There are two ways in which people are controlled: first of all frighten them, and then demoralise them. An educated healthy, and confident nation is harder to govern.
Tony Benn
Biologists tell each other stories. These stories might involve lots of acronyms and use strange and wonderful verbs and nouns but, unlike say mathematics, the mechanism by which biologists convey their science is at heart through the use of language. But unlike works of creative writing, the language used by biologists needs to be precise because bad English can lead to bad science. Which is why it jarred so much when I first read the following statement:
A third of people with COVID-19 have no symptoms.
The more technically correct statement (assuming that “a third” is accurate) is:
A third of people infected with [more correctly, testing positive for] the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have no symptoms.
So why did the first statement raise my biological hackles so much when at first glance these two statements might appear to be essentially very similar? It is because from a biological perspective they are profoundly different. The first statement asserts the existence of a disease with no symptoms i.e., a sickness that is indistinguishable from being healthy, while the second statement asserts that a viral infection does not necessarily result in a disease. It is not a question of semantics but accuracy and mixing these two concepts up is the sort of thing that would have resulted in an ‘F’ if I were to have submitted it in an essay to one of my professors. Yet, this is exactly the inaccurate language that has been used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and not by students learning their discipline, but by experienced senior scientists who, one assumes, are well aware of what they are saying.
One could argue that this is unimportant as surely the point is to convey the idea that you could be infectious with coronavirus and be unaware of it and the first statement is an easy way to do this for the layman. Not only does this assumption treat the public as if they were children unable to understand the nuances of infection and disease, but I’d argue that the second statement is just as easy to understand as the first. No, the reason to create a disease with no symptoms is based on a profound decision, one that I believe was made with the intention of ensuring compliance but has, since its inception, grown to dominate our entire response to COVID-19.
First, let’s see why defining having a disease based purely on the presence of a pathogen is a flawed concept. This is best illustrated by reference to another virus, Epstein-Barr Virus or EBV. You’ll be forgiven if you’ve never heard of this virus, but it could be argued to be one of the most successful human pathogens because almost everyone is infected by it. Most people are infected early in life and if this happens then EBV takes up residence in your B-cells (the cells in your immune system responsible for making antibodies) where it quietly persists throughout your life. Every now and then the virus goes into active replication and makes copies of itself which get shed into your mouth, a process that you are blissfully unaware is happening. The problems with EBV generally occur if you don’t get infected early in life but avoid infection until you’re much older. Now when you get infected with EBV, you can develop a disease called infectious mononucleosis or, more commonly, glandular fever. This often happens in young adults when they become interested in close physical contact with members of the opposite (or same) sex… which is why glandular fever is sometimes referred to as “the kissing disease”.
Now let’s apply the new asymptomatic COVID-19 orthodoxy to EBV where we define having a disease purely through the presence of a viral genome. So, according to this definition, almost everyone in the U.K. (and the world) is suffering from a new disease, asymptomatic glandular fever, and if we were to do a large-scale mass screening campaign we’d discover that there were millions of ‘cases’ of asymptomatic glandular fever in the U.K. alone!
Of course, this is complete nonsense. We aren’t all ‘suffering’ from asymptomatic glandular fever. Glandular fever requires infection by EBV, but EBV infection does not necessarily lead to glandular fever. The same is true of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 and so the concept of asymptomatic COVID-19 as a disease is as ridiculous as that of asymptomatic glandular fever.
But as is the case with EBV, being infected with SARS-CoV-2 means that you can still pass it on even if you aren’t sick. However, it is a matter of degrees and the reason that people can be healthy carriers is simply because they have less viral replication and a lower viral load, which is why they aren’t sick. Of course, if the lower levels of SARS-CoV-2 in an asymptomatic individual were sufficient to mean such an individual was as infectious as someone with symptoms, then from an infectivity perspective the distinction between asymptomatic carriers and people with COVID-19 is unimportant and our statement would need to read:
A third of people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have no symptoms but are just as infectious as those with COVID-19.
However, this situation would mean that the R number for SARS-CoV-2 would likely be much greater than it is, and that coronavirus infection and COVID-19 would have crashed through the population in one huge tsunami at the start of last year. This wasn’t the case, and all the evidence is that healthy, asymptomatic carriers (and pre-symptomatic sufferers) are much less infectious than those with symptoms and a disease (see Will Jones’s summary of COVID-19 facts for links to supporting evidence).
Given that this is all so blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever been near a biology textbook, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw about the creation of an asymptomatic disease is that it wasn’t done by a biologist but instead by individuals (probably on the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)) whose agenda is not to convey accurate information to the public but something different: fear and uncertainty.
The effect of the asymptomatic disease is to blur the lines between being healthy and being sick and means that people will consciously, or subconsciously, transfer some of their understanding of symptomatic COVID-19 and apply it to asymptomatic COVID-19. The implication being that the absence of symptoms is somehow not relevant and that just because you feel fine, you are in fact suffering from a deadly disease. This naturally creates fear, fear for oneself (what if I have it?) and fear of everyone else (they look O.K., but what if they have it?). This fear is useful if you now want to control the behaviour of people and drive compliance with policies designed to limit the spread of COVID-19, but the problem is that having created the asymptomatic monster as a mechanism to ensure compliance, it soon starts to consume everything because you now need to manage this disease with no symptoms.
The first thing asymptomatic disease needs is a way of identifying who has it. By definition, asymptomatic individuals have no symptoms and so in order to identify who is sick we need a test. Not only do we need a test, but because anyone who is healthy could be silently suffering from this illness, we will need a lot of tests. And because healthy people can become sick without any change in how they feel or look, then the testing needs to be endless. Also, because the disease is only defined by the presence of the virus, then positive screening results (real or false positives) naturally become ‘cases’, confirming the ongoing presence of the asymptomatic disease. Testing begets more testing.
The whole host of non-pharmaceutical interventions – including lockdowns – can also be seen as logical steps to take in fighting an asymptomatic disease. If sick people have no symptoms, then we need to employ strategies in everyday life to manage them. In effect, we have to treat the entire population as if it were ill and deploy measures across the whole of society with this in mind. This effectively leads to ‘reverse quarantine’ where we lock up the healthy to try and protect the few genuinely sick people.
Likewise, vaccine passports are also driven by the need to manage asymptomatic disease because it is only by proving that you’ve had a medical intervention that we can be sure that your lack of symptoms are not a cause of concern. But being immune doesn’t stop an individual from becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, it just means their immune system more rapidly and effectively recognises and deals with this infection and as a result they may never develop symptoms. In other words, vaccination is no protection from asymptomatic COVID-19 and suitably sensitive screening will continue to detect asymptomatic ‘cases’ amongst the immune population. Proponents of vaccine passports acknowledge this and argue (correctly) that if immune individuals are infected with coronavirus, they will carry a lower viral burden and so are less infectious. However, they then go on to demonise unvaccinated, naïve healthy individuals because they might be asymptomatic carriers. In reality, healthy people are healthy and even if they are carriers are unlikely to infect other people in normal social situations regardless of vaccination status. In fact, if you support the notion of asymptomatic COVID-19 ‘sufferers’ being a significant source of infection, it could be argued that we need vaccination certificates to protect the non-vaccinated from the vaccinated!
Finally, there is the whole question of variants. Clearly, a new, virulent more deadly strain of coronavirus that evades current immunity is a very concerning thing as it would essentially reset the clock back to the start of the pandemic: in effect it is a new disease. But because we have blurred the distinction between infection and disease and our focus is on the presence (and sequence) of viral genomes, every new variant is now treated as if it actually were a new disease. This in turn drives the need to continue to monitor (picking up more and more new variants) and manage ‘the spread of cases’ irrespective of the severity of disease they cause or the prior immunity within the population. Again, testing begets more testing in an endless cycle that will never stop unless we decide to stop it.
What all this means in practice is that the management of asymptomatic COVID-19 has become the the focus of the Government’s coronavirus policy, but if we go back to the original (mis)statement about asymptomatic COVID-19 and swap it around we get:
Two thirds of people with COVID-19 have symptoms.
Of course, this should read “three thirds (all!) of people with COVID-19 have symptoms” but the point I’m making is that hiding in plain sight is the fact that most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 get ill to varying degrees. We also know that people with symptoms account for the majority of onward transmission of the infection (again see Will’s summary for evidence). So, if we were designing an effective policy to manage COVID-19 we would focus our efforts on the sick as this is where we’re going to get the most bang for the buck.
What would this mean in practice? First, we would only need diagnostic testing capacity for the minority of the population with symptoms, rather than the industrial-scale screening that we have had to deploy to deal with asymptomatic COVID-19. Second, restrictions would be focused on ill people, and this would be much easier, not only because these individuals are easier to find, but because sick people behave as if they were, well, sick and as such may not require much encouragement to prevent others getting ill. (“Don’t come too close, I’m not very well.”) They also probably wouldn’t want to go to work, or the gym, or the pub, or visit Granny. These restrictions would be time limited as they only apply to an individual while they are ill. We could use the billions of pounds saved on not destroying the economy in a futile attempt to quarantine the entire healthy population to ensure that these individuals were supported until they got better. We could invest in extra capacity in the healthcare system to manage any increase in hospitalisations and focus resources on improved treatments rather than testing and managing healthy people. The need for vaccination certification becomes irrelevant because healthy people are treated as healthy people and new variants only become of concern if they make individuals sicker. Essentially, we could stop treating COVID-19 as a special case with all the collateral damage this causes to non-COVID-19 related health and manage it as we would any other potentially serious infection. None of this is surprising as it is based on centuries of accumulated wisdom about how to manage infectious diseases. Unfortunately, the creation and focus on asymptomatic disease has drawn our eye away from the real illness and devoured huge amounts of time, effort, and money.
Being told that you are sick with a major illness can be a devastating piece of news, not just for the individual themselves but for those around them. Even if this news is couched in terms of positive treatment outcomes, it would be impossible to not be fearful and run hundreds of ‘what if’ scenarios through one’s mind. Regardless of how you feel today, the worries are all about progression and how you will feel tomorrow. Normally, clinicians would have a duty of care to their patients and spend time in discussing a diagnosis and helping their patients come to terms with this news. But for COVID-19, people receive the results of their diagnosis with no support. Worse through track-and-trace they might even receive this news completely unsolicited; imagine if a complete stranger phoned you to tell you that you might have cancer? Then, rather than offer support and comfort, we demand that individuals cut themselves off from others (self-isolate); you’re ill but on your own. All of this has consequences, especially for those who have bought into the concept of asymptomatic COVID-19, and so is it not surprising that some people want to cling to mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns. In the end, it turns out that – ironically – asymptomatic COVID-19 might not be asymptomatic after all because for any number of vulnerable people the very existence of this asymptomatic disease has the potential to make them sick – sick with fear, worry and anxiety.
The author, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a senior research scientist at a pharmaceutical company.
President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce American combat forces in Afghanistan failed after the large city of Kunduz was overrun in September 2015. This was the first Afghan city to fall to insurgents since the war began in 2001. This embarrassment was magnified after a C-130 transport aircraft crashed while taking off from Jalalabad that claimed the lives of six American airmen and five contractors. The Taliban claimed credit, but the Americans were unsure why it crashed. The American CIA’s aerial assassination program was failing to suppress the insurgency and senior American officials were angry. Someone wanted revenge and ordered an aerial attack on a hospital in Kunduz where Taliban fighters were being treated, killing 24 patients and 18 medical staff, leaving 33 persons missing and over 30 wounded.
______________________________________
“Doctors Without Borders: U.S. asked if Taliban was at hospital before attack”; David Cloud; Los Angles Times ; November 5, 2015; https://www.latimes.com/world/afghani…
“CNN and the NYT Are Deliberately Obscuring Who Perpetrated the Afghan Hospital Attack”; Glenn Greenwald; The Intercept ; October 5, 2015; https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/c…
In 2016, former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Louis Freeh gave $100,000 to a private trust for Joe Biden’s grandchildren and met with the then-US vice president in a bid to pursue “some very good and profitable matters” with him, the New York Post reports, referring to newly surfaced emails.
In October 2020, the newspaper published an article containing several emails allegedly retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop claiming that he had arranged meetings with foreign officials for his father when the latter served in the Obama administration.
The “donation” mentioned in the emails reported by the NY Post on Thursday, was sent to a trust for the children of Hallie Biden, the widow of Joe’s late son Beau, who later became Hunter’s lover.
The Daily Mail on Thursday referred to an email marked “confidential and privileged”, in which Freeh wrote to Hunter that he “would be delighted to do future work with” Biden’s son.
“I also spoke to Dad [Joe Biden] a few weeks ago and would like to explore with him some future work options. I believe that working together on these (and other legal) matters would be of value, fun, and rewarding”, the July 2016 email reportedly read.
The ex-FBI boss floated the idea again a month later, ostensibly saying he was working for then-Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was at the time embroiled in a scandal over one of the world’s biggest financial frauds, and was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2020.
“I would like to talk with you and Dad about working together next year. No doubt both he and you have many options and probably some which are more attractive than my small shop”, Freeh purportedly wrote in August 2016, in an apparent nod to his consultancy firm.
The Daily Mail reported that the correspondence raises the question about whether Joe Biden was “discussing future private business deals while still in office” with Freeh, who was allegedly collaborating with “three men who were later found to be corrupt foreign criminals”. Apart from Razak, they include French-Israeli billionaire Beny Steinmetz and Romanian real estate tycoon Gabriel Popoviciu.
When publishing Hunter Biden’s alleged emails in mid-October 2020, the New York Post claimed that in one of the documents, Vadym Pozharskyi, then a top official at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, thanked the president’s son for organising a meeting with his father, while in a second email, Pozharskyi asked Hunter how he could use his influence to support Burisma.
Former US President Donald Trump has repeatedly slammed the media for not covering the alleged corrupt dealings of Hunter Biden in Ukraine, since the story about possible misconduct on the latter’s part was mainly ignored by the mainstream media, apart from Fox News, and temporarily blocked from sharing on Twitter.
Tornadoes killed 553 Americans in 2011, the deadliest year since 1925. May 22 marks the 10th anniversary of the Joplin, Missouri tornado that killed 161, the first triple-digit toll since 1953. The U.S. had been averaging 60 tornado deaths annually.
This death toll shocked the public, weather forecasters, and researchers. Improvements in weather radar, National Weather Service warnings, and the advent of real-time, street-level tracking had seemingly rendered such death tolls a historical relic.
Some experts had a ready answer for the devastation: man-made climate change. Bill McKibben took a tongue-in-cheek tack in the Washington Post, with a headline, “A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never!” He opined, “When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that.” Researchers Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann also stated that global warming is making tornadoes worse.
When the unexpected happens, researchers need to ask why and examine the data. Kevin Simmons and I had just published a book on the societal impacts of tornadoes. We sought to assess whether the 2011 death tolls were due to the tornadoes which occurred, societal vulnerability, or perhaps some other factor. We published our findings in a book, Deadly Season: Analysis of the 2011 Tornado Outbreaks, and a paper in Natural Hazards Review.
Our conclusion: it was the tornadoes. The total number of tornadoes rated EF-5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale for tornado damage, the highest rating, provides a short answer. Six EF-5 tornadoes occurred in 2011, including four in Mississippi and Alabama on April 27. The nation averages less than one per year (59 since 1950), with only one since 2011. The year’s activity was extreme, but not unprecedented. For instance, seven EF-5’s occurred in the April 3, 1974 tornado outbreak.
Historical ratios of fatalities per injury, per millions of dollars of property damage, or per building damaged provide more detail and context. For example, prior to 2011, violent tornadoes killed one person for every $20 million of property damage; this and similar ratios held steady in 2011. The year’s many long-track, violent tornadoes produced enormous damage, with the corresponding casualties.
We further applied statistical models of tornado fatalities we used to examine the impacts of Doppler radar and NWS warnings. The models controlled for tornado and path characteristics like EF-scale rating, path length, and the numbers of persons and mobile homes in the affected counties. Plugging the characteristics of 2011 tornadoes into the model would give a fatality estimate, based on recent patterns.
The analysis predicted more than 500 fatalities for the year’s tornadoes with a high likelihood of a tornado killing more than 100. Keep in mind, the deadliest tornado over the years used in the statistical analysis (1990-2010) killed 36 people. The tornadoes of 2011 were unlike anything we had witnessed for decades.
There was no upward trend in violent tornadoes prior to 2011; the year was a clear statistical outlier or Black Swan type event. Consequently, we concluded that fatalities should return to the prior normal or decline further due to continued warning process improvements. By contrast, proponents of climate change told us that Joplin and Tuscaloosa were the new normal due to global warming.
The U.S. has averaged 43 tornado deaths over the past nine years, with 76 in the deadliest year (2020). We have had only 11 deaths so far in 2021 (although please knock on some wood when reading this).
Mother Nature can be extreme, variable, and fickle. Events and years unlike recent experience are inevitable. When unexpected (or inconceivable) weather events occur, we should try to figure out what happened and why, instead of lazily attributing it to man-made global warming.
Daniel Sutter (dsutter@troy.edu) is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics and the Director of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision.
The government is pressing ahead with its Vaccine Passport and plans for a two-tier society are afoot. The effrontery of those leading the charge beggar’s belief.
And that’s just the half of it. We are midway through a Europe-wide feasibility study for the development of a common vaccine passport, launched by the European Commission in 2018.
They would have you believe – they were caught with their trousers down, their policies are proportionate to the emergency as it unfolds, and at all times they operate according to a system of informed consent.
But hang on a minute. Since the onset of SARS-CoV-2, they have played the most astonishing game of deception and manipulation. Cooking the books and fiddling the tills.
They have deliberately plunged society into two camps – skeptics and adherents, compliant and non-conformists.
Last year established the mood for pettifogging anyone questioning the narrative, while those refusing to comply were branded narcissists and psychopaths or denounced as ‘Covid deniers’ – the modern-day equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
This government has polarised the nation on a scale never before attempted, legitimising a particular brand of prejudice and enmity not seen in Europe since the days of the Third Reich. And once the NHS App becomes your ticket to freedom on Monday, they will finally have means to weed out and punish dissidence while rewarding blind faith in authority. No matter how injurious their compliance is to society at large, the silent majority have lost their moral compass.
But it must be understood – this principle of divide and rule is as old as the hills. It was not so long ago that signs hung in the windows of establishments in Britain that read: ‘No dogs, No Irish, No blacks’. The difference today is that it won’t be the colour of your skin, your class, gender or sexual orientation that will condemn you, it will be something far more virulent – your ideology.
That this crucial point has been entirely missed by the chattering classes is astonishing. And despite the most flagrant attempts to marginalise large segments of society, identitarians, the woke brigade and other erstwhile defenders of the most marginalised remain largely unphased. Unless it is to flap their arms in the air over higher rates of vaccine hesitancy amongst ethnic minorities. But the rest of us can go to hell.
Who cares about anyone not from a protected social group, right?
In this bizarre parochial moral imperative, discrimination is only frowned upon if you’re discriminating against someone’s authorised and rubber-stamped marks of distinction, whereas discrimination, of and by itself, is entirely permissible.
These crowd-pleasers would defend their moral high ground by telling you “the unvaccinated are selfishly putting others’ lives at risk”, or that “mask refuseniks are superspreaders”. But hold on a minute. All of this is pure conjecture which, like everything else under the post-COVID sun, has been founded on speculative science and policies pulled straight from the magician’s hat.
Other than taking the government on its word, where is the actual evidence of asymptomatic transmission? Where is the evidence of mask efficacy?
In fact, can someone point me to a single risk assessment for any of these high-risk interventions? But to deny someone entry into an establishment, to prevent them from travelling, shopping, or worse, stepping foot outside of their own bolthole is no moot point. These are very real and tangible forms of discrimination, for no other reason than you personally disagree with their choices.
These people have clearly made peace with the fact that membership to society is now the exception rather than the rule. They labour under some neotribal sense of entitlement – if you’re not with us, you’re against us. Like their neolithic ancestors they take refuge in the herd from an unseen predator threatening their hand to mouth existences. Positioning themselves in the upper echelons of this looming two-tier system, with others equally desperate to get their lives back and ready to submit to whatever ephemeral demands are made of them in return for one coveted free pass to re-enter polite society.
While the rest of us – who will not be spoken for, bribed or coerced – will risk excommunication from the social-balm in defence of our principles.
This loose association of the poorest and most marginalised, conscientious objectors, lockdown skeptics, and anyone with a shred of faith in their god-given sovereignty of being or bodily autonomy will wage a personal crusade of civil disobedience against the tyranny de jour, as Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King did before them. For them, braver men have endured far worse for much less.
But what the first group fails to realise is that they are doing the unofficial bidding of another group – the well-healed members of our political establishment to whom the rules do not apply. Who are protected by more exemptions than the rest of us are governed by regulations. And who, at the onset of the pandemic, were not caught with their pants down, as the general population was.
Extract from UK gov’t report “Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures”, read the whole thing here.
What most card-carrying conservative voters fail to realise is that this group is the country’s biggest employer, with 17% of the British workforce employed in the public sector, whose every agency has been pointed like a cruise missile launch pad at the general population, to essentially knock our stuffing out and railroad us along a critical path, towards what is arguably a controlled destination – the complete nullification of our rights, indefinitely.
But that’s only half of it. Once you conflate unlawful policies with science that falls apart under the lightest of scrutiny to bring about the most controversial changes to Britain’s laws since the Norman Conquests, it is written in the cards that two types of citizens will be left in the wreckage: those wandering aimlessly into the trap having abandoned all reason and judgement to the trappers; and those whose contempt runs so deep they will lay their life on the line in opposition.
Now here’s the thing – there’s nothing particularly avant-garde about a two-tiered society or the discrimination of certain minority groups by the prevailing social order. And no matter what polite excuse is used to justify vaccine passports, it cannot be denied – this is the same system of caste, class, eugenics, apartheid, persecution and slavery that would inflict those toppling statues with an extreme case of dashed hopes.
But what is even more terrifying than the depths which the political class is prepared to sink, is the collusion of a silent majority – without a vested interest – whose own complicity will result in the persecution of everyone else not toeing the line.
And now, with 353,341 variants at their disposal, the government has 350,000 reasons to keep this fiasco going until hell freezes over.
Riding roughshod over the British public who, make no mistake, will continue to weather such violations, in spectacular ignorance of the fact that only 388 healthy people under the age of 60 died from COVID in 2020, the average age of death was 82, and strangely enough, the vast majority had pre-existing conditions. Equally unremarkable is the fact that between 23%-85% of all deaths attributed to COVID, died from other underlying causes.
You would also be forgiven for assuming that once the most vulnerable had been vaccinated (which is now), not much remains between the people and their freedom. That any further attempts to “protect us” with more turns of the screw entirely defy common reason.
Yet here we are, fighting a battle for humanity.
The trouble, therefore, with lockdown skeptics such as Peter Hitchens publicly throwing in the towel, or Lord Sumption accepting the inevitability of vaccine passports – they have raised the white flag long before the real battle has begun.
While lockdowns and social distancing represent the abstract of this ideological war, its frontlines are being waged on the physical surrender of our will and bodily autonomies. The former is arbitrary, the latter is systematised. One is going to happen with or without your consent, the latter is wholly dependent on it.
It follows that for each skeptic who surrenders their compliance, they sell the rest of us downriver. The balance swings more in favour of the New Normal. And let’s be honest, vaccine passports only work if a majority of us comply.
So while we still have the illusive veneer of democracy to hold onto, politicians remain duty-bound to at least pretend to be upholding some sort of system of informed consent. Just as we are compelled to at least give the appearance of upholding the necessary checks and balances.
Even if you accept the logic of vaccine passports, where exactly on your map does this end? Three weeks to flatten the curve, three lockdowns later and there is already talk of further lockdowns in the summer, or worse, restrictions lasting two more years.
If none of this strikes the fear of God into you, then perhaps this will:
The Pentagon have developed a microchip that will detect asymptomatic COVID. The chip would be inserted below the skin and trigger a sensor if COVID infects the body. This is despite the internet being flooded with factchekers and MSM pundits debunking what the so-called “tin foil hat brigade” has been warning of all along.
In plain sight, they hide their motives and by small degrees, we continue to surrender ancient rights and protections to an unthinkable dystopia that is now within sniffing distance.
Dustin Broadbery is based in London and is interested in social theory and particularly how a mutual society could bring about great advancements in the social fabric. You can read more of his work at TheCogent.org.
Britain is currently helping to train and develop Palestinian security forces in the Israeli-occupied West Bank in an effort to prevent the “potential overspill of violence into Israel,” an investigation by Declassified UK has revealed.
The Capability, Accountability, Sustainability and Inclusivity Programme aims to provide the Palestinian Authority security forces with support and training in order to make them “more capable” when dealing with “threats to Israel originating in the West Bank”. The promotion of “security cooperation with Israel” is also an objective.
Based in part on records and statistics obtained by a freedom of information request, the investigation discovered that the programme cost British taxpayers £3.3 million last year. This followed the £2.3 million that the Ministry of Defence was allocated in 2017-18 for its “British Support Team” based in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
That funding in turn was sourced from the £1.3 billion cross-government Conflict, Security and Stability Fund (CSSF), a subsidiary of key governmental departments which aims to improve stability in various regions by financing projects that do not directly impact Britain’s national security.
The team which trains the Palestinian security forces, Declassified UK found, is made up of seven military personnel from the British Army and Royal Air Force led by a brigadier. One document related to the programme notes that such British support has been ongoing for seventeen years, and does in fact aim to “reduce potential security threats to the UK” by addressing alleged extremism in the occupied territories.
According to the programme’s literature, however, the long-term aim of the training is to lay the groundwork for a two-state solution and prepare the security forces of a future Palestinian state, a process that the British have long claimed to support. “The UK supports Palestinian security sector reform because a capable PASF [Palestinian Authority Security Forces] is a pre-requisite for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the document explains.
Despite the PA being generally viewed as the legitimate political body representing Palestinians in the West Bank – following its creation in 1994 after the Oslo Accords – there have been widespread concerns regarding its corruption, the lack of political legitimacy of President Mahmoud Abbas (whose term of office should have ended in 2009) and its security coordination with Israel. The PA’s torture of Palestinian detainees has also been well-documented.
The report by Declassified UK also details Whitehall’s other security programmes in the region, including the manufacture and distribution of military vehicles for the PA and Jordanian forces, as well as extensive support and training for Lebanese security forces dealing with Palestinian refugees in the UN-run refugee camps in Lebanon. Although the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office in London claim that such operations serve the purpose of countering the influence of groups such as Hezbollah, the projects under the CSSF all have the common stated aim of preventing Palestinian resistance and “violent extremism” from spilling over into Israel.
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
The oligarchy running the Trans Atlantic System certainly loves the centralized control found in the Chinese system, and they adore the behaviorist social credit stuff, but that is where the admiration ends, Matt Ehret writes.
Ever since the earliest days of the Coronavirus pandemic, evidence began to emerge that the virus was not a naturally occurring evolutionary phenomenon as asserted by the WHO, Nature, and editors at the Lancet, but had other origins.
Among the earliest of those who found themselves supporting this theory were the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lijian Zhou who made international waves by sharing two articles by Larry Romanov on the possibility of “gene targeting” of the virus which was having a disproportionately bad effect on Iranians, Italians and various Asian genotypes. Zhou was soon joined by bioweapons experts like Francis Boyle, prominent virologists Luc Montagnier and Judy Mikovits, followed by a growing array of scholars, scientists and academics from around the world who all assessed that the virus’ apparent gene sequencing implied human handiwork. While all agreed that COVID appeared to have originated from a lab, it was still unclear whether that lab was Chinese or controlled by the USA.
Another obvious question arose with this lab theory: Was it an accidental leak or was it consciously deployed?
Since pandemic war game operations had become a normalized part of western geopolitical life from the early days of Dark Winter in 2000 to the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2011 Lock Step to the World Economic Forum’s Event 201 (and dozens more in between), the likelihood of conscious deployment was a very serious possibility.
Who had the motive, means and modus operandi to carry out such a global operation?
The Wuhan Theory Begins
By February 2020, the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis began to make headlines fed by evidence that Dr. Anthony Fauci had exported certain gain of function coronavirus experiments from U.S. bioweapons laboratories to Wuhan’s Institute of Virology – one of two BSL-4 labs in China equipped to conduct this sort of research in China.
When Sir Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6) became a loud proponent of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis in June 2020, something seemed amiss. Dearlove certainly knew a thing or two about bioweapons. He knew very well of the Pentagon’s vast array of internationally extended bioweapons labs peppered across the world, and he certainly understood the art of misdirection being a byzantine shadow creature who operated at the highest echelons of British intelligence. Dearlove was after all in charge of the “yellowcake” dodgy dossier that launched an Iraq war, he knew of the fallacious reports of nerve gases used by the governments of Libya and Syria sponsored by MI6, had even overseen major components of Russiagate that drove a color revolutionary process in the USA. Dearlove also knew a thing or two about the Porton Down labs that manufactured Novichok used in the Skripal Affair.
While Dearlove’s cheerleading of the Wuhan lab theory raised alarm bells, as time passed, no smoking gun evidence surfaced that one could fully “take to court”. In this respect, Dearlove’s operation had the upper hand since receipts from Fauci’s NIH to the Wuhan Lab did make headlines. How convenient.
Before going into the next phase of the story, it is important to recall that the absence of empirical evidence is not by itself a proof of one party’s innocence, just as the existence of a piece of empirical evidence is not a proof of another party’s guilt. This was a sad discovery made far too late by Shakespeare’s Othello after Iago’s planted “evidence” of a handkerchief resulted in the foolish warrior to murder his loving wife.
Wuhan Lab Origins Go Viral Again
In recent weeks, the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis has once again become all the rage.
Rand Paul’s May 10 showdown with Fauci over this the latter’s funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology added fuel to the fire. Sky News’ May 7 reporting of public Chinese policy papers discussing covid-based bioweapons have gone viral. On March 26, former Center of Disease Control head Robert Redfield asserted support for the Wuhan lab leak theory. While the scanned receipts of the funds transfer from the NIH to Wuhan via Eco Health Alliance ($600 thousand went to Wuhan) for coronavirus research, had been available since last February, one must wonder why it is now over a year later that this fact is being spread across the perception landscape on all levels.
Both mainstream and alternative media across the western world representing both the left and right have jumped on board the bandwagon blaming China for leaking the virus whether by accident or intent (though obviously, intent is the conclusion which anyone is being expected to draw. But again, I must ask: In a world of misdirection, psychological warfare and perception management, do the clues that we are being given force us to conclude that the Chinese government is behind the global shutdown?
Chinese Leaders Blame the CIA
Zeng Guang, a chief epidemiologist at China’s Center of Disease Control recently joined the conspiracy club on February 9, 2021 in an interview with Chinese media. While denying that the Chinese Wuhan lab is the source of the virus as so many in the west have claimed, Guang asserted that SarsCov2’s origins in a laboratory should not be discounted. Pointing to the 200 globally extended U.S. bioweapons labs littering the earth (and citing the USA’s proven track record of deploying bioweapons as part of its asymmetrical war arsenal since WWII), Guang asked:
“Why are there so many laboratories in the United States when biology labs are all over the world? What is the purpose? On many things, the United States requires others to be open and transparent, only to find that it is the United States itself that is often the most opaque. Whether or not the United States has any special fame on the issue of the new crown virus this time, it should have the courage to be open and transparent. The United States should take responsibility for proving itself to the world, rather than being caught up in hegemonic thinking, hiding itself from the virus and dumping others.”
“I’d like to stress that if the United States truly respects facts, it should open the biological lab at Fort Detrick, give more transparency to issues like its 200-plus overseas bio-labs, invite WHO experts to conduct origin-tracing in the United States, and respond to the concerns from the international community with real actions.”
Those who tend to avoid looking at the history and scope of Pentagon controlled bioweapon warfare tend to ignore the content of such remarks cited by those Chinese officials above for a multitude of reasons. For one: it is easy to believe that Fauci and Gates are corrupt, and this theory not only implicates both men but also ties them to a Chinese government which most westerners have come to fear and hate as a bastion of global debt-trappery, genocide, technocracy and imperialism.
After conducting a short review of some of the fundamental facts of recent world history alongside certain geopolitical realities of our present world order referenced by the head of the Chinese CDC, I believe that China’s Wuhan Lab is being set up. Here’s why…
Fact #1) Depopulation Then and Now
While many people may wish to avoid looking at this fact, depopulation is a driving factor behind international unipolar policy today as it had been during the days of WW2 when Rockefeller Foundation, Macy Foundation, City of London and Wall Street interests gave their backing to both the rise of fascism as an economic miracle solution for the economic woes of the great depression and eugenics (the science of population control) as the governing religion of a new scientific priesthood.
Today, this agenda masquerades behind a new transhumanist movement, shaped by a words like “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, “decarbonized economies”, and “Great Resets”. The primary targets of this agenda remain: 1) the Institution of the sovereign nation state itself as it was the target a century ago when the Bank of England arranged the formation of the 1919 League of Nations, and 2) the “overpopulated zones” of the world with a focus on China, India, South America and Africa.
For anyone who would find themselves instinctively inclined to brush aside such claims as “conspiracy theorizing”, I would encourage a brief review of Sir Henry Kissinger’s infamous NSSM-200 report: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests published in 1974. This declassified report went far to transform U.S. foreign policy from a pro-development philosophy to a new paradigm of population control. Kissinger warned that “if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970s and 1980s…. (Financial) assistance will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth… Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy… Allocation of scarce resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control… There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed….”
In Kissinger’s twisted logic, U.S. Foreign Policy doctrine had too often foolishly sought to end hunger by providing the means of industrial and scientific development to poor nations.
A true Malthusian through and through, Kissinger believed that aiding the poor to stand on their own feet would result in global disequilibrium as the new middle classes would consume more, and use the strategic resources found under their own soil, which would set the world system into greater disequilibrium and accelerated entropy.
This was deemed unacceptable to the mind of Kissinger and any misanthropic follower of Malthus who shared his views of humanity and government.
Kissinger’s Master-Slave Global Society
At the time of Kissinger’s ascent to power as Secretary of State under Nixon, a new grand strategy was unleashed designed to create a new “master-slave” dependency between the developed and undeveloped sectors of the world… with a special emphasis on the 13 nations targeted by NSSM 200 plus China.
China itself was only permitted to acquire western tech needed to start climbing out of abject poverty on the condition that they obeyed the Rockefeller-World Bank demands that one child policy programs were imposed to curb population growth.
Kissinger began organizing for this new set of relations in society around “Have”, post-industrial consumers and a massive “Have-Not” class of poor laborers with access to industry, but remaining stagnant, cheap and without the means of purchasing the goods they produced. The other darker skinned parts of the world would be even more worse off, having neither the means of production, nor consumption while remaining in constant states of famine, war and backwardness. These dark age zones would be largely made up of Sub Saharan Africa and would find their resource-rich lands exploited by the corporate middle men and financiers trying to run the world order above the “obsolete order” of nation states.
Kissinger’s model of a world order was absolutely static with no room for population growth or technological progress which would have any connection to increasing the powers of production. Mao and the Gang of Four which ran the cultural revolution appeared to be highly compatible with Kissinger’s agenda. But when Mao died and the Gang of Four were rightfully imprisoned, a new long-term strategy known as the Four Modernizations shaped by Zhou Enlai and carried out by Deng Xiaoping was launched. This program was far more foresighted than Kissinger realized.
Fact #2) China is currently a leading force of pro-population growth.
While the west has been accelerating into a decaying path on every measurable level, China is quickly moving in an opposing trajectory via extending long term investments and advanced tech development into its own society as well as to its neighbors through such comprehensive projects as the Belt and Road Initiative.
While its own population has not healed from the disastrous 1979 one child policy and is far from achieving the 2.1 children per couple needed for replacement fertility, it did lift the one child limit to two in 2015 and leading Bank of China economists have called for a total elimination of all limits immediately. Meanwhile, the top-down national orientation of China towards increasing the free energy needed to support and grow the economy is unlike anything we have seen in the closed-system western world for many decades.
A vital fact often forgotten is that together China and India were instrumental in sabotaging the December 2009 COP-14 program in Copenhagen which had promised to establish legally binding emission target cuts to guide the de-carbonization (and de-industrialization) of much of society.
The London Guardian had reported that “Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.”
Apparently China and India, along with African governments like Sudan (which had not yet been carved up on the careful watch of Rhodes’ Susan Rice) did not wish to sacrifice their industry and national sovereignty on the altar of climate change models and technocrats that had only weeks earlier been publicly exposed as frauds by East Anglia University researchers during the embarrassing Climategate scandal.
While China and India should be celebrated for having sabotaged this effort 11 years ago, very few people have been able to hold this drama in their memory, and fewer still realize how this fight over sovereignty was in any way connected to China’s 2013 creation of the Belt and Road Initiative as the vital force behind the Multipolar Alliance.
Fact #3) Soros at Davos 2020: The two greatest threats to Open Society: 1) Donald Trump’s USA and 2) Xi Jinping’s China.
During his January 2020 Davos speech, Soros took aim at both Trump and Xi Jinping as the two greatest threats to his Open Society who had to be stopped at all costs. In September 2019 (just as Event 201 was happening) Soros wrote in the Wall Street Journal :
“As founder of the Open Society Foundations, my interest in defeating Xi Jinping’s China goes beyond U.S. national interests. As I explained in a speech in Davos earlier this year, I believe that the social-credit system Beijing is building, if allowed to expand, could sound the death knell of open societies not only in China but also around the globe.”
Before becoming mired into the “China virus” narrative, Donald Trump had worked exceptionally hard to emphasize good relations with China and even managed one of the most important trade deals that had successfully moved into phase one the week Soros spoke at Davos. This first phase involved China creating a market to purchase U.S. finished goods as part of the program to rebuild America’s lost manufacturing sector that had been hollowed out over 5 decades of “post industrialism”. Where Kissinger called NAFTA “the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War” Trump went far to renegotiate the anti-nation state treaty giving nation states a role to play in shaping economic policy for the first time in over 25 years.
While talking tough on China until 2020, Trump also resisted the war hawks pushing a total military encirclement of China begun under Obama’s Asia Pivot which is threatening nuclear war (same thing is happening on Russia’s perimeter). He took the fuel out of the THAAD missile encirclement of China which has justified its expansion based on the “North Korean threat” for over a decade – always denying the truth that the real target were both Russia and China. Trump’s push to build friendly relations with Kim Jong Un had much greater ramifications at changing U.S. Pacific military policy than many realized, although that fact was certainly not missed by the Chinese intelligentsia.
While the Soros/CIA-driven color revolutionary operations have so far failed to divide up China in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang, they have been successful in the USA.
Fact #4) The Pentagon’s Global Bioweapons Complex Is a Fact
While China is the proud owner of a total of TWO bioweapons labs (both within its borders), a vast array of dozens of Pentagon-run bioweapons labs litter the international landscape. Exactly how many is hard to estimate as Alexei Mukhin (Director General of Russia’s Center for Political Information) stated in a May 2020 interview:
“According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, in the post-Soviet space, 65 American secret bio-laboratories operate: 15 – in Ukraine, 12 – in Armenia, 15 – in Georgia, 4 – in Kazakhstan. In the United States, such activity is prohibited. Accordingly, the Pentagon, in its own laws, is engaged in illegal activities (in spirit, not in letter). The goal is the creation of biological weapons directed against the peoples who inhabited the territory of the USSR. Fortunately, biological material is “at hand.”
In 2018, investigative journalist Dilya Gaytandzhieva documented the Pentagon’s multibillion dollar budget that sustains bioweapons labs in 25 nations (and 11 within the USA itself) which grew exponentially since the December 2001 bioweaponized anthrax attack killed five Americans and justified a hyperbolic increase of bioweapon warfare to rise from $5 billion when Cheney’s Bioshield Act was passed in 2004 to over $50 billion today.
Additionally, an October 2000 policy document co-authored by William Kristol, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Donald Rumsfeld titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses (RAD) explicitly stated that in the new American Century, “combat will likely take place in new dimensions: In space, cyber-space and perhaps the world of microbes… advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.
Fact #5) International Pandemic War Game Scenarios Laid the groundwork for the international response to Covid. Not China
The driving force behind such bioweapon war game exercises such as the June 2000 Operation Dark Winter, the May 2010 Rockefeller Foundation report Operation Lock step, and the World Economic Forum/Gates Foundation/CIA Event 201 pandemic exercises indicate to me that China is not the causal nexus.
All in all, I think these facts have persuaded me that China is being set up and is in fact a primary target for destruction.
How China would find itself the beneficiary of such an irresponsible unleashing of a novel virus that hammered its own economy, accelerated the blow out of the world financial bubble economy and led to a shut down of international stability is absurd to the extreme… especially considering the fact that everything China has done for the past decades has indicated a consistent desire to create stability, long term development and win-win cooperation with the international community. Nothing similar has been seen among members of the Five Eyes or their Trans Atlantic network of over bloated imperialists.
The oligarchy running the Trans Atlantic System certainly loves the centralized control found in the Chinese system, and they adore the behaviorist social credit stuff, but that is where the admiration ends. The Kissinger, Gates, Carney or Schwab- types hate and fear everything China has actually done for development, population growth, national banking, long term credit generation, building full spectrum industrial economies and defending sovereignty along with Russia whom they are tightly bonded with in the Eurasian Multipolar alliance.
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
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 
