COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety
Doctors for Covid Ethics | OffGuardian | May 5, 2021
This paper was originally hosted on the Doctors for Covid Ethics Medium account, but the platform censored the expert group and removed the paper, claiming the post was “under investigation”:
An archived version is still available here.
*
Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.
In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.
- Necessity: Immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
- Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
- Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.
The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
1. THE VACCINES ARE UNNECESSARY
1. Multiple lines of research indicate that immunocompetent people display “robust” and lasting cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV viruses [1], including SARS-CoV-2 and its variants [2]. T cell protection stems not only from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself, but from cross-reactive immunity following previous exposure to common cold and SARS coronaviruses [1,3-10]. Such immunity was detectable after infections up to 17 years prior [1,3]. Therefore, immunocompetent people do not need vaccination against SARS-Cov-2.
2. Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognises multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein. Thus, immunocompetent people are better protected against SARS-CoV-2 and any variants that may arise by their own immunity than by the current crop of vaccines.
3.The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection [11], and by extension “asymptomatic transmission.” However, “asymptomatic transmission” is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates[12-15]. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers. A comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others[16].
In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control[17,18] to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies; they present assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. Preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting vaccination of the general population.
4. In most countries, most people now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2[19]. Depending on their degree of previously acquired cross-immunity, they will have had no symptoms, mild and uncharacteristic symptoms, or more severe symptoms, possibly including anosmia (loss of sense of smell) or other somewhat characteristic signs of the COVID-19 disease. Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.
5. Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally[20-22]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. COVID-19 is also typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.
6. In those susceptible to severe infection, Covid-19 is a treatable illness. A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively[23-27]. These drugs include many tried and true anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D.
Industry and government decisions to sideline such proven treatments through selective research support[24], regulatory bias, and even outright sanctions against doctors daring to use such treatments on their own initiative, have been out of step with existing laws, standard medical practice, and research; the legal requirement to consider real world evidence has fallen by the wayside[28].
The systematic denial and denigration of these effective therapies has underpinned the spurious justification for the emergency use authorisation of the vaccines, which requires that “no standard acceptable treatment is available”[29]. Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.
2. THE VACCINES LACK EFFICACY
1. At a mechanistic level, the concept of immunity to COVID-19 via antibody induction, as per COVID-19 vaccination, is medical nonsense. Airborne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 enter the body via the airways and lungs, where antibody concentrations are too low to prevent infection. Vaccine-induced antibodies primarily circulate in the bloodstream, while concentrations on the mucous membranes of lungs and airways is low.
Given that COVID-19 primarily spreads and causes disease by infecting these mucous membranes, vaccines miss the immunological mark. The documents submitted by the vaccine manufacturers to the various regulatory bodies contain no evidence that vaccination prevents airway infection, which would be crucial for breaking the chain of transmission. Thus, vaccines are immunologically inappropriate for COVID-19.
2. Medium to long-term vaccine efficacy is unknown. Phase 3, medium-term, 24-month trials will not be complete until 2023: There is no medium-term or long term longitudinal data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
3. Short term data has not established prevention of severe disease. The European Medicines Agency has noted of the Comirnaty (Pfizer mRNA) vaccine that severe COVID-19 cases “were rare in the study, and statistically certain conclusion cannot be drawn” from it[30]. Similarly, the Pfizer document submitted to the FDA[31] concludes that efficacy against mortality could not be demonstrated. Thus, the vaccines have not been shown to prevent death or severe disease even in the short term.
4. The correlates of protection against COVID-19 are unknown. Researchers have not yet established how to measure protection against COVID-19. As a result, efficacy studies are stabbing around in the dark. After completion of Phase 1 and 2 studies, for instance, a paper in the journal Vaccine noted that “without understanding the correlates of protection, it is impossible to currently address questions regarding vaccine-associated protection, risk of COVID-19 reinfection, herd immunity, and the possibility of elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the human population”[32]. Thus, Vaccine efficacy cannot be evaluated because we have not yet established how to measure it.
3. THE VACCINES ARE DANGEROUS
1. Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe.
2. Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are “rare”, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and haematoma-like “rashes” over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities. Moreover, vaccine-induced diffuse micro-thromboses in the lungs can mimic pneumonia and may be misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the “tip of a huge iceberg”[34]: The vaccines are not safe.
3. Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years[35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk. Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates[36-38].
Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes[39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients[41].
Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19 — the vaccines are not safe.
4. The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361[43] and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorisation[29]. With respect to safety data from Phase 1 and 2 trials, in spite of initially large sample sizes the journal Vaccine reports that, “the vaccination strategy chosen for further development may have only been given to as few as 12 participants”[32].
With such extremely small sample sizes, the journal notes that, “larger Phase 3 studies conducted over longer periods of time will be necessary” to establish safety. The risks that remain to be evaluated in Phase 3 trials into 2023, with entire populations as subjects, include not only thrombosis and bleeding abnormalities, but other autoimmune responses, allergic reactions, unknown tropisms (tissue destinations) of lipid nanoparticles[35], antibody-dependent enhancement [43-46] and the impact of rushed, questionably executed, poorly regulated[47] and reportedly inconsistent manufacturing methods, conferring risks of potentially harmful impurities such as uncontrolled DNA residues[48]. The vaccines are not safe, either for recipients or for those who administer them or authorise their use.
5. Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector. These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.
In contrast, in the mRNA vaccines, there is no protein antigen for the antibodies to recognize. Thus, regardless of the existing degree of immunity, the vaccine mRNA is going to reach its target — the body cells. These will then express the spike protein and subsequently suffer the full onslaught of the immune system.
With the mRNA vaccines, the risk of severe adverse events is virtually guaranteed to increase with every successive injection. In the long term, they are therefore even more dangerous than the vector vaccines. Their apparent preferment over the latter is concerning in the highest degree; these vaccines are not safe.
4. ETHICS AND LEGAL POINTS TO CONSIDER
Conflicts of interest abound in the scientific literature and within organisations that recommend and promote vaccines, while demonising alternate strategies (reliance on natural immunity and early treatment). Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to protect themselves by evaluating the sources of their information for conflicts of interest extremely closely.
Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to be similarly careful not to ignore the credible and independent literature on vaccine necessity, safety and efficacy, given the foreseeable mass deaths and harms that must be expected unless the vaccination campaign is stopped.
Vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from legal liability for adverse events for a reason. When vaccine deaths and harms occur, liability will fall to those responsible for the vaccines’ authorisation, administration and/or coercion via vaccine passports, none of which can be justified on a sober, evidence-based risk-benefit analysis.
All political, regulatory and medical actors involved in COVID-19 vaccination should familiarise themselves with the Nuremberg code and other legal provisions in order to protect themselves.
References:
[1] Le Bert, N.; Tan, A.T.; Kunasegaran, K.; Tham, C.Y.L.; Hafezi, M.; Chia, A.; Chng, M.H.Y.; Lin, M.; Tan, N.; Linster, M.; Chia, W.N.; Chen, M.I.; Wang, L.; Ooi, E.E.; Kalimuddin, S.; Tambyah, P.A.; Low, J.G.; Tan, Y. and Bertoletti, A. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457–462. [back]
[2] Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Methot, N.; Zhang, Y.; Dan, J.M.; Goodwin, B.; Rubiro, P.; Sutherland, A.; da Silva Antunes, R.; Frazier, A. and al., e. (2021) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. bioRxiv -:x-x.[back]
[3] Anonymous, (2020) Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients. [back]
[4] Beasley, D. (2020) Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies. Reuters, 10/07/2020. [back]
[5] Bozkus, C.C. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells without antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20:463. [back]
[6] Grifoni, A.; Weiskopf, D.; Ramirez, S.I.; Mateus, J.; Dan, J.M.; Moderbacher, C.R.; Rawlings, S.A.; Sutherland, A.; Premkumar, L.; Jadi, R.S. and al., e. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489–1501.e15. [back]
[7] Mateus, J.; Grifoni, A.; Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Ramirez, S.I.; Dan, J.M.; Burger, Z.C.; Rawlings, S.A.; Smith, D.M.; Phillips, E. and al., e. (2020) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. [back]Science 370:89–94. [back]
[8] McCurry-Schmidt, M. (2020) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2. La Jolla Institute for Immunology. [back]
[9] Palmer, S.; Cunniffe, N. and Donnelly, R. (2021) COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise exponentially with age, inversely proportional to thymic T-cell production. J. R. Soc. Interface 18:20200982. [back]
[10] Sekine, T.; Perez-Potti, A.; Rivera-Ballesteros, O.; Strålin, K.; Gorin, J.; Olsson, A.; Llewellyn-Lacey, S.; Kamal, H.; Bogdanovic, G.; Muschiol, S. and al., e. (2020) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19. Cell 183:158–168.e14. [back]
[11] Drake, J. (2021) Now We Know: Covid-19 Vaccines Prevent Asymptomatic Infection, Too.[back]
[12] Bossuyt, P.M. (2020) Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges. Journal of clinical epidemiology 126:172–176. [back]
[13] Jefferson, T.; Spencer, E.; Brassey, J. and Heneghan, C. (2020) Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa1764:x-x. [back]
[14] Borger, P.; Malhotra, R.K.; Yeadon, M.; Craig, C.; McKernan, K.; Steger, K.; McSheehy, P.; Angelova, L.; Franchi, F.; Binder, T.; Ullrich, H.; Ohashi, M.; Scoglio, S.; Doesburg-van Kleffens, M.; Gilbert, D.; Klement, R.J.; Schrüfer, R.; Pieksma, B.W.; Bonte, J.; Dalle Carbonare, B.H.; Corbett, K.P. and Kämmer, U. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false-positive results. [back]
[15] Mandavilli, A. (2020) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.[back]
[16] Cao, S.; Gan, Y.; Wang, C.; Bachmann, M.; Wei, S.; Gong, J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, T.; Li, L.; Lu, K.; Jiang, H.; Gong, Y.; Xu, H.; Shen, X.; Tian, Q.; Lv, C.; Song, F.; Yin, X. and Lu, Z. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917.[back]
[17] Moghadas, S.M.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Sah, P.; Pandey, A.; Shoukat, A.; Singer, B.H. and Galvani, A.P. (2020) The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117:17513–17515.[back]
[18] Johansson, M.A.; Quandelacy, T.M.; Kada, S.; Prasad, P.V.; Steele, M.; Brooks, J.T.; Slayton, R.B.; Biggerstaff, M. and Butler, J.C. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA network open 4:e2035057.[back]
[19] Yeadon, M. (2020). What SAGE got wrong. Lockdown Skeptics.[back]
[20] Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50:x-x. [back]
[21] Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. -:x-x. [back]
[22] CDC, (2020) Science Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2. [back]
[23] Orient, J.; McCullough, P. and Vliet, E. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment. [back]
[24] McCullough, P.A.; Alexander, P.E.; Armstrong, R.; Arvinte, C.; Bain, A.F.; Bartlett, R.P.; Berkowitz, R.L.; Berry, A.C.; Borody, T.J.; Brewer, J.H.; Brufsky, A.M.; Clarke, T.; Derwand, R.; Eck, A.; Eck, J.; Eisner, R.A.; Fareed, G.C.; Farella, A.; Fonseca, S.N.S.; Geyer, C.E.; Gonnering, R.S.; Graves, K.E.; Gross, K.B.V.; Hazan, S.; Held, K.S.; Hight, H.T.; Immanuel, S.; Jacobs, M.M.; Ladapo, J.A.; Lee, L.H.; Littell, J.; Lozano, I.; Mangat, H.S.; Marble, B.; McKinnon, J.E.; Merritt, L.D.; Orient, J.M.; Oskoui, R.; Pompan, D.C.; Procter, B.C.; Prodromos, C.; Rajter, J.C.; Rajter, J.; Ram, C.V.S.; Rios, S.S.; Risch, H.A.; Robb, M.J.A.; Rutherford, M.; Scholz, M.; Singleton, M.M.; Tumlin, J.A.; Tyson, B.M.; Urso, R.G.; Victory, K.; Vliet, E.L.; Wax, C.M.; Wolkoff, A.G.; Wooll, V. and Zelenko, V. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517–530. [back][back]
[25] Procter, {.B.C.; {APRN}, {.C.R.{.; {PA}-C, {.V.P.; {PA}-C, {.E.S.; {PA}-C, {.C.H. and McCullough, {.{.P.A. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219–221. [back]
[26] McCullough, P.A.; Kelly, R.J.; Ruocco, G.; Lerma, E.; Tumlin, J.; Wheelan, K.R.; Katz, N.; Lepor, N.E.; Vijay, K.; Carter, H.; Singh, B.; McCullough, S.P.; Bhambi, B.K.; Palazzuoli, A.; De Ferrari, G.M.; Milligan, G.P.; Safder, T.; Tecson, K.M.; Wang, D.D.; McKinnon, J.E.; O’Neill, W.W.; Zervos, M. and Risch, H.A. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16–22. [back]
[27] Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies. [back]
[28] Hirschhorn, J.S. (2021) COVID scandal: Feds ignored 2016 law requiring use of real world evidence.[back]
[29] Anonymous, (1998) Emergency Use of an Investigational Drug or Biologic: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators. [back] [back]
[30] Anonymous, (2021) EMA assessment report: Comirnaty. [back]
[31] Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. [back]
[32] Giurgea, L.T. and Memoli, M.J. (2020) Navigating the Quagmire: Comparison and Interpretation of COVID-19 Vaccine Phase 1/2 Clinical Trials. Vaccines 8:746. [back][back]
[33] Bhakdi, S.; Chiesa, M.; Frost, S.; Griesz-Brisson, M.; Haditsch, M.; Hockertz, S.; Johnson, L.; Kämmerer, U.; Palmer, M.; Reiss, K.; Sönnichsen, A.; Wodarg, W. and Yeadon, M. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns. [back]
[34] Bhakdi, S. (2021) Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021. [back]
[35] Ulm, J.W. (2020) Rapid response to: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. [back][back]
[36] Reimann, N. (2021) Covid Spiking In Over A Dozen States — Most With High Vaccination Rates.[back]
[37] Meredith, S. (2021) Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Covid is surging there anyway.[back]
[38] Bhuyan, A. (2021) Covid-19: India sees new spike in cases despite vaccine rollout. BMJ 372:n854. [back]
[39] Morrissey, K. (2021) Open letter to Dr. Karina Butler. [back]
[40] Anonymous, (2021) Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance: Urgent warning re Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in the elderly and Care Homes. [back]
[41] Furer, V.; Zisman, D.; Kibari, A.; Rimar, D.; Paran, Y. and Elkayam, O. (2021) Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology -:x-x. [back]
[42] Anonymous, (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations. [back]
[43] Tseng, C.; Sbrana, E.; Iwata-Yoshikawa, N.; Newman, P.C.; Garron, T.; Atmar, R.L.; Peters, C.J. and Couch, R.B. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421. [back]
[44] Bolles, M.; Deming, D.; Long, K.; Agnihothram, S.; Whitmore, A.; Ferris, M.; Funkhouser, W.; Gralinski, L.; Totura, A.; Heise, M. and Baric, R.S. (2011) A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J. Virol. 85:12201–15. [back]
[45] Weingartl, H.; Czub, M.; Czub, S.; Neufeld, J.; Marszal, P.; Gren, J.; Smith, G.; Jones, S.; Proulx, R.; Deschambault, Y.; Grudeski, E.; Andonov, A.; He, R.; Li, Y.; Copps, J.; Grolla, A.; Dick, D.; Berry, J.; Ganske, S.; Manning, L. and Cao, J. (2004) Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 78:12672–6. [back]
[46]Czub, M.; Weingartl, H.; Czub, S.; He, R. and Cao, J. (2005) Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets. Vaccine 23:2273–9 [back]
[47]Tinari, S. (2021) The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ 372:n627 [back]
[48] Anonymous, (2021) Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger, Hearing #37 of German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee 30 January, 2021. [back]
Why I’m Removing All Articles Related to Vitamins D, C, Zinc and COVID-19
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | May 4, 2021
Over the past year, I’ve been researching and writing as much as I can to help you take control of your health, as fearmongering media and corrupt politicians have destroyed lives and livelihoods to establish global control of the world’s population, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their justification.
I’ve also kept you informed about billionaire-backed front groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a partner of Bill Gates’ Alliance for Science, both of whom have led campaigns aimed at destroying my reputation and censoring the information I share.
Other attackers include HealthGuard, which ranks health sites based on a certain set of “credibility criteria.” It has sought to discredit my website by ensuring warnings appear whenever you search for my articles or enter my website in an internet browser.
Well-Organized Attack Partnerships Have Formed
HealthGuard, a niche service of NewsGuard, is funded by the pharma-funded public relations company Publicis Groupe. Publicis, in turn, is a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “Great Reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.
HealthGuard is also partnered with Gates’ Microsoft company, and drug advertising websites like WebMD and Medscape, as well as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — the progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as a national security threat.
The CCDH has published a hit list naming me as one of the top 12 individuals responsible for 65% of vaccine “disinformation” on social media, and who therefore must be deplatformed and silenced for the public good. In a March 24, 2021, letter1 to the CEO’s of Twitter and Facebook, 12 state attorneys general called for the removal of our accounts from these platforms, based on the CCDH’s report.
Two of those state attorneys general also published an April 8, 2021, op-ed2 in The Washington Post, calling on Facebook and Twitter to ban the “anti-vaxxers” identified by the CCDH. The lack of acceptance of novel gene therapy technology, they claim, is all because a small group of individuals with a social media presence — myself included — are successfully misleading the public with lies about nonexistent vaccine risks.
“The solution is not complicated. It’s time for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to turn off this toxic tap and completely remove the small handful of individuals spreading this fraudulent misinformation,” they wrote.3
Pharma-funded politicians and pharma-captured health agencies have also relentlessly attacked me and pressured tech monopolies to censor and deplatform me, removing my ability to express my opinions and speak freely over the past year.
The CCDH also somehow has been allowed to publish4 in the journal Nature Medicine, calling for the “dismantling” of the “anti-vaccine” industry. In the article, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed repeats the lie that he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when, in fact, what he’s referring to was a public online conference open to an international audience, all of whom had access to the recordings as part of their attendance fee.
The CCDH is also partnered with another obscure group called Anti-Vax Watch. The picture below is from an Anti-Vax Watch demonstration outside the halls of Congress. Ironically, while the CCDH claims to be anti-extremism, you’d be hard-pressed to find a clearer example of actual extremism than this bizarre duo.5
Gates-Funded Doctor Demands Terrorist Experts to Attack Me
Most recently, Dr. Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute,6 which has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,7,8,9 — with funds from the foundation most recently being used to create a report called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy,”10,11 — also cited the CCDH in a Nature article in which he calls for cyberwarfare experts to be enlisted in the war against vaccine safety advocates and people who are “vaccine hesitant.” He writes:12
“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on social-media companies. The United Nations and the highest levels of government must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.
Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures.
The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.”
Why is Hotez calling for the use of warfare tactics on American citizens that have done nothing illegal? In my case, could it be because I’ve written about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus, created through gain-of-function research, and that its release was anticipated by global elites, as evidenced in Event 201?
It may be. At least those are some of my alleged “sins,” detailed on page 10 of the CCDH report, “Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel.”13 Coincidentally enough, the Nature journal has helped cover up gain-of-function research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, publishing a shoddy zoonotic origins study relied upon by mainstream media and others, which was riddled with problems.14,15
So, it’s not misinformation they are afraid of. They’re afraid of the truth getting out. They’re all trying to cover for the Chinese military and the dangerous mad scientists conducting gain-of-function work.
You may have noticed our website was recently unavailable; this was due to direct cyber-attacks launched against us. We have several layers of protective mechanisms to secure the website as we’ve anticipated such attacks from malevolent organizations.
What This Means for You
Through these progressively increasing stringent measures, I have refused to succumb to these governmental and pharmaceutical thugs and their relentless attacks. I have been confident and willing to defend myself in the court of law, as I’ve had everything reviewed by some of the best attorneys in the country.
Unfortunately, threats have now become very personal and have intensified to the point I can no longer preserve much of the information and research I’ve provided to you thus far. These threats are not legal in nature, and I have limited ability to defend myself against them. If you can imagine what billionaires and their front groups are capable of, I can assure you they have been creative in deploying their assets to have this content removed.
Sadly, I must also remove my peer reviewed published study16 on the “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity.” It will, however, remain in the highly-respected journal Nutrients’ website, where you can still access it for free.
The MATH+ hospital treatment protocol for COVID-19 and the iMASK+ prevention and early outpatient COVID-19 protocol — both of which are based on the use of vitamins C, D, quercetin, zinc and melatonin — are available on the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s website. I suggest you bookmark these resources for future reference.
It is with a heavy heart that I purge my website of valuable information. As noted by Dr. Peter McCullough during a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, data shows early treatment could have prevented up to 85% (425,000) of COVID-19 deaths.17 Yet early treatments were all heavily censored and suppressed.
McCullough, in addition to being a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center, also has the distinction of having published the most papers of any person in the history of his field, and being an editor of two major medical journals. Despite that, his video, in which he went through a paper he’d published detailing effective early treatments, was summarily banned by YouTube in 2020.
“No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!” McCullough told the senate panel.18 Indeed, people are in dire need of more information detailing how they can protect their health, not less. But there’s only so much I can do to protect myself against current attack strategies.
They’ve moved past censorship. Just what do you call people who advocate counteroffensive attacks by terrorism and cyberwarfare experts? You’d think we could have a debate and be protected under free speech but, no, we’re not allowed. These lunatics are dangerously unhinged.
The U.S. federal government is going along with the global Great Reset plan (promoted as “building back better”), but this plan won’t build anything but a technological prison. What we need is a massive campaign to preserve civil rights, and vote out the pawns who are destroying our freedom while concentrating wealth and power.
Sources and References
- 1 AG Letter to Tech CEOs March 24, 2021 (PDF)
- 2, 3 Washington Post April 8, 2021
- 4 Nature March 15, 2021
- 5 Twitter Mercola March 25, 2021
- 6 WHO Peter Hotez
- 7 PND July 1, 2011
- 8 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- 9 Sabin Vaccine Institute February 11, 2019
- 10 Sabin Vaccine Institute June 2, 2020
- 11 Sabin Vaccine Institute May 28, 2020
- 12 Nature April 27, 2021
- 13 CCHD Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel
- 14 Monali Rahalkar Criticism for the Addendum: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a novel coronavirus of probable bat origin (Zhou et al 2020)
- 15 Monali Rahalkar Critique to the Addendum (Zhou et al 2020) and other contradictions in reporting the facts about RaTG13 and its history
- 16 Nutrients October 31, 2020;12, 3361; doi:10.3390/nu12113361
- 17, 18 Lifesitenews.com April 8, 2021
CDC Officially Recommends COVID Jab for Pregnant Women
By Dr. Mercola | May 3, 2021
The beyond conflicted U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has struck again: Pregnant women are now urged to get the COVID-19 gene manipulation jab, based on preliminary findings.
The postmarketing surveillance data, published in The New England Journal of Medicine,1 found “no obvious safety signals” among the 35,691 pregnant women who got either the Moderna or Pfizer shots between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021. The women ranged in age from 16 to 54 years old. CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky issued a statement saying:2
“No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends pregnant people receive COVID-19 vaccines.”
Can Self-Reported Data Be Trusted?
There is more than one reason to be suspicious of this green-lighting for pregnant women. First of all, as noted by Jeremy Hammond in a recent Tweet:3
“This was NOT a randomized placebo-controlled trial. There is no data from clinical trials showing that it is safe for pregnant women to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Postmarketing surveillance is NOT a sufficient substitute for proper safety studies.”
The authors themselves state that data on mRNA “vaccines” in pregnancy are limited, and that without longitudinal follow-up of large numbers of women, it’s not possible to determine “maternal, pregnancy and infant outcomes.”4
Secondly, all postmarketing surveillance data are preliminary, so it seems incredibly foolhardy to make a blanket recommendation for all pregnant women at this early stage. Thirdly, this data is solely based on voluntary self-reporting to one of two sources:
- The Vaccine Safe (V-Safe) After Vaccination Health Checker program,5 a vaccine safety registry set up specifically for the monitoring of COVID-19 “vaccine” side effects
- The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
By using voluntary self-reporting, we have no way of knowing how many side effects have gone unreported and cannot confirm that the data present an accurate picture. Historically, we know that voluntary reporting of vaccine side effects range from less than 1%6,7 to a maximum of 10%,8 so it’s likely we’re not getting the full story.
A hint that an enormous amount of data concerning pregnancy outcomes are being overlooked or hidden can be discerned by the fact that the paper only looked at 11% of the total number of pregnancies reported to V-Safe. While they state that a total of 35,691 pregnant women were included in the analysis, they actually only looked at 3,958 of them. Here’s how the paper reads:9
“A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant … Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).”
If there were 35,691 pregnant V-Safe participants, why are they looking at just 11% of them?
Experimentation of the Worst Kind
Giving pregnant women unlicensed COVID-19 gene therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible experimental medicine, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.
Pregnancy is a time during which experimentation is extremely hazardous, as you’re not only dealing with potential repercussions for the mother but also for the child. Any number of things can go wrong when you introduce drugs, chemicals or foreign substances during fetal development.
The CDC has absolutely no way of gauging safety for pregnant women and babies as of yet, so to do so is reprehensible beyond words, in my opinion — especially seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.10
Contrast this to the potential benefits of the vaccine. You can still contract the virus if immunized and you can still spread it to others.11,12,13,14 All it is designed to do is lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive. I have little doubt we’ll end up with a second Nuremberg Trial over this at some point in the future.
Are These Miscarriage Ratios ‘Normal’?
Getting back to the NEJM study, the authors report the following findings, based on data collected from VAERS and V-Safe:15
“Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported.
Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against COVID-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).”
So, in VAERS, the miscarriage rate was 20.8% (46 of 221 reports), and in V-Safe (looking at just 11% of pregnant participants), the miscarriage rate was 13.9% (115 of 827). Again, these data were reported between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021.
The combined miscarriage and preterm birth rate, per V-Safe, was 23.3% (13.9% + 9.4%). As of April 1, 2021, 379 VAERS reports16 had been filed by pregnant women, 110 of which involved miscarriage or premature birth, giving us an updated rate of 29%. In other words, it appears the rate of miscarriage and premature births is rising as more reports come in.
According to the authors of the NEJM report, these ratios are comparable to the miscarriage rate normally seen among unvaccinated women, while admitting that the data is “not directly comparable.”
I find that dubious, seeing how sources17 reviewing statistical data stress that the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.
And, while the NEJM study18 report that 92.3% of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, it specifies that very little is as yet known about the effects of the injections when given to women during the periconception period and the first and second trimesters, as “limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.”
Now, if the miscarriage rate is normally 5% and declining after Week 6, then miscarriage rates of 13.9%, 20.87% or 29% before Week 13 is clearly excessive. As for the preterm birth rate, 9.4% does appear relatively “normal” based on historical data, which in 2019 ranged from 7.28% to 18.8% depending on the region, with an average right around 10%.19
Time will tell whether that percentage will remain within the norms as the outcomes of pregnant women are entered into databases. If preterm birth rates do rise above the norm, then that too is a significant public health issue, as the impact of premature birth on society is enormous, averaging at $26.2 billion annually, as is.20
Toxicology Expert Calls for End to mRNA Experiment
The featured video at the top of this article is the recording of a public comment by Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC, given to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), April 23, 2021.
Lindsay’s expertise is analysis of pharmacological dose-responses, mechanistic biology and complex toxicity dynamics. In her comment, Lindsay describes how she aided the development of a vaccine that caused unintended autoimmune destruction and sterility in animals which, despite careful pre-analysis, had not been predicted.
She calls for an immediate halt to COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines due to safety concerns on multiple fronts. She notes there is credible concern that they will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may “impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.”
I’ve touched on this in previous articles, including “How COVID-19 Is Changing the Future of Vaccines” and “Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits.” Not a single study has disproven this hypothesis, Lindsey notes.
Another theory of how these injections might impair fertility can be found in a 2006 study,21 which showed sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it into DNA, and release it as little pellets (plasmids) in the medium around the fertilized egg. The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them (sustains and clones them into many of the daughter cells) throughout its life, even passing them on to future generations.
It is possible that the pseudo-exosomes that are the mRNA contents would be perfect for supplying the sperm with mRNA for the spike protein. So, potentially, a vaccinated woman who gets pregnant with an embryo that can (via the sperms’ plasmids) synthesize the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the “foreign” protein it displays on its cells. This then would cause a miscarriage.
“We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation,” Lindsey warns. The fact that there have been live births following COVID-19 vaccination is not proof that these injections do not have a reproductive effect, she says.
Lindsay also points out that reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who have received the injections number in the thousands,22,23,24 and this too hints at reproductive effects.
I agree with her conclusion that we simply cannot inject children and women of childbearing age with these experimental technologies until more rigorous studies have been done and we have a better understanding of their mechanisms.
Rare Blood Clotting Disorders Being Reported
Lindsay also points out there have been hundreds of reports of rare blood clotting disorders following all COVID-19 “vaccines” among people with no underlying risk factors, including immune thrombocytopenia25,26,27,28 (ITP), a rare autoimmune disease that causes your immune system to destroy your platelets (cells that help blood clot), resulting in hemorrhaging. Serious blood clots are also occurring at the same time.
Here, she points out the obvious: COVID-19 has been found to cause blood clotting disorders due to the virus’ unique spike protein. The COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your body to make that very spike protein. Why would one assume that this spike protein cannot have similar effects when produced by your own cells?
One hypothesis that has been presented is that platelet-antagonistic antibodies are being formed against the spike antigen.29 Another novel hypothesis30 is that the lipid-coated nanoparticles, which transport the mRNA, may be carrying that mRNA into the megakaryocytes in your bone marrow.
Megakaryocytes are cells that produce platelets. According to this hypothesis, once the mRNA enters your bone marrow, the megakaryocytes would then begin to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which would tag them for destruction by cytotoxic T-cells. As your platelets are destroyed, thrombocytopenia sets in.
Avoid This Risky Milk-Sharing Practice
Women who have received the COVID-19 jab are also making what I believe is a huge mistake by sharing breast milk in a misguided effort to inoculate unvaccinated mothers’ babies. As reported by The New York Times :31
“Multiple studies32,33 show that there are antibodies in a vaccinated mother’s milk. This has led some women to try to restart breastfeeding and others to share milk with friends’ children.”
Again, there’s scarcely any data on what these gene therapies might do to infants, which is reason alone not to experiment. So far, only one suspected case34 of an infant dying has been attributed to breastfeeding. A 5-month-old infant died with a diagnosis of thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura within days of his mother receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.35,36
But while fact checkers roundly dismiss the idea that the child could have developed thrombocytopenia from mRNA-contaminated breast milk,37 it’s important to realize they have no evidence for that. It’s pure opinion.
As of right now, we have no idea how or why the infant developed this rare blood disorder, but it would be premature and irresponsible to say that nursing children cannot be affected and that there is no risk at all. In addition to that lethal case, there are at least 20 other cases where children have had an adverse reaction to breast milk from a vaccinated mother.38
At present, all we can confidently say is that short-term harmful effects of COVID-19 vaccines are being reported at a staggering rate, and that the long-term effects are completely unknown.
In addition to the more immediate effects already discussed, there are mechanisms by which COVID-19 “vaccines” may actually worsen disease upon exposure to the wild virus, as detailed in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System,” “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” and several other articles.
As noted in a February 4, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine paper39 reporting on the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 vaccine developed by Moderna, “Whether mRNA-1273 vaccination results in enhanced disease on exposure to the virus in the long term is unknown.”
Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
On the whole, injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects and bleeding disorders (among other things), violates both the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes doctors to “First, do no harm,” and the precautionary principle that, historically, has governed health care for pregnant women.
In my view, this mass experiment is a humanitarian crime. That said, if you or someone you love — pregnant or not — has received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.40 As we move forward, it’s absolutely crucial that people report their experiences with these vaccines, so that we can start getting a clearer idea of what their effects are.
- If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
- Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
- Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website
Sources and References
- 1, 4, 9, 15, 18 NEJM April 21, 2021 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
- 2 CNBC April 23, 2021
- 3 Twitter Jeremy Hammond April 23, 2021
- 5 CDC V-Safe
- 6 AHRQ December 7, 2007
- 7 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020
- 8 BMJ 2005;330:433
- 10 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
- 11 Harvard Health March 25, 2021
- 12 CDC April 2, 2021
- 13 NBC Chicago April 8, 2021
- 14 The Defender April 6, 2021
- 16 The Defender April 9, 2021
- 17 Medical News Today January 12, 2020
- 19 CDC.gov Preterm births by state 2019
- 20 March of Dimes, the Impact of Premature Birth on Society
- 21 Molecular Reproduction and Development 73(10):1239-46
- 22 MSN April 10, 2021
- 23 UK Gov Yellow Card Report Unspecified Brand March 28, 2021 (PDF)
- 24 Life Site News April 19, 2021
- 25 Hopkins Medicine ITP
- 26, 29 The Defender April 13, 2021
- 27 The Defender February 9, 2021
- 28 New York Times February 8, 2021, Updated February 10, 2021 (Archived)
- 30 Medium March 19, 2021
- 31 New York Times April 8, 2021 (Archived)
- 32 Fox 4 April 7, 2021
- 33 Healio April 19, 2021
- 34, 35 Twitter Alex Berenson April 23, 2021
- 36 Twitter VAERS detail
- 37 USA Today April 9, 2021
- 38 Medalerts.org 4/16/2021 VAERS data
- 39 NEJM 2021; 384:403-416
- 40 The Defender January 25, 2021
Injecting a child with an experimental Covid-19 vaccine would be madness, they don’t need it
THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 3, 2021
The UK Government and Health Officials are planning to give school children aged 12 and over the experimental Pfizer Covid vaccine at the start of the 21/22 school year. But they won’t stop there. Not long after they will attempt to roll this out to children as young as 6-months-old. This is madness.
It is madness because children do not need an experimental Covid vaccine because they are virtually at zero risk of contracting Covid-19, and even if they do, their chances of developing serious disease and dying is so low that the number is negligible.
According to official NHS data from March 2020 through to the 31st March 2021 just 40 Covid-19 deaths were recorded in those aged 0 – 19. But 32 of those were in children / teenagers who had serious underlying conditions. Just 8 allegedly died of Covid-19 alone in twelve months. But we cannot even be sure the number is that high due to the fact deaths are recorded as Covid just because the person has received a positive test for Covid-19 within 28 days of their death. They could have died due to a head injury and be recorded as a Covid death if they had received a positive test within the 28 days prior.
Yet for some sinister and unexplained reason the authorities are desperate to get the Covid jab into the arms of children. It’s sinister because none of the Covid jabs are licensed. They are currently under emergency authorisation.
In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a Covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.
A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be held liable for any injury or death that occurs due to their vaccine, unless it was due to a quality control issue.
Why are they only under emergency use authorisation? Because none of the Covid jabs have concluded phase three trials.
The Pfizer phase three trial is not due to complete until April 6th 2023.
Whilst the AstraZeneca phase three trial is due to complete slightly earlier on February 14th 2023.
But what does this mean? Well 2023 at the time of writing is up to two years away. This means that the current worldwide Covid vaccine roll-out can be described as the largest human experiment ever conducted in history. Anybody who takes this vaccine, which is only temporarily authorised for emergency use is essentially a guinea pig, or a lab rat taking part in a trial.
There’s also the fact that all the Covid vaccines being used in the UK are types of vaccine that have never been authorised for use in humans before.
The Pfizer and Moderna jabs allegedly work by delivering mRNA, which Pfizer and Moderna tell us is the genetic code for the spike protein found on the surface of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, to a human cell inside a lipid membrane. Once the mRNA is inside the cell, the same machinery that is used to make our own proteins can make the spike protein. This then causes the immune system to act and initiate an immune response.
Many people are under the illusion that the AstraZeneca vaccine is a traditional vaccine – “It’s no different to the flu jab”, we hear them say time and time again. They couldn’t be more wrong. The AstraZeneca vaccine is a viral vector vaccine, and like the mRNA vaccines they have never been authorised for human use on a mass scale before.
The genetic information inside a viral vectored vaccine like AstraZeneca’s is DNA rather than RNA. This DNA is a short linear piece of double stranded DNA which contains the viral genes along with the gene for the spike protein. The viral vector first infects the cell and then delivers this DNA to the cell nucleus. The cell can then transcribes the viral genes (DNA) into mRNA using the same RNA polymerase it uses for our own genes. After transcription, the mRNA gets tagged so it can leave the nucleus and be made into spike protein by the cell machinery.
Considering the fact that children are at virtually zero risk of contracting Covid it would be madness to give them an unlicensed, emergency approved, experimental vaccine of which not one single person on this planet has any idea of what the long term consequences of having it are. Because there is no data to tell us.
But there is data on the short term consequences in the form of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme in which people who have suffered an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccine can report it to the MHRA. The 13th update which includes data inputted up to the 21st April 2021 shows that the reported adverse reactions to both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccine include –
- 7,699 cardiac disorders,
- 10,633 eye disorders including blindness,
- A terrifying 152,273 nervous system disorders including brain damage, seizure, paralysis & stroke
- and 1,047 unnecessary deaths
That is just a snapshot as there had in fact been 722,732 reported adverse reactions to the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs as of the 21st April 2021. The scary thing is the MHRA say that only 1-10% of adverse reactions are actually reported. So the true number could be anywhere from 7 million to 70 million adverse reactions to the Covid-19 jabs.
Do you honestly think these numbers justify giving the jabs to children?
Well unfortunately the authorities seem to think so as health officials are drawing up plans to offer the Pfizer vaccine to secondary school pupils from September. ‘Core planning scenario’ documents compiled by NHS officials include the offer of a single dose to children aged 12 and over when the new school year starts.
And apparently education leaders would be willing to help facilitate a vaccine roll-out at schools around the country, according to Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), the largest union for secondary school heads.
He explained that vaccinating children at school could result in higher take-up because pupils would not want to feel socially isolated by refusing to have the jab.
“The peer pressure of seeing that your friends are lining up to do it is likely to make the overall numbers taking up the vaccine higher,”.
Somebody should maybe tell Geoff Barton that what he just described is known as coercion.
The choice is yours whether or not you will allow your child to receive a dose of an experimental vaccine which neither prevents the recipient from catching Covid-19 or spread Covid-19. The only thing that these vaccines allegedly do is reduce the risk of hospitalisation and / or death. Which is why it makes no sense for any single child to have the jab, as they are already virtually at zero risk of hospitalisation and / or death according to official NHS data.
‘First they came for the elderly, and I did not speak out because I was not old.
Then they came for the disabled, and I did not speak out because I was not disabled.
Then they came for pregnant women, and I did not speak out because I was not pregnant.
But then they came for my children because I did not speak out for those before them.‘
India’s “COVID outbreak” & the need for scientific integrity – not sensationalism
Reality versus hysteria in latest fear fest
By Colin Todhunter | OffGuardian | May 4, 2021
Western media outlets are currently paying a great deal of attention to India and the apparent impact of COVID-19. The narrative is that the coronavirus is ripping through the country – people are dying, cases are spiralling out of control and hospitals are unable to cope.
There does indeed seem to be a major problem in parts of the country. However, we need to differentiate between the effects of COVID-19 and the impacts of other factors. We must also be very wary of sensationalist media reporting which misrepresents the situation.
For instance, in late April, the New York Post ran a story about the COVID ‘surge’ in India with the headline saying, “footage shows people dead in the streets”. Next to it was an image of a woman lying dead. But the image was actually of a woman lying on the floor from a May 2020 story about a gas leak in Andhra Pradesh.
To try to shed some light on the situation and move beyond panic and media sensationalism, I recently spoke with Yohan Tengra, a political analyst and healthcare specialist based in Mumbai.
Tengra has carried out a good deal of research into COVID-19 and the global response to it. He is the co-author of a new report: ‘How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths’.
For India, he says:
We will never know statistically if the infections have really increased. To be certain, we would need data of symptomatic people who have tested positive with either a virus culture test or PCR that uses 24 cycles or less, ideally under 20.”
He adds that India is experiencing mainly asymptomatic cases:
For example, in Mumbai, they declared two days back that of total cases in the city, 85 per cent were asymptomatic. In Bangalore, over 95 per cent of cases were asymptomatic!”
In his report, Tengra offers scientific evidence that strongly indicates asymptomatic transmission is not significant. He asserts that as these cases comprise most of India’s case numbers, we should be questioning the data as well as the PCR tests and the cycles being used to detect the virus instead of accepting the figures at face value.
As in many countries across the globe, Tengra says people in India have been made to fear the virus endlessly. Moreover, they are generally under the impression that they need to intervene early in order to pass through the infection successfully.
He notes:
The medical system itself works to boost the number of positive cases. Even with a negative PCR test, they are using CAT scans and diagnosing people with COVID. These scans are not specific to SARS-CoV-2 at all. I personally know of people who have been asked to be hospitalised by their doctors just based on a positive test (doctors can get a cut of the total bill made when they refer a patient to a hospital). This also happened to a Bollywood celebrity, who was asked to be admitted by his doctors with no symptoms and just a positive PCR.”
Faulty PCR testing and misdiagnosis, says Tengra, combined with people who want to intervene early with the mildest symptoms, have been filling up the beds, preventing access to those who really need them.
Addressing the much-publicised shortage of oxygen, Tengra implies this too is a result of inept policies, with exports of oxygen having increased in recent times, resulting in inadequate back-up supplies when faced with a surge in demand.
According to Tengra, the case fatality rate for COVID-19 in India was over three per cent last year but has now dropped to below 1.5 per cent. The infection fatality rate is even lower, with serosurvey results showing them to be between 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent.
The directors of the All India Institute of Medical Science and the India Council of Medical Research have both come out and said that there is not much difference between the first and second wave and that there are many more asymptomatic cases this time than in the so-called ‘first wave’.
Tengra argues that the principle is the same for all infectious agents: they infect people, most can fight it off without even developing symptoms, some develop mild symptoms, a smaller number develop serious symptoms and an even smaller number die.
Although lives can be saved with the right prevention plus treatment strategies, Tengra notes that most of the doctors in India are using ineffective and unsafe drugs. As a result, he claims that mortality rates could increase due to inappropriate treatments.
As has occurred in many other countries, Tengra notes the way that death certificate guidelines are structured in India makes it easy for someone to be labelled as a COVID death just based on a positive PCR test or general symptoms. It is therefore often difficult to say who has died from the virus and who has been misdiagnosed.
And the issue of misdiagnosis should not be brushed aside lightly. In a recent article by long-term resident of India Jo Nash, ‘India’s Current ‘COVID Crisis’ in Context’, it is noted that the focus of the media’s messaging and the source of many of the horrifying scenes of suffering – Delhi – is among the most toxic cities in the world which often leads to the city having to close down due to the widespread effects on respiratory health.
Nash also argues that respiratory diseases like TB and respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis leading to pneumonia are always among the top ten killers in India. These conditions are severely aggravated by air pollution and often require oxygen which can be in short supply during air pollution crises as happens at this time of the year.
As a result, it is reasonable to state that all is not what it might seem to be with regard to media reporting on the current situation.
It is interesting that this ‘second wave’ has correlated with the vaccine rollout (Nash provides official sources to support this claim). Tengra feels this might not be coincidental. He says that the ‘aefi’ (adverse events following immunisation) data vastly underestimates how many vaccine adverse reactions are taking place in the country.
Tengra says that, based on ground surveys and data collected by himself, there is a tremendous number of people who have fallen ill post vaccination, many of them then testing positive for COVID and becoming hospitalised.
The financial incentive for doctors to diagnose people with COVID could also mean many of the people who are ill with other conditions are being placed as COVID patients, while beds are under occupied for people for non-COVID health issues.
Two months ago, there was a lot of vaccine hesitancy in India and many people were not taking the jabs. Tengra notes that the government has had to up the ante in order to get people scared.
He argues:
We are at a crossroads right now in terms of deciding the fate of our country and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.”
Tengra is working with lawyers and other concerned citizens to file legal cases to challenge the idea of asymptomatic transmission and the testing of healthy people. The aim is to also improve the testing in line with evidence-based protocols.
But that is not all:
We will also be challenging the current vaccine rollout, highlighting the issues with trials that have been conducted, adverse events, deaths, vaccine passports and other issues surrounding the subject.”
Tengra is not alone in challenging the mainstream narrative.
A recent article in India’s National Herald newspaper by clinical epidemiologist Professor Dr Amitav Banerjee argues that the current situation in India is not due to the lethality of the virus but by the numbers who are ending up in hospital, which are exposing cracks in India’s public health infrastructure and the inequitable distribution of health services. Even at the best of times, he argues, there is a mismatch of supply and demand. Little wonder, therefore, that we now see an emergency – not squarely due to COVID.
Like Yohan Tengra, Banerjee questions the scientific integrity of the responses to COVID and this includes the rollout of vaccines and the problems which this in itself could bring:
Going all out for mass vaccination with uncertain input on effectiveness is a big gambit. We have a vaccine against tuberculosis for decades which has zero effectiveness in preventing tuberculosis in the Indian population. Moreover, there are concerns that haphazard and incomplete vaccination of the population can trigger mutant strains.”
Referring to an editorial in the British Medical Journal by K. Abbasi (‘Covid-19, Politicisation, Corruption, and Suppression of Science’), Banerjee raises concerns about the suppression of science by politicians and governments and the conflicts of interest of academics, researchers and commercial lobbies.
He says:
In a global disaster, world leaders, their scientific advisers, including career scientists, are under tremendous pressure. They have to give the impression of being in control and may resort to authoritarian ways to camouflage their uncertainties. Such tactics deviate from the scientific approach. The present pandemic is full of such uncertainties and therefore a vicious cycle of repression has set in when the authorities and their advisers are faced with rising case numbers.”
None of what has been presented here is meant to deny the existence or impact of COVID-19. People in India are dying – some from the virus, others ‘with’ the virus but most likely mainly due to their pre-existing underlying conditions, and there are others who are being misdiagnosed.
Although excess mortality figures are currently unavailable, Yohan Tengra notes the average age of those who died in the first wave was 50. This time it is 49.
Professor Banerjee says that there is opacity and obfuscation instead of transparency. He calls for moral courage among scientists in advisory positions to the Indian government: scientific integrity is the need of the hour.
In finishing, let us place COVID and the global media reporting of the situation in India in context by returning to Jo Nash.
Even as the alleged COVID deaths reach their peak, more people die of diarrhoea every day in India and have done for years, mostly due to a lack of clean water and sanitation creating a terrain ripe for the flourishing of communicable disease.”
Readers can access the report How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths by Yohan Tengra and Ambar Koiri here.
Lockdowns are No Substitute for Focused Protection
By Paul E. Alexander | AIER | May 3, 2021
The most vulnerable groups in the US, which have been least able to afford the lockdowns and school closures, have been devastated by unscientific ineffective policies and have been hardest hit by Covid-19. The health of a nation is directly tied to the socioeconomic health of the nation, and the socioeconomic drivers that played a role in Covid-19’s severity cannot be ignored, particularly for the future burden of disease outcomes. Focused protection would have performed far better than lockdowns, which have not only been a distraction but actually enhanced the unequal impacts of severe outcomes of the virus.
In May 2020 the prevailing winds presciently suggested that there was a significant care-burden on the families in the future. The socioeconomic status of a person can negatively impact their lifestyle choices that are often unhealthy in nature, and this is complicated by the reality that often, this is not by choice, and rather based on ‘need.’ Often there is no other option but maladaptive ones.
The ineptness of the government leaders, public health officials and some television medical experts who have shown gross academic sloppiness and a depth of cognitive dissonance to all views not aligned with their failed ones, in retrospect is available to all for review. The evidence of the segments of the populace at greater risk emerged several months ago, included risk factors such as being elderly, being obese, and having comorbid conditions and has remained firm as a precursor of acquiring the ravages of the SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The failure to adopt appropriate public health measures to prevent the catastrophic disaster on the vulnerable and those at risk is laid at the feet of those officials and experts who were involved in the policy making process. The responsibility of the “Task Force” was protection and the safeguarding of all the citizens and they failed in their efforts. Not only did these experts resort to using political import as their guidance on decision-making, they have now resorted to groupthink and we have entered the age of Lysenkoism science where contrarians, dissenters, skeptics, and people who question their motives and underlying evidence for their ineffective policies, are attacked, slandered, and smeared.
All politicization aside, Covid-19 exploits our risk factors and age is the principle risk factor among them. This is understandable given that as we all age, our immune systems become less durable and there is a gradual deterioration of the immune system, called immune senescence. A focus on the other risk factors that Covid-19 exploits will help us prepare for future coronaviruses and other pathogens that also will exploit such risk factors. Covid-19 is a condition of disparity given its unequal force of mortality on lower SES populations. Minority populations in the US have been hit harder by Covid-19 in terms of severe outcomes due to a multiplicity of factors. The worldwide data suggests that this harm has occurred elsewhere and is not unique to the US. As an example, we are willing to discuss the elevated risk due to excessive body weight (obesity, morbid obesity) and this is a very serious issue that must be debated as a society. We argue that for many impoverished persons with depressed SES status, obesity is tied to economics. We have seen that Covid-19 gives away age to obesity in younger persons. Recent British research in near 7 million persons has shown that a body-mass-index (BMI) of greater than “23 kg/m2 was associated with a linear increase in risk of severe Covid-19 leading to admission to hospital and death, and a linear increase in admission to an ICU across the whole BMI range, which is not attributable to excess risks of related diseases. The relative risk due to increasing BMI is particularly notable in people younger than 40 years and of Black ethnicity.”
In confronting this pandemic in March 2020 and certainly by the summer of 2020, we had in our arsenal (yet failed to capitalize upon) a combination of i) strongly protecting (double- and triple-down protection) the elderly high-risk persons in nursing homes and similar congregated settings ii) use of effective public service announcements on who is at risk and how to mitigate the risk iii) allowing the low-risk portion of the population to live daily lives with sensible reasonable precautions, allowing them to get infected naturally and harmlessly given their low risk of severe illness or death and iv) use of early outpatient drug treatment (sequenced antivirals, corticosteroids, and anti-clotting drugs) in high risk populations, younger persons with comorbid conditions, and obese persons.
Unfortunately, we chose to ignore the signals from the pandemic. The fact remains that age and excess body weight/obesity, have accounted for almost 80% of the hospitalizations, intubations/ventilation, severe sequelae and deaths in Covid-19. A large number of persons who have died in nations such as the US have been overweight with some level of obesity.
The importance of educating the public on the risk factors and the need for such protective efforts can be enhanced by the people themselves. Had public health leaders used their platforms optimally, the geared messaging would have helped reduce the damage significantly. We could have cut deaths significantly had the options described above been used, especially early outpatient treatment.
As an example, the various US health agencies and their leaders have failed the minority and higher-risk African-American communities by neglecting to message the need for vitamin D supplements in persons with darker skin color. Evidence suggests that Vitamin D has an important immune function role and is a means to mitigate acute respiratory distress due to Covid-19, with patients revealing improved clinical recovery (shorter lengths of stay), lower oxygen requirements, and a reduction in inflammatory marker status.
So why have the public health agencies not messaged this to the high-risk minority groups, especially African-American and Asian-Americans? Why have the public health agencies or the Surgeon General not focused on public service messaging on the risk of excess body weight in Covid-19, as the right messaging could have saved tens of thousands of lives? We could have saved tens of thousands of lives had public health not been so politicized and done its rightful job.
We are responding to these failures by calling for a ‘social determinants of health’ approach to Covid-19 (a strong focus on the social aspects) and we find it is unacceptable that the public health agencies and television medical experts continued to use the platform to create fear rather than use their daily podium to address the potentially correctable catastrophic linkages.
US public health agencies such as the CDC appear to be 9 months to one year behind the science, routinely. The messaging, even at this late stage, continues to confuse the public as it waffles regarding masking, social distancing and vaccination, thus squandering the opportunity to help mitigate the impact of Covid-19 in their public health roles.
If the approach is mainly a therapeutic biomedical one to deal with Covid-19 (only to treat the disease or mitigate the epidemic/transmission), then this will end in failure each and every time. We must consider the socioeconomic ‘upstream’ fundaments of Covid-19 (and similar illnesses) and in an integrated manner. There is a certain level of personal responsibility in the decision-making on the part of the individual, as part of this discussion that must not be overlooked, but we would be ignorant to not recognize the direct association between poverty and health and the seemingly strong role that Covid-19 has in exploiting this link. Failure to understand this link between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the SES of an individual thus fails to address an addressable and treatable issue.
In other words, had the US been a healthier population with a lower burden of noncommunicable chronic type diseases (diabetes, renal disease, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses etc.) and had the population been composed of less overweight and obese persons, then the force of severe morbidity and mortality would have been far lower from Covid-19.
If Covid-19 entered a population of 10,000 persons as an example, with a mean age of 40 (eldest being 60) and where all 10,000 persons were healthy, no underlying conditions, and a respectable health care system that could respond if there is need, then Covid-19 will likely (more certainly) severely impact no one and kill no one. At least the impact will be minimal. A strong argument could be made here and this is the approach we are taking. We make this clarion call not only for ‘Western’ richer nations plagued by these chronic conditions and risk factors, but also for poorer developing nations also struggling with these chronic conditions. Covid-19 has shown us that as a society, we must urgently heighten our resolve to combat hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular, renal, and respiratory diseases, as well as cancer.
In addition, ‘stopping Covid at all costs’ (zero-Covid) has been a critically flawed approach that has proven to be harmful. The mindset of lockdowns continues unabated although the data suggests otherwise and some epidemiologists are voicing contrary opinions. This was indeed understandable in the first month (March/April 2020), but this may come back to haunt us as we have prolonged the fixation on Covid-19 at the loss of other equally and even more dangerous illnesses.
We already see warning signs of dramatic declines in vaccine-preventable disease vaccinations for children (declines in pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered), and as such, anticipate a surge in such illnesses we usually control with vaccine programs. Yet we continue to fixate on Covid-19, ignoring other pressing conditions, when we know who the at-risk group is, and we know much better how to treat. Covid-19 in April/May 2021 is not Covid-19 in February and March 2020. Covid-19 is not a death sentence for we can manage and treat it and we do have early outpatient treatment that has proven effective, once given early in the sequelae when the patient has not yet worsened.
We continue to caution against the exploits of the politicians and their strong and deliberate inroads into the scientific community. This egregious intrusion is causing a grave harm on science itself. This includes the medical research community and the academic journal publishing and editors (peer-review process) whose roles have been politicized, and have contributed to the current failures. Covid-19 has revealed the political and corrupted underbelly of academic and medical scientific research and journal manuscript publishing with its steep conflicts of interest that will require many years if not decades to recover its reputation (if at all).
Understanding Covid-19 must therefore not involve the traditional unidimensional, dogmatic orthodoxy whereby we simply wish to control the spread of the pathogen or eradicate it. It remains an impossibility to eradicate a viral pathogen, especially if it is highly mutable like the flu virus. We as humanity have learned to live with such viruses. There is a greater severity and adverse sequelae in lower SES populations (socioeconomically disadvantaged populations), so we have to look at this and consider what is happening and focus here with a more nuanced finessed approach to pathology, as we address targeting the pathogen. This approach will help us now as well as in the future, as we deal with existing, emerging, and reemerging pathogens.
Importantly, (and a potential reason for the excessive burden of death in obese persons we have found this to be the case in African-American, minorities etc.), is the heightened expression of the ACE2 receptor in adipose tissue fat cells in obese persons (expression is higher in visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue than that in lung tissue). A poor diet dominated by high-sugar, high-starch foods (predominantly rice, potatoes etc.) driven by affordability and the drive for satiety, contributes to obesity and the associated health conditions such as diabetes. The seeds of this are often planted in childhood. Is one at-risk group more differentially impacted and can obesity explain a substantial proportion of the severe sequelae? Do these social and economic factors (socioeconomic inequality) affect the severity sequelae differentially based on type of background condition e.g. will a socially disadvantaged person fare worse with diabetes or kidney disease versus cardiovascular illness?
The answers to some of these questions have been answered by the science community. The CDC posits a similar opinion that health disparities among minorities are real and related to the Covid illness. We applaud the CDC for this position. Yet even with a plethora of information available our policy makers still continue to punt on the issues that remain unaddressed and continue to harm people unnecessarily.
To end, we are arguing that the SES status with the social factors work to drive, perpetuate, prolong, and potentially worsen the emergence and clustering of pathogens and diseases. The above-mentioned comorbidities that exist in the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 severe illness outcomes and death with Covid-19 especially among the poorer minority communities seem to drive Covid-19 and dramatically compromise a person’s ability to ward off the disease and escalate an infected individual’s susceptibility and vulnerability to harm or worsen their health outcomes. We need to study and understand this if we are to effectively shape prognosis and treatments. Good public health policy must reflect this interwoven relationship between pathogen, pathology, and social and economic equality, not merely impose the blunt and devastating “nonpharmaceutical interventions” indiscriminately on the whole of the population.
Contributing Authors
- Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada elias98_99@yahoo.com
- Howard C. 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 howard.tenenbaum@sinaihealth.ca
- Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA, daraparvez@gmail.com
DC Mayor Bans Dancing & Standing At Weddings!
By Richie Allen | May 4, 2021
Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has banned dancing at weddings. On Friday, Bowser said that weddings could go ahead but only at 25 per cent of a venues capacity. But she banned dancing and standing at receptions.
A spokesperson for the mayor’s office told FOX News on Friday that the measures were necessary to stop the spread of covid-19. The mayor said that people’s behaviour changes when they dance or stand around.
Meanwhile, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis lifted all local coronavirus emergency orders in his state yesterday. He also signed a bill that effectively bans the use of vaccine passports in Florida.
In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced that most restrictions will be removed from May 19th. However, Cuomo wants to retain social distancing and mask-wearing.
Will couples really ask wedding guests to remain seated at all times? Will they fence off the dance floor too?
Why is Muriel Bowser not being laughed out of town? Who are these people? Who are they taking advice from? Where do they get the balls to tell people who they can invite to weddings and how they must behave on the day?
You know this all goes away when people turn their backs on idiots like Bowser. Just ignore them. It really is that simple. Ignore them and carry on regardless. The only power they have is the power you give them. It’s time to take it back.
Dr. Theresa Tam recommends wearing masks while jogging outdoors
The Post Millenial | May 2, 2021
Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, has issued advice on the wearing of masks outdoors.
“You asked: Should I wear a mask when I’m jogging or walking outdoors?” her Tweet begins. “#MaskOn when you’re active outdoors in areas where #PhysicalDistancing is hard to maintain. Tip: Choose routes that make it easy to keep your distance from others.”
The CDC recently said it OK for Americans to not wear masks outdoors provided they are vaccinated and not in a large crowd.
President Biden, who is vaccinated, has continued to wear his mask outdoors, calling it a “patriotic responsibility” to do so.
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Theresa Tam had initially advised against the use of masks but has since advocated for their widespread use, including wearing them during sex.
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Who Runs Our World?
Netanyahu addresses US Congress
By Richard Hugus | January 4, 2019
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
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US claim of sinking Iranian boats ‘a lie’, senior military official tells IRIB
- New KC-46 Supertankers Promise Israel Conventional Samson Option Strike Сapability
- No, New York Times, We Don’t Need to Dam the Bering Strait
- Gates-Funded ‘Big Catch-Up’ Delivers 100 Million Vaccine Doses — Including High-Risk DTP Vaccine Not Used in U.S.
- No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC
- Russia warns of escalating NATO military activity in Baltic region
- Government Kills the Spirit
- How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again
- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law
- If Americans Knew
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- Israel Said It’s Applying the Gaza Model in Lebanon. This Is What the Devastation Looks Like.
- New Member of Trump’s Iran Negotiating Team Comes From Notoriously Pro-Israel Think Tank
- Israeli army demolishes Christian monastery, nuns’ school in southern Lebanon
- Tokenizing Christians In Israel
- One Gaza is not enough: Israel is turning southern Lebanon into another Gaza – Daily Update
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 