Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

13% of US hospitals critically understaffed, 22% anticipate shortages: Numbers by state

By Marissa Plescia and Kelly Gooch | Becker’s Hospital Review | January 24, 2022

Almost 13 percent — or 772 of 6,004 — of hospitals reporting staffing levels in the U.S. are experiencing critical staffing shortages, according to HHS data posted Jan. 23.

This is about 2 percentage points less than figures released Jan. 20.

A critical staffing shortage is based on a facility’s needs and internal policies for staffing ratios, according to HHS. Hospitals using temporary staff to meet staffing ratios are not counted among those experiencing a shortage.

Meanwhile, almost 22 percent — or 1,305 of 6,004 — of hospitals reporting staffing levels in the U.S. are anticipating shortages in the next week.

About 30 percent of hospitals did not report if they’re currently experiencing shortages, and about 21 percent did not report if they anticipate shortages.

Below are two lists showing current staffing shortages and anticipated shortages.

Percent of hospitals in each state and the District of Columbia experiencing critical staffing shortages, ranked in descending order:

1. Vermont: 58.82 percent

2. West Virginia: 47.62 percent

3. New Mexico: 47.27 percent

4. Wisconsin: 33.33 percent

5. North Dakota: 32.65 percent

6. Arizona: 29.52 percent

7. Michigan: 29.38 percent

8. Kentucky: 29.06 percent

9. South Carolina: 28.05 percent

10. Louisiana: 25.33 percent

11. Georgia: 24.71 percent

12. Indiana: 23.95 percent

13. Nebraska: 22.22 percent

14. Tennessee: 22.14 percent

15. Delaware: 20 percent

16. Pennsylvania: 19.03 percent

17. Minnesota: 17.14 percent

18. Montana: 16.92 percent

19. Washington: 16.5 percent

20. Virginia: 15.24 percent

21. Oklahoma: 13.1 percent

22. New Jersey: 12.5 percent

23. Hawaii: 12 percent

24. Missouri: 10.95 percent (tie)

24. Kansas: 10.95 percent (tie)

26. Wyoming: 9.68 percent

27. Oregon: 9.38 percent

28. Maryland: 9.09 percent

29. California: 8.71 percent

30. Colorado: 8.6 percent

31. North Carolina: 7.69 percent

32. Mississippi: 7.41 percent

33. New Hampshire: 6.67 percent (tie)

33. Rhode Island: 6.67 percent (tie)

35. Nevada: 6.56 percent

36. Arkansas: 5.61 percent

37. Maine: 5.41 percent

38. Alaska: 4.17 percent

39. Illinois: 3.96 percent

40. Idaho: 3.77 percent

41. Florida: 3.56 percent

42. Iowa: 3.17 percent

43. New York: 2.48 percent

44. Texas: 2.36 percent

45. Ohio: 0.86 percent

46. Alabama: 0 percent (tie)

46. District of Columbia: 0 percent (tie)

46. South Dakota: 0 percent (tie)

46. Utah: 0 percent (tie)

46. Connecticut: 0 percent (tie)

46. Massachusetts: 0 percent (tie)

Percent of hospitals in each state and the District of Columbia anticipating critical staffing shortages within the next week, ranked in descending order:

1. Vermont: 70.59 percent

2. Rhode Island: 53.33 percent

3. West Virginia: 52.38 percent

4. New Mexico: 47.27 percent

5. Kentucky: 41.03 percent

6. California: 40.3 percent

7. Alabama: 35.9 percent

8. Tennessee: 35.71 percent

9. Wyoming: 35.48 percent

10. Wisconsin: 35.33 percent

11. Michigan: 33.75 percent

12. Delaware: 33.33 percent

13. Missouri: 32.85 percent

14. North Dakota: 32.65 percent

15. Massachusetts: 32.35 percent

16. Nebraska: 32.32 percent

17. Arizona: 30.48 percent

18. Kansas: 29.93 percent

19. South Carolina: 29.27 percent

20. Oklahoma: 28.97 percent

21. Georgia: 28.82 percent

22. Indiana: 27.54 percent

23. Louisiana: 24.44 percent

24. Mississippi: 23.15 percent

25. Arkansas: 22.43 percent

26. Virginia: 21.9 percent

27. Pennsylvania: 21.68 percent

28. Washington: 20.39 percent

29. New Hampshire: 20 percent

30. Montana: 18.46 percent

31. Maryland: 18.18 percent

32. Minnesota: 17.14 percent

33. New Jersey: 16.67 percent (tie)

33. Alaska: 16.67 percent (tie)

35. Florida: 16.6 percent

36. Colorado: 13.98 percent

37. Idaho: 13.21 percent

38. Illinois: 12.87 percent

39. Hawaii: 12 percent

40. Oregon: 10.94 percent

41. North Carolina: 10.77 percent

42. South Dakota: 9.38 percent

43. Maine: 8.11 percent

44. Utah: 7.14 percent

45. Nevada: 6.56 percent

46. New York: 6.44 percent

47. Iowa: 4.76 percent

48. Texas: 3.54 percent

49. Connecticut: 2.56 percent

50. Ohio: 0.86 percent

51. District of Columbia: 0 percent

January 24, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

100s of Published Reports of Post-Vaccine Medical Distress (Part 1)

By Donna Laframboise | No Fracking Consensus | January 17, 2022

COVID-19 vaccines are harming people. This fact is now extensively documented in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

We’re told these events are rare. So what’s the magic number? How many reports of alarming medical outcomes are necessary before we admit the ‘cure’ might be worse than the disease?

Most people who contract COVID don’t develop serious medical issues. But the small percentage who do can overwhelm the health care system.

Most people who receive a COVID vaccine don’t develop serious medical issues. But the small percentage who do can also overwhelm the health care system. Everyone wants to talk about the first problem. No one wants to talk about the second.

Last week, an extensive list of articles from the peer-reviewed medical literature was posted on Reddit by someone known only as xxyiorgos. More than 400 articles are on that list (backup link here).

Here are the first 100. I’ve numbered, and verified them. In some cases, I’ve updated the hyperlink. This research is emerging from numerous countries including Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Qatar, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the US.

Comments in brackets added by me.

1. Cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination in the UK: a multicentre cohort study [stroke, Lancet, Aug. 2021]
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01608-1/

2.  Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia with disseminated intravascular coagulation and death after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: [fatal blood clots, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, Sept. 2021]
https://www.strokejournal.org/article/S1052-3057(21)00341-4/fulltext

3. Fatal cerebral hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccine: [fatal brain bleed, Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, Apr. 2021]
https://tidsskriftet.no/2021/04/kort-kasuistikk/fatal-hjerneblodning-etter-covid-19-vaksine

4. “Myocarditis after mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series:” [heart inflammation, American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research & Practice, Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602221000409

5. Three cases of acute venous thromboembolism in women after vaccination against COVID-19: [blood clots, Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders, Jan. 2022]
https://www.jvsvenous.org/article/S2213-333X(21)00392-9/fulltext

6. Acute coronary tree thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19: [blood clots, Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions, May 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1936879821003988

7. US case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, March 2 to April 21, 2020: [stroke, Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2021]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779731

8. Portal vein thrombosis associated with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: [blood clots, Lancet, June 2021]
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(21)00197-7/

9. Management of cerebral and splanchnic vein thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia in subjects previously vaccinated with Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca): position statement of the Italian Society for the Study of Hemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET): [blood clots, Blood Transfusion, July-Aug. 201]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8297668/

10. Vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with COVID-19; a systematic review: [blood clots, Journal of the Neurological Sciences, Sept. 2021]
https://www.jns-journal.com/article/S0022-510X(21)00301-4/fulltext

11. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines: [blood clots, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Nov. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675721004381

12. Covid-19 vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia: a commentary on an important and practical clinical dilemma: [blood clots, Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, July-Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033062021000505

13. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 viral vector vaccines: [blood clots, European Journal of Internal Medicine, July 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0953620521001904

14. COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: an emerging cause of splanchnic vein thrombosis: [blood clots, Annals of Hepatology, July-Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268121000557

15. The roles of platelets in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (covid): [blood clots, Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine, Jan. 2022]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050173821000967

16. Roots of autoimmunity of thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: [blood clots, Autoimmunity Reviews, Nov. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568997221002160

17. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination: the United Kingdom experience: [brain blood clots, [stroke, Lancet, Sept. 2021]
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01788-8/fulltext

18. Thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: [blood clots, New England Journal of Medicine, Apr. 2021]
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2106315

19. Myocarditis after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in members of the US military: [heart inflammation, Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2021]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601

20. Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: [blood clots, New England Journal of Medicine, Apr. 2021]
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882

21. Association of myocarditis with the BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine in a case series of children: [heart inflammation, Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology, Aug. 2021]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052

22. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: [blood clots, New England Journal of Medicine, June 2021]
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840

23. Post-mortem findings in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (covid-19): [fatal blood clots, Haematologica, Aug. 2021]
https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2021.279075

24. Thrombocytopenia, including immune thrombocytopenia after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): [blood clots, Vaccine, June 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21005247

25. Acute symptomatic myocarditis in seven adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: [heart inflammation, Pediatrics, Sept. 2021]
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/3/e2021052478/179728/Symptomatic-Acute-Myocarditis-in-7-Adolescents

26. Aphasia seven days after the second dose of an mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. [brain bleed, Brain Hemorrhages, Dec. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589238X21000292

27. Comparison of vaccine-induced thrombotic episodes between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV.2.S vaccines: [blood clots, Journal of Autoimmunity, Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0896841121000895

28. Hypothesis behind the very rare cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: [blood clots, Thrombosis Research, July 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049384821003315

29. Blood clots and bleeding episodes after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: analysis of European data: [blood clots, Journal of Autoimmunity, Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841121000937

30. Cerebral venous thrombosis after BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: [stroke, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1052305721003098

31. Primary adrenal insufficiency associated with thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by the Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (VITT): [blood clots, European Journal of Internal Medicine, Sept. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620521002363

32. Myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: practical considerations for care providers: [heart inflammation, Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Oct. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0828282X21006243

33. “Portal vein thrombosis occurring after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in a patient with antiphospholipid syndrome”: [blood clots, Thrombosis Update, Dec. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666572721000389

34. Early results of bivalirudin treatment for thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S: [blood clots, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Oct. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064421003425

35. Myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: [heart inflammation, Heart, Lung and Circulation, Oct. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950621011562

36. Mechanisms of immunothrombosis in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) compared to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection: [blood clots, Journal of Autoimmunity, July 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0896841121000706

37. Prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: [blood clots, Blood, July 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497121009411

38. Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: the dark chapter of a success story: [blood clots, Metabolism Open, Sept. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936821000256

39. Anti-PF4 antibody negative cerebral venous sinus thrombosis without thrombocytopenia following immunization with COVID-19 vaccine in an elderly non-comorbid Indian male, managed with conventional heparin-warfarin based anticoagulation: [stroke, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, July-Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121002046

40. Thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: possible link to ACE pathways: [blood clots, Thrombosis Research, Oct. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049384821004369

41. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in the U.S. population after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with adenovirus and after COVID-19: [stroke, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, July 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109721051949

42. Middle-age Asian male with cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccination: [stroke, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Jan. 2022]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675721005714

43. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: report of two cases in the United Kingdom: [stroke, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, July 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088915912100163X

44. Immune thrombocytopenic purpura after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCov-19): [blood clots, Blood, Sept. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006497121013963

45. Antiphospholipid antibodies and risk of thrombophilia after COVID-19 vaccination: the straw that breaks the camel’s back?: [blood clots, Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews, Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359610121000423

46. Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, a rare but severe case of friendly fire in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic: What pathogenesis? [blood clots, European Journal of Internal Medicine, Sept. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620521002314

47. Diagnostic-therapeutic recommendations of the ad-hoc FACME expert working group on the management of cerebral venous thrombosis related to COVID-19 vaccination: [stroke, Neurología, Spanish Neurology Society, July-Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173580821000754

48. Thrombocytopenia and intracranial venous sinus thrombosis after exposure to the “AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine Astrazeneca” exposure: [stroke, Journal of Clinical Medicine, Apr. 2021]
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/8/1599/htm

49. Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: [blood clots, American Journal of Hematology, Feb. 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.26132

50. Severe and refractory immune thrombocytopenia occurring after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: [blood clots, Journal of Blood Medicine, Feb. 2021]
https://www.dovepress.com/severe-refractory-immune-thrombocytopenia-occurring-after-sars-cov-2-v-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-JBM

51. Purpuric rash and thrombocytopenia after mRNA-1273 (Modern) COVID-19 vaccine: [blood clots, Cureus, Mar. 2021]
https://www.cureus.com/articles/54984-purpuric-rash-and-thrombocytopenia-after-the-mrna-1273-moderna-covid-19-vaccine

52. COVID-19 vaccination: information on the occurrence of arterial and venous thrombosis using data from VigiBase: [stroke, European Respiratory Journal, July 2021]
https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/58/1/2100956

53. Cerebral venous thrombosis associated with the covid-19 vaccine in Germany: [stroke, Annals of Neurology, July 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.26172

54. Cerebral venous thrombosis following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2: a black swan event: [stroke, American Journal of Hematology, June 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.26272

55. The importance of recognizing cerebral venous thrombosis following anti-COVID-19 vaccination: [stroke, European Journal of Internal Medicine, May 2021]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34001390/

56. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after messenger RNA vaccine -1273: [blood clots, Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 2021]
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L21-0244

57. Blood clots and bleeding after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: an analysis of European data: [blood clots, Journal of Autoimmunity, Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841121000937

58. First dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events in Scotland: [blood clots, Nature Medicine, June 2021]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01408-4

59. Exacerbation of immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: [blood clots, British Journal of Haematology, June 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjh.17645

60. First report of a de novo iTTP episode associated with a COVID-19 mRNA-based anti-COVID-19 vaccine: [blood clots, Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, June 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jth.15418

61. PF4 immunoassays in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: [blood clots, New England Journal of Medicine, July 2021]
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106383

62. Antibody epitopes in vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: [blood clots, Nature, July 2021]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03744-4

63. Myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: [heart inflammation, Circulation, July 2021]
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135

64. Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: [heart inflammation, Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 2021]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900

65. Myocarditis temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination: [heart inflammation, Circulation, June 2021]
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.055891

66. COVID-19 Vaccination Associated with Myocarditis in Adolescents: [heart inflammation, Pediatrics, Nov. 2021]
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/5/e2021053427/181357/COVID-19-Vaccination-Associated-Myocarditis-in

67. Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19: [heart inflammation, Revista Española de Cardiología, Spanish Society of Cardiology, Sept. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S188558572100133X

68. Temporal association between COVID-19 vaccine Ad26.COV2.S and acute myocarditis: case report and review of the literature: [heart inflammation, Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, Aug. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553838921005789

69. COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: a case report with review of the literature: [heart inflammation, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, Sept.-Oct. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121002253

70. Potential association between COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis: clinical and CMR findings: [heart inflammation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Imaging, Sept. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1936878X2100485X

71. Recurrence of acute myocarditis temporally associated with receipt of coronavirus mRNA disease vaccine 2019 (COVID-19) in a male adolescent: [heart inflammation, Journal of Pediatrics, Nov. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002234762100617X

72. Fulminant myocarditis and systemic hyper inflammation temporally associated with BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in two patients: [heart inflammation, International Journal of Cardiology, Oct. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527321012286

73. Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine: [heart inflammation, Infectious Disease Cases, 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921001530

74. Lymphohistocytic myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S viral vector: [heart inflammation, International Journal of Cardiology: Heart & Vasculature, Oct. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721001573

75. Myocarditis following vaccination with BNT162b2 in a healthy male: [heart inflammation, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Dec. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675721005362

76. Acute myocarditis after Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccination in a healthy male with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: [heart inflammation, Radiology Case Reports, Nov. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043321005549

77. Myopericarditis after Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents: [heart inflammation, Journal of Pediatrics, Nov. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002234762100665X

78. Pericarditis after administration of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: [heart inflammation, Revista Española de Cardiología, Spanish Society of Cardiology, Dec. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1885585721002218

79. Acute myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 mRNA: [heart inflammation, Canadian Journal of Cardiology: Open, Nov. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X21001931

80. Temporal relationship between the second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine and cardiac involvement in a patient with previous SARS-COV-2 infection: [heart problems, International Journal of Cardiology: Heart & Vasculature, June 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721000622

81. Myopericarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents 12 to 18 years of age: [heart inflammation, Journal of Pediatrics, Nov. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347621007368

82. Acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a 24-year-old man: [heart inflammation, Portuguese Journal of Cardiology, July 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0870255121003243

83. Important information on myopericarditis after vaccination with Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents: [heart inflammation, Journal of Pediatrics, Nov. 2021]
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)00749-6/fulltext

84. A series of patients with myocarditis after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA-1279 and BNT162b2: [heart inflammation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Imaging, Sept. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1936878X21004861

85. Takotsubo cardiomyopathy after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19: [heart problems, Heart, Lung and Circulation, Dec. 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950621011331

86. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and myocarditis: [heart inflammation, European Journal of Case Reports in Internal Medicine, June 2021]
https://www.ejcrim.com/index.php/EJCRIM/article/view/2681/2723

87. COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis: [heart inflammation, American Journal of Cardiology, July 2021]
https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(21)00639-1/fulltext

88. Allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination: putting the risk in perspective: [allergic reactions, JAMA Network Open, Aug. 2021]
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783633

89. Anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a call for further studies: [allergic reactions, Vaccine, May 2021]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21003777

90. Risk of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines among patients with allergic skin disease: practical recommendations. An ETFAD position statement with external experts: [allergic reactions, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, June 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.17237

91. COVID-19 vaccine and death: causality algorithm according to the WHO eligibility diagnosis: [fatal blood clots, Diagnostics, May 2021]
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/6/955

92. Fatal brain hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccine: [fatal brain bleed, Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, April 2021]
https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2021/04/kort-kasuistikk/fatal-cerebral-haemorrhage-after-covid-19-vaccine

93. A case series of skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccine in the Department of Dermatology at Loma Linda University: [skin problems, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology: Case Reports, Aug. 2021]
https://www.jaadcasereports.org/article/S2352-5126(21)00540-3/fulltext

94. Skin reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccination: a study based on a registry of 414 cases: [skin problems, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Apr. 2021]
https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(21)00658-7/fulltext

95. Clinical and pathologic correlates of skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccine, including V-REPP: a registry-based study: [skin problems, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Sept. 2021]
https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(21)02442-7/fulltext

96. Skin reactions after vaccination against SARS-COV-2: a nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study of 405 cases: [skin problems, British Journal of Dermatology, July 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjd.20639

97. Varicella zoster virus and herpes simplex virus reactivation after vaccination with COVID-19: review of 40 cases in an international dermatologic registry: [herpes, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Sept. 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.17646

98. Immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT) associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for a new syndrome: [blood clots, European Journal of Haematology, May 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejh.13665

99. Laboratory testing for suspicion of COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic (immune) thrombocytopenia: [blood clots, International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, June 2021]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijlh.13629

100. Intracerebral hemorrhage due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: the first fatal case in Korea: [brain bleed, Journal of Korean Medical Science, Aug. 2021]
https://jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e223

January 24, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

ICAN LAWYER BREAKS DOWN SCOTUS VACCINE CASE

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 19, 2022

Just moments after the Supreme Court ruled against Biden’s vaccine mandate for large employers, ICAN Attorney, Aaron Siri, Esq., joins Del to critique important moments from this monumental hearing.

January 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

News the BBC couldn’t ignore as top doctors demand jab mandates are ditched

By Will Jones | TCW Defending Freedom | January 23, 2022

THE NHS vaccine mandate should be cancelled to prevent staff shortages, the Royal College of GPs has said, as thousands took to the streets across England to protest against the policy. The BBC reported:

‘NHS workers who oppose the Government’s mandatory vaccination policy have staged a protest in central London.

‘Demonstrations were also held in other cities across England including Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds.

‘Martin Marshall, Chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said compulsory vaccination for health professionals in England was “not the right way forward”.

He said the vast majority of staff were vaccinated but some 70,000 to 80,000 were not and they accounted for 10 per cent of staff at some hospital or GP surgeries.

If unvaccinated staff were taken out of frontline roles by April 1st there would be “massive consequences” for the NHS, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

‘He said a delay would allow time for booster jabs and a “sensible conversation” about whether vaccines should be mandatory at all.

‘Danny Mortimer, deputy chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said some frontline staff would have to leave their roles if they choose not to be vaccinated.

‘He said: “This will reduce frontline NHS staff numbers even further and lead to more gaps in capacity at a time of intense pressure and patient demand.”

‘In London, demonstrators marched from Regents Park to the BBC headquarters in Portland Place in a peaceful protest against mandating vaccines for health workers.’

Update:

The Telegraph and Daily Mail report that mandatory vaccines for NHS staff could now be pushed back by six months, following these nationwide protests over the requirement and amid demands by Tory backbenchers to drop the rule entirely.

January 23, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

The Emergency Must Be Ended, Now

BY HARVEY RISCH, JAYANTA BHATTACHARYA, PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JANUARY 23, 2022

The time has come to terminate the pandemic state of emergency. It is time to end the controls, the closures, the restrictions, the plexiglass, the stickers, the exhortations, the panic-mongering, the distancing announcements, the ubiquitous commercials, the forced masking, the vaccine mandates.

We don’t mean that the virus is gone – omicron is still spreading wildly, and the virus may circulate forever.  But with a normal focus on protecting the vulnerable, we can treat the virus as a medical rather than a social matter and manage it in ordinary ways. A declared emergency needs continuous justification, and that is now lacking.

Over the last six weeks in the US, the delta variant strain – the most recent aggressive version of the infection – has according to CDC been declining in both the proportion of infections (60% on December 18 to 0.5% on January 15) and the number of daily infected people (95,000 to 2,100). During the next two weeks, delta will decline to the point that it essentially disappears like the strains before it.

Omicron is mild enough that most people, even many high-risk people, can adequately cope with the infection. Omicron infection is no more severe than seasonal flu, and generally less so. A large portion of the vulnerable population in the developed world is already vaccinated and protected against severe disease. We have learned much about the utility of inexpensive supplements like Vitamin D to reduce disease risk, and there is a host of good therapeutics available to prevent hospitalization and death should a vulnerable patient become infected. And for younger people, the risk of severe disease – already low before omicron – is minuscule.

Even in places with strict lockdown measures, there are hundreds of thousands of newly registered omicron cases daily and countless unregistered positives from home testing. Measures like mandatory masking and distancing have had negligible or at most small effects on transmission. Large-scale population quarantines only delay the inevitable.  Vaccination and boosters have not halted omicron disease spread; heavily vaccinated nations like Israel and Australia have more daily cases per capita than any place on earth at the moment. This wave will run its course despite all of the emergency measures.

Until omicron, recovery from Covid provided substantial protection against subsequent infection. While the omicron variant can reinfect patients recovered from infection by previous strains, such reinfection tends to produce mild disease. Future variants, whether evolved from omicron or not, are unlikely to evade the immunity provided by omicron infection for a long while. With the universal spread of omicron worldwide, new strains will likely have more difficulty finding a hospitable environment because of the protection provided to the population by omicron’s widespread natural immunity.

It is true that – despite emergency measures — hospitalization counts and Covid-associated mortality have risen. Since mortality tends to trail symptomatic infection by about 3-4 weeks, we are still seeing the delta strain’s remaining effects and the waning of vaccine immunity against serious outcomes at 6-8 months after vaccination. These cases should decline over time as delta finally says goodbye. It is too late to alter their course with lockdowns (if that were ever possible).

Given that omicron, with its mild infection, is running its course to the end, there is no justification for maintaining emergency status. The lockdowns, personnel firings and shortages and school disruptions have done at least as much damage to the population’s health and welfare as the virus.

The state of emergency is not justified now, and it cannot be justified by fears of a hypothetical recurrence of some more severe infection at some unknown point in the future. If such a severe new variant were to occur – and it seems unlikely from omicron – then that would be the time to discuss a declaration of emergency.

Americans have sacrificed enough of their human rights and of their livelihoods for two years in the service of protecting the general public health. Omicron is circulating but it is not an emergency. The emergency is over. The current emergency declaration must be canceled. It is time.

Authors

Harvey Risch is Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. Dr. Risch received his MD degree from the University of California San Diego and PhD from the University of Chicago. After serving as a postdoctoral fellow in epidemiology at the University of Washington, Dr. Risch was a faculty member in epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Toronto before coming to Yale.

Jay Bhattacharya, Senior Scholar of Brownstone Institute, is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute.

Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary), US government; worked/appointed in 2008 at WHO as a regional specialist/epidemiologist in Europe’s Regional office Denmark, worked for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist for 12 years, appointed as the Canadian in-field epidemiologist (2002-2004) as part of an international CIDA funded, Health Canada executed project on TB/HIV co-infection and MDR-TB control (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, posted to Kathmandu); employed from 2017 to 2019 at Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Virginia USA as the evidence synthesis meta-analysis systematic review guideline development trainer; currently a COVID-19 consultant researcher in the US-C19 research group.

January 23, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The Monumental Sacrifice of Novak Djokovic

BY STACEY RUDIN | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JANUARY 17, 2022

Defending Australian Open Champion Novak Djokovic was deported from Australia, the day before commencement of 2022 tournament play. He entered the country on a visa including a medical exemption based on recent Covid infection. Due to public outry over “special treatment,” his visa was revoked upon arrival in the country, only to be reinstated by a court. It was later revoked by an immigration minister, whose decision was upheld by another court, sending Djokovic packing — potentially for three years.

This draconian act puts Djokovic at a serious disadvantage in his Grand Slam rivalry with Rafael Nadal, who is competing in Australia this year after vocally supporting vaccines. Both champions, along with Roger Federer, currently hold 20 Grand Slam titles. Djokovic was favored to be the first to reach 21, but his decision to remain unvaccinated leaves Nadal alone with that opportunity for now. (Federer is out recovering from surgery.)

Djokovic was technically deported for not being vaccinated, but the decision lacks even a superficial “health and safety” justification. Djokovic already had Covid twice, once in early 2020 and again in December 2021. At the time of his deportation, he had been in Australia for ten days, and tested negative. He’s as healthy as a human being can be — you don’t earn “GOAT’ status in the difficult sport of tennis any other way.

Further proof that Djokovic poses no disease threat to anyone is the fact that this tournament was safely played in January 2021, before vaccines were available for any player or guest. Even if Djokovic had taken the vaccine, he’d be no “safer” in terms of his ability to transmit the virus, as the 100,000 daily cases in highly-vaccinated Australia attest.

Even the government that deported Djokovic didn’t try very hard to frame its decision as the elimination of a health threat. Rather, it stated that Novak could become an “icon of free choice” if allowed to stay. Ironically, he will undoubtedly become that now that he’s made the supreme sacrifice of forfeiting his chance to play in order to openly oppose mandatory vaccination.

It’s not a good look for the Covid Regime if an avowed “anti-vaxxer” dominates the sport. The world audience might start thinking about the relative health status of “unvaccinated” people, particularly since athletes have been experiencing heart trouble all over the world — several already at the Australian Open practice courts.

As it stands, Millions of Australians and others who have already taken the vaccine applaud the government’s decision. They can’t get the vaccine out of their bodies, so the next best thing is to make sure that everyone else has to put themselves into the same spot.

Nevermind the precedent it sets to allow a government to force people to choose between their health and their career. Such Sophie’s choices are normal these days.

The Regime would not have minded Djokovic playing in an unvaccinated state so long as he publicly expressed support for mandatory universal vaccination. He could have easily done this — a hero in Serbia, the wealthy star could have tapped any number of doctors to provide fake certification of vaccination. But that would have violated his principles.

In 2010, an “unwell” Djokovic was collapsing at tournaments, unable to complete strenuous matches. A doctor witnessing his condition on TV got in touch with the athlete, recommending that he eliminate gluten, dairy and processed sugar from his diet. Novak thought it sounded strange but agreed to try, and it’s hard to argue with his results. His 2011 season was one of the best in men’s tennis history. On his new fuel, he was unstoppable. He ended the season with an unbelievable 10–1 record against Nadal and Federer, and compiled a 41-match winning streak.

This experience changed not only the tennis player. It fundamentally changed the man, as Djokovic explains in his book “Serve to Win”:

When it’s not being cared for, your body will send you signals: fatigue, insomnia, cramps, flus, colds, allergies. When that happens, will you ask yourself the questions that matter? Will you answer honestly and with an open mind?

Open-minded people radiate positive energy. Closed-minded people radiate negativity. Eastern medicine teaches you to align mind, body, and soul. If you have positive feelings in your mind — love, joy, happiness — they affect your body… But a lot of people, especially closed-minded people, are led by fear. That and anger are the most negative energies we have. What are closed-minded people afraid of? It could be many things: Fear that they are wrong, fear that someone might have a better way, fear that something has to change. Fear limits your ability to live your life.

Some people at the top feed off of negativity. The way I see it, pharmaceutical and food companies want people to feel fear. They want people to be sick. How many TV ads are for fast foods and medicines? And what’s at the root of those messages? We’ll make you feel better with our products. But even deeper down: We’ll make you fear that you don’t have enough of the things we say you need. It’s crazy — even when you’re completely healthy, they say you need [products] to stay that way.

Here’s a pattern I’d rather embrace: good food, exercise, openness, positive energy, great results. I’ve been living that pattern for several years now. It works better than the alternative.

Djokovic rejects Big food, Big Ag, Big Chemical, and Big Pharma. He doesn’t need them. His practices allow him to be healthy without any of their products — in fact, he’s achieved an elite level of health by actively avoiding their products.

There is no greater threat to the bottom line of these companies than people like Novak Djokovic. He is not scared, he is not anxious, so he can’t be manipulated or sold an easy fix. He can see the path to health takes hard work, and he’s willing to put it in. When they tell him that he can’t be healthy without a vaccine, he laughs in their faces. They can send him packing, but they can never take away his integrity and self-worth.

Novak Djokovic doesn’t want to lie to the public, making it appear as if he agrees with The System’s “path to health.” If he did that, he would get to play his tournament, but he would have millions of lives on his conscience. He’d rather give up his career’s crowning achievement in order to stand in truth. To send people the message: you CAN reject this tyranny. You do NOT have to comply. You can SAY NO, and you will be okay.

It’s easier for him, yes, with his millions of dollars. Healthcare workers on a middle-class salary will have a harder go of it. Military members faced with dishonorable discharge absent vaccination have it worse. But Djokovic has made it easier, at least, for everyone to publicly reject vaccination. If Novak openly rejects this vaccine, they can too, without shame. His very public deportation will hopefully get many people thinking about his approach to health, which if widely understood and adopted, will finally burn the Covid Regime to the ground — once and for all.

Stacey Rudin is an attorney and writer in New Jersey, USA.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Novavax covid vaccine safe and effective?

By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | January 15, 2022

I’ve been getting frequent requests for at least the last six months to write about the Novavax covid vaccine. I’ve been resisting, mainly because it’s seemed uncertain whether it would ever actually be approved in the western world. Now that it’s been approved for use in the EU, however, that has changed, and I figure that I can put it off no longer.

I guess the reason so many people are excited about the Novavax vaccine is that it uses a traditional technology that’s been used many times previously, rather than the new-fangled technologies used in the mRNA and adenovector vaccines that have up to now been all that’s available in the US and EU. To many people, that apparently makes it feel inherently safer.

The Novavax vaccine consists of two parts: the Sars-Cov-2 spike protein and an adjuvant (a substance that causes the immune system to realize that a dangerous foreign entity is present, and which thus activates an immune response to the spike protein). So, rather than injecting genetic blueprints in to the body that get cells to make the viral spike protein themselves (as is the case with the four previously approved vaccines), the spike protein is injected directly.

The first country to approve the Novavax vaccine was Indonesia, which approved it for use in November. That means that there is no even slightly long term real world follow-up data available yet. All we have is the preliminary results from the randomized trials. That means we still have no idea about rare side-effects, and won’t for months. Several million people had already received the AstraZeneca vaccine before authorities realized it could cause serious blood clotting disorders, and millions had also received the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines before it became clear that they can cause myocarditis. With that cautionary point having been made, let’s take a look at what the preliminary results from the randomized trials show.

The first trial results concerning the Novavax vaccine appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in May. 4,387 people in South Africa were randomized to receive either the vaccine or a saline placebo. The trial was conducted during the final months of 2020, when the beta variant was dominant in South Africa. Like the earlier covid vaccine trials, the objective of the study was to understand the ability of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic disease, which was defined as symptoms suggestive of covid-19 plus a positive covid test.

The average age of the participants was 32 years and chronic conditions were rare, so this was a group at low risk of severe disease. When this fact is combined with the relatively small total number of participants (for a vaccine trial), there was no possibility that the study was going to say anything useful about the ability of the vaccine to prevent severe disease. So this was really a trial looking at the ability of the Novavax vaccine to prevent the common cold in healthy young people.

Let’s look at the results.

As with the earlier published vaccine trials, data on efficacy was only provided two months out from receipt of the vaccine. At the two month mark, 15 people in the vaccine group had developed symptomatic covid-19, as compared with 29 people in the placebo group. This gives a relative risk reduction of 49% against the beta variant at two months post vaccination, which is disappointing. It’s below the 50% risk reduction that regulators have set as the minimum level required for them to approve a vaccine.

It’s even more disappointing when you consider that efficacy against symptomatic infection likely peaks at two months out from vaccination, and then drops rapidly – that is the pattern that’s been seen with all the other approved covid vaccines, and it’s very likely that the same is true for this vaccine.

Furthermore, the beta variant is long gone. The other approved vaccines appear to have little to no ability to prevent infection from the currently dominant omicron variant (although they do still seem to reduce the risk of severe disease to a large extent). Here in Sweden you are currently just as likely to get covid regardless of whether you’ve been vaccinated or not, but you’re still far less likely to end up in an ICU due to severe covid if you’ve been vaccinated. There’s no reason to assume that this vaccine is any different.

Let’s move on and look at safety. Safety data was only provided for a sub-set of patients, and for the first 35 days out from receipt of the first vaccine dose. What little there was though, was somewhat discouraging, with twice as many adverse events requiring medical attention in the group receiving the vaccine as in the group receiving the placebo (13 vs 6), and twice as many serious adverse events in the group receiving the vaccine (2 vs 1). To be fair though, the small absolute numbers make it impossible to draw any conclusions about safety based on this limited data. So we’ll wait to pass judgement.

Let’s move on to the second trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September. This was a much larger trial than the first, with 15,187 people in the UK who were randomized to either the Novavax vaccine or a saline placebo. Like the earlier study, it was looking at the ability of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic disease. The study ran from late 2020 to early 2021, during a time when the alpha variant was dominant, so the results of the study apply primarily to that variant. 45% of the participants had at least one risk factor that would predispose them to severe disease, and the average age was 56 years.

Ok, so what were the results?

Among participants who received two doses of the vaccine, there were 96 covid infections in the placebo group, but only 10 in the vaccine group during the three month period after receipt of the second dose. This gives an efficacy during the first few months of 90%, similar to what was found in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials. One person ended up being hospitalized for covid-19 in the placebo group, while no-one was hospitalized in the vaccine group – so unfortunately there again weren’t enough hospitalizations to be able to say anything about the ability of the vaccine to prevent severe disease (although it’s pretty clear from this study that even for a relatively high risk group, the overall risk of hospitalization due to covid is low – of 96 people in the placebo group who got covid, only one required hospitalization).

Let’s turn to safety. Safety data is only provided for the period from receipt of the first dose to 28 days out from receipt of the second dose, so we don’t learn anything about the longer term, but at least for that shorter period, there was no signal of serious harm. There were 44 serious adverse events in the vaccine group, and 44 serious adverse events in the placebo group. One person in the vaccine group developed myocarditis three days after receipt of the second dose, which suggests that the Novavax vaccine might cause myocarditis, just like the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do.

Let’s turn to the final trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in December. It was carried out in the United States and Mexico during the first half of 2021. Just as with the previous trial, the results apply primarily to the alpha variant. 29,949 participants were randomized to either the Novavax vaccine or a saline placebo. Like the other two trials, the purpose was to see if the vaccine prevented symptomatic disease, again defined as symptoms suggestive of covid-19 plus a positive PCR test. The median age of the participants was 47 years, and 52% had an underlying condition that would predispose them to more severe disease if infected with covid-19.

So, what were the results?

At 70 days out from receipt of the second dose, 0.8% of participants in the placebo group had developed covid-19, compared with only 0.1% in the vaccine group. This gives a relative risk reduction of 90%, a result that is identical to that seen in the previous trial. Unfortunately, no information is provided on hospitalizations, which I assume means that not one of the 29,949 people included in the study was hospitalized for covid-19, so, just as with the earlier trials, it’s impossible to tell if the vaccine results in any meaningful reduction in hospitalizations.

At 28 days post receipt of the seond dose, 0.9% of participants in the vaccine group had suffered a serious adverse event, compared with 1.0% of participants in the placebo group. That is encouraging.

Ok, let’s wrap up. what can we conclude about the Novavax vaccine after looking at the results of these three trials?

First, we can conclude that it effectively protected people from symptomatic covid due to the alpha variant at two-three months post vaccination (which of course tells us nothing about how effective the vaccine is after six months or a year). That information is now mostly of historical interest, since alpha is long gone and we’re living in the era of omicron. If the Novavax vaccine is similar to the four previously approved vaccines, then it’s likely useless at preventing infection due to omicron.

Second, it’s impossible to conclude from these trials whether the Novavax vaccine results in any reduction in risk of hospitalization due to covid, for the simple reason that not enough people ended up being hospitalized. Having said that, my guess would be that it probably does protect against hospitalization and need for ICU treatment, just as the other approved vaccines do. At its heart, it’s doing the same thing as they are – generating an immune response to the spike protein found on the original Wuhan covid variant, and the overall trial results are very similar to the trial results for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

The overall safety data suggests that the vaccine is pretty safe, with serious adverse events being balanced between the vaccine group and the placebo group. Rare side-effects are however not detectable in randomized trials with a few tens of thousands of participants. For that longer term follow-up with much larger numbers of people is necessary. So it’s currently impossible to know whether the Novavax vaccine can cause myocarditis, like the mRNA vaccines, or blood clotting disorders, like the adenovector virus vaccines, or some other type of rare adverse event entirely. It’s therefore impossible to say at the present point in time whether it will turn out to be more safe, or less safe, or equivalent to the already approved vaccines.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

600 Austrian Police Demand Government To Cancel Vaccine Mandate

We Want To Be There For People As Friend And Helper

GreatGameIndia | January 20, 2022

600 Austrian law enforcement officers have written to the Austrian Interior Minister, requesting that proposals for forced vaccination be withdrawn and that prejudice against the unvaccinated be ended.

The letter, written on January 10, was signed by three law enforcement personnel who purport to representing nearly 600 of their coworkers and was written to Austrian Interior Minister Gerhard Karner.

“We do not want to face the population in a threatening manner during what are predominantly peaceful demonstrations which were organized due to the increasing dissatisfaction of the people with politicians,” wrote the authors of the letter.

Numerous protests were held around Austria last weekend, which would include Vienna, wherein approximately 20,000 protesters came to the streets on Saturday to denounce proposals to declare vaccination mandatory for all citizens over the age of 18.

In response to the letter, the Austrian Ministry of the Interior stated that “the people who signed [it] can be assigned a clear political orientation.”

“85% of the 32,000 Austrian police officers have already been vaccinated, that is a clear statement,” the ministry added.

The letter’s authors, on the other hand, refuted this, claiming that they are not affiliated with any political party.

“We are not far-right or far-left extremists, we are not anti-vaxxers … we are a group of several hundred police officers from the whole of Austria … united by our concern for the rule of law, freedom of thought, our fundamental rights, as well as our health,” they wrote.

The authors then issued a series of demands on Interior Minister Karner, the first of which was for him to “ensure that no vaccine mandate, either professional or general, or any other form of indirect forced vaccination be introduced in Austria.”

They subsequently requested that the so-called 3G policy at work be suspended, which restricts accessibility to only those who have gotten immunized against COVID-19, have tested negative for it, or having healed from the disease. Alternatively, the authors advocated for the rule’s abolition or modification into a 1G rule requiring simply a negative test for everybody to assure that “discrimination against unvaccinated colleagues comes to an end.”

Ultimately, the writers requested that they be regarded as allies rather than adversaries of the public.

“We want to be there for the people, as friend and helper,” they wrote.

Since proposals for obligatory vaccination were disclosed, anti-vaccine rallies have been occurring every Saturday in Austria, and they have been mostly peaceful, with only a few incidents of clashes involving policemen and protesters.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

On The Eve of Washington March, COVID Declaration

Now Backed by More Than 17,000 Doctors and Medical Scientists Around the World

By Robert W Malone MD, MS | January 22, 2022

Following Dr. Robert Malone’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, more physicians and medical scientists have joined with their colleagues from around the world in signing the Physicians Declaration. Now with more than 17,000 signatures confirmed through a rigorous validation process, these physicians and scientists are represented by Dr. Malone as he speaks at the march to Defeat the Mandates on Sunday, January 23 in Washington, D.C.

The over 17,000 signers to the declaration have reached consensus on three foundational principles:

  1. Healthy children should not be subject to forced vaccination: they face negligible risk from covid, but face potential permanent, irreversible risk to their health if vaccinated, including heart, brain, reproductive and immune system damage.
  2. Natural Immunity Denial has prolonged the pandemic and needlessly restricted the lives of Covid-recovered people. Masks, lockdowns, and other restrictions have caused great harm especially to children and delayed the virus’ transition to endemic status.
  3. Health agencies and institutions must cease interfering with the physician-patient relationship. Policymakers are directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, as a result of institutional interference and blocking treatments proven to cure at a near 100% rate when administered early.

Led by Dr. Malone and staying loyal to the Hippocratic oath, the declaration’s signers have resisted financial inducements, threats, unprecedented censorship, and reputational attacks to remain committed first to patient health and well-being. After 23 months of research, millions of patients treated, hundreds of clinical trials performed and scientific data shared, and after demonstrating and documenting their success in combating COVID-19, the 17,000+ physicians and medical scientists who signed the declaration support the core principles Dr. Malone and many other doctors have been speaking out about since late last year.

The 17,000+ signatures of the declaration are authentic and must pass a screening process before being officially identified as signing the declaration. Signatories are required to supply their affiliation and a link to their medical organization, facility, or profile. Nurses, non-MD practitioners and non-medical scientists are removed from the list signatories, as are duplicate entries and “bot” emails. The emails of the signatories have been separately and repeatedly tested and verified by a 3rd-party provider.

As the number of signatures to the declaration continues to rise, we have published a select group of world famous, highly credentialed physicians and scientists who authored the declaration. Many other doctors who have spoken out against the corruption, censorship and hypocrisy by authorities have been threatened, fired, censured, lied about, intimidated, and harassed – all while saving patients’ lives daily. Never has the public been forced to become lab rats, for a vaccine 5 years away from adequate testing, violating basic principles of informed consent. Moreover, the medical and scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of the COVID- 19 vaccine do not support mandating its use for anyone, especially healthy children.

January 23 March on Washington

The over 17,000 signers of the declaration will be represented on Sunday, January 23, when Dr. Malone stands with fellow doctors and scientists on stage in Washington DC, as part of the Defeat the Mandates march Sunday, January 23, 2022. At the Lincoln Memorial, they will be joined by a wide range of featured guests for a series of inspiring talks and musical performances. Join us!

About the Global COVID Summit

Global Covid Summit is the product of an international alliance of doctors and scientists, committed to speaking truth to power about Covid pandemic research and treatment.

Thousands have died from Covid as a result of being denied life-saving early treatment. The Declaration is a battle cry from physicians who are daily fighting for the right to treat their patients, and the right of patients to receive those treatments – without fear of interference, retribution or censorship by government, pharmacies, pharmaceutical corporations, and big tech. We demand that these groups step aside and honor the sanctity and integrity of the patient- physician relationship, the fundamental maxim “First Do No Harm”, and the freedom of patients and physicians to make informed medical decisions. Lives depend on it. More information here: https://globalCovidSummit.org

An events page is available to alert you to upcoming Summits and other events, most prominent of which is the January 23 March on Washington, an “American Homecoming” to protest overreaching medical mandates.

But you can also view some amazing video from past summits including Florida and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Please spread the word about this site – it’s important!

Remember – if you are a physician, nurse, medical scientist or medical care professional, please wear a white coat to the march (or carry it). Let’s all work to make this march peaceful in solidarity for all those marching around the world.

January 22, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Over 1 Million Deaths and Injuries Following COVID “Vaccines” Reported to CDC

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | January 21, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,053,830 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 22,193 reports of deaths — an increase of 448 over the previous week — and 174,864 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,418 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 732,883 adverse events, including 10,162 deaths and 66,059 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 10,162 U.S. deaths reported as of Jan. 14, 19% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 525.2 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Jan. 14, including 307 million doses of Pfizer, 200 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 14, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.

  • 14 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
  • 22 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 14, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

  • 27,205 adverse events, including 1,559 rated as serious and 35 reported deaths.The most recent death involves a 15-year-old girl from Minnesota (VAERS I.D. 1974744), who died 177 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer from a pulmonary embolus. An autopsy is pending.
  • 65 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of casesattributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 594 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 583 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 152 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 14, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

40% rise nationwide in excess deaths among 18- to 49-year-olds, CDC Data Show

Death certificate data from the CDC show excess deaths increased by more than 40% among Americans 18 to 49 years old during a 12-month period ending in October 2021, compared to the same time period in 2018-2019 before the pandemic. COVID caused only about 42% of those deaths.

Excess deaths are defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths during a specific time frame and the expected number of deaths during that same period.

State-level data for the same 12-month period also show increases. For example, in Nevada, excess deaths were as high as 65%, with COVID accounting for only 36%. The District of Columbia saw an increase of 72% — with COVID not being a factor in any of the deaths.

Increases in excess deaths were most noticeable in the Midwest and western and southern states, while states seeing the lowest increases were primarily from the Northeast.

January 21, 2022 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Court deals Biden another blow on vaccine mandates

FILE PHOTO ©  AP / Susan Walsh
RT | January 21, 2022

President Joe Biden has suffered another legal setback to his efforts to coerce Americans into getting vaccinated against Covid-19 – this time with a federal court blocking mandated jabs even for employees of his own administration.

US District Court Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown in Texas ruled on Friday that the mandate overstepped Biden’s authority as president. After finding that the plaintiffs will likely prevail at trial, the judge issued a nationwide injunction, meaning the Biden administration will be barred from enforcing its vaccine order anywhere in the US.

The mandate applied to more than 3.5 million federal workers. It provided no option for submitting to regular Covid-19 testing in lieu of vaccination. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Friday that 98% of government employees had either been vaccinated or sought medical or religious exemptions. “We are confident in our legal authority here,” she said.

Brown disagreed, saying that it was a “bridge too far” for Biden – “with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress” – to force millions of employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of employment. The judge cited last week’s US Supreme Court ruling striking down Biden’s order requiring private-sector employers to force their workers to get inoculated.

The president clearly has authority to regulate employment policies, Brown said, but “the Supreme Court has expressly held that a Covid-19 vaccine mandate is not an employment regulation.” Interpreting the high court’s ruling in that way could set a significant legal precedent in claims against other employers that force their workers to get vaccinated.

While some private employers, such as Starbucks, have nixed their vaccine mandates in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, others have said they’ll continue to require vaccination against Covid-19 without any government order. Carhartt, a maker of popular work clothes, is facing a boycott after its decision to double down on forced vaccines angered conservatives.

Brown served on the Texas Supreme Court from 2013 until 2019, when he was appointed by then-President Donald Trump for a federal court judgeship.

January 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Unruly numbers

By Thorsteinn Siglaugson | January 20, 2022

Shortly before Christmas, the 14 day Covid-19 infection incidence in Iceland by vaccination status started to change dramatically as the new omicron variant of the coronavirus began to gain the upper hand. By the end of the year, the 14-day incidence of infection among double-vaccinated people had increased sevenfold and was now double that of the unvaccinated, while increasing elevenfold for those with three jabs.

This information, published on the official Covid-19 information site run by the Directorate of Health, began tocirculate at the start of this year and attracted quite some attention. On January 7th, data updates on the website were temporarily halted, explained by planned restructuring of the site. The next day I published an article in Iceland‘s main newspaper, Morgunblaðið, drawing attention to this sudden change in the infection rates. Chief Epidemologist Þórólfur Guðnason responded the same day, quoting a systematic error in the numbers; many who were registered as living in Iceland did not actually live in the country, had been vaccinated abroad but were registered unvaccinated locally. Therefore, he claimed it was not possible to draw the conclusions the data clearly supported, that the double-vaccinated were more likely to become infected than the unvaccinated.

As I pointed out in another article in Morgunblaðið on January 11th, in order for his explanation to be correct, the Chief Epidemologist would have had to previously overestimate the number of unvaccinated people by 90% to get an infection rate equal to the rate for the double-vaccinated. As I explained, such a huge overestimation would hardly go undetected for over half a year.

Change in 14-day incidence of infections for unvaccinated, original vs. updated values

It was finally on the morning of January 13th that the data appeared again. However, there was a snag: While the 14-day incidence of double- and triple-vaccinated adults and children was virtually unchanged, for the unvaccinated, the previously published numbers had taken an unexplained jump, starting on December 27 with a 4% increase, 11% the next day, then 12%, 14%, 15% and ending in a 20% increase on January 4th!

What might justify such a huge and sudden change in previously published data? Either a large group of unvaccinated people would have had to disappear without a trace during the second half of December, or a large number of infections, all among the unvaccinated, would have had to be lost and then found again. But no such explanations have been made.

This sudden and significant change in official data took place immediately after the data started to show a development that was in direct contradiction to the Chief Epidemologist‘s repeated claims that the vaccines were highly effective for preventing infections. Is this a mistake, or is there a different explanation? This is something the Directorate of Health will have to answer.

January 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »