nutrition Today, May/June 2016
⁷ American Family Physician, July 15, 2009
⁸ BMJ Open Heart, 2018
^10, ^16, ²⁵ National Institutes of Health, Magnesium
¹¹ Geriatric Nephrology and Urology, 1994;4:101
¹² Crohn’s Colitis Foundation, Diet, Nutrition and Inflammatory Bowel Disease
¹³ World Journal of Diabetes, 2015;6(10):1152
¹⁴ Drugs 1984 Oct;28 Suppl 1:167-81
¹⁵ American Diabetes Association, Statistics About Diabetes
¹⁷ National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Atherosclerosis
¹⁸ Framingham Heart Study, History of the Framingham Heart Study
^19, ²⁰ JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, 2014;7(1):59
²¹ Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 2013;34(3):213
²⁴ International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2018; 19(6):1724
²⁶ Journal of International Medical Research, 2007;35(5):692
²⁷ Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2010;32(1)
²⁸ University of Rochester Medical Center, August 8, 2016
²⁹ PNAS, 2002;99(16):10237
³⁰ Molecular Neurobiology, 2018;55(9):7118
³¹ Magnesium Research, 2006;19(3):199
³³ Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 2013;38(1):30
³⁴ Magnesium in the Central Nervous System, Cuciureanu, M., Vink, R.
³⁵ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2009;43(1):45
³⁶ PLOS|One 2017;12(6): e0180067
³⁷ European Journal of Cancer 2005 May;41(8):1164-9
³⁸ Endocrinology Advisor August 24, 2015
³⁹ JAMA Ophthalmology August 27, 2015;133(10):1171-1179
⁴⁰ The Journals of Gerontology 2012 Nov;67(11):1205-11
⁴¹ American Journal of Clinical Nutrition July 2006: 84(1); 18-28
⁴² Clinical Nutrition 2012 doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2012.08.014
⁴³ J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:2160-2167
⁴⁴ American Journal of Public Health, 2014;104(8):e43
⁴⁵ Science Daily. Low Magnesium Levels Make Vitamin D Ineffective. February 26, 2018
⁴⁶ Eurekalert February 27, 2018
⁴⁷ BMC Medicine 2013; 11: 187
⁴⁸ Medical News Today, July 26, 2017
⁴⁹ Cleveland Clinic, Magnesium Rich Food
⁵⁰ CNN, December 31, 2014

July 16, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

More Deaths, Injuries Revealed in Latest Pfizer Vaccine Trial Document Dump

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 14, 2022

This month’s release of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveals three more reports of deaths among vaccine trial participants and further instances of Pfizer downplaying serious adverse events sustained by participants and listing the injuries as “not related” to the vaccine.

Of the approximately 80,000 pages released this month, the most revelatory is a 3,611-page “confidential” document with no title — only the file name “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive.”

The document contains information about vaccine trial participants who died, who sustained adverse events during the trial or who contracted COVID-19 during the trial.

All participants listed in the document received the 30 μg dose of the BNT162b2 candidate vaccine, which the FDA in August 2021 granted Emergency Use Authorization.

The FDA on July 1 released the documents as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of doctors and public health professionals, initially submitted the FOIA request.

Document details deaths of three trial participants

The “interim narrative” document contains reports of three clinical trial participants who died — and in all cases, the investigator ruled out the possibility the deaths were related to Pfizer’s vaccines.

One instance pertains to a 56-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1007 10071101), who suffered cardiac arrest on Oct. 18, 2021, and died three days later. She was vaccinated on July 30, 2020, and Aug. 20, 2020.

The “narrative comments” accompanying the report on the woman’s death stated her death could not have been related to the vaccine, due to the amount of time that had elapsed following her second dose:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the cardiac arrest was related to the study intervention or clinical trial procedures, as the death occurred 2 months after receiving Dose 2.”

The woman’s medical history did not indicate any cardiovascular problems, although ongoing obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease and sleep apnea syndrome were listed.

The second report of a death was that of a 60-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1162 11621327), who received one dose of the vaccine (on Sept. 10, 2020) and died sometime in the following three days of atherosclerotic disease.

According to the document:

“The study site received a police report indicating that the police visited the subject’s home to perform a welfare check on 13 Sep 2020 (Day 4) and found him dead.”

The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing autoimmune thyroiditis, obesity and depression, and a prior craniocerebral injury and prior hip arthroplasty.

According to the report:

“It was reported that the subject’s body was cold and had visible lividity. According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease. Relevant tests were unknown. Autopsy results were not available at the time of this report.

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the arteriosclerosis was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was related to suspected [emphasis added] underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

In other words, the participant’s death was attributed to a “suspected” cause, while the possibility that it was vaccine-related in any way, was dismissed.

The third death listed in the “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive” documents was listed under the section in the document listing reports from trial participants who withdrew, not those who died.

The report pertained to a 72-year-old Hispanic/Latino male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1152 11521497) who received one dose of the vaccine, on Oct. 7, 2020.

The subject sustained vasovagal syncope (a fainting incident) on Oct. 26, 2020, and was admitted to the hospital, causing him to miss his scheduled follow-up vaccination appointment on Oct. 28, 2020.

According to the document:

“The subject was transferred to the intensive care unit. Family medical history relevant to the syncope was unknown.

“On an unspecified date, the syncope resolved and the subject was discharged from the hospital.”

He was withdrawn from the study on Nov. 6, 2020. However, according to the subject’s sister, he died of “unknown” causes on Nov. 11, 2020.

As stated by the document (dated Nov. 22, 2020):

“The cause of death was reported as unknown. It was not reported if an autopsy was performed. A death certificate might be available at a later date.”

Nevertheless, this lack of information did not prevent the study investigator or Pfizer from dismissing the possibility that the participant’s death was vaccine-related. The document states:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the syncope was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment. Per Pfizer, the syncope was most likely coincidental and associated with underlying clinical conditions.”

The document contained no reports of deaths among trial participants who received the placebo.

Investigators attribute 4 serious adverse events to vaccine, Pfizer disagrees

According to the latest document release, investigators attributed the vaccine to serious adverse events in four cases, however, Pfizer disagreed with the investigators’ conclusions in three out of the four cases.

The incidents are:

• A 53-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1018 10181159), who developed “lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia” on Oct. 20, 2020, which was ongoing as of the date of the document (Nov. 22, 2020).

She was vaccinated on Aug. 14 and Sept. 4, 2020.

The woman’s medical history did not indicate lower back or lower extremity pain, just ongoing migraines and a prior history including a right shoulder dislocation, fibrocystic breast disease and Vitamin D deficiency.

The study investigator and Pfizer disagreed on whether the serious adverse event she experienced was related to the vaccination. As stated in the document:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia were related to the study intervention, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment and considered that there is not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study vaccine apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.

“Based on the information currently available, it was more likely that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia was associated with the subject’s underlying known neurological condition.”

• A 71-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1142 11421247) sustained ventricular arrhythmias on Oct. 14, 2020 — the same day she received the second dose of the vaccine — and which continued until Oct. 21, 2020.

The woman received her first dose on Sept. 21, 2020. Her medical history indicated she was wearing a cardiac pacemaker and was experiencing ongoing atrioventricular block (complete), atrial fibrillation and supraventricular tachycardia.

Again, the study investigator and Pfizer could not agree as to whether this adverse event was related to the vaccination. The document states:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the ventricular arrhythmia was related to the study intervention based on the temporal relationship since the arrhythmias began within 24 hours of Dose 2, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment. Additionally, Pfizer commented that there was not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study intervention apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.

“In absence of evidence for an inflammatory response to study intervention, it was more likely that the ventricular arrhythmia was associated with the subject’s underlying known cardiac conditions.”

Pfizer dismissed the possibility that the vaccine may have exacerbated the subject’s existing cardiac conditions.

• A 48-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781107), who received one dose of the vaccine on Sept. 4, 2020, and withdrew from the study on Sept. 25, 2020.

In the interim, the participant sustained right axilla lymphadenopathy, with “at least four enlarged lymph nodes” — a condition that was still ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.

Her medical history indicated ongoing positional vertigo, osteoarthritis, eczema, sinus headaches, seasonal allergies and a Pitocin allergy, as well as prior menorrhagia, uterine fibroids and a past hysterectomy. In addition, her body mass index (BMI) was listed as being 36.9.

Pfizer also in this case did not agree with the study investigator’s assessment:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lymphadenopathy was related to the study intervention. Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

• A 30-year-old Asian female in the U.S. sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA).

The documents did not list any severe adverse events occurring in anyone outside the U.S., even though the documents contain reports from trials in Argentina, Brazil and South Africa.

‘Unrelated’ adverse event reports habitually dismiss possibility injuries were vaccine-related

The documents reveal a large discrepancy between the number of adverse events deemed to be related to the vaccination (four) compared to those reported to be “not related” (113 non-placebo participants).

The reports associated with each incident reveal an ongoing tendency to dismiss any possibility injuries were vaccine-related — even in instances where no alternative cause was identified or where patients had no relevant prior medical history.

In still other instances, the cause of the adverse event was attributed to itself, while in several other cases, pre-existing conditions worsened following vaccination.

A significant number of accidents and falls — and subsequent injuries — also were reported.

Instances where severe adverse events were brushed over as being “not related” to the vaccination, despite no relevant medical history, include:

• A 75-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1013 10131176), who was vaccinated on Aug. 13 and Oct. 7, 2020, sustained 13 adverse events between Aug. 29 and Sept. 16, 2020, many of which were ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.

These adverse events included congestive heart failure, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, acute renal failure, aspiration pneumonia, anemia, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, leukopenia, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and mild concentric left ventricular hypertrophy.

The participant had ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatus hernia, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension and constipation, in addition to prior small intestinal and knee surgery.

The report attributed the patient’s adverse events to his prior surgical history. The document stated:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the abdominal adhesions, small intestinal obstruction, pneumonia aspiration, and acute respiratory failure were related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but were rather likely related to subject’s previous surgery.

“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1079 10791246) sustained a “cerebrovascular accident” (stroke), as well as expressive aphasia, on Oct. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 4 and Sept. 25, 2020.

Her medical history listed osteoarthritis, seasonal allergies and being postmenopausal. Nevertheless, her stroke and aphasia were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccine, although no cause was listed. Instead, the document stated, “pending medical records” with regard to the cause of her adverse events.

• A 66-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1021 10211190) suffered a stroke on Nov. 2, 2020, with ongoing symptoms as of the document date on Nov. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.

Her medical history indicated ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, seasonal allergies and postmenopause, as well as a BMI of 28.5.

Her stroke was dismissed as being “not related” to the vaccine, although no alternative cause was listed.

• A 68-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921015) sustained arrhythmia atrial fibrillation and elevated troponin on Aug. 26, 2020. He received his first dose on Aug. 19, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020, as it required “clearance from his cardiologist.”

His medical history did not specifically indicate heart conditions. Instead, it indicated ongoing basal cell carcinoma on his nose, as well as hypersensitivity, seasonal allergies, myopia, dyslipidemia, hypertension, actinic keratosis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Although the study investigator wrote, in reference to the cause of his injuries, that “medical records [are] being reviewed not able to answer at this time,” the report dismissed possibility that his adverse events were related to the vaccine.

• A 45-year-old Black male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1156 11561006) with ongoing Type 1 diabetes sustained deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism on Aug. 31, 2020. He received one dose of the vaccine, on Aug. 20, 2020, and was discontinued from the study on Sept. 8, 2020, “because he no longer met the eligibility criteria.”

Both adverse events were deemed as being “not related” to his vaccination, and were instead indicated as being “related to medical history of Type 1 diabetes mellitus.”

• A 67-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781015) sustained several adverse events on Oct. 10-11, 2020, including ascending aorta ectasia, diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle and transient global amnesia. These conditions were ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.

The patient’s medical record indicated ongoing depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, insomnia and neck pain.

While the cause of his adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccination, the study did state a cause, listing it as “possibly” having been hypertension.

• A 58-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12313674) sustained adverse events including panlobular emphysema, pneumonitis, and left submaxillary sialadenitis beginning on Sept. 29, 2020. The first two conditions were indicated as continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She was vaccinated on Aug. 24 and Sept. 13, 2020. Her medical record indicated ongoing Sjogren’s syndrome and insomnia.

The cause of these adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccines, although for the first two adverse events, the stated cause was listed as “unknown,” while for the third, the cause was listed as Sjogren’s syndrome.

• A 56-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12314001) was diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome on Nov. 8, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.

Her medical history consisted of ongoing hypothyroidism, allergic rhinitis and asthma — but no coronary troubles.

Nevertheless, according to the study investigator, her condition was determined to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the cause was listed as “unknown.”

‘Cause unknown’ but no chance the vaccine was to blame

In other examples, adverse events were assigned no specific cause or only a “probable” cause, but investigators dismissed the possibility the vaccines may have caused the injuries.

For example:

• A 34-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1226 12261745) developed a Leydig cell tumor in his left testicle on Sept. 23, 2020. He received the first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 16, 2020, and second dose on Oct. 7, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing allergic rhinitis.

While the study investigator claimed that the adverse event was “not related” to the vaccination, the cause was listed as “unknown.”

• A 19-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311281) with no indicated medical history was diagnosed with acute appendicitis and QT interval prolongation — a heart condition — on Sept. 18, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 4, 2020.

These conditions were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the causes were indicated as “unknown.”

• A 41-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311315) was diagnosed with anemia and malignant melanoma on Sept. 25, 2020, with symptoms continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 3, 2020.

The adverse events were indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination, but instead due to a “probable relationship with [a] vaginal tumor under study.”

• A 44-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12312854) was diagnosed with supraventricular arrhythmia on Sept. 17, 2020. He received the two vaccine doses on Aug. 21 and Sept. 11, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing sleep apnea syndrome and a BMI of 50.4.

According to the study investigator, the arrhythmia was “not related” to the vaccines, but instead “probably” corresponded “to an accessory intraventricular line.”

• A 56-year-old mixed-race male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1241 12411825) was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis on Nov. 2, 2020, and hypochromic anemia two days later. Both conditions were still listed as ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant was vaccinated on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2020. His medical history listed ongoing hypertension.

According to the study investigator, these adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination. Instead, his acute pyelonephritis was due to a “possible” bacterial urinary tract infection, while the hypochromic anemia cause was “to be clarified.”

Worsening of pre-existing conditions ‘not related’ to vaccine

In other instances, participants experienced a worsening of pre-existing conditions. However, in all instances, no relation to the COVID-19 vaccine was determined.

For instance:

• A 72-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921187) sustained congestive heart failure on Oct. 1, 2020. He received his first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 15, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020.

The participant’s medical history included ongoing coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, asthma, obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, insomnia and seasonal allergies. Moreover, he had previously had a defibrillator installed.

The cause of his adverse event was simply indicated as “progression of cardiovascular disease” unrelated to the vaccine. The possibility that the vaccine may potentially have precipitated the worsening of his heart condition was not considered.

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1111 11111095) was reported as having sustained an “undiagnosed mental disorder” on Sept. 25, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug.11 and Sept. 1, 2020.

The participant’s medical history did not indicate any prior mental disorders or conditions. Nevertheless, the cause of the adverse event was indicated by the study indicator as being “not related” to the vaccination and instead simply due to “mental instability.”

• A 58-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1109 11091387), who sustained worsening osteoarthritis of the right knee on Oct. 14, 2020, and later also experienced deep vein thrombosis on Oct. 20, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, ongoing hypercholesterolemia, hypothyroidism, sleep apnea syndrome, rosacea and an enlarged prostate. A prior knee surgery was also listed.

Both adverse events were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and instead attributed to the patient’s prior knee surgery and “previous medical history.”

• A 70-year-old white female from the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1127 11271023) experienced a worsening of her asthma on Oct.1, 2020. She later also developed malignant invasive ductal carcinoma in her left breast, on Nov. 5, 2020. Both cases were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She received her two doses of the vaccine on July 30 and Aug. 18, 2020. Her medical history, aside from ongoing asthma, also indicated a recurrent urinary tract infection and ongoing bronchitis, seasonal allergies, myopia, migraines, hypothyroidism, hypertension, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, bilateral deafness and postmenopause.

According to the document, both adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination, and instead were attributed to an “allergy” and to a “malignancy,” respectively.

Reports of multiple adverse events ignored

Other examples include cases where patients sustained multiple adverse events, many of which were entirely ignored by the study investigators’ assessments.

These include:

• A 61-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1114 1114108), who sustained 10 vaccine injuries beginning on Sept. 12, 2020, after he received the first dose of the vaccine on Aug. 24, 2020, and his second dose on Sept. 30, 2020.

The adverse events he experienced included acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, chest pain, left ventricular hypertrophy, mitral valve regurgitation, bilateral hand pain, pulmonary hypertension, skin avulsion on his left finger, a Staphylococcal infection and tricuspid regurgitation. Several of these conditions were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The patient’s medical history indicated ongoing peripheral neuropathy, type 2 diabetes, anxiety, depression, asthma, Staphylococcal infection, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and a prior leg amputation.

According to the study investigator, “the staphylococcal infection” was “not related” to the vaccine, but instead was connected to the patient’s hypertension, musculoskeletal causes and an “infection.” No mention was made in this assessment as to the probable causes of the other adverse events.

Some adverse events ‘caused’ by … the adverse event

In still other cases, the “cause” of participants’ adverse events was indicated as being the same as the adverse event itself.

Examples include:

• A 68-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1095 10951204), who was diagnosed with bladder cancer on Nov. 2, 2020. He was vaccinated on Sept. 2 and Sept. 21, 2020.

According to the document, the participant’s ongoing medical history included hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hypercholesterolemia, angina pectoris, coronary arterial stent insertion, coronary artery disease, erectile dysfunction and osteoarthritis.

However, the cause of his bladder cancer was attributed as “cancer” and deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and “most likely coincidental and associated with the underlying clinical conditions.”

• A 48-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1124 11241106) sustained an acute myocardial infarction on Sept. 27, 2020. He previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 26 and Sept. 16, 2020.

His medical history indicated ongoing high cholesterol, gastroesophageal reflux disease and back pain.

According to the study investigator, the adverse event sustained by the participant was “not related” to the vaccination, but instead “related to cardiovascular risk,” with no further elaboration provided.

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1223 12231159) was found to have a pancreatic mass on Nov. 5, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.

Her medical records indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, menopause, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, Eustachian tube dysfunction, prophylaxis, irritable bowel syndrome, osteoporosis and benign monoclonal hypergammaglobulinemia.

The cause of her adverse event, which was indicated to be “not related” to the vaccination, was listed as “new development of pancreatic mass” without any elaboration as to the factors that may have caused it to appear.

‘Cause unknown’ but no chance the vaccine was to blame

In other examples, adverse events were assigned no specific cause or only a “probable” cause, even as the possibility that they were related to the vaccination was dismissed.

For example:

• A 34-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1226 12261745) developed a Leydig cell tumor in his left testicle on Sept. 23, 2020. He received the first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 16, 2020, and second dose on Oct. 7, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing allergic rhinitis.

While the study investigator claimed that the adverse event was “not related” to the vaccination, the cause was listed as “unknown.”

These conditions were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the causes were indicated as “unknown.”

She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 3, 2020.

The adverse events were indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination, but instead due to a “probable relationship with [a] vaginal tumor under study.”

His medical history listed only ongoing sleep apnea syndrome and a BMI of 50.4.

According to the study investigator, the arrhythmia was “not related” to the vaccines, but instead “probably” corresponded “to an accessory intraventricular line.”

• A 56-year-old mixed-race male from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1241 12411825) was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis on Nov. 2, 2020, and hypochromic anemia two days later. Both conditions were still listed as ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant was vaccinated on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2020. His medical history listed ongoing hypertension.

Other explanations for participants’ vaccine injuries include:

• A 78-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971011), who suffered from pneumonia between Sept. 20 and Oct. 5, 2020. He had previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 20 and Sept. 9, 2020.

According to the document, the cause of his pneumonia was “not related” to the vaccines. Instead, the listed cause was “pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from somewhere.”

• An 84-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971084) contracted pneumonia on Oct. 7, 2020, symptoms of which were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He had previously been vaccinated on Sept. 1 and Sept. 23, 2020.

Similar to the patient above, the cause of the participant’s pneumonia was indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination. The narrative comment instead stated that “Pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from unknown source.”

Very few severe adverse events — and no deaths — were reported in other countries, although Argentina, for instance, was home to the largest of the Pfizer vaccine trials in 2020.

The next 80,000-page cache of FDA documents pertaining to the FDA’s authorization of the vaccine is set to be released on Aug. 1.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

July 16, 2022 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA | Leave a comment

A ‘Vaccine-Palooza’ Is Underway, Thanks to COVID — But Will Public Accept Endless Jabs?

The Defender | July 12, 2022

Two-and-a-half years ago, the Grand Poobahs of global vaccinology admitted — in behind-closed-door confessions caught on camera at the World Health Organization (WHO) — that public and professional confidence in vaccines was “wobbly,” and deservedly so.

As the gathered experts conceded, the glaring inadequacies of vaccine safety science and the dysfunctional safety monitoring systems that permit routine “obfuscation” of serious adverse events were understandable reasons for public distrust.

At the time, it seemed as though such momentous disclosures would presage a death knell for vaccine “business as usual” — but then along came COVID-19, and with it, the instant memory-holing of the WHO’s stunning admissions.

Rather than finally address the self-confessed vaccine disaster, public health officials and global leaders — ranging from presidents to private-sector employers to top military brass to central bankers — used COVID-19 as an opportunity to double down in the opposite direction, forcibly stuffing the “vaccine hesitancy” genie back in the bottle with ethically untenable vaccine mandates.

After 18 months of force-feeding the COVID-19 jabs, however, manufacturers are now discarding tens of millions of doses “amid sagging demand.”

In some respects, this could be construed as evidence of policy failure, but the fact is that the COVID-19 shots accomplished a significant goal for the parties that pushed them, launching a renewed vaccine gold rush that — with growing emphasis on voguish, biotech-reliant biopharmaceuticals — seems likely to extend well beyond the COVID-19 era.

As the head of Bayer’s pharmaceuticals division observed in late 2021, mRNA vaccine technology and other forms of cell and gene therapy — for all of their by now well-documented and even species-threatening dangers — have crossed over both the regulatory and public palatability threshold.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Eli Lilly — some of major players in the biopharma space — are actively prioritizing “strategic alliances” and “collaborations to expand their [biopharmaceutical] product portfolios.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are poised to roll out, at breakneck speed, approvals and recommendations for whatever new childhood and adult vaccines are sent their way.

In short, using technologies both “conventional” and new, a multipronged effort is afoot to jump-start and ensure a frenzied vaccine-palooza.

The mRNA pipeline

Having succeeded in foisting COVID-19 mRNA injections on an initially unsuspecting public, manufacturers and government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are now salivating at the prospect of an endless series of mRNA vaccines.

It is no coincidence that the mRNA jabs in the works target some of the very conditions being reported as COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, a neat “create-a-problem, develop-a-drug-to-manage-the problem” trick that accounts for many other drugs already on the market.

In the pipeline are mRNA vaccines for the following:

Cancer: Researchers are conducting dozens of clinical trials to test “mRNA treatment vaccines in people with various types of cancers.” Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist, described the dramatic surge in endometrial and other cancers following the rollout of COVID-19 shots.

Shingles: Cole and others also noted the uptick of shingles in COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Moderna in March announced its development of an mRNA shingles vaccine, as well as mRNA vaccines for herpes and cancer.

Other forms of immune suppression: With numerous indications that COVID-19 shots are reprogramming the immune response, officials and manufacturers are dusting off HIV as the supposed bogeyman. Moderna and NIH are partnering in mRNA vaccine clinical trials for HIV. This would represent a particular coup for Dr. Anthony Fauci, who over four decades has found development of an HIV vaccine to be “a daunting scientific challenge.”

Heart attacks: Cardiac problems are among the few COVID-19-vaccine-related adverse events grudgingly acknowledged by manufacturers and the FDA. In the U.K., researchers are investigating the use of “exactly the same technology as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to inject micro RNAs to the heart,” claiming they can get whatever heart cells survive after a heart attack to proliferate.

COVID and influenza: Manufacturers also are gearing up for a new generation of mRNA-based flu shots and mRNA combination vaccines which, they promise, will “protect against several different infections at the same time, such as influenza, COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.”In the meantime, CDC just recommended that seniors (aged 65 years or older) receive “enhanced” flu shots — either high-dose, adjuvanted or recombinant — in lieu of “standard-dose unadjuvanted, inactivated vaccines.” Adjuvanted influenza vaccines feature a new generation of “smart” vaccine adjuvants designed to ensure even the most mediocre vaccine sends recipients’ immune systems into overdrive.

For babies — something old, something new

In June, the FDA reaffirmed its long-standing allegiance to an agenda of guaranteed harm when it authorized emergency use COVID-19 shots for infants as young as 6 months old.

After the conflict-of-interest-riddled FDA advisors’ 21-0 vote, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) commented, “[I]n balancing the risk to rewards here, all the risks are to the innocent children and all of the billion-dollar rewards go to the government-protected pharmaceuticals.”

Seizures and psychosis are already being reported as adverse events in the under-5 age group.

In decrying FDA’s decision to give COVID-19 shots to tots, some dissenters waxed nostalgic about the perceived “rigor” of the pre-COVID-19 vaccine approval process, seemingly amnesiac about the FDA’s lengthy history of regulatory capture and business-friendly shortcuts.

As a reminder, at least two-thirds of the vaccines approved by the FDA from 2006 through late 2020 benefited from “flexibility in the evidence required for approval,” resulting in accelerated approvals.

This “turn-a-blind-eye” pattern also held sway in the FDA’s and CDC’s recent decisions to pile on two more options to the childhood schedule, options that will do nothing to improve the safety of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) that have been injuring children for decades.

First, on June 3, the FDA approved GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) Priorix, an MMR vaccine initially launched in Europe in the late 1990s.

GSK developed Priorix using the MRC-5 cell line (derived from the lung tissue of a male fetus aborted at 14 weeks).

A 2020 analysis by the Italian association CORVELVA of a version of Priorix that also contains a varicella component found that the amount of DNA in the vaccine was “well above the allowed threshold,” and that continuous use of the cell line over time resulted in “vaccines containing progressively more and more modified human genetic material, that is dangerous for the health of the vaccinees themselves.”

The FDA’s go-ahead for Priorix shatters Merck’s position as the sole U.S. purveyor of MMR vaccines. Previously, FDA showed no sign of being troubled by Merck’s monopoly, despite the pharmaceutical behemoth being dogged by “a slew of controversies” that included whistleblower allegations of MMR-related fraud and undeniable evidence of a link with autism.

Moreover, as Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. pointed out in late 2019, when the FDA belatedly began to “tee up” Priorix as a replacement for Merck’s scandal-ridden MMR-II, rather than use an inert placebo to test Priorix, the FDA allowed GSK to use MMR-II as the comparator!

Even these sham clinical trials, Kennedy noted, had “horrifying” results. Within 42 days, nearly 50% of recipients of both manufacturers’ formulations experienced adverse events, with over 10% ending up in the emergency room. By six months, almost 4% of recipients had been diagnosed with a “new onset chronic disease.”

To date, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has received more than 37,000 adverse event reports for Priorix and another 11,000-plus for the varicella-containing version — with 58% and 79% of adverse events, respectively, occurring in the under-two age group that will now receive the jabs in the U.S.

Following the nominal slap on the wrist for Merck’s MMR-II, the FDA and CDC also offered Merck some good news, approving on June 17 and then recommending — for routine use in infants and children 6 weeks to 2 years of age — the company’s 15-valent PCV15 (brand name “Vaxneuvance”) as an interchangeable alternative to Pfizer’s Prevnar 13 (PCV13).

The CDC stopped short of issuing a “preferential recommendation” for PCV15, however. Admitting to “certain uncertainties, including concerns related to potentially higher reactogenicity” — with “reactogenicity” defined as the “state of being able to produce adverse reactions” — the CDC leaves it up to the hapless infants who receive Vaxneuvance to discover the shots’ “higher reactogenicity” for themselves.

Even without the addition of Vaxneuvance to the schedule, pneumococcal conjugate vaccines — with ingredients like aluminum and polysorbate 80 — have shown themselves plenty capable of wreaking havoc on the health of the infants expected to get four doses by the time they are 12 to 15 months old.

Eager to add even more injections to the childhood vaccine schedule, the industry is also eyeing as a potential cash cow a pediatric (and adult) mRNA vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

In 2019, 30 candidate RSV vaccines were in the pipeline, and in 2021, the FDA fast-tracked an mRNA-based RSV vaccine developed by Moderna.

HPV downsizing — getting HPV shots into young people by any means necessary

The competition between Merck and GSK is also fierce where human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are concerned.

In the U.S., Merck’s Gardasil (and later, Gardasil 9) handily beat out GSK’s Cervarix, which is no longer available to American youth — but with 100 or more countries having added HPV jabs to their national vaccination schedules, much more than the U.S. market is in play.

Data suggest HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. starts out relatively high, with an estimated 66% of 13- to 17-year-olds getting a first dose, but the percentage completing the series (an additional one to two doses) drops off to 49%.

Worldwide, acceptance of HPV vaccines is even lower — for girls, global coverage is estimated at about 15% of those in the target age range.

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the global public’s lukewarm stance on HPV vaccination is the occurrence of serious adverse autoimmune reactions that have left many recipients, both female and male, disabled for life.

Merck is mired in lawsuits (with attorneys, including Kennedy) alleging it knowingly concealed Gardasil-associated adverse events.

Rather than re-evaluate — as some researchers have strongly urged — the adverse event profile that, until COVID-19 shots, made HPV vaccines some of the most dangerous on the market, agencies like the National Cancer Institute (NCI) are instead beginning to argue in favor of single-dose HPV vaccination (either Cervarix or Gardasil 9).

Punting to a one-dose regimen would, NCI officials disingenuously say, “simplify the logistics of vaccination, which could allow more girls [and boys] worldwide to be vaccinated.”

Monkeypox profiteering

As Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., reported last month, the suspected case definition of monkeypox is broad enough to include anyone with a common cold — or with post-COVID-19-vaccine immune suppression — who has a shingles rash.

Verkerk’s counsel is to worry about “what the WHO and collaborating institutions, governments and corporations are up to,” rather than succumb to fear-mongering about monkeypox itself.

In the U.S., what the government is “up to” is ordering more than 4 million doses of monkeypox vaccine — a whitewashed smallpox vaccine linked to heart inflammation — and formulating a “national monkeypox vaccine strategy,” including a protocol aimed at the vaccine’s use in children.

In other words, with a “COVID-19 corporatocracy playbook” that, in Verkerk’s words, “is now well and truly oiled,” corporate and government leaders of ill intent appear to believe they can continue to play the vaccine game indefinitely, using “fear and manipulated science to engender support for the global control of health.”

It is up to us to prove them wrong.

July 15, 2022 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States | Leave a comment

Monkeypox Update – fear porn kicks up a notch as WHO meeting looms

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | July 14, 2022

We’re only three days removed from our last monkeypox article – We’re “losing the fight against monkeypox”… apparently – and already it’s time for an update.

It’s been a busy two days for the monkeypox madness.

First, the World Health Organization announced their plans to hold a second “emergency meeting” on the monkeypox outbreak, to discuss if it merits being declared a “global emergency”.

As if trying to supply fuel for the WHO’s meeting next week, countries all around the world are reporting up ticks in cases.

Yesterday Global News reported that Canada’s monkeypox cases had “risen by 59% in just 9 days” (from 300 to 477 if you’re one of those people who likes hard figures in place of scary-sounding percentages).

According to the Associated Press, the UK’s “cases” have risen to 1735. One nursery school even shut down for the summer two weeks early…just because one their pupils may have come into contact with monkeypox.

Elsewhere in the UK press, one “expert” was “warning” that Monkeypox will become “endemic” if we don’t “take action”.

The “expert” also suggests that it would be wrong to “sit back and watch” monkeypox become endemic in “men who have sex with men”. Perhaps revealing the point of that part of the narrative – that if you reject monkeypox as anything to be worried about at all, you’re just being homophobic or speaking with “straight privilege”.

A similar angle is taken in this NPR piece, which claims that “the warning signs were there” with monkeypox for over a decade, and the only reason we never did anything about it is that it only affected poor African nations. Ergo, if you don’t care about monkeypox you’re a racist.

New York is apparently experiencing “urgent” vaccine shortages amid “rising cases”… rising from 223 to 267.

The US generally has seen cases increase from 700 to over a thousand since Monday. Monday was also the day they started allowing private labs to begin running tests. It’s baffling, isn’t it?

Australia has had the “killer virus spread to another state”. (To be clear, there are currently 28 reported cases of monkeypox on Australia, including “probable cases”, and not one of them is alleged to have died)

It’s not just the West either – India reported their first case in the last hour.

Argentina reports cases surging up to twelve whole people, while Bosnia & Herzogovina reported their first.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Iron Curtain 2.0, Russia reported their first monkeypox case on Tuesday. A handy reminder of their current position on the great reset agenda.

So, given all this, will the WHO declare monkeypox a “public health emergency of international concern”?

The smart money is very much on “yes”.

But there’s good news too… for biotech shareholders. China’s ZJ Biotech has seen its share prices increase by over 10% in just a day after the WHO announced a supply deal with the tech firm to manufacture Monkeypox test kits.

They still haven’t told us what they’re changing the name to, though. Maybe they can discuss that at the emergency meeting too.

July 14, 2022 Posted by aletho | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | WHO | Leave a comment

Fauci Likely to Birth His Own COVID Variant After Paxlovid

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 13, 2022

Pfizer’s Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.¹ The drug consists of nirmatrelvir tablets — the antiviral component — and ritonavir tablets, which are intended to slow the breakdown of nirmatrelvir.²

What started out as a slow rollout — only 40,000 or fewer prescriptions were written for the drug in the U.S. each week through April 2022 — has gained steam, with more than 160,000 Paxlovid prescriptions now being issued each week.³ As of June 30, 2022, 1.6 million courses of Paxlovid have been prescribed in the U.S. since its emergency use approval in December.⁴

Yet, this increase in prescribing could be contributing to one of the significant downfalls of the drug — the creation of selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2, which promotes mutations that could make it resistant to the drug.⁵ The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also issued a warning to health care providers and public health departments about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.⁶

This recently happened to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who experienced a return of COVID-19 symptoms after taking Paxlovid. He then took a second course of the drug, which could trigger even more mutations in the virus.

Paxlovid Triggers Fauci’s COVID-19 Rebound

Fauci said he tested positive for COVID-19, with only minimal symptoms. As his symptoms increased, he took Paxlovid for five days, after which he tested negative for three consecutive days. On the fourth day of testing, he tested positive for COVID-19 again, with symptoms worse off than they were the first time.
“It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound,” he said. “… Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around.”⁷ He was then prescribed a second course of Paxlovid.

On June 30, he stated, “I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I’m not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don’t feel acutely ill.”⁸ In the CDC’s health advisory regarding COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment it’s stated:⁹

“Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a 5-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness 2 to 8 days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted …

These cases of COVID-19 rebound had negative test results after Paxlovid treatment and had subsequent positive viral antigen and/or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.”

COVID-19 Still Spreads During Paxlovid Rebound

People who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic, according to a preprint study.¹⁰ Study author Dr. Michael Charness of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Boston told CNN, “People who experience rebound are at risk of transmitting to other people, even though they’re outside what people accept as the usual window for being able to transmit.”¹¹

The CDC¹² and Pfizer¹³ have suggested that sometimes COVID-19 naturally comes back after a person tests negative, implying that COVID-19 rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid. However, Charness and colleagues didn’t find this to be the case. When they analyzed 1,000 cases of COVID-19 diagnosed among members of the National Basketball Association — none of whom took Paxlovid — no cases of COVID-19 rebound were found.¹⁴

Research published in Clinical Infectious Diseases ¹⁵ looked into why Paxlovid may be leading to rebound symptoms and suggests it could be the result of insufficient exposure to the drug.¹⁶ “Not enough of the drug was getting to infected cells to stop all viral replication,” UC San Diego Health reported. “They suggested this may be due to the drug being metabolized more quickly in some individuals or that the drug needs to be delivered over a longer treatment duration.”¹⁷

Pfizer Seeks FDA Approval for Paxlovid

Despite the many questions regarding Paxlovid’s association with rebound infections, Pfizer is moving ahead and seeking full approval of the drug from the FDA.¹⁸ The drug’s emergency use authorization restricts who the drug can be sold and marketed to. Once full FDA approval is granted, Pfizer can market the drug directly to consumers.

Paxlovid’s emergency use authorization allows it to be prescribed for adults and children ages 12 and older who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.¹⁹ Pfizer estimates that up to 60% of the U.S. population meets these criteria and has at least one risk factor for severe illness, such as obesity or diabetes, making them eligible for the drug.²⁰

However, concerns have risen over whether Paxlovid, which is said to cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 86% in high-risk patients, when taken within five days of symptoms starting,²¹ is effective in people who are not high-risk.

In fact, Pfizer stopped a large trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk patients because it didn’t show significant protection against hospitalization or death in this group.²² According to a news release from Pfizer:²³

“In previously reported interim analyses, the company disclosed that the novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days was not met, and a non-significant 70% relative risk reduction was observed in the key secondary endpoint of hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/428; placebo: 10/426).

An updated analysis from 1,153 patients enrolled through December 2021 showed a non-significant 51% relative risk reduction (treatment arm: 5/576; placebo: 10/569). A sub-group analysis of 721 vaccinated adults with at least one risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19 showed a non-significant 57% relative risk reduction in hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/361; placebo: 7/360).”

Is Paxlovid Triggering SARS-CoV-2 Mutations?

Initial reports have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 is not mutating and becoming resistant to Paxlovid, but some experts believe it’s only a matter of time before this occurs — and emerging research suggests it’s already happened.

David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University, was among the first to document resistance mutations in HIV 30 years ago and believes the same may be coming with SARS-CoV-2.²⁴ He’s also experienced post-Paxlovid COVID-19 rebound firsthand. Bloomberg reported:²⁵

“Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 … His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.

Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.

‘It surprised the heck out of me,’ he said. ‘Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.’ While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops.”

Studies Show COVID-19 Virus Developing Paxlovid Resistance

Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 in a lab and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir, which would kill some, but not all, of the virus. “Such tests are meant to simulate what might happen in an infected person who doesn’t take the whole regimen of the drug or an immunocompromised patient who has trouble clearing the virus,” Science reported.²⁶

One of the studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2 developed three mutations after 12 rounds of nirmatrelvir treatment — “at positions 50, 166 and 167 in the string of amino acids that make up MPRO.”²⁷ The mutations amounted to a 20-fold reduction in the virus’ susceptibility to nirmatrelvir.²⁸ The other study²⁹ also found mutations at positions 50 and 166, revealing that when they occurred together, SARS-CoV-2 became 80 times less susceptible to nirmatrelvir. According to the study:³⁰

“Reverse genetic studies in a homologous infectious cell culture system revealed up to 80-fold resistance conferred by the combination of substitutions L50F and E166V. Resistant variants had high fitness increasing the likelihood of occurrence and spread of resistance.”

Lead study author Judith Margarete Gottwein with the University of Copenhagen told Science, “This tells us what mutations we should be looking for [in patients].”³¹ Ho, who was not involved in these studies, agreed that it appeared mutations were an inevitable outcome.

He told Science, “when you put pressure on the virus it escapes … Given the amount of infections out there, it’s going to come.”³² It’s also completely unknown what may happen when two courses of Paxlovid are taken in quick succession to treat COVID-19 rebound — as occurred with Fauci. It’s possible that ever-mutating COVID-19 variants could be created.

Other antivirals on the market to treat COVID-19 have also led to concerns over mutations. Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio) was developed by Merck and Ridgeback Therapeutics and approved by the FDA for emergency use December 23, 2021, for high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms.

However, not only might it contribute to cancer and birth defects, it may also supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more resistant variants.³³

Other Early COVID-19 Treatments Ignored

Using drugs that cause high rates of organ failure, like remdesivir, and drugs that cause the virus to rebound with a vengeance, like Paxlovid, and potentially trigger mutations don’t seem to be in the best interest of public health. The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on these drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

An investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University’s preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs against COVID-19, making it the most effective against the Omicron variant.³⁴ It even outperformed Paxlovid, yet it’s been vilified by health officials and mainstream media.

Remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120,³⁵ and nirmatrelvir costs $529 per five-day treatment,³⁶ while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.³⁷ Do you think this has anything to do with ivermectin’s vilification?

Paxlovid alone has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion,³⁸ while safe and less expensive options exist. Dr. Pierre Kory, who is part of the group that formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) to advance early treatments for COVID-19, pleaded with the U.S. government early on in the pandemic to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover — to no avail.^39,⁴⁰

However, if you’d like to learn more about its potential uses for SARS-CoV-2, FLCCC’s I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full,⁴¹ giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19.

Sources and References

^1, ¹⁹ U.S. FDA December 22, 2021
^2, ^3, ^5, ^22, ^24, ^26, ^28, ^31, ³² Science June 29, 2022
^4, ^18, ^20, ²¹ Forbes June 30, 2022
⁶ U.S. CDC May 24, 2022
^7, ⁸ CNN June 30, 2022
^9, ¹² U.S. CDC, COVID-19 Rebound After Paxlovid Treatment May 24, 2022
¹⁰ Research Square May 23, 2022
^11, ^13, ¹⁴ CNN May 31, 2022
¹⁵ Clinical Infectious Diseases June 20, 2022
^16, ¹⁷ UC San Diego Health June 21, 2022
²³ Pfizer June 14, 2022
²⁵ Bloomberg April 29, 2022 (Archived)
^27, ^29, ³⁰ bioRxiv June 7, 2022
³³ Revyuh May 1, 2022
³⁴ Cornell University, January 20, 2022
³⁵ AJMC June 29, 2020
³⁶ Precision Vaccinations, November 19, 2021
³⁷ JAMA 2022;327(6):584-587
³⁸ Reuters November 18, 2021
³⁹ FLCCC Alliance, Ivermectin & COVID-19
⁴⁰ Mountain Home May 1, 2021
⁴¹ FLCCC Alliance, I-Mask+

July 14, 2022 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Paxlovid, United States | Leave a comment

UK Government considered tearing ‘Covid positive’ people from their homes

By Michael Curzon | Bournbrook | July 12, 2022

‘Boris’ Johnson loyalist Nadine Dorries appears to have admitted that the Government, which now prides itself on having imposed restrictions more lightly than others, considered tearing “mothers and fathers and families and children” from their homes if they ‘tested positive’ for Covid during lockdowns to be sent to isolation centres.

A health minister at the time, Ms Dorries was approached by former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and told to adopt this ‘zero Covid’ approach, she told GB News.

The now-Culture Secretary told Dan Wootton, who decided not to dig deeper into the claims:

“[Jeremy] said ‘you’ve got to speak to Matt [Hancock]’. It was at the time Nightingale hospitals were being built. ‘You’ve got to tell him that you don’t put sick people in the hospitals, you follow a “zero Covid” policy… When someone tests positive, you take them from their home and you take them to an isolation centre and you leave them there… That’s the only way you can beat Covid.’”

Ms Dorries said she responded:

“‘The British public will not stand for mothers and fathers and families and children being removed from their family and their home and put in isolation.’ He said: ‘Who said they won’t?’ I said: ‘The behaviour and insights team who I’ve discussed this with. They won’t wear it.’” (My emphasis – video below)

This is quite revealing. Anyone with an ounce of humanity would have rejected this outright, whether they thought the public would accept it or not.

Remember, also, that those officials in SAGE believed the British people wouldn’t accept being ‘locked down’ at all until Italy made it clear that they would.

Professor Neil Ferguson told The Times in December 2020:

“[China] is a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”

So has Ms Dorries revealed that the only reason we weren’t pulled away from our families after seeing two red lines was because other Europeans weren’t first?

July 13, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK | Leave a comment

Judge says it’s legally okay to deny unvaccinated an organ transplant

By Thomas Lambert | The Counter Signal | July 13, 2022

Justice Paul Belzil just decided that it was legally okay for doctors to remove Canadians from organ transplant waitlists if they’re unvaccinated.

As reported by the Westphalian Times’s Marie Oakes, Belzil filed his decision on Tuesday in a case concerning Annette Lewis, who was essentially given the choice of ‘comply or die’ after doctors changed the rules surrounding organ transplant waitlists to require being fully vaccinated.

According to Lewis, a doctor “told me if I did not take the COVID-19 vaccine, I would not get the transplant, and if I did not get the transplant, I would die.”

She added, “I ought to have the choice about what goes into my body, and a life-saving treatment cannot be denied to me because I chose not to take an experimental treatment for a condition — COVID-19 — which I do not have and which I may never have.”

But judge Belzil disagreed, arguing that “her beliefs and desire to protect her bodily integrity [do not] entitle her to impact the rights of other patients or the integrity of the [transplant program] generally.”

He ultimately ruled that the charter doesn’t apply to clinical treatment decisions and that Lewis’s rights, therefore, had not been violated.

Lewis isn’t alone in her struggle either. As previously reported by The Counter Signal, hospitals and health networks across the country have chosen to deny the unvaccinated organ transplants even when prospective patients are healthy and have found a donor.

In October 2021, Toronto’s University Health Network (UHN) (the largest health research organization in Canada and Canada’s largest transplant centre) adopted a policy requiring all organ transplant patients to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before doctors operate on them.

The decision immediately affected roughly 4,300 Canadians awaiting life-saving care, some of whom have likely passed away by now.

July 13, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Canada, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights | Leave a comment

Hong Kong unveils Covid quarantine bracelets

Samizdat | July 13, 2022

Hong Kong is set to introduce electronic tracking bracelets for citizens who decide to quarantine at home after testing positive for Covid-19, the health chief has announced. Violators of the isolation rules face hefty fines and possibly even jail time.

The territory’s secretary for health, Lo Chung-mau, announced the move during a Monday press briefing, saying the bracelets are meant to stop infected people from spreading the illness further and will operate on the ‘Leave Home Safe’ app rolled out last year.

“We have to make sure that home isolation is more precise while being humane,” Lo said, adding that the trackers will be introduced on Friday.

Breaching Hong Kong’s quarantine order could result in fines up to $3,200 and a maximum of six months behind bars. Individuals who are able to isolate at home must do so for two weeks, though will be allowed to leave if they test negative for two days in a row and have their first pair of vaccine doses.

While the territory previously required overseas arrivals to use bracelets with unique QR codes to check in and account for their movements, the gadgets were later replaced with genuine tracking tech. The system is set to be expanded, though the government has not said what type of bracelet it will use for the latest initiative.

The health secretary also noted that Hong Kong will implement a color-coded system similar to the one in place in mainland China, which labels different levels of infection risk as yellow or red. Those with the red designation will face heavy restrictions on their movement, including outright bans on entering public venues, while yellow entails lesser limits.

However, the city’s recently inaugurated chief executive, John Lee, has since stressed that the traffic light system would only apply to “a specific and small number of people,” but nonetheless argued that Hong Kong needs “some identification method” to distinguish citizens with active infections from those quarantining as a precaution.

Local officials continue to warn that Hong Kong’s Covid-19 outbreak remains “very serious,” urging residents to minimize travel and observe social distancing rules, which were just extended for another two weeks on Tuesday.

The Department of Health said it recorded 2,558 new local coronavirus cases on Tuesday, as well as another 211 infections among travelers from abroad. It did not offer a daily update for fatalities, but noted the territory had tallied 9,420 deaths in total throughout the pandemic, most of them occurring this year.

July 13, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | China, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights | Leave a comment

After extending the vaccine passport program, Canada threatens fines for those that don’t use it

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | July 12, 2022

After extending the use of the controversial vaccine passport program, the Canadian government has threatened those who do not have a vaccine passport, which reveals someone’s vaccination status for travel, with fines.

Though the government suspended a Covid travel vaccine mandate last month, it has insisted on keeping the more controversial ArriveCAN in use.

International travelers and returning Canadians have to use the ArriveCAN app to submit their contact and travel information and their COVID vaccination status.

The ArriveCAN website states that all travelers will still be “required to submit their mandatory information in ArriveCAN (free mobile app or website) before their arrival in Canada.”

“If you don’t submit your travel information and proof of vaccination using ArriveCAN you could be fined $5,000.”

“All travelers still need a valid #ArriveCAN receipt within 72 hours before their arrival to Canada and/or before boarding a plane or cruise ship destined for Canada, regardless of vaccination status,” tweeted the Public Health Agency of Canada in the last week.

“Failure to complete your ArriveCAN submission can impact your eligibility exemptions, may result in fines, and creates longer wait times for all arriving at the border.”

The Conservative Party has called for the removal of the app, which has been blamed for delays at Canadian airports and airlines.

“Canadians have dealt with enough chaos at the airports. The Liberals need to listen to the science and end the ArriveCan app,” CPC’s interim leader Candice Bergen wrote on Twitter on Monday.

Despite the complaints from users and the delays, the Canadian government extended the use of ArriveCAN until at least September 30.

July 12, 2022 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Canada, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights | Leave a comment

We’re “losing the fight against monkeypox”… apparently

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | July 11, 2022

According to the New York Times the US is currently “losing the fight with Monkeypox”. That’s probably news to you.

After all, given the fact the US has around 700 cases of Monkeypox (around 0.0002% of the population), that the entire world only 8000 “cases” (about 0.0001%), and that there have been just 3 reported deaths… well, you’d be forgiven for not realising there was a fight at all, let alone that we were losing.

It’s really more of a kerfuffle. At worst. Perhaps a fracas.

That is – of course – assuming there is any monkeypox “outbreak” at all, something we should never take on faith, especially in the post-Covid world.

Nevertheless, the NYT is sure…

There probably will be many more infections before the outbreak can be controlled, if at this point it can be controlled at all.

The US isn’t the only place getting a fresh batch of monkeypox fear porn this week.

Five days ago it was reported that Australia had recorded its first “case”, with the under-stated headline…

KILLER VIRUS SUDDENLY SPREADS IN AUSTRALIA

… clearly this went too far, even for the mainstream media, who quietly reworded the title a few hours later.

Not to be outdone, two days later New Zealand announced their first monkeypox case was isolating at home.

And just 15 minutes ago, at the time of writing, The Guardian published a news story headlined:

Efforts to curb UK monkeypox outbreak inadequate, warn experts

So, what is the cause of mankind’s imminent loss to the monkeypox peril? Well they really couldn’t be clearer about that – we’re not testing enough.

The NYT goes on about this at length:

the response in the United States has been sluggish and timid, reminiscent of the early days of the Covid pandemic, experts say, raising troubling questions about the nation’s preparedness for pandemic threats.

[…] The first cases of monkeypox were reported in May, but tests will not be readily available until sometime this month.

[…] The first missteps in the U.S. response to monkeypox were in testing. As in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, samples from monkeypox patients are being funneled to the CDC for final diagnosis, a process that can take days.

Slate agrees, headlining “We Need to Keep Better Track of Monkeypox” and quoting on “expert”:

Testing is the key piece in getting answers to these questions, and currently we simply are not doing enough of it.”

We’ve seen this movie before, we know how it goes from here.

Since, as the NYT points out, Monkeypox tests will be “readily available sometime this month”, we can expect a BIG spike in cases coming up.

Far from being recognised for what it is – a huge number of false positives caused by PCR tests – this increase in cases will be sold as the “true size of the outbreak” after weeks of calling current “case” numbers “likely underestimates”.

The solution, we know, will be “increasing vaccine coverage” or “helping immunize the most vulnerable” or some buzz phrase like that.

But oh no! We don’t have enough vaccines!

At least, according the New York Times, and LA Times, and CBS, and Science and New York Magazine and NPR and NBC and the New York Post and…

… it’s the prevalent message, is what I’m trying to say.

Don’t worry though, a VERY familiar hero is about to ride over the horizon on a white horse:

Moderna is investigating potential monkeypox vaccines at a preclinical level, using its mRNA platform,”

Yes, Moderna started working on a new mRNA monkeypox vaccine back in May… so by Covid rules they’re probably nearly done by now.

Just inject in precisely one person, and if they don’t die instantly on the spot then it’s safe.

… and if they DO then they were already sick and the trial data is compromised and monkeypox is such an emergency we should grant it approval anyway. You can read the trial data in 2097.

We know how this works.

Tests to create the “problem”, vaccines to “solve” the “problem”. Both of them result in vast amounts of public money disappearing into bottomless private pockets.

There’s a lot of fog around monkeypox – we don’t know, in a lot of ways, where it’s going or what it’s even for. The narrative is only half-formed. First growing, then shrinking, then growing again.

It had a name change that never really materialised, and the decision to focus it on sexual transmission – especially among “men who have sex with men” (I don’t know why they ALL use that phrase and not “gay men”) – is one I just can’t puzzle out yet.

But while it’s yet to take definitively pick a size, direction or speed, it’s taking a very familiar shape: Tests and vaccines.

It’s always tests and vaccines.

July 11, 2022 Posted by aletho | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | New York Times, United States | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

HE SAVED LIVES. NOW HE FACES PRISON.

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

NATO Sanctions and the Coming Global Diesel Fuel Disaster

By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022

Amid the ongoing global inflation crisis, NATO heads of state and mainstream media repeat a mantra that high energy prices are a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine since end of February. The reality is that it is the western sanctions that are responsible. Those sanctions including cutting SWIFT interbank access for key Russian banks and some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed, are hardly having an impact on the military actions in Ukraine. What many overlook is the fact that they are increasingly impacting the economies of the West, especially the EU and USA. A closer look at the state of the global supply of diesel fuel is alarming. But Western sanctions planners at the US Treasury and the EU know fully well what they are doing. And it bodes ill for the world economy.

While most of us rarely think about diesel fuel as anything other than a pollutant, in fact it is essential to the entire world economy in a way few energy sources are. The director general of Fuels Europe, part of the European Petroleum Refiners Association, stated recently, “… there is a clear link between diesel and GDP, because almost everything that goes into and out of a factory goes using diesel.” … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,352 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,724,553 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

September 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

« Aug
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkiye Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

September 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Samizdat | July 13, 2022

Featured Video

From the Archives

By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info