We hear so much in woke Britain about ‘hate crime’ and how terrible it is. But right now, we’re in the midst of an extremely nasty campaign against those who don’t wish to take a Covid vaccine and somehow that’s deemed acceptable.
“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.” From George Orwell’s ‘1984.’
“Selfish idiots.” “Refuseniks.” “Anti-vaxxer loonies.” “Holding the country to ransom.” “A menace to their own health and ours.” “They’re like drink drivers.” Just a few of the insults that have been hurled at Brits who, despite the biggest drug promotion campaign in our history, have decided they don’t wish to take one of the new-on-the-market Covid vaccines.
Freedom of choice? Bodily autonomy? They seem to have gone out of the window, along with all the other basic rights we have lost in Britain these past 15 months. The date is 2021, but we’re actually living in Orwell’s ‘1984,’ with its daily ‘Two Minutes Hate.’
A whole succession of obnoxious newspaper columnists, radio ‘shock jocks’ and some ‘celebrities’ have gone out of their way to be as rude as possible to those who don’t want to have a jab – and call for extreme measures to be used against them that would be more associated with a totalitarian state in mid-1930s Europe than a country which still styles itself a ‘democracy’. Or, indeed, with Pretoria, circa 1965.
Apartheid – which we all denounced when in place in South Africa – has had a 2021 public health makeover and is back in vogue, with ‘Covid vaccine passports’ replacing ‘pass laws.’
“Love the idea of covid vaccine passports for everywhere: flights, restaurants, clubs, football, gyms, shops etc. It’s time covid-denying, anti-vaxxer loonies had their bullsh*t bluff called & bar themselves from going anywhere that responsible citizens go,” tweeted media motormouth Piers Morgan.
Nick Cohen penned an article for the Observer entitled “It’s only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated.” “Rational people will ask why they should continue to accept restrictions on their freedoms because of ignorant delusions,” he wrote.
Columnist Richard Littlejohn went even further by calling for the unvaccinated to publicly declare themselves ‘Unclean.’ “If some people don’t like the idea of getting the jab, tough. I wouldn’t force them. But maybe refusniks should have to wear a bell round their necks and sport a sandwich board declaring themselves ‘Unclean’”, he wrote in the Daily Mail, in an article entitled “No jab, no job – it’s a no brainer.”
In similar vein there was Sean O’Grady, an associate editor of the supposedly ‘liberal’ Independent. His article, published earlier this week, was entitled “This is what we do about anti-vaxxers: No job. No entry. No NHS access.”
“The time has come when the hard choices are looming closer,” O’Grady opined. “If we don’t want this Covid crisis to last forever, we need some new simple, guidelines: No jab, no access to NHS healthcare; no jab, no state education for your kids. No jab, no access to pubs, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, stadiums. No jab; no entry to the UK, and much else.” I think we’ve got your point Sean. You wouldn’t make vaccination mandatory, but the unvaccinated wouldn’t be able to go anywhere, or do anything. And if they got ill? Well they’d just have to die because they shouldn’t have access to NHS healthcare. All in the name of ‘the common good’.
On the same day that O’Grady’s piece was published, we had one Sarah Vine weighing in with her penny’worth, too. “We can’t let idiots who don’t want Covid vaccines hold us hostage” was the title of her screed published in the Daily Mail. “You are stupid. Weapons grade stupid,” is how she addressed those who don’t want to take the Coronavirus vaccine. Who cares what this poisonous Vine thinks, I can hear you ask? But actually, it does matter, because her husband is none other than Michael Gove, the UK government minister currently heading a review into vaccine passports. If Gove’s wife thinks the unvaccinated are “weapons grade stupid” then it hardly gives us confidence that her husband won’t decide to discriminate against them.
It’s not just in print that the attacks on ‘refuseniks’ are coming. It’s on the airwaves, too. Iain Dale berated the unvaccinated on his LBC radio call-in show earlier this week. “The fact that people still refuse to get the vaccine for whatever reason, I don’t really care what the reason is, they are not only putting themselves at risk – they are putting other people at risk,” he said. “If you are 50, 60, 70, 80 years old and you still haven’t availed yourself of the opportunity of having the vaccine, I’m afraid you need your head read. You need your head examined. You are a selfish individual.”
Repeat after me: “I am a selfish individual. I am a selfish individual.” Gaslighting really doesn’t get any more obvious.
At least Dale didn’t suggest putting poison into ‘refuseniks’ coffee as his LBC colleague Shelagh Fogarty did. “I’d literally be in fights with these people (vaccine decliners),” she told a caller. “How do you keep seeing them at work without wanting to poison their coffee.”
Let’s not mince words: We are dealing here with the very open, plain-view demonisation of a group of people, with no consequences for those who are doing the demonisation. And all this is happening, lest we forget, in ‘woke’ times when anything you say might be seen as ‘offence’, ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘genderism’ or a form of ‘ism’ or ‘phobia.’
To see the egregious double standards, just replace the ‘unvaccinated’ with a minority racial or religious group. But the unvaccinated are fair game. Hate crime, according to the Crown Prosecution Service website, “can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim’s disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.” Vaccine status is not a “protected characteristic” so it seems people can be as hateful to the unvaccinated as they like.
But that doesn’t make what’s going on right. Far from it.
If someone is vaccinated, why should they care if someone else isn’t? We never had these arguments before about the flu jab. Either the vaccine works to protect the vaccinated, or it doesn’t. Nor were those who decided not to have a flu vaccine labelled ‘anti-vaxxers.’ You can be generally pro-vaccination, but have rational ‘wait and see’ reservations about the new-on-the-market Coronavirus ones, especially if your chances of becoming ill or indeed dying from Covid are extremely low. But that nuanced position is simply not recognised in the current, coercive ‘Just take the bloody jab’ hysteria.
As for the line that it is the unvaccinated who are holding the country hostage by putting in jeopardy an end to Covid restrictions? Sarah Vine really needs to look closer to home. Literally. It was the government of which her husband is a prominent member which assured us that life would be back to normal as soon as the most vulnerable were vaccinated. In an interview with The Spectator in January, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said he would “Cry freedom” as soon as the most vulnerable were vaccinated.
But we still don’t have freedom. The goalposts have moved from vaccinating the ‘most vulnerable’ to now vaccinating everyone. Is it any surprise there are those who wonder if this is motivated by the introduction of vaccine passports, which in turn could lead to other digitised social credit systems?
But, conveniently, it’s the vaccine ‘refuseniks’, the current subject of the daily Orwellian Two Minutes Hate, who are being blamed for continued restrictions and not the authorities. In these toxic times, ‘divide and rule’ has never been more blatant.
This is only a partial picture of the long reach of Bill Gates into our scientific institutions. On Monday I focused on three GF-funded universities which have informed Sage on doomsday Covid-19 modelling: Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM). There are many more academic universities and centres which have taken the GF dollar, including those involved in the research and manufacture of vaccines, who between them set parameters of approved research and gave their research leads significant clout.
They are thus able ‘to ignore or cherry pick science and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates’, as the executive editor of the BMJ Kamran Abbasi explained it recently. This toxic combination of scientific bias by commission and omission, exacerbated by GF funding, has led to the shutting down of science debate, to active censorship and even to dissemination of scientific untruths, as has been reported elsewhere in TCW pages.
Many scientists and academics have been worryingly silent about the government’s anti-science response to Covid-19. The few who have spoken out have been scorned and smeared by Sage and their nodding dogs, the MSM. Can this culture of silence can be traced back to the extensive GF funding of British universities?
Let’s take Britain’s pre-eminent universities, Oxford and Cambridge, first.
The GF’s funding of Oxford University goes back 21 years, to a first $4.7million grant for malaria and global health research in 2000. Its giving has risen exponentially since then. In 2019, the GF gave Oxford $40million, including $9.6million for vaccine development. In 2020 it gave $10.8million, including $310,970 to improve understanding of Covid-19. To date this year, Oxford has received $152,553 from the GF.
Oxford University is the site of the Covid-19 Recovery trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY), promoted as the world’s largest randomised clinical trial. The trial’s chief investigator, Professor Peter Horby, is a key member of Sage and Nervtag.
The Recovery trial is funded by the Wellcome Trust, the GF, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the ‘Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator’, the latter being a collaboration between the GF, Wellcome Trust and MasterCard. In March 2020, Oxford University was one of three institutions to share $20million from the GF via its Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.
The deputy investigator of the Recovery trial, Professor Martin Landray, has further links to the GF. He is a Lead at the UK Biobank, which is partnered with the Wellcome Trust and also a Lead of the NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre at Oxford University.
The NIHR Centre is funded as well by the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, as noted above itself a collaboration between the GF, Wellcome Trust and MasterCard.
In March 2020, the Wellcome Trust gave £7.5million via the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator to see if hydroxychloroquineand chloroquine ‘can prevent the spread of Covid-19’ (not treat it, strangely). During the same year the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator also gave $9.5million to the University of Washington to study the effects of hydroxychloroquine on Covid-19.
Professor Horby has sold the Recovery Trial as a success story, but other scientists have disputed this. Last June, hard on the heels of the retraction by the Lancet of its now-notorious paper purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine not only did not help Covid-19 patients, but actually made them worse, came news of the termination of the hydroxychloroquine ‘arm’ of the UK’s Recovery clinical trials.
But the trial design had already been savaged within days of launch; it was never likely to help very sick late-stage Covid-19 patients and what Professor Landray found himself struggling to explain in an interview were ‘the very heavy doses of the drug that were given – 2400 mg in the first 24 hours, a ‘dose fit for a gorilla’ as one critic had it.
Needless to say Professors Horby and Landray glossed over the inadequacies of this particular trial and quickly dismissed the use of hydroxychloroquine, vowing to concentrate on ‘more promising drugs’. And the possibility of a cheap and easy early treatment for Covid-19, from re-purposed generic drugs, especially hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalisation, was trashed.
Probing alleged conflicts of interest, France Soir noted the co-authorship of Professor Horby on papers reporting trials of Gilead’s remdesivir (there was no benefit in mortality), an agreement between his department and AstraZeneca for development of Oxford’s vaccine candidate, and generous funding from the GF. Curiously, there is a connection too between Professor Landray’s interests in Big Data and Gilead, a pharmaceutical company which was in merger talks with AstraZeneca last year. Vaccines are profitable, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are not. No wonder the GF invests so heavily in the organisations which research, fund and manufacture vaccines, rather than pursuing investment in better constructed early treatment trials.
A further cluster of Sage members, Professors Dame Angela McLean, Michael Parker, Gideon Henderson, Charlotte Deane and Dr Laura Merson, all work at Oxford University.
Cambridge University’s GF’s funding started with an initial grant of $8.1million for agricultural development in 2012. The GF awarded a grant of $998,891 in 2019 to fund research into pneumonia, and $420,000 in 2020 for global education.
More significantly, Cambridge is the site of the Cambridge Science Park, another GF-funded venture. In May 2020, GF and Google Ventures gave $45million to Cerevance, a pharmaceutical company based at Cambridge Science Park.
The Wellcome Trust is also involved in scientific research at Cambridge. Together with the Medical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, it awarded the Cambridge-based Institute of Metabolic Science £24million in 2013. Professor Julia Gog of Sage is employed at Cambridge University, as are Nervtag member Professor Ravindra Gupta and Independent Sage member Dr Tolullah Oni.
Professor Daniela DeAngelis and Dr Joshua Blake, members of SP-I-M, also work at Cambridge University.
The GF has also funded University College London (UCL), giving its first $25.2million in 2006 for HIV research. UCL was granted a total of $10.8million in 2019 and $484,000 in 2020, including $144,000 to research vaccines last March. The GF has committed funding from 2020-2023 to study postpartum haemorrhage. UCL also collaborates with the GF and the Wellcome Trust on a research project called Global Health.
Sage members Professors Dame Anne Johnson, Andrew Hayward and Alan Penn work at UCL.
Professor Susan Michie is the Director of the Centre for Behaviour Change at UCL and sits on both Sage and Independent Sage. Her fellow Independent Sage members Professors Anthony Costello, Christina Pagel, Deenan Pillay, Ann Phoenix and Robert West all work at UCL in some capacity.
Other less prominent academic institutions, such as the University of Southampton, are also beneficiaries of the GF’s vast financing. In 2009, Southampton received $100,000 for scientific research from the GF, and was also given specific grants of $335,800 in 2014, $3.6million in 2015 and $476,214 in 2020 for vaccine research. Sage member, Professor Guy Poppy, is employed at this university, as is Professor Lucy Yardley, a member of both Sage and SP-I-MO.
The UWE Bristol also has connections with the GF, the latter funding its climate change project called Robial. Peter Case, a UWE Bristol Law Professor, wrote a report on malaria for the GF. Sage member, Professor Jonathan Benger, is employed at the UWE Bristol.
It seems that no corner of British industry lies untouched by the long reach of the GF. As my research shows, it certainly seems to be the largest funder of British science, giving Gates influence and control exceeding all others, with an ownership of scientists and scientific research as a critical dimension of his global control agenda.
The level of dominance which Gates holds over British science companies, institutions and universities is more than concerning.
Could the combined anti-science and harmful responses to Covid-19 by members of Sage, Independent Sage and Nervtag have anything to do with their multitude of connections to the GF? This is certainly jackpot time for these GF-funded scientists and academics, some of whom are having their moment in the sun pontificating on television to the supine masses. Fame is an addictive drug.
Science and scientists that question the new groupthink or fall outside the parameters of the GF approved research have little chance. Neither do we while Bill Gates remains omnipotent.
We have written about this topic of no COVID-19 vaccination for children several times, raising our strong objections against vaccinating America’s children with the current COVID-19 vaccines, and our work was previously published in the American Institute of Economic Research (references 1, 2). Our core thesis for this op-ed offering encompasses a resounding “NO” against vaccination of children for COVID-19. There is zero science to support this, and there is potential serious harm. It is as simple as that. The benefits do not outweigh the harms, and the CDC and Dr. Fauci, and all who are pushing vaccinating our children with this set of COVID-19 vaccines are being very reckless, unscientific, specious, and dangerous with regard to our children. We call on them to reverse course. We argue that it is very dangerous and reckless to push to vaccinate low-risk children with untested vaccines for safety that could leave children with decades of severe disability if something goes wrong.
We make our argument now and we make it based on ‘No liability incurred by the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers translates into no trust by parents’. Parents want to trust what is being done in this regard but how could they at this time when there is no basis for the vaccine? We ask the CDC in general, NIH, FDA, Dr. Fauci, the CDC’s new Director Walensky, and vaccine developers, to show us the evidence, show us and the public the data they are looking at, the science they are looking at, to warrant vaccinating our children. We can see none, we found none. If such exists, we certainly want to see it, if they would like to share it. These so-called ‘medical experts’ make statements and take positions often with no evidence or science to support what they are saying. In this case, we say no more. We want to see the evidence before we vaccinate our children.
Mask Mandate for Children
Firstly, let me/us be as clear as we can. All face masks must be removed from all children immediately unless you are a high-risk child and this is needed. Other than that, all other children, in the US, in Canada, Britain, France etc., all, must immediately rip up the masks and go on with life freely. Throw them away, they are not needed for our children. Nor is social distancing and definitely not in school. It is ridiculous. The CDC and the television medical experts, these talking head senseless and highly illogical people in these Task Forces like Fauci and Birx, have become (and became) contemptible with the drivel they spewed at the public 24/7 about these masks that are ineffective (they do not work and never worked, they just cannot as used) and very harmful. These experts in the CDC, NIH, FDA etc. costed jobs, businesses, and even lives with their corrupted pandemic response—denying early treatment when it existed. Especially the lives of our African-American and minority young people and children who could have least afforded the specious, unscientific, and unsound lockdown edicts.
Many good people and children lost their lives in desperation due to the crushing harms and devastation from the lockdowns and school closures that continue even today due to the CDC and the AFT teachers’ union collusion. Our statements on masks pertain to adults too but our focus here is on our children today, and urgently. These CDC, NIH, and similar agency and medical experts and advisors are all clueless, disgraceful, hysterical, illogical, irrational, specious, and patently absurd. Pure nonsense has been showcased with these masks mandates that they know do not work. After 20 minutes, they are garbage with the moisture they accrue. These CDC and NIH etc. experts reveal a depth of academic sloppiness and cognitive dissonance to any real science or anything that does not line up with their twisted unsound politicized narratives.
We always knew this. They the CDC, have never followed the science on masks as the science says it is junk and useless but do not tell “CDC 365” this (as described below). The surgical and cloth masks are and were all junk. We knew the science, reported it repeatedly, and spoke to it. How insane are these CDC experts? How embarrassing that they are the marque agency, and I am hoping the CDC can return to its former days of glory for at present, it is a non-scientific, pseudoscientific clubhouse for inept political representatives. The CDC does not do science, it does politics. The CDC is like the furniture store where with payment options, you do not pay for one year; you may think you are buying furniture, but they are really selling you ‘money’. You may think you are reading a scientific report from CDC when in fact, it is a political report.
Questions for Our Leaders
We open this op-ed with seven urgent questions for Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky (CDC’s Director), the NIH’s Dr. Collins, and the FDA, as well as the vaccine developers:
1) Would Dr. Fauci and Dr. Walensky as well as Dr. Collins of the NIH sign paperwork placing liability on themselves (their agencies) should any child be harmed or die from these vaccines?
2) Since the risk of Covid-19 infection is less than 1% and the Pfizer vaccine reduces the risk of infection by only 0.7% (absolute risk reduction), why are we vaccinating children with a non-FDA approved vaccine that is currently on EUA when their survival rate from Covid-19 is 99.997% according to the CDC? Near zero risk of severe illness or death. So, what is the benefit?
3) We have not seen any clinical trial data for children 12-15? Can we see it, can the public see it? What is the Absolute Risk Reduction measure, NOT the relative risk reduction?
4). How can the vaccine recipients (children) legally provide Informed Consent? Informed consent is not just ‘hey you, roll up your sleeves’…
5.) How do you plan to inform vaccine recipients about the Antibody-Dependent Enhancement risk (ADE) and similar risks, for if not properly informed of these “non-theoretical and ‘real’ compelling” risks, it violates medical ethics standards?
6.) Since studies show that those who have recovered from Covid-19 are at a greater risk of a severe vaccine reaction if they took the vaccine, do you plan to conduct antibody testing first of our children, to see if they have already been infected with Covid-19?
7). Are you aware that the vaccines cannot prevent infection or stop the spread according to Pfizer’s clinical trial data, and Topol/Doshi (New York Times )… it is and was only set up for mild COVID… nothing else… no transmission, no infection, no severe illness, no hospitalization, no death… so if children can get immunity harmlessly and naturally, and are at such low risk of spreading it or getting ill or dying, what is the benefit? It cannot be to drive herd immunity numbers for if you consider cross protection from common cold coronavirus and immunity from prior COVID infection that is cleared, then you do not need children for this… so why place our children at such unnecessary risk?
If our children are to take a vaccine that is not needed based on their risk (a child’s) of becoming infected and spreading the infection or becoming severely ill (and this is clear, stable global science), and a vaccine with questionable efficacy and very real potential harms based on emerging CDC VAERS adverse reporting database reports and anecdotal reports, then the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers must take on the risk and consequent liability if our children are harmed.
Must be Held Accountable
We are vehement, that if any child dies or is harmed by these vaccines, then the CDC, NIH, FDA, Dr. Fauci, etc. must be held accountable. The CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers must be willing to immediately take on the risk if they stand by these vaccines for this is the safety of our children we are talking about. They must be willing to be accountable and put skin in the game. This is a very different situation than that for adults. No liability by the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers equals no trust from parents and the public when it comes to our children. As a risk management question, we see no benefit from this vaccine and only potential downsides.
We consider vaccinating children for COVID-19 as dangerous and reckless, as reckless as the recent administering of this set of vaccines that lacks proper safety data, in pregnant women as per CDC’s guidance. We have read the enabling study and it raises many questions particularly the key one being the optimal time duration of study conduct was not done. How do you assess harms for a drug or medical device or vaccine when you are running studies for roughly 4 months? How? It is not possible. Safety signals (especially rare) cannot emerge during this time nor the optimal sample size for study (or event numbers). Where is the correct comparative group to assess the impact of vaccination on pregnant, vaccinated, positive women? Moreover, the initial decision for EUA for the vaccines was based on very small event numbers e.g. one key study had 170 events (162 placeboes and 8 in the intervention arm). This is incredible that such small event numbers enabled EUA for vaccinating hundreds of millions/billions of persons.
Many Questions Raised, With Little Answers
The vaccine trials have raised many methodological questions and we are concerned given the reports of over 3,000participants’ data being omitted in one study as they were ‘suspected’ but not ‘confirmed’ positive. We find this incredible especially how there is no full accounting by the vaccine developers of why this was done, and when we back calculate and do our own crude modeling, we find the efficacy declines from the reported 95% to 19-20%.
But here is the core issue as we look at the risk for children and this obsession by Fauci and Walensky to vaccinate our children:
i) children do not acquire it readily e.g. studies show less ACE 2 receptors in nasal epithelia
ii) children do not readily spread infection to other children
iii) children do not spread it readily to adults, it is the other way around
iv) children do not readily take it home; arises mainly from home clusters and the adults there
v) children do not become severely ill
vi) children do not die from it
vii) MISC is very rare, very treatable, and almost all leave the hospital… could it be that masking and locking kids down have driven MISC? how come nations with no lockdowns do not report MISC? or strong children masking?
So, given all of this, what is the benefit of vaccinating kids? It cannot be that kids are needed to drive herd immunity threshold for it can only be that, if you disregard cross protection that exists from prior common cold coronavirus, and also that there is existing immunity from persons who had COVID infection and cleared it. So, once you include those portions in the math, there is no need for children to achieve herd immunity, that’s a bogus reason, Dr. Fauci.
Children & the Risk of Spreading Infection
Let us for a moment, look at the issue of masking of our children and when outdoors. This will help demonstrate the ludicrousness and harmfulness of the CDC and what it is advocating for in vaccinating our children. The CDC’s guidance raises serious questions if harms emerge and comports itself to ridicule as much as wearing mask outdoors if vaccinated. As we view the CDC guidance from an eagle-eye perspective, we come to a conclusion that the CDC is not talking science anymore. It is purely nonsensical and confusing. For example, regarding the risk of outdoor transmission, the CDC knows of the Chinese study that showed only one of 7,324 infection events following careful contact tracing was linked to outdoor transmission. They, the CDC, know that the Irish analysis showed that only one in 1,000 infections out of 232,000 infections were linked to outdoor transmission. They know that outdoors has ample ventilation and thus spread is virtually non-existent (CDC originally reported that less than 10% of infection occurs outdoors and one is near 20 times more likely to be infected indoors than outdoors; however CDC’s 10% figure was inaccurate and proper research shows this to be 0.1% and CDC has now backtracked due to their startling error on outdoor transmission).
There remains an absence of evidence supporting the notion that children even spread the COVID-19 virus in any meaningful way, but there is direct evidence showing that they simply do not spread this infection and disease! This has been shown in school settings and as published in other papers. Children typically, if infected, have asymptomatic illnesses. It is well-noted that asymptomatic cases are not the drivers of the pandemic; something particularly important in relation to children as they are generally asymptomatic. A study published inthe journal Nature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million persons. The World Health Organization (WHO) also made this claim that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.
Supporting Evidence
In terms of masking children, which we are vehemently against (in school or out of school), Ludvigsson evidenced the low risk in children by publishing this seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine out of Sweden on COVID-19 among children one to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from COVID and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization.
Similarly, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of the COVID-19 virus via a cluster of COVID-19. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions (to any child or teacher). These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year. It is not ‘new’ evidence as the CDC seems to allude to. We have science on deck for near 14 months now and the CDC is clearly out of step with the science. Each turn we make. Why?
They, the CDC, also know of a high-quality review study byMadewell published in JAMAthatsought toestimate the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in households and determine factors that modify this parameter. The study was a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants. Secondary attack rates represented the spread to additional persons and researchers found a 25-fold increased risk within households between symptomatic positive infected index persons versus asymptomatic infected index persons. “Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)”. This study showed just how rare asymptomatic spread was within a confined household environment.
The CDC also knows of a high-quality randomized controlled trial Danish Study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine sought to assess whether recommending surgical mask utilization outside of the home would help reduce the wearer’s risks of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. The sample included a total of 3,030 participants who were assigned randomly to wear masks, and 2,994 who were told to not wear masks (i.e. the control arm). The authors concluded that there was no statistically or clinically significant impact of mask-use in regard to the rate of infection with SARS CoV-2.
As a result of the nonsense guidance by the CDC, Dr. Leana Wen (emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University; former Baltimore City Health Commissioner) has just about had it with the nonsensical capricious CDC guidelines and is reportedly shocked’ by new CDC Mask Guidance and rightly so. “They went from this overly cautious, nonsensical approach to another nonsensical approach — but one that is dangerous, one that throws caution out the window”. We agree, what the CDC is putting out is utter nonsense and actually dangerous. Dr. Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins) has also weighed in stating that this is the “most political CDC in history”, where guidance is “based on discretion not science”. We argue, CDC guidance is based on whimsy and is as far removed from science as possible.
Even the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is now saying to take off the mask when outside. The WSJknows that the gig is up with the ineffective masks but also that it is insane to consider masking outdoors when it is properly ventilated and the risk of spread is near zero, if at all. It is insane, illogical, irrational, and pure nonsense that the CDC and Dr. Fauci are advising children and teenagers to wear masks at summer camp, but not if they are vaccinated. It defies logic what is coming out of the CDC at present as to scientific guidance.
Disastrous Public Policy
It is incredible that a marque public health agency like the CDC could be making such disastrous public policy statements and guidance when they are constantly flat wrong and constantly having to reverse them or adjust them. What is going on at the CDC? We want the CDC to succeed and shine and be the ‘go to’ public health agency. But how could they, the CDC, provide guidance that masks are needed outdoors even ‘if vaccinated’. The totality of their argument remains meritless and absurd to date. It is nonsensical. We have argued that masks as currently used, the blue surgical and white cloth masks (or any cloth masks) are ineffective and essentially worthless. It is actually harmful and particularly for our children. We have raised this issue many times as to no benefit and possible harms of masking and it is catastrophic to our children, emotionally, socially, and health-wise. These masks do nothing and it is beyond being ‘neutral’, they are ineffective. It did nothing. Mask mandates have all failed. And now we refocus on the issue of vaccinating our children for COVID.
In this regard, the CDC knows (at least we would hope they do) that if fully vaccinated, if these vaccines do what they were purported to do by conferring sterilizing immunity (which we argue the vaccines fail to do), with the high titers of neutralizing antibodies, then you are effectively immune. You can toss your masks and you are liberated after your second shot. But do these vaccines really work as effectively as reported? Does the CDC know something that the public does not know, and hence the insistence on mask-wearing and distancing away from others, even if vaccinated? Ours is not merely a curiosity, but a legitimate question that remains without a scientific answer from the CDC. We are in full support of vaccines once developed properly with the proper safety testing.
We also find the current mechanisms being employed by the media and some people in shaming others for not being vaccinated is deplorable, while they take selfies and parade on the internet social media and denounce others. Why would you shame someone who is not vaccinated when you are fully vaccinated, if you are immune? If you are immune and, again, if you think you are, then why does it matter if someone else has not taken the vaccine, for they could be COVID recovered and have decided that they do not need the vaccine as they have robust and durable natural exposure immunity? They have this right to make a personal ‘informed’ decision. You are immune, so why be concerned with someone else’s vaccine status? Why infringe on others’ rights and freedoms and use public shaming as a venue to exploit your compliance.
Risk of Death?
But, what does the epidemiological data show as to the risk of death for children? Are children at such elevated risk to warrant vaccinating? Well, the most updated data by the American Academy of Pediatrics showed that “Children were 0.00%-0.19% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 10 [US] states reported zero child deaths. In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death.” This is the data.
Based on reporting of CDC data, 266 children aged 0 to 17 years in the US have died of COVID-19 and we mourn each death and we cannot understand the pain for the grieving parents and family. But let us put this in perspective to yearly seasonal influenza. During the 2018-2019 influenza season, 477 children 0 to 17 died of the regular flu, and we did not mask the nation, did not close schools, and did not seek to mass vaccinate children, and did not push them to cower under their beds in fright. This is all so illogical and insane what they have done in terms of COVID-19! In 2019, 2,545 children died in traffic accidents, 776 died due to drowning often in their backyard pools by accident, and 2,156 died due to homicide. As a result, did we stop sending them to school? Did we pave over our swimming pools or ban the driving of cars? No, we have as a society accepted this level of risk and we have learned to live with it. Life goes on. We get up, dress, go to work or school, and we pray for each other daily that we get through the day and live to see another day and we make it home.
Esteemed Dr. Marty Makary out of Johns Hopkins weighed in with his expertise and appeared to suggest that children 12 to 15 years old should be vaccinated. We were surprised and disagree fully with Makary as the risk to these children which he also admitted, was essentially zero. Exceedingly rare. Then why would he advocate for vaccinations? This is confusing as we find no clear evidence, in fact none, that children are at any appreciable risk. He even stated that the ‘rare’ MISC inflammatory condition that is reported, typically ends with the children fully recovering. This is completely treatable also. Again, why would he recommend the vaccine when the risk is so low for severe outcomes and the children can develop natural robust immunity? The immunity conferred by this narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity cannot provide the broad-based, robust, durable, comprehensive immunity that natural exposure immunity can.
This is basic immunology and the risk-management decisions for parents in our view suggests ‘no’ vaccines when there is no benefit and no potential for tremendous harms. There are adverse events and deaths being reported in the CDC’s own VAERS database due to the COVID-19 vaccines that the media medical cartel is not reporting. We find it is reckless and dangerous for CDC and Fauci and NIH to be advocating for these vaccines in children when they know there are no safety studies to rule out harms and what is planned cannot rule out harms.
At the same time, and we do applaud his bravery, Makary re-iterated that CDC has been ‘consistently late or wrong’ since the pandemic began and on most everything, and the latest CDC guidance on masks in summer camps and school reveals just how out of touch the CDC is with the science. We agree fully with Makary on this and advocate for a renaming of the CDC to ‘CDC 365’ given they are routinely at least nine months to one year behind the science! He claimed that we needed the updated guidance by Fauci 14 months ago. Overall, Makary says para CDC school guidelines are scientifically flawed and being used by Biden to stall reopening and appease teacher’s unions. We agree fully with this too! There is no sound, scientific, no good reason to keep schools closed, no sound reason to mask children in schools, and no sound scientific reason, none, no justification for children to wear masks indoors in school or in summer camps. It is illogical, irrational, hysterical, unscientific and actually absurd guidance by the CDC 365. As usual! What CDC and Dr. Fauci are advocating for in terms of children being vaccinated is dangerous and reckless in our opinion and has no basis, none!
Benefits Do Not Outweight Risks
We again argue that it is very dangerous and reckless to push to vaccinate low-risk children with untested vaccines for safety that could leave children with decades of severe disability if something goes wrong. We are for vaccines but they must be properly developed, and the emerging adverse effects and the lack of safety data raises serious concerns for these vaccines in children. The benefit just does not outweigh the risks and to claim that we need kids taking the jab to get to population-level herd immunity is absurd because you are not, Dr. Fauci and CDC and NIH, factoring in the natural immunity that already exists in the population, and you are not factoring in cross-protection from prior common cold coronaviruses etc. It is also very dangerous to mask our children. There is no basis for this, none! It defies basic common sense.
Thus, we cannot understand, once again, why public health agencies such as the CDC and Dr. Fauci, along with the nonsensical bureaucrats and technocrats would make such senseless statements and provide no basis for them, in that children require vaccination for prevention of COVID-19 when he and they know they are at little, vanishingly small risk! We have serious concerns about the safety of these vaccines for all persons (including questionable efficacy as it has been reported). Let us not pretend. Why? We applaud the tremendous feat under the Trump administration of seeking to bring vaccines in such a short period by cutting the regulatory red tape and circumventing and squeezing out the ‘dead’ time across the different phases of vaccine development. However, this does not obviate us from raising questions when there are troubling signs as to safety signals (rare or otherwise).
We are now seeing reports of the mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines promoting blood clotting, blood disorders, variousbleeding disorders, and that the spike protein on its own is potentially pathogenic. Besides the real documented adverse effects, there are also theoretical risks such as to the brain from lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that will not manifest for years. Such that we may be mistakenly injecting people with a pathogenic protein. The AAPS has also stated that “blood Clotting Needs to Be Watched with All COVID Vaccines”.
No Liability Means No Trust
With this, the phrase we want the public to adopt is ‘no liability means no trust’ and by this, we mean that we want the FDA and Dr. Fauci, and the vaccine developers to remove the liability waiver from the vaccines for children. We waiver is one thing for adults but not for children given the low risk for infection and spread. The benefit does not outweigh the risk and if our children are being asked to take this untested vaccine, then the vaccine developers must have risk in the game. They must be willing to stand up for the vaccine and as such, be willing to attest to its safety by removing the liability waiver. This will give parents the confidence they need for as it stands, they have none. No liability means no trust in the vaccine. It is that simple. If the vaccine developers and all linked to the vaccine have no liability, then we can have no trust in it. Furthermore, the criteria for emergency use authorization (EUA) in children is not met and thus no EUA is warranted for children.
Building on this, Dr. Patrick Whelan (UCLA pediatrician) (Regulations.gov) shares our grave concerns especially regarding the nascent evidence about the pathogenicity of the spike protein the vaccine is injecting. In December 2020, Whelan warned the FDA that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in ways NOT assessed in safety trials. He stated, “I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (including the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech) have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that is not currently being assessed in safety trials of these drugs”. Yes, we are concerned the vaccine developers have been less than forthcoming, and the government and their medical experts are being evasive with their statements. And we are now going to play with the safety and lives of our children? We say NO. No liability equals no trust.
An Uninformed Public
The public is not properly informed about the risks and the safety data is not there. It is just not there and we are being asked to trust? Trust who, the CDC? When on one day the CDC says you do not carry COVID virus if vaccinated then the next day having to retract it? When on one day they advise all pregnant women to get the COVID vaccine and then the next day say only if they are eligible to get it? The CDC has lost its credibility. No liability equals no trust. And what about ‘informed consent’? It is not simply “hey you, roll up your sleeve’.
Alarmingly, additional evidence is emerging that COVID-19 is less of a respiratory disease and more of a vascular disease with the ensuing ill effects all generally having vascular underpinnings. But we are arguing that the spike itself may be ‘potentially’ pathogenic and if it has a role in the damaging of vascular cells (damaging/impairing vascular endothelial cells via downregulating the ACE 2 receptor), then by injecting mRNA code to build the spike protein to derive an immune response, or injecting the complete spike itself, then we may be naively or unwittingly injecting the very deleterious spike protein that will wreak havoc on vaccinated persons. Potentially, but there is a real theoretical risk and some may argue, it is already unfolding based on the nascent reports of blood clots and bleeding disorders. The spike protein may emerge as one of the more damaging ingredients in COVID disease and we are giving it to people deliberately, unknowingly.
Whelan further reports “that ACE-2 receptor expression is highest in the microvasculature of the brain and subcutaneous fat, and to a lesser degree in the liver, kidney, and heart. They have further demonstrated that the coronavirus replicates almost exclusively in the septal capillary endothelial cells of the lungs and the nasopharynx, and that viral lysis and immune destruction of those cells releases viral capsid proteins (or pseudovirions) that travel through the circulation and bind to ACE 2 receptors in these other parts of the body leading to mannan-binding lectin complement pathway activation that not only damages the microvascular endothelium but also induces the production of many pro-inflammatory cytokines. Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with the formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus”.
Whelan as a pediatrician, has gone even further and must be applauded for his bravery by stating openly that “before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in children, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart… vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies… important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be worse if hundreds of millions of children were to suffer long-lasting damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs”.
As we consider the implications of the spike itself being potentially pathogenic (and this has to be further validated), we have argued prior against children vaccination for COVID and that the science is clear and settled that children do not transmit COVID-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children. Children rarely get infected and biologically, it seems, based on nascent findings, they may be unable to due to less expression of the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 receptor (ACE 2) in their nasal epithelium (references 1, 2).
The accumulated evidence suggests that children have been less impacted than adults in terms of severityandfrequency, accounting for <2% ofthecases. Children (as opposed to other respiratory illnesses) do not appear to be a major vector of viral transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters. There has been no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission and this has remained the trend across the last 15 months of the pandemic and reported pediatric data. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is settled science on this.
NO Vaccination of Children for COVID-19
This brings us to our core thesis, this being NO vaccination of children for COVID-19. The reality is that our stance on children getting COVID vaccines is similar to our stance on why children must not be forced to wear masks, and especially children as young as two years old. There is no science or data to support this, vaccine or masks. Whatsoever. Israel has now released data showing that all age group infections have declined substantially, while not vaccinating children under 16. Why? Could it be a clear example that children are not the drivers but rather adults are and that by protecting adults using vaccines, children are automatically protected? The Israeli data seem to provide clear evidence why vaccines are not needed in US children.
We have been arguing this and we ask, why would we do this to children then? Why would CDC and Dr. Fauci take such steps when they know that the safety testing will not be suitable and that our children will be at risk to these vaccines if they are not tested properly? We may be setting vaccinated persons up for a disaster, naïvely, and as such, could we be doing the same to our children? We call for an immediate stop! We must not expose our children to ‘unnecessary’ harm. We must not expose them to a substance that has not been tested on children (or plan to be adequately) in the way it should be and for as long as necessary. We cannot circumvent ‘time’ with elevated sample size or any other tactic. This is a nonsensical methodology. These vaccines must be studied for the appropriate length of time. We must not expose children to a vaccine that based on their risk is absolutely not needed. Moreover, they can become infected naturally, if their immunity is needed.
As such, we are asking for a pause on vaccinating all persons with these vaccines until we understand what is emerging and safety is fully declared. Yet beyond that, we find it so very repugnant and dangerous an idea to submit children to these untested vaccine platforms, that once again we realized that we had to take a stand against testing and/or provision of any of the current vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 in children. Moreover, our view is that the risks of the vaccine far outweigh the benefits of persons under the age of 50, and we even argue up to 70 years of age. There should be no coercion or threat of reprisal if one does not want to be vaccinated and we call for a mass suspension of the vaccination in the US and maybe worldwide to assess the serious safety concerns we have. We are calling for proper ‘informed consent’ for all who decide to take the vaccine. We are being threatened when we raise this issue of safety and we are trying to inform the public.
We find it disturbing that the media has never pressed Dr. Fauci on overtly erroneous assertions and other major self-contradictory statements and continues to let him express an opinion without a deeper probing. We have great respect for his career and his bench work, but he is highly inaccurate and out of step with the science on most things COVID-19, the immunology, and the vaccinology, and I/we do not pretend to be any level of expert. Given what is at stake here now, this being the safety of our children, we felt we should take a stand and demand more. If this goes wrong as we think the potential is certainly there and based on what we are seeing with the adult administration of the vaccine, then our children may be left with a lifetime of morbidity, disability, and far worse, death. We demand that Dr. Fauci layout the childhood vaccination evidence for the scientific community (and the public, the parents) to evaluate.
Runinng Behind, and in the Wrong Direction
That said, we are being declarative in our position that our public health agencies like CDC, NIH, and FDA are running 9 to 12 months behind contemporary data and science and are routinely wrong. Dr. Fauci and CDC are wrong on the vaccination of children science as they were on all of the catastrophically destructive societal lockdown, school closure, and mask/mask mandate policies they advocated and implemented. We believe that the currently promulgated policies by the CDC and Dr. Fauci concerned with vaccinating pregnant women is both reckless and perhaps dangerous, since no long-term data exist on the mother or the fetus and the potential ill effects from mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines. We believe they are wrong as it relates to our children as well, with these sub-optimally developed vaccines that are largely long-term safety untested and being administered as ‘investigational’ under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) without the time-tested and honored Biological License Application.
For example, in the Daily Heraldarticle, whereby Dr. Fauci advocates for kids as young as first-grade to be vaccinated by September 2021, he was quoted stating when asked about vaccinating by September 2021, “I would think by the time we get to school opening, we likely will be able to get people who come into the first grade.” We find this by Fauci to be incredibly dangerous and without any merit. Is Dr. Fauci thinking clearly? We believe that the very low circulating virus especially among children prevents a proper study from being undertaken conclusively and would require a large “n” to get meaningful results. The study will also not be conducted for the proper duration to collect the safety data.
The article expressly admitted it will not be possible to do this by stating, “Since children rarely are hospitalized due to COVID-19, the vaccine’s ability to reduce severe cases would be hard to measure unless the trials enrolled an enormous number of children”. The potential harms to the children must always be considered for any intervention in children. This must not be construed as an anti-vaxxer stand, but a sane and logical argument that must be meted out with the requisite intellectual curiosity and scientifically proven evidence. We, therefore, call for no vaccine for our children in this illness and we only discuss this option after we have properly collected long-term safety data collected from children and including safety data from adults.
Current Vaccination Indications & Supporting Evidence
Currently, in the U.S., the vaccine is indicated only for those ages 16 and up. The article referred to several pediatricians and infectious disease experts opining that “vaccinating children is essential to helping the country, as a whole, reach herd immunity and decrease the threat of new variants”. This is a dangerous and inept statement. The global evidence is quite settled that children do not spread the infection or get severely ill if infected, and that they can become immune naturally with regular exposure that is natural and harmless. If children ‘numerically’ are needed to achieve population-level immunity, then why would they not be allowed to achieve immunity naturally, that confers robust protection e.g. T-cell immunity, for many years? Why expose them to an untested and potentially unsafe vaccine that could damage them lifelong? Moreover, we argue that their math is clearly wrong for they routinely discount the contribution made by prior exposure to coronaviruses (common cold) and thus the cross-protection they already have (T-cell immunity). They also discount in their math the vast amount of immunity that prior exposure and recovery from COVID-19 confers. Thus, the nation and states are potentially near or at herd immunity already.
Currently, we have no evidence that any variants are more lethal and the real issue with the variants is the mistake in making vaccines with a very narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity. Selection pressures from the vaccine as well as from the natural immunity will cause mutations to continue to happen at a pace commensurate with the replicative ability of the virus. A broad natural immunity is more desirable as protection so long as there is minimal risk involved, as we believe is the case with children.
We are very concerned that the American Academy of Pediatrics has been pushing this childhood vaccination and “really advocating to try and make these trials happen with the same urgency that they happen for adults”. This is very troubling and we ask, do they read the science that is available and that has accumulated on the risk to children? Is the Academy of Pediatrics willing to take this safety risk with our children?
The article states that we are mistaken in thinking that children were immune from SARS-CoV-2. We never said this and we do not think anyone has meant this, for what we did state and still strongly believe is that the risk for children is very small, exceedingly rare in all aspects of this virus and illness (acquiring the infection, spreading it to other kids and to adults, and becoming seriously ill). “Children experience lower infection rates, accounting for less than 10 percent of cases in the United States”. If Dr. Fauci and the CDC think otherwise, again, we request such information to be made public. Stating that children spread the virus “to some extent” is grossly misleading. The CDC, Dr. Fauci, and the writer of this slanted inaccurate piece know that this should have been stated as ‘vanishingly small or exceedingly rare, if at all.’ These people know that evidence from Sweden with fully opened schools showed no significant evidence of spread and no deaths.
Key Drivers of SARS-CoV-2
In this regard, it is evident that neither children (nor asymptomatic adults) are the key drivers of SARS-CoV-2. In the rare cases where a child is infected with SARS-CoV-2, it is exceptionally rare for the child to get severely ill or die. And to reiterate, teachers are not at risk of transmission from children and schools are to be reopened immediately with no restrictions. Schools remain the safest place for children and teachers. They should have never remained closed and we knew this for 15 months now, and our children are being harmed by the unholy alliance between unions and government leaders in certain states. The New York Post recently reported of this relationship whereby the Teacher unions have a hand in the devising of CDC school re-open policy. “Emails show a call between Walensky and Weingarten — the former boss of New York City’s United Federation of Teachers — was arranged for Feb 7. The lobbying paid off. In at least two instances, language “suggestions” offered by the union were adopted nearly verbatim into the final text of the CDC document”. However, despite what the media and the CDC and unions are trying to tell the public, the pediatric literature suggests that this is now settled science as to low risk in children. This is not ‘new’ evidence, this has been settled for over one year now, and certainly since last fall 2020.
Dr. Sarah Lang stated para that the issue of children not being in school will be solved if they got immunized. We find this to be reprehensible for this is a blackmail of parents when the children are being denied schooling with no basis due to risk, but by both the Teacher’s unions and the respective state governments and the federal government. Exact words were “Our current chaos about children not being in schools is just terrible for children, and I think a lot of the concern would be assuaged if children were immunized”. We would ask Dr. Lang if she will like to state conclusively that the vaccines as currently devised are ‘safe’ and what is planned will be safe, knowing what is currently occurring in terms of the emerging adverse events and deaths due to the vaccine. Is she prepared to place our children at this unnecessary risk?
O’Leary also stated para that as young as 6-month-old infants can get vaccinated. He knows that the trials will not be powered to detect meaningful differences (a sample size of 3,000 will not allow for the statistical power) and that the duration will not allow for assessment of safety. What this expert has stated is very dangerous. “That’s enough to prove safety and benefit, experts said, in part, because the adult trials have already paved the way”. We find this statement to be incredibly flawed science and dangerous given there are now emerging adverse effects of the vaccines and also, Pfizer as an example, failed to include over 3,000 suspected but unconfirmed infections (with no explanation) and our own calculations showed that the efficacy for mild COVID would have dropped from 95% to 19% if this omitted data was included.
The article reported, “In the absence of a definitive immune correlate of protection, the trials would compare antibody levels in children with those found in adults and extrapolate that the efficacy should then be similar”. We argue that children are not adults and their biological response will differ and we must not extrapolate especially given the harms we see accumulating with these vaccines. Children are still in a growing phase when their brain, neural, vascular and other systems are developing and thus may be subject to developmental anomalies from these untested vaccines.
The article reported that “Pfizer’s and Moderna’s adolescent trials will focus on evaluating participants’ immune response by measuring antibodies”, and it is likely the trials with younger children will do the same. We ask the vaccine developers and Dr. Fauci, do they think this is an appropriate end-point? We do not, and feel that this does not tell us if the recipient will be protected from infection or from acquiring infection, or from getting seriously ill or dying from it. This in no way tells us if the recipient will be immune once vaccinated. This is what parents will want to know if they are going to make a risk management decision to give their child this vaccine. This again raises many questions as to how these trials will be run, what the end goal is, and why the vaccine is needed in our children in the first place.
The article reported, “In the absence of a definitive immune correlate of protection, the trials would compare antibody levels in children with those found in adults and extrapolate that the efficacy should then be similar”. We argue that children are not adults and their biological response will differ and we must not extrapolate especially given the harms we see accumulating with these vaccines.
It is unfortunate that we have arrived at this stage where untruths are elevated to a daily briefing.
And these daily briefings cause irrational fear, panic, and hysteria among the public. These briefings driven by the media cause unnecessary fear despite “a thousandfold difference in risk between old and young.” Such conflation of the risks between the young and the elderly population with comorbidities and at risk is wrong-headed and creates unnecessary fear for all. It is well known that there is a distinct stratified risk (strongly associated with increasing age and comorbidities).
Ending Statements
We end by again stating that the recent push by the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other television medical experts who suggest that we can only get to herd immunity by vaccinating our children is absurd and patently false. They continue to inaccurately discount cross protection immunity from prior coronaviruses and common colds. They are pushing a vaccine that is potentially unsafe to our children especially since we have no data on their safety.
Furthermore, data thus far suggest that the COVID ‘variants’ do not drive infection in children and harm them any more than the original strain. There is no basis for such a statement. For those who are trying to frighten parents by the illogical and absurd statements that a lethal strain may emerge among the variants, then we argue that you are using terms like ‘may’ and ‘could’ and ‘might.’ We can find no evidence to support such claims. It is simply rampant supposition and speculation and fear-mongering! Making such claims is not science, and decisions based on such claims are not evidence-based. We need to see the actual science and not just rampant speculation and supposition by often nonsensical media medical experts. We regard the retraction of the double-mask needs as a rampant abuse of the term “science-based.” Because it wasn’t as was the statement that Covid-19 is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu? A very prominent Professor out of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Marty Makary, gets it right now when he calls out these experts and agencies for their foolishness and fear mongering that is often inaccurate. He recently eviscerated CDC’s guidelines and called out Dr. Fauci for his inaccurate claims on herd immunity.
We advocate for the safety of all our children. Parents have a responsibility to ask for and get accurate information from the public sector that governs policy decisions. Parents, so armed, can make appropriate decisions for their children. It is better science to use a more ‘focused‘ protection and targeting that is based on age and known risk factors especially, regarding the children. We abide by the Hippocratic principle of “Primum Non Nocere.”
We conclude that our children must be exempt fully from any of the existing COVID-19 vaccines, and until proper studies are conducted with the proper safety data, and until it can be shown that the benefits far outweigh the risks in the need for the vaccine. There must be no vaccination of our children with these potentially unsafe, untested for safety vaccines. Period! No liability equals no trust and we close by again calling on the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, Dr. Fauci, and vaccine developers to remove the liability waiver. There is no benefit. None. In fact, we call on the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, Dr. Fauci, and vaccine developers to meet with us at any time, to their convenience, collectively or however, to discuss with us, debate with us, why our children should be vaccinated with these vaccines given their risk. We wish this open public discussion to your convenience.
Contact
Paul E. Alexander, PhD … email: elias98_99@yahoo.com
Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD … email: hctkbt822@gmail.com
i) Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University Canada, University of Oxford, and University of Toronto
ii) Howard Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
iii) Parvez Dara MD, FACP, MBA, Consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist
It is sad to see what used to be a serious, scientific body prostitute itself to global warming scaremongering:
New maps launched by the British Geological Survey (BGS) reveal how climate change is likely to drive an increase in subsidence-related issues for British homes and properties over the next 50 years.
Experts at the BGS, the UK’s geoscientific advisor which helps to advance our knowledge about changes in the environment, warns that the number of properties in Great Britain facing subsidence issues and damage to property from shrink-swell is on the rise, with figures of just 3 per cent in 1990 likely to reach 10 per cent by 2070. … Full article
Note that there is no evidence offered that any of this has actually gotten any worse in recent years. Instead, the report is all based around UKCP18, the Met Office’s modelled projections for what might happen if global temperatures rise significantly. We are of course familiar with previous Met Office projections, which have proved wide of the mark.
London has always been a hot spot for subsidence, as London Clay is one of the most shrinkable of soil types of all. However there is no evidence that the London region is getting wetter or drier. In particular, summers were frequently drier in the past than recently, which totally undermines the BGS’ conclusions.
Opinion polls show that very few people are seriously concerned about climate change, which is no doubt the reason why the BGS has decided to publish this farcical study.
IN THE previous instalments I explored the extraordinary hold Bill Gates has over global health policy and the spread of its influence right into the heart of British public health policy via the funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) of science businesses, foundations and public bodies through a complex web of interconnection and crossover of personnel.
This, however, is not the sum total of the GF’s reach into the world of British science and public health. It has been funding British university science departments, projects, and individuals for more than two decades. The topics involved include research into and manufacturing of vaccines.
No government-appointed science committee has influenced public health policy as much as Sage. Many of its members, who cross over with Independent Sage and Nervtag and are already somewhat compromised by connections to the GF-funded GlaxoSmithKline and Wellcome Foundation, are also employees of universities and colleges which have received massive GF grants and, in some cases, work in partnership with them. Three of Sage’s members, Professors Graham Medley, Andrew Rambaut and Matt Keeling, are individual recipients of grants from the GF.
Readers may remember the three modelling papers produced by Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM) which received considerable press attention at the end of March, and their dramatic simultaneous warnings of a ‘third’ Covid-19 wave and new lethal variants; cautioning (yet again) how this will put the NHS under stress. All recommended stricter lockdowns, Test and Trace and, tellingly, booster vaccines.
SPI-M-O had assigned each university a specific task: ICL’s was ‘Evaluating England’s Roadmap out of Lockdown’, Warwick’s to produce ‘Road Map Scenarios and Sensitivity’ and LSHTM’s to make an ‘Interim roadmap assessment: prior to Step 2’.
Promoting the ICL paper was none other than the multi-tasking Sage member Professor Neil Ferguson, co-founder and Principal Investigator of the Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (MRC GIDA) at Imperial College, a centre that works closely with the GF, the Global Fund and Gavi, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health at ICL, a Director and Adviser at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and a recipient of cloud computing time from Microsoft and Amazon for Covid-19 modelling.
Warwick’s paper emphasised the ‘danger’ of new variants to an even greater degree than the ICL paper. It warned that ‘stringent methods’ would be needed to counteract them and that the current vaccination programme might not adequately contain them.
The paper produced by the LSHTM group was the most pessimistic of all. It warned that a ‘third wave’ and new variants would bring a high death toll. It also stressed the need for Test and Trace which, together with that other Sage recommendation, vaccine passports, is the new formula for digital slavery and a surveillance state.
How Ferguson, whose modelling methodologies and predictions had been so comprehensively discredited, was getting away with this repeat performance seemed baffling, but for the fact that as a key member of the SPI-M-O subgroup he had been able to commission the new modelling research as well as that of supportive colleagues at Warwick University and the LSHTM.
Curiously, several SPI-M-O members turn out to be affiliated to one or another of these three universities too and are the very same academics who wrote these modelling papers. Given that they have commissioned themselves and sit on the subgroup, no independent assessment or scrutiny of their work has taken place. This is the epitome of jobs for the boys and girls.
Here are the SPI-M-O members connected to ICL:
Professors Neil Ferguson (Sage), Stephen Brett, Nicholas Grassly, Steven Riley, Wendy Barclay (Sage) and Drs Marc Baguelin, Samir Bhatt and Tim Lucas. Ferguson and Baguelin contributed to the ICL paper.
Here are the SPI-M-O members who work at Warwick University:
Professor Matt Keeling and Drs Louise Dyson, Edward Hill, Michael Tildesley and Joe Hilton. Keeling, Dyson, Tildesley and Hill are four out of five authors of the Warwick paper.
The following SPI-M-O members are connected to the LSHTM:
Professors John Edmunds (Sage), Mark Jit, Graham Medley (Sage), Drs Nick Davies, Rosalind Eggo, Sebastian Funk, Thibaut Jombart, Petra Klepac, Adam Kurcharski, Rohini Mathur, Sam Clifford, Elizabeth Fearon, Gwen Knight and Bill Quilty. Edmunds, Jit and Davies are three out of four of the authors of the LSHTM paper.
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, is a member of both Sage and SPI-M-O.
It will surprise few readers to learn that ICL, Warwick University and the LSHTM, are historically heavily funded by the GF.
The GF made its first grant to ICL of $31.9million in 2000. ICL received a further $46.7million from the GF in 2006 to research tropical diseases. The GF granted ICL a total of $446,205 in 2019 for research into enteric and diarrhoeal diseases, technology solutions, malaria, and ‘Discovery and Translational Sciences’. In 2020 it gave ICL a total of $91.5million for studies into polio, tuberculosis, global health, technology solutions, malaria, HIV, Discovery and Translational Sciences and family planning.
Last January, Sage member Professor Sir Mark Walport was appointed chair of the Imperial College Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) Strategic Partnership. His ICL colleagues Professor Robin Grimes and Dr David Halpern sit on Sage too. Professor Ferguson and two ICL colleagues, Professors Wendy Barclay and Peter Openshaw, are members of Nervtag as well.
Warwick University’s GF funding goes back to 2015. An initial grant of $20,000 from the GF rapidly increased to a current total of $8.3million. In 2017, the GF awarded Warwick University $3million to research disease modelling, and in 2020 $2.2million to study neglected tropical diseases.
Sage member Professor Yvonne Doyle works at the LSHTM as does Nervtag member Professor John Edmunds and Independent Sage member Professor Martin McKee. Professor Edmunds was recently a recipient of a grant worth £5million from UKRI, which collaborates with the GF, to study disease modelling in Africa.
The late Professor Val Curtis, a member of Independent Sage, also worked at the LSHTM.
Predictably, none of the recent modelling by this closed shop takes into account the economic damage, social disintegration or consequences of lockdown, or the neglect of non-Covid-19 diseases as a result of lockdown and social distancing policies. Yet all this is now extensively catalogued. The conflicts of interest and cross over with these government advisers and highly directed research in universities heavily funded by GF, which has one narrow vision global vaccination agenda, is alarming.
Even more alarming is that it is on this basis that an unaccountable and unelected body has effectively dictated Government policy and our lives this past year. Its controversially modelled predictions of worst-case scenarios, none of which to date have been borne out, have been useful for two things: terrifying the populace into submission and priming the government, and us, into further lockdowns next autumn and winter – and establish them as the ‘new normal’.
Whether the men and women named here are useful idiots for Gates, or self-servers without moral compass, such scientific narrow vision reflects very poorly on them and their institutions.
The tentacles of the GF are everywhere. In the final part of this series I will be looking at its funding of the Oxford Recovery trials, Cambridge Science Park, its interconnections with the AstraZeneca project, its funding of several other universities, and finally at its investment in Serco, one of the outsourcing companies behind the Test and Trace programme.
After rollout under emergency authorisation, manufacturers of covid-19 vaccines now have their sights on regulatory approval. But what’s the rush, asks Peter Doshi, and is just six months of data from now unblinded trials acceptable?
In April 2021, Pfizer and Moderna announced efficacy results at the six month mark from the phase III trials of their respective covid-19 vaccines.1 2
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the company’s data “confirm the favourable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine and position us to submit a Biologics License Application to the US FDA [Food and Drug Administration].”1 And on 7 May it formally initiated that application which, if successful, will earn the Pfizer-BioNTech product, BNT162b2, the distinction of becoming the first covid-19 vaccine approved by the FDA.
Because lest we forget, all covid-19 vaccines currently in use in the US are available under emergency access only.
(The situation is similar in Europe, where four covid-19 vaccines have been granted “conditional marketing authorisations,” a fast track mechanism that can be used in emergencies. These can be converted into standard “marketing authorisations” pending positive data after authorisation, but this has not yet happened for any covid-19 vaccine being administered.)
As hundreds of millions of people around the world get vaccinated, it may seem like wordsmithing to highlight the fact that none of the covid-19 vaccines in use are actually “approved.” Through an emergency access mechanism known as Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), the products being rolled out still technically remain “investigational.”3 Factsheets distributed to vaccinees are clear: “There is no FDA approved vaccine to prevent covid-19.”4
The approval-authorisation distinction is often misunderstood by the media,5 even in the scientific press. But it was the focus of much discussion back in September 2020. With large phase III trials by Pfizer and Moderna well under way, and the November US presidential election looming, many worried about political pressure resulting in the rollout of an unsafe or ineffective vaccine.6
The FDA had already come under fire, accused of bending to the White House in granting EUAs for two covid-19 treatments, hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma. But those fears largely dissipated when the FDA published a guidance document in early October outlining its expectations for the EUA. According to the document, at least half of a trial’s participants would need to be followed for at least two months.7 This alone made it all but certain no vaccine could cross the line before the election.
The FDA also said it would want a vaccine at least 50% effective (with a confidence interval reaching no lower than 30%) against a primary endpoint of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or covid-19 disease of any severity8—parameters it had previously defined as necessary for approval. Even for non-clinical parameters, like manufacturing quality, the FDA characterised its expectations for the EUA as “very similar” to those for approval.3
Six months: enough?
One key difference between EUA and approval (also called “licensure,” and which for vaccines is known as a BLA (Biologics License Application)) was the expected length of follow-up of trial participants. Unlike its clear articulation of two months for an EUA, the FDA has not committed to a clear minimum for approval.
Cody Meissner, a professor of paediatrics at Tufts University and member of the FDA’s advisory committee, was curious. “Is it possible to predict or estimate when conditions of safety and efficacy might be satisfied for BLA?” Meissner asked at the agency’s 10 December meeting which had been convened to consider the FDA’s first emergency authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Doran Fink responded: “I couldn’t predict, but I will say that we typically ask for at least six months of follow-up in a substantial number of clinical trial participants to constitute a safety database that would support licensure.”
An approval based on six months of data would represent one of the fastest for a novel vaccine in FDA history. Among the six “first in disease” vaccines approved by the FDA since 2006, pre-licensure pivotal trials were a median of 23 months in duration, according to a recent analysis.9
Six months also seems substantially shorter than previously conceptualised expectations. A World Health Organization expert group on covid-19 vaccines (which included FDA regulators) in August 2020 called for follow-up “until at least month 12, or until an effective vaccine is deployed locally.”10 Another group, composed of industry and academic authors, similarly wrote in October 2020: “we recommend longer term follow-up of all participants … for at least a year after randomisation.”11
On paper, the phase III studies by Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen are all of two years’ duration. But the FDA’s official position on minimum follow-up before licensure is unclear at best.
In its formal guidance last June, the agency said that for licensure applications, it wanted participants followed for covid-19 outcomes for “as long as feasible, ideally at least one to two years”12 after the first injection. But the same document states that safety assessments for “serious and other medically attended adverse events” should be studied “for at least six months after completion of all study vaccinations. Longer safety monitoring may be warranted for certain vaccine platforms.”
Asked to clarify whether its guidance is asking for follow-up of at least six months or one year, a spokesperson told The BMJ: “We do not have any further information beyond what is in the guidance document.”
Unblinded and without a control group—what about safety?
Duration of protection is not the only question that longer, placebo controlled trials can address. They also address vaccine safety.
“Very often, it’s the fact that we have that placebo controlled follow-up over time, that gives us the ability to say that the vaccine didn’t cause something at a longer period of time after vaccination,” the FDA’s Philip Krause explained last December.13
Yet there is a gap—currently of unknown size but growing—between any expectation of blinded placebo controlled data, and the reality that within weeks of the vaccines receiving an EUA the unblinding of trials commenced as placebo recipients were offered the chance to get vaccinated.
Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, told the FDA in an invited presentation last December, “Once a vaccine is made widely available and encouraged, maintaining a double blinded control group for more than a nominal period is no longer in the investigator’s (or regulator’s) control and undue pressure to do so may undermine the entire vaccine testing enterprise.”14
Goodman’s recommendation was to rapidly convert the trials into crossover studies, enabling those on placebo to get vaccinated (and vice versa), while maintaining the blind. The companies challenged the feasibility, calling it “onerous,” and a crossover never occurred.15
The BMJ asked Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) what proportion of trial participants were now formally unblinded, and how many originally allocated to placebo have now received a vaccine. Pfizer declined to say, but Moderna announced that “as of April 13, all placebo participants have been offered the Moderna covid-19 vaccine and 98% of those have received the vaccine.”2 In other words, the trial is unblinded, and the placebo group no longer exists.
Janssen told The BMJ: “We do not have specific figures on how many of our study participants have received a vaccine at this time.” But the company confirmed it was implementing an amended protocol across all countries to unblind all participants in its two phase III trials, the earlier of which passed the median of two month follow-up mark in January.
How the FDA will weigh the loss of blinding and placebo controlled follow-up is unclear, but just months ago the agency said these trial properties were vital.
“Continuation of placebo controlled follow-up after EUA will be important and may actually be critical to ensure that additional safety and effectiveness data are accrued to support submission of a licensure application as soon as possible following an EUA. … Once a decision is made to unblind an ongoing placebo controlled trial, that decision cannot be walked back. And that controlled follow-up is lost forever,” the FDA said last October.3
At its next advisory committee in December 2020, the FDA reiterated the importance of the placebo group: “Placebo controlled follow-up can be very important in showing that whatever happened in the vaccine group also happened in the placebo group. Because that’s our best way of knowing.”13
What’s the rush?
The US’s “Operation Warp Speed” delivered on its promise to get a novel vaccine into arms in record time (box). Millions of doses of vaccines are being administered daily across the US, making clear that lack of FDA approval is no barrier to access. So just what benefit is there in seeking, and granting, a BLA?
The BMJ asked the manufacturers why they were seeking a BLA. Moderna did not respond and Janssen only confirmed it intended to apply for a BLA “later in 2021.” Pfizer likewise did not answer but instead quoted an FDA webpage on medical devices, which stated: “Sponsors of EUA products are encouraged to follow up the EUA with a pre-market submission so that it can remain on the market once the EUA is no longer in effect.”16 But EUAs have no built-in expiry date—in fact, 14 EUAs for Zika diagnostic tests remain active despite the public health emergency expiring in 2017.17
Cody Meissner told The BMJ he saw some distinct advantages of a BLA over EUA. An approved vaccine, for one, would provide “an element of assurance,” increasing public trust in the vaccines, particularly for those currently sitting on the fence. It would also pave the way for claims of vaccine injury to be routed through a more established compensation programme, and for adding the vaccine to government funded schemes to reach children in financial need.18 Finally, it may affect the potential for vaccine mandates: “It is unlikely these vaccines will be mandated while an EUA is in place. Remember that currently these vaccines are still considered experimental.”
While still under EUA, an increasing number of educational and other institutions have already mandated vaccines, but debates over the legality of these actions has hinged on the distinction between authorisation and approval.19
But approving a vaccine in order to legally support mandates or convince people of its safety arguably puts the cart before the horse. Meissner responded that a BLA would not be issued until the FDA is convinced of the short and long term safety of these vaccines.
No new biodistribution studies for covid-19 vaccines
Officials have consistently emphasised that despite shaving years off traditional timelines for producing vaccines, no compromises in the process were taken.20 However one type of study, tracking the distribution of a vaccine once injected in the body, was not conducted using any of the three vaccines currently authorised in the US.
Such biodistribution studies are a standard element of drug safety testing but “are usually not required for vaccines,” according to European Medicines Agency policy,21 which adds, “However, such studies might be applicable when new delivery systems are employed or when the vaccine contains novel adjuvants or excipients.”
In the case of covid-19 vaccines, regulators accepted biodistribution data from past studies performed with related, mostly unapproved compounds that use the same platform technology.22232425
Janssen told The BMJ its covid-19 vaccine leverages the same technology as its Ebola vaccine, which received licensure last June. “Our confidence in our adenovirus vector Ad26 is based on our experience with this vector.”
Pfizer and Moderna did not respond to The BMJ’s questions regarding why no biodistribution studies were conducted on their novel mRNA products, and none of the companies, nor the FDA, would say whether new biodistribution studies will be required prior to licensure.
Footnotes
Competing interests PD gave a public statement at the October and December FDA advisory committee meetings mentioned in this article (transcripts here: https://faculty.rx.umaryland.edu/pdoshi/#publications), and may continue to engage in public input towards regulatory decision making around covid-19 vaccines. PD is also employed by a university that has mandated covid-19 vaccines for all faculty, staff, and students. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland.
US Food and Drug Administration. 161st Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/143982/download
US Food and Drug Administration. Development, authorization and licensure of vaccines to prevent COVID-19. October 6, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/142723/download
. An overview of vaccine development, approval, and regulation, with implications for covid-19. Health Aff (Millwood)2021;40:25–32.doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01620pmid:33211535
US Food and Drug Administration. 162nd Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144859/download
Goodman S. Considerations for placebo-controlled trial design if an unlicensed vaccine becomes available. Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144354/download
. Emergency use authorizations (EUAs) versus FDA approval: implications for covid-19 and public health. Am J Public Health2021;111:1065–9.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2021.306273pmid:33950730
THE problem with the Covid-19 vaccines is that we simply do not have enough information about their side-effects, and no one should be shamed (especially not by the President of the United States) or have their lives restricted for having this reasonable, wholly unselfish concern.
Such information does not exist at all for under-18s. The small-scale trials were designed only to test the vaccine on adults. Yet, largely because of media hysteria which has been recently accompanied by outright incitement, local officials have taken it upon themselves to start vaccinating 17-year-olds, citing the bogeyman ‘Indian variant’ in our midst.
The vaccine nudgers in government and the media, aided this week by a multi-million-pound YouTube ad campaign to persuade young people to get vaccinated, deliberately miss the point about the supposedly ‘extremely rare’ side-effects of these experimental vaccines, which include fatal blood clots in some cases.
The trouble is that if our ‘brilliant’ scientists knew nothing about the blood clots when the vaccine was first administered to citizens in December, what else don’t they know about?
Last week, the British regulator MHRA reported 41 new cases and nine more deaths as a result of one of these side-effects, a particular kind of clot known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis alongside low platelets or thrombocytopenia. To date, there have been 209 cases and 41 deaths reported in the UK for the AstraZeneca vaccine alone. The first were reported in January.
According to an analysis of published MHRA data by Dr Hamid Merchant, a total of 532 ‘blood system events’, including 20 deaths, came through the UK’s Yellow Card system relating to the AstraZeneca jab between January 4 and March 14. There were thousands of non-blood-related reports besides.
Let’s recap on the public guidance regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine. First we were told ‘this vaccine is safe, get vaccinated.’ Then they said, ‘the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks, get vaccinated.’ Then the goalposts were moved further: ‘The benefits of that vaccine outweigh the risks if you are over the age of 30, but get vaccinated.’ And now, ‘the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks if you are over 40, but get vaccinated, or else!’
If this is how much ‘the science’ has changed in a few months, what will ‘the science’ be a year or two from now? What will we know in the future that cannot be established now? Scientists have not begun to discuss other fatal adverse reactions to have emerged, most significantly the neurological ones for which the AstraZeneca trials were paused.
If countries such as Denmark and Slovakia can suspend the rollout of a vaccine as a precaution, why are individual citizens stupid or callous if they decline the vaccine as a precaution?
In the United States, the government has recorded more deaths after Covid vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the country between mid-1997 and the end of 2013, as was reported by Tucker Carlson on Fox News earlier this month. Nothing to see here, of course.
Any reasonable government would have at the very least stopped blackmailing people into getting vaccinated by now. Instead, they have the brass neck to demand that we put our lives in their hands as if we owe it to them. Coerced vaccination is not merely mandatory vaccination, it is mandatory trust, both in government and in ‘the science’, whatever that is.
It is worth reminding those with short memories that tobacco was ‘safe’ for decades. The scientific community promoted smoking not only as safe, but healthy. They were, of course, assisted by celebrities, some of whom would later become senior politicians. And for some 50 years, the overwhelming majority of people were dumb enough to believe it. Who could have guessed that inhaling tar into your lungs twenty times a day, every day, for years, might be bad for your health? We see grim warnings about heart disease, lung cancer and infertility on cigarette packaging today only because scientific outliers of yesterday eventually overwhelmed the consensus with evidence.
More recently and more relevant to the present fiasco, the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, was declared safe by regulators in 2009. It was safe, for most. But for some 1,000 people, most of whom were not at any significant risk from swine flu, the vaccine triggered narcolepsy, a crippling chronic sleep disorder that leaves sufferers unable to stay awake. It was only after it was too late for them that the authorities conceded there was a link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy.
One of the victims of Pandemrix, 23-year-old Katie Clack from Peterborough, committed suicide in 2014 because her narcolepsy left her with ‘no quality of life’.
In 2018, the progressive news website Buzzfeedpublished a powerful feature about NHS workers who had their lives and careers ruined by the side-effects of the swine flu vaccine. Nurse Meleney Gallagher, who now has narcolepsy, told Buzzfeed: ‘I was pressured into it.’
If history is anything to go by, the idiots out there who think it’s acceptable to bully their vaccine-hesitant friends, colleagues, strangers and even close family are going to look very silly ten years from now.
MIT did a study on Covid Skeptics and guess what? They found out we’re better at science, data analytics and communication than they are! Unfortunately this means we have to be stopped. I read from the study and give my commentary.
The risk of long Covid – the persistence of Covid symptoms like fatigue and headaches for three months or more – has been used to justify health interventions including with younger people who are not at elevated risk from acute infection. For instance, Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggested in April that young people should get vaccinated to avoid long Covid, saying Covid was a “horrible disease” and long Covid affected people in their 20s “just as much” as any other age group, sometimes with “debilitating side effects that essentially ruin your life”.
New research, however, casts doubt on whether symptoms attributed to long Covid are really associated with COVID-19 at all, at least in adolescents.
The study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, is the first (as far as the authors are aware) to compare the incidence of long Covid symptoms in those who have and have not had the virus, defined in terms of having detectable antibodies. It involved 1,560 secondary school pupils aged 13 to 18 in Eastern Saxony (median age 15) enrolled in the SchoolCovid19 study since May 2020. All have been tested for antibodies throughout the study and in March and April 2021 completed a 12 question long-Covid survey regarding “the occurrence and frequency of difficulties concentrating, memory loss, listlessness, headache, abdominal pain, myalgia/arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia and mood (sadness, anger, happiness and tenseness)”.
The findings are remarkable. Of 1,560 pupils, 1,365 (88%) were seronegative (no IgG antibodies detected) and 188 (12%) were seropositive. Each of the long Covid symptoms was present in at least 35% of the pupils within the seven days before the survey. Crucially, however, there was no statistically significant difference in reported symptoms between seropositive and seronegative pupils (see chart above).
These findings suggest that, in adolescents at least, the prevalence of long Covid is considerably exaggerated, and that the presumed symptoms of long Covid are common to those who have and have not had the virus. One possibility is that this is a background rate for teenagers. However, the authors are struck by the high incidence of the symptoms and suggest they may be linked to the lockdown conditions, saying they confirm “the negative effects of lockdown measures on mental health and well-being of children and adolescents”.
Because the study was only among adolescents it did not include any who had suffered severe illness or been hospitalised, which is where some earlier research on long Covid has focused.
For adolescents it suggests that the threat from long Covid has been greatly overdone, and that the apparent symptoms of the condition are much more likely to be caused by lockdowns than by a viral infection.
I’ve written about this before, and I’m sure I’ll write about it again.
We’re told that the RNA COVID vaccines force the cells of the body to produce a foreign “spike” protein.
There is a little thing you may have heard of called EVIDENCE.
In other words, show me a well-done study, using a few thousand people who have been vaccinated, which proves that all these people’s cells ARE producing that foreign protein and ONLY that foreign protein.
There isn’t such a study.
But if there were—
“Look, a few hundred people didn’t produce the spike protein at all. Wonder what they DID produce.”
“I see a hundred people out of two thousand who produced a huge excess of the spike protein. Wonder what effect THAT is having.”
“I see two hundred people who produced the spike protein plus a bunch of other foreign proteins. A few of those foreign compounds I’ve never seen before. That’s not good at all.”
In fact, show me a large-scale study in which an injection is designed to force the human body to produce ANY specific protein. Let’s see the results.
Can’t find that study, either?
Believing what genetic researchers tell you is like believing what a grifter tells you about how to win at roulette.
For example, are you aware that, after decades of genetic research and tens of thousands of studies linking genes to diseases, there isn’t a single gene-treatment that can cure a disease across the board?
What there is, is a great deal of money that hustlers have raised for bio-tech firms. And there are many sky-blue promises.
And oh yes, there are many examples of errors, in which experimental gene insertions yield unexpected results. Unintended and dangerous results. Unpredicted alterations in genomes.
So the huge numbers of reported injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccines are surely the result of more than just the production of the spike protein.
Why is nobody talking about this?
Because people assume the problem must be the spike protein and only that protein.
The people of planet Earth are part of a guinea-pig vaccine experiment that is much wider than that. We are being subjected to an open-ended genetic spin of the roulette wheel.
And there are no safeguards and no comprehensive follow-ups.
For this reason alone, the entire effort to develop the RNA injections should have been banned from the beginning—until researchers demonstrated convincingly that the risks would be minimal. Of course, they couldn’t make that guarantee.
But the fatuously named Warp Speed program rocketed ahead. Based on pretentious and speculative “science.”
People tend to think—because they watch sci-fi movies—that scientific evil doers are firing a perfectly destructive single arrow at the heart of humanity. But evil-doers are quite capable of launching a thunderstorm of multiple pyrotechnics beyond their control.
As I pointed out in prior articles on this subject, the analogous area of GMO plant genetics is replete with uncontrolled effects—including gene drift, in which injected Monsanto genes move from plants into soil bacteria and human gut bacteria.
Genetic ripple-effects throughout an organism can force the unnatural production of a number of different proteins while modifying others.
This is NOT good; and some of the ways in which it is not good are unknown.
Based on the current level of knowledge in the field of gene-research, the entire program of manufacturing and injecting RNA into the body is an insane criminal enterprise.
As time passes, I expect investigators to discover new ways in which these RNA shots are harming people. And some of those investigators will say, “THIS turns out to be what the vaccine is doing. THIS one thing.” And they’ll be wrong.
It’s five, ten, 20 different things. Caused by ripple effects throughout the genome.
In this episode, Dr. Pierre Kory, Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC Alliance, discusses the ways that public health organizations are manipulating scientific data on early COVID-19 therapeutics in order to sow uncertainty; and why they are doing it.
Donate to the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance to educate medical professionals and the public in safe and effective ways to prevent and treat COVID-19.
Your donations will help support the FLCCC Alliance with the rising costs of public relations, research, medical education, translation, and advocacy.
A few months ago I wrote about the government’s Covid-related advertising expenditure. In late spring 2020, all Covid-19 media campaigns were centralised into the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove’s sprawling 8,000-plus strong department. By the end of the year, HM Government had become the country’s largest spender for media advertising. My estimate was a total government outlay on advertising for Covid-related purposes in 2020 of approximately £240million.
For media outlets facing a collapse in advertising revenue because of the closure of the economy, the government spending was a lifeline. Whether the Fourth Estate could objectively report on the government’s handling of the virus whilst simultaneously receiving copious funding from that same government was highly debatable.
Since my article in February, more data has come to light. The Cabinet Office has continued spending heavily on Covid media campaigns, mainly through its media buying partner Manning Gottlieb, laying out just over £87million in the first three months of 2021. This brings its Covid advertising spend to more than £280million between April 2020 and March 2021.
Since the beginning of the coronavirus scare, the Cabinet Office’s outlay on Covid media campaigns has increased steadily, with Q1 21’s figure (£87million) being more than double the amount spent in Q2 20 (£42.6million), and up significantly on both Q3 20 (£71.3million) and Q4 20 (£79.7million). (As noted, it was in Q2 20 that the Cabinet Office began centralising Covid-related media programmes.)
Approximately 88 per cent of the Cabinet Office’s advertising spend is done through Manning Gottlieb, with whom the government has had a close working relationship since awarding the company a £800million media buying services contract in October 2018.
At that time Alex Aiken, Executive Director for Government Communications, stated that the government’s communications team sees such media endeavours as an important way to counter ‘disinformation’ and ‘fake news’. As anyone with a decent grasp of history will know, it is of course governments who are the regular purveyors of truth and honesty: the Soviet Union’s Pravda (translating as ‘truth’) being a helpful example of such services rendered to the public by the benevolent state.
However, this is only part of the story. After this large contract, Manning Gottlieb were awarded a further three contracts specifically with the Cabinet Office.
The first of these was in November 2018 at a value of £183million: the primary focus of this appears to have been for media campaigns during the transition period following Britain’s exit from the European Union. Nevertheless, with an end date of 31 May 2022, a proportion of these resources were funnelled into Covid-19 media campaigns.
Subsequently, a £119million contract was signed (effective March 2020) purely for the provision of media buying services for Covid-19 related campaigns. This contract was later extended – until either March or August 2021 (the government’s website is unclear) – by a further £229million, bringing this contract to a total value of £348million.
A third contract, effective 1 April 2021, was signed for the same purpose, Covid-19 media campaigns. This contract is extendable until 21 May 2022 and has a maximum value of £320million. Whether it will be expanded in a similar fashion to the previous contract signed with Manning Gottlieb remains to be seen.
Taken together, the three contracts have a value of £851million. As noted, some of this figure was spent before the pandemic on information campaigns surrounding Brexit. Nevertheless, over the last two quarters Covid advertising spending has outweighed Brexit by a factor of about 4:1. To this sum should be added spending from bodies such as Public Health England before the Cabinet Office’s centralisation efforts, which appears to be in the region of £15million, a figure smaller than I previously estimated.
That said, if the most recent contract with Manning Gottlieb was extended in the same way as the previous one (by an additional £229million), there is no reason why the Cabinet Office’s Covid advertising spend could not hit a total of £1billion over the next year to year-and-a-half.
With a pandemic that appears all but finished – oh, but for an entirely unpredictable ‘Indian variant’ – one wonders what the government will do with hundreds of millions of pounds of advertising through to late May next year. One can only presume that it will be used to browbeat the public into accepting a vaccine for which the majority have no need, or for the increasingly probable reimposition of further lockdowns.
The first of these prompts the question: if you are spending hundreds of millions to persuade people to get a vaccine, perhaps it is not all that necessary in the first place. Were the vaccine of an ordinary type and of indisputable value, I dare say no media campaign at all would be necessary: there is little more than their own health that people care about.
That contracts are projected to last at least another year is indeed worrying. Along with councils advertising positions for ‘Covid marshals’ until 2023, one wonders if the government already has plans for further infringements on our liberties, the timeframe for which has been built into contracts such as those as agreed with Manning Gottlieb. Given the backtracking, twisting and turning that has been displayed to date, it would not appear unlikely.
With a remit to purchase advertising across all media types, companies such as Manning Gottlieb are central to the dissemination of information in the public sphere. It remains an open question whether, while receiving central funds important to their survival, the media will be able or willing to scrutinise government policy, both in the realms of further lockdowns and of the constant bombardment of vaccine propaganda.
The track record so far shows that the vast majority of the media is both unable and unwilling to ask difficult questions surrounding the government’s handling of the pandemic. With hundreds of millions of pounds sloshing around over the next few years, don’t expect that to change any time soon.
Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power — a world government, run by them — to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums.
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification, and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors. ... continue
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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 