Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

As a Journalist, the Medical Establishment Has Failed Me

By Rav Arora | Human Flourishing | November 14, 2022

As a truth-seeking journalist writing on Covid policies surrounding the young, I have been bewildered by the scientific establishment’s failure to have an honest, rational discussion of the data. Being an ordinary, critical-thinking person with no prior scientific expertise, my impression was always that the costs and benefits of an medical intervention must be carefully weighed before making a decision. Moreover, I assumed there is no “one-size-fits-all” medicine — everything from Tylenol, prescription drugs, to novel psychedelic therapies — that can be universally recommended.

According to the foremost public health “experts”, I was wrong.

This suddenly dawned on me when I watched CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta refuse to acknowledge the risk of vaccine myocarditis in young boys on Joe Rogan’s podcast, then appear on CNN shortly after doubling-down on his assertions by presenting a study finding infection-induced myocarditis poses a greater risk compared to the vaccine (across the population, as opposed to young men specifically).

Publication after publication have printed articles quoting medical experts “debunking” concerns of vaccine myocarditis in young males using flawed CDC data or aggregate population-level data which shows the risk of Covid myocarditis exceeding that from the vaccine.

This is incredibly dishonest. The conversation from the start has always oriented around the specific risk in young men.

Among the most rigorous, comprehensive data we have on vaccine myocarditis is from Katie Sharff who analyzed a database from Kaiser Permanente. She found a 1/1,862 rate of myocarditis after the second dose in young men ages 18 – 24. For boys ages 12 – 17, the rate was 1/2,650. Active surveillance monitoring in Hong Kong shows virtually identical figures.

After failing the Joe Rogan test, Dr. Gupta decided to promote his one-size-fits-all vaccine advocacy on a less questioning and critical-thinking platform: Sesame Street.  “The second vaccine dose gives you stronger, longer, and wider protection,” he stated on the kids program. “Hopefully the protection lasts a long time!”

Leading public health officials who do honestly discuss vaccine risks are immediately punished. Last week, after Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health conceded the possible 1/5,000 risk of myocarditis for healthy young people at a conference promoting the fourth dose, a number of top “doctors” in the province rebuked his remarks.

“The incidence of myocarditis after vaccination is much lower than 1 in 5000,” cardiac radiologist Dr. Kate Hanneman stated, referring to the risk in the wider population.

City News: ‘Much lower than 1-in-5,000’, doctors take issue with Dr. Moore’s myocarditis claim

As a result of the mainstream medical community’s failure to weigh the age-specific cost and benefits of vaccination, young people across North America have been coerced, misinformed, and marginalized. Virtually all across Canada, anyone unvaccinated between 15-30 (and over) was barred from exercising at a gym, dining in at restaurants, and attending large gatherings.

In the United States, a number of school districts are now bizarrely mandating the primary vaccine series for the fall, despite newer variants and a seroprevalence rate indicating prior covid infection in children of 75% (pre-Omicron).

ABC News DC to require students 12 and older to be vaccinated against COVID-19 this fall

As Megyn Kelly recently lamented, her kids are now not only facing exclusion from sports and after school activities, but expulsion if they don’t get double vaccinated at their school in Connecticut.

The institutional push to mandate and coerce vaccination in the young is not only pushed in schools and public health centers, but by journalists as well. As a pro-vaccine writer reporting on vaccine myocarditis in a specific demographic (arguing only for personal choice and no mandates), I have been stunned by a number of reputable outlets refusing to publish anything that acknowledge the risks.

After pitching one editor, she replied:

“The _____ is a pro-vaccine publication. We don’t run any pieces that discourage the public from getting vaccinated.”

Another editor:

“Rav, I don’t know why you’re still writing about this. I personally think everyone should get vaccinated already and stop making this a big deal for everyone. The risks for young men are still incredibly small.”

One editor I had a very close relationship with:

“I think the risk of vaccine myocarditis has been vastly exaggerated. It comprises a minuscule fraction of vaccinations. Please pitch this to another outlet.”

The scientific community’s misleading claims have also permitted the violation of informed consent and a number of preventable vaccine-induced myocarditis incidents.

In a recent long-form investigative article (rejected by several publications), I interviewed a 33-year-old previously healthy and incredibly fit man who unwillingly got double-vaccinated to keep his job in law-enforcement.

He didn’t hear the term “vaccine-induced myocarditis” till the doctor told him his diagnosis when he ended up in the hospital after almost dying from heart failure (210 beats per minute) following the second Pfizer dose.

Or take the recent viral story of a triple-vaccinated mother who followed the advice of public health authorities and got her 14-year-old son double-vaccinated, resulting in vaccine myocarditis:

Mom Whose 14-Year-Old Son Developed Myocarditis After Pfizer Vaccine No Longer Trusts CDC, Public Health Officials

We’ve known that teenage boys are at two to three times higher risk of vaccine myocarditis than Covid hospitalization. We’ve known men under the age of 40 remain at elevated risk of vaccine myocarditis (Oxford analysis).

Yet, the government — as informed by “top epidemiologists” — has not created any public awareness surrounding this issue. Perhaps they are worried this would discourage some people from getting vaccinated, and they want as many people vaccinated as possible.

Instead of making careful, age-stratified recommendations, they now strongly encourage everyone to get three doses. Hardly day goes by without a Canadian government advertisement popping up on YouTube prompting teenagers and young adults get boosted to “prevent serious illness.”

Many in the media and medical establishment promote vaccination to prevent serious illness or death in the elderly, but react to any information that questions the safety and efficacy of vaccination in children with a kind of religious opposition.

Supporting the vaccine means judiciously recommending it to those who have more to gain and less to lose and being transparent about the real risks of vaccination in specific demographics — without either agenda-driven minimization or exaggeration. Obfuscating, downplaying, and misleading the public, on the other hand, undermines trust in public health recommendations.

November 14, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

They Will Lock You Down Again

By Jeffrey A. Tucker | Brownstone Institute | November 14, 2022

The lords of lockdown barely escaped their worst possible fate, namely that the topic would become the national and international source of scandal that it should be. And let’s add the vaccine mandates here too: even if such had been morally justified, which they were not, there is absolutely no practical reason for them at all.

To have imposed both of these within the course of one year – with zero evidence that they achieved anything for public health and vast amounts of unfolding evidence that they ruined life quality for countless millions – qualifies as a scandal for the ages. It was in the US but also in nearly every country in the world but a few.

Might that have huge political implications? One would suppose so. And yet today it appears that truth and justice are further off than ever. The most passionate of the anti-lockdown governors – those who never locked down or opened earlier than the rest of the country – won on their record. Most of the rest joined the entire political establishment in pretending that all of this is a non-issue. Tragically, this tactic seems to have worked better than it should have.

Meanwhile, a few points to consider:

The US government, through the Transportation Safety Administration, has signed yet another order extending the ban on unvaccinated international visitors until January 8, 2023. This means that no person who has managed to refuse the shot is allowed to come to the US for any reason. This is 30% of the world’s population, banned even to enter the US on their own dime. Something like this would have been inconceivably illiberal three years ago, and been a source of enormous controversy and outrage. Today, the extension hardly made the news.

The Biden administration has once again extended the Covid emergency declaration another 90 days, which continues to grant government vast powers without Congressional approval. Under a state of emergency, the Constitutional structure of the US is effectively suspended and the country remains on a wartime footing. This announcement was not controversial, and, like the above, it barely made the news.

Many colleges and universities, and also other schools and public agencies, continue to enforce the vaccine mandate even without any solid science behind the approval of the bivalent shots or any real rationale behind the push, given that most people have long ago been exposed and acquired natural immunity, and, moreover, it is very well established that the shots do not protect anyone from infection nor stop transmission. They just keep doing this anyway.

Masking is not in disrepute because we never really obtained anything like an honest admission of their failure to control the spread. Even today, there is a percentage of people out there permanently traumatized. On travels, I’m seeing perhaps 10-20% but in some Northeastern cities, regular wearing of masks is also very common. Once they became a symbol of political compliance and virtue, that sealed the deal and the culture was changed. Now we face the threat of mask mandates whenever government deems it necessary because the Transportation Safety Authority has been given the go-ahead by the courts.

The end of vaccine mandates in most areas of life, and hence also the drive for a passport to distinguish between clean and unclean people, is a good sign. But the infrastructure is still in place and becoming more sophisticated. It is hardly a final victory. It might only be a temporary respite, while all the ambitions are still extant.

More than that, the Biden administration (and all that it represents, including the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, and everything else called the establishment) has its own pandemic plans in place. The idea is not to dial back the mandates or cool it on them. It’s the reverse: centralize all pandemic planning to make a South Dakota, Georgia, and Florida experience impossible the next time. Also, spend tens of billions in more money.

The principle seems to have emerged among the agencies, intellectuals, and politicians who did this. Whatever you do, never admit to having made any major mistakes. And never connect the economic, cultural, health, and educational disasters all around us to anything the govenrment did in 2020 or 2021! That would be nothing but a conspiracy theory.

The pandemic racket is so huge at this point that it is even embroiled in the FTX meltdown over the weekend. Sam Bankman-Fried’s brother Gabe actually founded a nonprofit solely for the purpose of providing “support” for the $30 billion that the Biden administration has allocated to pandemic planning. The institution “Guarding Against Pandemics” is very obviously a honeypot for such funding, complete with on-the-record endorsements from many Democrat Party candidates who won election.

Meanwhile, yes, there have been many successful court challenges to many features of the pandemic response. But not enough. The main machinery that took away liberty and property in the name of virus control is still in place in all its essentials. The CDC to this day brags of its awesome quarantine powers that it can deploy any time government deems it necessary. Nothing about that has changed.

In the big picture and rendered in a philosophical sense, humanity seems to have lost its ability to learn from its own errors. Put in more gritty terms, too many people among ruling-class interests gained financially and in terms of the lust for power during the pandemic to prompt any serious rethinking and reform.

In any case, that rethinking and reform is now put off for another day. Anyone seriously concerned about the future of humanity and the civilizations it built must throw themselves into the long-term battle for truth and reason. That will require that we use every bit of what remains of free speech and what remains of the longing for integrity and accountability in public life. The group we have come to call “they” want a demoralized population and a silent public square.

We cannot allow that to happen.

Jeffrey A. Tucker, Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute, is an economist and author. He has written 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press.

November 14, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

False and Misleading Efficacy Claims — What is the Motivation?

Dr. Rochelle Walensky Tweeting Counterfactuals with Intent 

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | November 10, 2022

CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, for the record, continues to make false claims about the COVID-19 vaccine boosters with the apparent motivation of getting more Americans “fully vaccinated.” This is in the backdrop of an 8.4% rate of Americans over age 5 taking one of them.[i]

No matter how hard the internal pressure is at the CDC to get a “needle in every arm,” what would be such a strong motivation for Walensky to blatantly deceive Americans with such obvious counterfactual information?

She states “COVID-19 vaccines may not prevent every infection (as apparent in her personal case), but they do provide us important protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death…”

In order for that claim to be valid by US regulations, a COVID-19 vaccine would need to reduce the risk of adjudicated COVID-19 hospitalization and death as a primary endpoint in a prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The benefit would need to be meaningful, e.g., ~20% relative risk reduction, and statistically significant, e.g., p<0.05. The conclusive study should have no significant threats to validity such as loss to follow-up. There has been no pivotal randomized trial, and no one can claim COVID-19 vaccines reduce hospitalization and death. The shortest section on the FDA Pfizer Fact Sheet is the “Benefits” section! This is given with the consent form and makes no claims about severity, hospitalization, and death.[ii]

She goes on to promote a two-month period between the last injection (presumably legacy mRNA) and the new bivalent vaccine. This schedule has never been tested and demonstrated to be safe in human beings. Even more shocking, the bivalent boosters which failed in animal studies to stop Omicron, have never been tested for safety or efficacy in human RCTs with clinical outcomes. In academic medicine and the pharmaceutical regulatory community, the question is WHY does Walensky cross the line into making false claims, an illegal act for fully FDA approved and marketed drugs/vaccines? Only senate or congressional hearings with direct questions will get the truth out of her.

Here are some possibilities: 1) she is following orders from higher governmental authorities, 2) she knows the claims are false but truly believes the only way for vaccination to work is to keep everyone vaccinated on a continuous basis no matter what the costs, 3) she is in a form of a trance or psychological state driven by fear in herself and for humanity where COVID-19 vaccination has become like a talisman with special powers and cannot be challenged. Indeed, Walensky has never comprehensively discussed safety of COVID-19 vaccination, and she has not disclosed who should NOT take a COVID-19 vaccine. So, the next time someone in your circles claims you or your loved one should take a COVID-19 vaccine to be “safe” or “protected” from serious outcomes, ask them to take a look at the consent fact sheet and read the tiny benefit section.

[i] CDC COVID Tracker, Accessed November 9, 2022

[ii] VACCINE INFORMATION FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS ABOUT COMIRNATY (COVID-19 VACCINE, mRNA), THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE, AND THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE, BIVALENT (ORIGINAL AND OMICRON BA.4/BA.5) TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) FOR USE IN INDIVIDUALS 12 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER, August 22, 2022

November 13, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Name-Calling, ‘Fact-Checking’ and Censorship in the Covid Era

BY NOAH CARL | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 11, 2022

One novel feature of the pandemic, from the standpoint of public debate, is the fact that so much name-calling, ‘fact-checking’ and censorship was aimed not just at random dissidents but at credentialed scientists.

Academics who’d reached esteemed positions within their field were denounced as ‘Covid deniers’, accused of spreading ‘misinformation’, and subjected to multiple forms of censorship.

Renowned scholars had warning labels attached to their tweets, and found their articles blacklisted on sites like Facebook and LinkedIn. In one particularly egregious case, the Great Barrington Declaration was downranked by Google, so that when users searched for it, articles critical of the Declaration appeared above the Declaration itself.

Somehow, Big Tech firms felt they were in position to adjudicate complex scientific debates. This would be like two scientists having an argument at speaker’s corner in Hyde Park, but the groundskeeper keeps blasting an airhorn every time one of them speaks.

And it wasn’t just Big Tech that restricted one side’s freedom of speech. Academics who questioned the mainstream view on Covid faced sanctions from their universities, journals and professional associations.

In a recent paper, Yaffa Shir-Raz and colleagues analysed the tactics that were used against dissenting scientists, based on semi-structured interviews with some of the targets. Their findings have already been summarised by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, but it’s worth pulling out a few anecdotes from the paper.

One interviewee recounted that he/she was even censored on Google docs – a program for creating documents and spreadsheets (like Microsoft Office):

Google Docs started restricting and censoring my ability to share documents… This is not Twitter throwing me off like they did. This is an organisation telling me that I cannot send a private communication to a colleague or to a friend, or to a family member.

Another interviewee explained that his/her employment contract was re-written after he/she deviated from the narrative:

They offered me a new contract… we got some new terms for you, because my old contract was not restricted. The new one basically had like seven or eight restrictions of my First Amendment rights… basically I couldn’t talk to the press, I couldn’t speak in public… unless I said, these are my opinions not that of my employer… It was a relatively short conversation. I said that’s never going to happen, I’m never going to sign that thing.

A third interviewee described how he/she was cancelled by several organisations without any due process:

There was a whole series of actions taken again with no due process and no explanation… I received a notice from the [medical association] that I was being stripped from a committee position… I received a letter from a journal…where I was the Editor-in-Chief, being stripped of the editorship, again with no due process, no phone calls no, tractable explanation… I received a letter from the National Institutes of Health being stripped from a longstanding committee position.

Remember, these were all “established doctors and scientists”, not foreign spies engaged in subversion.

The point isn’t that dissenting scientists were right about everything (although they were right about a lot). It’s that we can’t have a proper debate if one side faces a barrage of name-calling, ‘fact-checking’ and censorship. Enforcing a narrative around Covid shouldn’t be the role of Big Tech companies. And it certainly shouldn’t be the role of academic institutions.

November 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

DR MIKE YEADON COVID DEATH SHOTS IS MEDICAL MURDER

Dr Mike Yeadon – Let’s not put a Gloss on It. The COVID death shots Is Medical Murder

November 13, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

First RSV Emergency Declared as Pfizer and GSK Race to Get Vaccines Approved

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 8, 2022

Southern California’s Orange County Health Department this month declared a local health emergency over concerns around the rising number of pediatric cases of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV).

County officials also declared a Proclamation of Local Emergency, allowing them to access state and federal resources in response to the spread of RSV.

The news came amid media warnings of a looming “tripledemic” of RSV, influenza and COVID-19 and news that Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are close to securing regulatory approval for their RSV vaccine candidates — including Pfizer’s RSV vaccine for pregnant women.

RSV was first identified in 1956, and frequently affects children, with a majority of childhood cases occurring before age 2. For most children, symptoms are similar to those of the common cold, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

It can, however, cause serious symptoms in the very young and the elderly, although childhood deaths are infrequent, according to CDC data.

According to California attorney Rita Barnett-Rose, there’s no evidence to support claims that Orange County hospitals are overextended, or to justify a state of emergency.

In an interview with The Defender, Barnett-Rose drew parallels between Orange County’s emergency declaration for RSV and other state, local and federal emergency declarations for COVID-19:

“One of the other alarming things that happened with COVID is when [Gov. Gavin] Newsom declared the state of emergency in COVID. He also waived the 30 and 60-day review periods for all local governing boards.

“So, yeah, so that’s what everyone is concerned about, this perpetual state of emergency.

“And the other thing that it triggers is it asks, once they declare a state of emergency, aside from getting the funding, it also triggers a request to Governor Newsom to declare a statewide state of emergency and then also to have Newsom ask President Biden to declare a national state of emergency.”

That could lead to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of RSV vaccines, according to Barnett-Rose, who told The Defender there may be an avenue to challenge the legality of the latest Orange County emergency declaration.

Is pharma using the COVID playbook to push RSV vaccines?

Dr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong, Orange County’s health officer, said in a press release county officials issued the declaration due to “rapidly spreading virus infections causing record numbers of pediatric hospitalizations and daily emergency room visits.”

The declaration will allow the county to access state and federal resources and to allow non-pediatric hospitals to offer beds to sick children, Chinsio-Kwong said.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) California Chapter notes that this declaration was unanimously ratified “over the objections by members of the public who showed up to speak against the declarations.”

Dr. Melaine Patterson, chief nursing officer for Children’s Health Orange County, said area hospitals are seeing an “unprecedented” volume of children visiting their emergency rooms — approximately 400 per day, with wait times of “four to 12 hours.”

She also said that, as of Nov. 1, there were 285 patients in her hospital, compared to 188 on that date last year, adding that 11 of those current patients were placed in ICU as a result of RSV infections. RSV cases also are on the rise nationally.

Chinsio-Kwong advised the public to remain “up to date with other vaccinations such as flu and COVID-19” to “reduce the burden on hospitals this fall and winter.”

“Our best shot at protecting ourselves and our children from respiratory illnesses continues to be the same things we practiced throughout the pandemic including the use of masks when indoors around others and staying home when you are sick,” Chinsio-Kwong said.

However, Barnett-Rose said hospitals in Orange County may be overextended not due to an unusually high number of admissions, but due to unvaccinated staff having been let go.

She told The Defender :

“I do think that has a big role in it, and a lot of people pointed that out during the hearings and public comments were made about that.

“They were trying to claim … there were not enough pediatric experts or pediatric-trained doctors and medical professionals, so they needed to go outside of the county. And I do think a big part of that is that they did let go of many pediatric nurses and pediatric physicians that refused to take the vaccines. So I do think that this is a crisis of their own making … if there is even a crisis.”

San Diego County also issued a warning to its residents Nov. 4 over rising RSV cases but stopped short of declaring an emergency.

CHD California questioned why Orange County would declare a “Local Health Emergency” now — even though local COVID-19 states of emergency haven’t been lifted.

Despite claims that the purpose of these new declarations is exclusively meant to help county hospitals, CHD California said, “the language of the emergency Resolutions says something else entirely”:

“Both the Resolution to ratify the Local Health Emergency under Health & Safety Code section 101080 and the Proclamation of a Local Emergency under Government Code section 8630 declare the need for these local emergencies not only based on the asserted need to handle allegedly rising cases of RSV — but also because of other unnamed ‘other respiratory illnesses’ that were not discussed during the special meeting or otherwise disclosed to the public.”

Barnett-Rose provided insights into the legal meaning underlying these declarations. She told The Defender :

“There’s a local health emergency, which is declared by the public health officer as opposed to the [county] board … and that is when the health officer says … ‘I’ve been talking to the hospitals and we’ve done some assessments and there’s an increasing rate of respiratory illnesses and the children’s hospitals, and so, because of this, I am asking to declare a local health emergency.’ …

“But her authority to declare a local health emergency only lasts for seven days unless it’s ratified by our board of supervisors. And so, on Nov. 2, our board ratified that, which means now it’s in place and it needs to be renewed or looked at every 30 days, unless Governor Newsom waives that condition.”

CHD California argued that the “overly broad language used in these emergency declarations should be deeply concerning to anyone wary of a repeat of the “public health” measures ordered under COVID-19,” noting that adding the vague statement referring to “other respiratory viruses” creates “plenty of room for further abuse.”

Barnett-Rose told The Defender that, during the Nov. 2 meeting, Chinsio-Kwong said, “No restrictions are currently [emphasis added] in place,” a statement that “caused … a little bit of an uproar during the hearing because of her wording, which suggests that indeed they may end up rolling out mask mandates or some other mandates.”

Under this type of “slippery language,” argued CHD California, even the common cold could be used to issue an emergency declaration.

Barnett-Rose agreed:

“How do you measure that? How do you dispute it? How do you examine it? How do you end it?

“If you’re going by one infectious disease, at least you can try to find some data on hospitalizations or cases or deaths or ICU beds. But when it’s everything, it can still include COVID, flu, cold, COPD, a whole bunch of things that would qualify as respiratory illnesses.”

Barnett-Rose said that attempts will be made to legally challenge these declarations as “overbroad,” noting, however, that while case law precedent exists to challenge overbroad legislation, there is no such precedent in place for states of emergency.

Barnett-Rose she’s looking into whether there’s some way to litigate against these broad states of emergency.

When statutes are overbroad, she said, sometimes you can challenge them for being overley broad or too vague, but she’s not sure if there’s a similar precedent for challenging an overly broad state of emergency.

Declaring a local state of emergency at the county level could trigger a chain of events leading all the way to a national declaration of emergency, according to CHD California:

“By ratifying and/or declaring these local emergencies, the Board has now triggered an official request to Governor Newsom that he also declare a state-wide state of emergency on the same overly broad basis — and to ask the President of the United States to declare a national state of emergency.”

“A nationally declared state of emergency may trigger all of the same measures that have already deeply divided our country: masks on airplanes, business and school closures, and coercive school and employee mandates for experimental ‘vaccines’ offered as the ‘only solution’ back to Freedom,” CHD California argued.

Barnett-Rose said the emergency declaration in Orange County may be tied to the fact that there are multiple RSV vaccines already in the pipeline:

“The reason this is becoming really huge news is because this is what happened with the COVID state of emergency, too, it kind of went like that in dominoes.

“Once Biden declares a national state of emergency, then that triggers all of the emergency use authorizations that allowed the so-called vaccines for COVID. And I’m sure you already know that there’s vaccines in the works now for RSV that they’re floating out there in the news as well.”

Recounting events that occurred in relation to COVID-19, Barnett-Rose told The Defender that Orange County and some other counties in California declared a state of emergency, “then it went to the state, then it went national, and then, of course, once there’s a national emergency, you can go into Iowa.”

“So I do think that this is very suspicious timing, the articles that we are seeing in the news about being close to this RSV vaccine,” Barnett-Rose said. “And so, I do think that they’re trying to repeat the same playbook.”

Up to 30 RSV vaccine candidates already in pipeline

Pharmaceutical industry publication FiercePharma reported that Pfizer and GSK “moved closer to regulatory approvals” in the past week, and “could each see the first-ever approvals for an RSV vaccine in 2023.”

GSK’s candidate will be reviewed May 3, 2023, while Pfizer is “eyeing an approval filing by year-end.”

In all, up to 30 RSV candidate vaccines have been identified by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

GSK has secured priority review status for its RSV vaccine following the submission of data from its AReSVi-006 phase 3 trial. The candidate vaccine exclusively targets adults 60 and older, and the data reportedly “showed high overall vaccine efficacy against RSV lower respiratory disease” at a rate of 82.6%, Fierce Biotech reported.

GSK initially intended to develop an RSV vaccine for older adults and for infants, but plans for the latter were shelved due to a “safety concern.” Nevertheless, GSK CEO Emma Walmsley in a call last week with investors described GSK’s new vaccine as “a very significant scientific achievement.”

Previous efforts to develop an RSV vaccine have failed because they “had a persistent tendency to cause worse disease,” due to “a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).”

Dr. Ruth Karron, a pediatrician and professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said, “The difference this year is the general public for the first time is probably eagerly awaiting an RSV vaccine, because they’re seeing firsthand just how much of a problem RSV can be,” in a statement drawing a clear connection with the reported increase in RSV cases this year.

Pfizer announced Nov. 1 that its own candidate RSV vaccine wrapped up its phase 3 trial for efficacy early. Unlike GSK’s candidate vaccine, Pfizer’s vaccine targets pregnant women. The vaccine is designed to be administered early in the third trimester with the intent that the vaccine-induced antibodies be passed from the mother to her newborn.

Pfizer, in its Nov. 1 announcement, claimed that its bivalent RSV prefusion vaccine candidate RSVpreF, also known as PF-06928316, delivered “broadly positive” results — namely, a significant reduction in the rate of respiratory illness in newborns and their mothers.

Pfizer claimed 81.8% efficacy against severe cases of RSV for babies up to three months, and 69.4% efficacy after six months.

Pfizer’s MATISSE (MATernal Immunization Study for Safety and Efficacy) trial involved 7,400 pregnant women and their newborns, tracking the infants for one year following birth, and some for two years. It was conducted in 18 countries beginning in June 2020.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial did not deliver statistically significant results regarding the prevention of infant medical visits caused by RSV, including for non-severe cases.

Nevertheless, Pfizer said there are “no major safety concerns” with its product, adding:

“At the recommendation of the DMC [Data Monitoring Committee], and in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the study.

“Based on these positive results Pfizer plans to submit a Biologics License Application (BLA) to the FDA by the end of 2022 for the vaccine candidate followed by other regulatory authorities in the coming months.”

Pfizer’s phase 3 trial data has not yet been vetted by independent experts, and has not been peer-reviewed or published.

On March 2, 2022, Pfizer’s candidate vaccine received a Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the FDA, while previously, in November 2018, the FDA granted it Fast-Track status, according to the Pfizer release.

“Pfizer’s investigational RSV vaccine candidate builds on foundational basic science discoveries including those made at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” the vaccine maker said in its press release.

The NIH research in question also was “key to the hugely successful COVID-19 vaccines,” according to ABC 7 Los Angeles.

Others looking to develop an RSV vaccine include Moderna and AstraZeneca and Sanofi, in a joint initiative. Moderna received fast-track designation from the FDA on Aug. 3, 2021, for its mRNA-1345 RSV vaccine for older adults, while AstraZeneca and Sanofi are developing a viral vector RSV vaccine by the name of “nirsevimab.”

An August 2021 article in The Defender predicted that RSV would represent the “new frontier for vaccine development,” as pharmaceutical companies would be “lured by the prospect of a large untapped global RSV vaccine market,” leading to a vaccine development “gold rush.”

Media tout benefits, ignore safety concerns

Online news portal Vox described the development of new RSV vaccines as “very, very good news” in a recent article.

Coupled with media coverage about “rising” RSV cases nationwide, it appears the stage is being set to create an emergency in the public consciousness, which could lead to EUAs being granted to the new vaccines and a rush to get the public vaccinated.

Blogger James Roguski, however, called into question the results of the Pfizer phase 3 trial, raising many safety concerns that are indicated in the company’s own data but were downplayed by Pfizer in its public proclamations. In a recent post, he wrote:

“In the Phase II study, researchers found that women who received RSVpreF vaccine containing aluminum hydroxide had a higher incidence of local reactions than those who received RSVpreF vaccine without aluminum hydroxide.

“It seems like 1 of the 117 infants in the placebo group suffered fetal death and 6 infants in the ‘vaccinated’ group are unaccounted for.”

Roguski also highlighted the many adverse events that were recorded for both infants and pregnant mothers who participated in the study, none of which were recorded for the placebo group.

For infants, some of these adverse events included acute respiratory failure, bronchiolitis, cardiac murmur, chordee (bent penis), conjunctival hemorrhage, hypoglycemia, jaundice, low birth weight, neonatal hypoxia, neonatal respiratory failure, seizure, sepsis, upper respiratory tract infection and vascular malformation.

Pregnant women, in turn, experienced adverse events including fetal growth restriction, fetal tachycardia, gestational diabetes, nonreassuring fetal heart rate pattern, premature labor, premature separation of placenta, vaginal hemorrhage and thrombocytopenia.

For some, these safety concerns are conjuring up memories of previously failed attempts to develop an RSV vaccine.

A vaccine tested in 1966 led to the deaths of two toddlers as a result of “enhanced disease symptoms,” while many infants “suffered worse symptoms than usual, and needed to be hospitalized.”

As previously reported by The Defender, RSV itself originated in monkeys housed in a Maryland facility where they were used to conduct polio vaccine research. Remarking on this and the connection to RSV vaccine development today, Brian Hooker, CHD’s chief scientific officer, told The Defender, “It is incredible that the vaccine industry can create a disease — RSV from the polio vaccine — and then create another vaccine to ‘prevent’ that disease. Talk about a business proposition!”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

November 12, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Our Addiction to Unnecessary Medicine is Letting Children Down

BY DR MARK SHAW | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 8, 2022

On Monday, October 24th a debate on vaccine safety took place in Parliament. Three MPs, Danny Kruger, Sir Christopher Chope and Andrew Bridgen, discussed a number of issues the mainstream media have not been reporting on. The health concerns raised appear to be receiving very little, if any, serious recognition by the Government. It was the safety of children and young adults that concerned me most in this debate and in this article I want to explore whether the medical profession is being as cautious and conscientious as it should be in the administration of medication, including but not limited to Covid vaccines, to children. How well are children and young adults being monitored following medical interventions?

A few days ago it was reported that dozens of children between the ages of five and 11 were given higher doses of the Covid vaccine “by mistake”. Solent NHS Trust operated the ‘pop-up’ vaccine clinic (see later) and one mother was told that “she shouldn’t expect anything significant” to happen to her daughter following the mistake but that any reaction to the jab “would last longer”. The Chief Medical Officer for the Trust said that this was an isolated occurrence.

In other news, the Indonesian Health Ministry said on Thursday, October 20th that it had found traces of three hazardous chemicals in children with acute kidney injury, two of which are present in Indian-manufactured syrups suspected to be linked to dozens of deaths in Gambia. According to the Ministry, at least 70 cases of children under the age of five years with acute kidney failure are being detected every month with a mortality rate of about 50%.

This type of news is always disturbing to hear, not only because innocent young lives are involved but also because these children had little, if any, choice in the administration of a treatment that might not even have been necessary. It seems all too easy to reach out to the medicine cabinet for just about any ailment, no matter how mild or trivial these days. Likewise, it seems too easy for parents to be made to believe that Covid vaccinations offered to their child are essential for their health and wellbeing.

Errors in paediatric doses are not in fact uncommon. Research shows that potential adverse drug events occur three times more frequently among paediatric patients than among adults. Some of these differences in error rates are due to:

  • larger volumes of stock solution for adults;
  • greater variability in weight and body surface area of children;
  • differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics;
  • children’s kidneys, liver and immune systems are still developing;
  • children not being able to communicate what they are feeling;

Monitoring of adverse events in children is also much more difficult than for adults and conducting and monitoring long term drug trials for children is even more problematic. The conclusion of a 2019 medical study was that: “Paediatric clinical trials designed to sufficiently investigate drug safety and efficacy to support approval are of relatively limited duration. Given the potential long-term exposure of patients to these drugs, the clinical community should consider whether new approaches are needed to better understand the safety of long-term use of these drugs.”

An example of a recent attempt to monitor the effect (and therefore safety) of Covid vaccines on children has been the reliance on testing for antibody production against the disease. A recent JAMA study suggests that these trials have been inadequate and inappropriate. It found that such antibody production provides children with little or no protection against infection. The main determinant is actually cellular immunity (i.e., T Cells). The study even found that having antibodies to Omicron increased the infection risk, which may help to explain the negative vaccine effectiveness seen in a number of studies where infection rates are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

Whilst evidence of the adverse reactions and immediate harms of Covid vaccines on young people is building at an alarming rate, it is easy to overlook the possible unknown long term consequences. History has taught us that medical experts can fail to see harms in both pre-licensed and post-licensed pharmaceuticals and in non-licensed or non-prescription drugs for dangerously long periods. There are too many examples to list here, but in the early 1900s concern about smoking was considered alarmist. There was no definitive evidence that smoking was bad for you. By the 1930s, tobacco companies had an army of doctors ready to debunk you as a quack for even suggesting something as benign as a cigarette could give you cancer. By the 1960s, the evidence against smoking was more than damning. By then, the debate over smoking’s deadly impact had been raging around the world for more than a generation and medical experts were slowly reaching the same conclusion.

In July 1956, medical authorities in West Germany licensed a drug for sale without a prescription. Thalidomide had been developed as a sedative or tranquiliser, but people were soon taking it for a range of conditions, including pneumonia, colds and the flu, as well as to relieve nausea in early pregnancy. Six years later, more than 10,000 babies had been born with physical abnormalities caused by the drug. It wasn’t until 1962 that Thalidomide was banned in most countries in which it was sold – and this for a drug with such early and devastating side effects. In the U.K., the MHRA Yellow Card adverse event reporting system was introduced partly as a result of Thalidomide, but we know that average reporting rates are estimated to be around 10% of actual adverse events under this system.

Scandals are often associated with a failure to learn from history. In the early 50’s a Dr. Krugman wanted to create a vaccine for hepatitis. He deceptively coerced carers and parents into forcing 50 children from a home for developmentally challenged kids to be injected with the virus itself or by making them drink chocolate milk mixed with faeces from other infected children. Dr. Paul Offit, a paediatrician, said that “Krugman certainly did speed up the development of a hepatitis B vaccine but I don’t think you’re ever justified to inoculate a child with an infectious virus that might kill them”. In 1979 the Belmont Report was published in an effort to learn from this and provide a comprehensive guideline of basic ethical principles.

Augmenting the hoped for protections of the Belmont Report, a 2004 article described the main ways in which the risk of medication errors for children could be minimised. It said it is critical to have

  1. personnel trained in paediatrics to prescribe, prepare, dispense and administer medications;
  2. a quality review system in place to review drug use and medication errors, and;
  3. to implement computerised physician order entry with decision support and other tools in the next decade to improve pharmacologic therapy for paediatric patients.

It is concerning therefore, in relation to the above, that the ‘pop-up’ Covid vaccine clinics in the U.K. are often staffed by volunteers who may have had no prior medical, nursing or any type of clinical experience. The BMA paper on the recruitment of these Covid vaccination volunteers lists the minimal qualifications. The volunteer has to:

  • be between the age of 18 and 69;
  • have at least two or more A-levels or equivalent;
  • be at low risk of COVID-19;
  • be prepared to undergo a reference check.

How can we be sure that the Solent NHS Trust incident was an “isolated occurrence” and how can we be sure that nothing “significant” will happen to the children (estimated to have received three times the correct dose)?

Surely this cannot be right, 70 years on from the days of Krugman? Is it also acceptable for parents to have been pressured (in the case of Covid, through fear from Government, scientists and the media) into providing consent for a novel ‘vaccine’, without long term data, on behalf of their healthy offspring? This fear was instilled through overstating the risk of Covid to healthy children, misinforming the public that the vaccines prevented transmission and describing vaccine effectiveness in a misleading way by claiming up to 95% effectiveness (relative risk) instead of the actual or absolute reduction in risk which in the trial was less than 1% in adults and is now possibly less than nil for children (see above).

I try to put myself in the shoes of these children when, possibly some time later in their lives, they are told of their participation in the administration of a not yet fully licensed medication. Or not told. They were possibly too young to comprehend the personal risk and bodily infringement inflicted. Andrew Bridgen MP reported one study alone involving several thousand vaccinated children showing that one in 500 under five years of age who received a Pfizer Covid vaccine were hospitalised with a vaccine injury and one in 200 had symptoms ongoing for weeks or months afterwards.

Why has the Government, the medical profession and media not allowed the public to be informed that the Yellow Card reports, and those of the American equivalent, VAERS, show up more adverse Covid vaccine incidents in young people than all other known vaccinations combined? Around 6,000 doctors, scientists and professionals in more than 34 countries have declared an international medical crisis due to “diseases and death associated with the COVID-19 vaccines”. Their report highlights the large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people who were inoculated with these ‘vaccines’, and the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths which have not been investigated.

Danny Kruger MP said: “The MHRA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs and vaccines that it regulates. There might be some universe in which that makes sense, but this is not it.”

In 1995, the comedienne Mrs Merton famously asked Debbie McGee (unfairly I thought): “So what attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?” Similar could be asked of Government and others involved in the rollout of experimental mRNA Covid vaccinations: “So why were healthy children and young adults coerced into receiving unnecessary multiple Covid vaccinations from a $1.4 trillion global pharmaceutical industry?”

Dr. Mark Shaw is a retired dentist.

November 12, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Much Ado About Nothing

By Todd Hayen | OffGuardian | November 12, 2022

Do any of you think we are over-reacting? I don’t think so, but the sheep-folk certainly do. They claim they are willing to let bygones be bygones and just put it all in the past and get on with life.

I am sure everyone reading this is aware of the bombshell editorial The Atlantic dropped recently with their amnesty nonsense. I don’t think I have been more livid reading an article since the days of seeing piece after piece about how effective masks are against viral transmission.

I won’t comment on The Atlantic blather directly here, as there have been many fine responses to it, but wow, what a piece. So typical of a bully trying to pretend he loved his victims all along when he knows he is cornered and about to be punished. One last punch disguised as a kiss.

I just got back from a little cruise. Major ports were Barcelona, Rome, Florence, Monaco, and a smattering of little French and Italian hideaways. I had mixed feelings about going, but realized that if this tsunami we all see coming a few miles off the shore has the potential of wiping out most travel in the foreseeable future, I figured I might as well get something in before the onslaught.

It was nice in a lot of ways, as would be expected, but in other ways unusually disconcerting. For one thing, very, very few people had masks, and thus there was a palatable scent in the air of “Covid is a thing of the past.”

One would think this was a good thing, but instead it exuded a very clear vibe of denial.

Oddly enough, not wearing masks, and believing Covid to be over, to me is just another example of compliance to authority.

I know that seems a stretch, but if Covid were real, coupled with the truth that the vaccines do not work, and we were told again and again that there would be no natural herd immunity without a working vaccine, and we still hear of infections rising, variants being created, and hospitals becoming over crowded, why would people think the disease just died and disappeared? The reason is because we were told it was over.

We were told we suddenly didn’t need masks, that we could party with friends, vaxxed or unvaxxed, that we could gather in huge crowds, get on cruise ships (no one even cared that I was unvaccinated.) We were told what was true, what was real and what to worry or not worry about. And like sheep, most people blindly followed.

So shouldn’t I be happy? If I were, it would be for all of the wrong reasons. It is true we are all happy when the slave owner puts down the whip. Whip or not, however, we are still slaves.

I, too, bask in the sun of my controlled freedom—I went on a cruise didn’t I? After two years of not being “allowed to” — so I am just as guilty of this sort of compliance. I am one step closer to truth though; I know this offer of freedom is a tactic, a ploy, and a ruse.

I’ll take a scrap of bread when it is offered, but I will not succumb to complacency and forgive my master for his cruelty when he behaves, albeit for just a moment, as my friend. Most everyone else seems fine to let bygones be bygones.

I am not, and I suspect most of you reading this are not as well.

The great danger I see here in the masses just carrying on in complacent forgiveness is that they are encouraged to stay blind. Surely if they speak out against the atrocities that the world has experienced over the past three years they would quickly be categorized as a trouble maker, a pariah, and a misfit.

“Just get over it, man, it’s all over.”

Is it? No, of course not, you and I know that, and it is all still going on in various ways under the covers now, in the dark recesses of the culture: persecutions, continued efforts to vaccinate, and particularly vaccinate children, warnings of an “upcoming dark winter” where restrictions will come back into the mainstream. On and on, you know what I am speaking of.

However, the mass attitude now, as per The Atlantic piece, is “nothing all that much really happened.”

No one died unnecessarily due to the Covid response, no one got sick, no one lost their job or their livelihood, no one suffered socially (particularly children wearing masks in school), no one suffered educationally, nothing bad really happened.

If you are still pissed about all that DID happen, then you are overreacting… much ado about nothing.

So get over it, forget and forgive.

Not everyone in the world has read that article, but what I saw in Europe, it seems that most people, at least on physical observation, are basically taking on that attitude.

It breaks my heart.

I think about the countless mothers sitting by their children in countless hospitals nurturing them through a totally unprecedented heart incident.

I think of the countless families standing together at the funeral of a loved one, dead prematurely from a heart attack, blood clotting, or cancer—cause unknown, unless you want to apply the newly created diagnoses, “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.” What the hell is that?

A novel disease and now a common cause of death? Easy peasy explanation, eh? I think of the countless numbers of people suffering from a myriad of strange afflictions, which suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

I think again of countless people having suffered unconscionably, and pointlessly, after losing their jobs, their businesses, their life savings, and their livelihood—the countless children with lower IQs, and those who have suffered social retardation due to the mask mandates, social distancing, and mandatory online teaching at home with no socialization at all.

I could write 100 pages describing all of this—but most people don’t know, and if they do, don’t care, or just attribute all of this horror to the “cost of living—some are lucky in life, some are not.”

During my recent cruise not a word was uttered about any of this, thousands of people were encountered walking the streets of Rome, Florence, Barcelona, all laughing, eating, drinking, playing. While just beneath their feet, hidden a foot underground, there are skulls and bones of the fallen—all forgotten, and the perpetrators all forgiven.

When I was occasionally shaken from my self-induced and compliant vacation reverie, my heart ached talking to all of the young vibrant crewmembers on our ship.

I would hear of their plans to be married, create families, further their careers and live fully their vibrant lives—followed with the admission that they all had to be vaccinated to get their current jobs on the ship.

What really lies ahead for these beautiful children of God so innocent and full of life? I would shake my head, “maybe none of this is true, and maybe I am making more of it than it really is. Maybe they are right, and it really wasn’t that bad, just a mistake made here and there that we really could get over. It is all fine… let’s move on.”

Then a bone cracks under my foot—just a few inches from the surface of awareness—the truth. And I slip back into reality.

November 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Dr. Clare Craig On The Three Key Factors Of The Pandemic

The Fat Emperor – Ivor Cummins | November 9, 2022

Dr. Clare Craig is one of the best pathologists out there, and deeply understands the scientific details of the pandemic – and I caught her in person at the International health congress in Portugal – all scientific talks are here or will be uploaded shortly https://odysee.com/@MartaGB:2

November 12, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

COVID-19: The Evidence revisited – summer 2022

What have we learned?

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | November 10, 2022

It is now two and a half years since the first lockdown and eighteen months since HART published its paper COVID-19: an overview of the evidence. Over the last few months, we asked all the original authors to go back and review their articles and update with relevant publications, revising their conclusions as appropriate. These chapters spelled out either evidence of harms from the pandemic policies or theoretical concerns.

A year later the evidence is coming in and it is damning.  This ‘updates’ series will hopefully form part of HART’s evidence to the Independent Review.

Without an introspective ability to learn from its collective mistakes, societies run the risk of causing irreparable damage to themselves. HART came together as a grass-roots organisation in late 2020 to challenge what we thought were a series of incorrect prevailing narratives, specifically the alleged efficacy of novel interventions (both of the pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical varieties) and a lack of careful consideration of their collateral harms. Why did Parliament not ask these questions before meekly surrendering power to HM Government for a two-year period back during the early panic in March 2020? How did age-old disease management principles get tossed to one side in favour of hocus-pocus measures based on ‘science’ that was anything but settled?

We do not claim to have got everything right and we have continued to probe and challenge our own thinking. HART remains a broad church and we encourage debate and discussion from a wide range of disciplines — how else will we learn?

But we will not stand by while those in authority — and their cheerleaders — censor and stifle this debate, brush aside some of the occurrences of the last few years with a breezy “never mind” while at the same time rushing to impose the next set of half-baked, inappropriate, economically damaging or downright harmful measures that got dreamed up in a think tank or focus group. It must be possible to do better than this. Our children’s futures depend on it.

We invite you to read the updated chapters of our initial evidence review:

  1. Variants of SARS-CoV-2 and the Futility of Border Closures
  2. Natural vs vaccine immunity: which is safer or more protective?
  3. Zero Covid – an impossible dream
  4. Living with Covid: What does this mean for those in adult social care?
  5. Masks do more harm than good
  6. Ethical considerations of the COVID-19 response updated
  7. Lockdowns: the evidence revisited
  8. COVID-19 vaccination in children – major ethical concerns remain
  9. The ONS Infection Survey: a re-evaluation of the data
  10. Vaccine Certification – a trojan horse for digital ID?
  11. Why are so many treatment options still being ignored?
  12. What has changed regarding asymptomatic spread?
  13. Covid policies and harms to children updated
  14. The Psychological Impact of the Government’s Communication Style and Restrictive Measures

November 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Good News on Omicron Outcomes from Prison

Captive Environment Allows Real Look at Risk for Hospitalization and Death

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | November 8, 2022

Prisoners and staff are a prototypical congregate group amenable to epidemiologic study and in the setting of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, ideal for study of the patterns of spread and risk for serious outcomes.

Throughout the pandemic, review and interpretation of peer-reviewed manuscripts in widely read journals has required careful review of data in supplementary tables. The conclusions by the authors in many papers must be ignored given the heavy bias for all journals to “promote” mass vaccination. For example, thus far, there has not been a single paper in the New England Journal of Medicine that has concluded COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe, or not indicated, or do not have a favorable risk to benefit ratio.

Prior to COVID-19 for any new therapy or surgery, there are always divergent views where some papers conclude an intervention is beneficial and others do not. Disagreement is normal in medicine. The pervasive heavy-handed government intelligence community and public health agency operations have biased the medical journals to publish a one-sided story on COVID-19 vaccination. The paper by Chin et al, in the New England Journal of Medicine is a perfect example.[i] They studied 59,794 residents and 16,572 staff, using data collected from December 24, 2021, through April 14, 2022. Buried in the supplemental tables are important data on the real risk of hospitalization and death with the Omicron variant in prisoners characterized by whether they had prior COVID-19 and how many doses of a vaccine they had received.

Chin ET, Leidner D, Lamson L, Lucas K, Studdert DM, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Andrews JR, Salomon JA. Protection against Omicron from Vaccination and Previous Infection in a Prison System. N Engl J Med. 2022 Oct 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207082. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36286260. Supplemental Tables.

As shown, there is a negligible risk of hospitalization and death with Omicron infection. Specifically, there were zero deaths in the unvaccinated. To demonstrate how far off-base authors and editors are on interpretation, take a look at the paper’s conclusions:

“Our findings in two high-risk populations suggest that mRNA vaccination and previous infection were effective against omicron infection, with lower estimates among those infected before the period of delta predominance. Three vaccine doses offered significantly more protection than two doses, including among previously infected persons.”

My conclusions are considering natural immunity status, COVID-19 vaccination provided no meaningful protection against hospitalization and death with Omicron. Based on these data, a rational prison physician or health administrator would conclude that bivalent boosters for Omicron are not clinically indicated nor medically necessary. So next time you see headlines regarding a journal article, look for a second opinion from “Courageous Discourse” or other reliable stacks and sources of analysis.

[i] Chin ET, Leidner D, Lamson L, Lucas K, Studdert DM, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Andrews JR, Salomon JA. Protection against Omicron from Vaccination and Previous Infection in a Prison System. N Engl J Med. 2022 Oct 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207082. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36286260.

November 10, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Why Are People Losing Confidence in Vaccines?

BY DR DAVID PATON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 8, 2022

A new peer reviewed article in the journal Vaccine has been published comparing surveys data on attitudes to vaccination from before the pandemic with attitudes now.

The authors report that “paradoxically, despite the success of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, vaccine confidence has significantly declined since the onset of the pandemic”.

I am not quite sure why the authors appear so surprised at their result but a clue can be found in their use of the word “despite”. In many countries the “success” of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign relied in large part in pressuring, bullying and sometimes coercing people to get vaccinated.

Now if governments tell you that getting vaccinated is in your best interests, but that nonetheless those who choose not to get vaccinated will be pilloried in the press and on social media, barred from participating in normal everyday activities and, in some cases, sacked from their employment, perhaps we should not be surprised that people start to doubt whether those governments really do have their best interests at heart.

And those doubts have substance behind them. From a very early stage, it was clear that for many people, the known risks from vaccination probably outweighed any likely benefit. This was most obvious for those who had already had Covid (and for whom the marginal impact of vaccination in preventing a further infection was small), for groups who faced very low risks of serious illness if they contracted Covid and especially for young males for whom vaccination seems to be bring additional risks of heart problems.

But instead of acknowledging that Covid-19 vaccines may make sense for some people and not everyone, too many public health officials, scientists and politicians have systematically downplayed immunity from previous infection, brushed aside concerns over side effects and dismissed concerns that the roll out to the whole population was rushed given uncertainty over long term effects.

The latter was a particularly serious error. Right from the start of the roll out the public was assured that the vaccines had been thoroughly tested. Yet in May 2021, the Government decided to stop providing the AstraZeneca vaccine to under 40s due to the relatively high rate of blood clots. That decision would have been little consolation to the families of the 73 people whose deaths the MHRA report as being linked to that vaccine.

Rather than taking that as a lesson, authorities around the world doubled down and rolled out vaccine mandates, passports and travel restrictions as a way of twisting more arms into receiving the jab. Ironically, these measures were aimed primarily at young people for whom the benefits of vaccination were lowest and (particularly for males) the risks seem highest.

The official rationale for these policies was that vaccination would help protect others from being infected. We now know that there was never any evidence to back this up. And when official data started to suggest that the vaccinated may be getting infected at similar if not greater rates than the unvaccinated, the response of some journalists was not to probe further and investigate but to encourage the authorities to suppress the data. Truly, you could not make it up.

Researchers such as Alex de Figueiredo from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine warned at the time that coercion was likely to lead to a loss of trust in vaccination more generally. With the latest research paper, we have firm evidence that this is indeed the case.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the most dangerous ‘anti-vaxxers’ over the past two years have not been fringe conspiracy theorists but governments and the public health establishment itself.

It’s a sorry state of affairs, but where do we go from here? Well public health leaders could start by switching tack. Rather than setting out to persuade everyone to get vaccinated, they could concentrate on providing good information about benefits and risks to help people decide whether vaccination is right for them. If, at the same time, they start to engage honestly with those who have suffered side effects and acknowledge the high level of uncertainty that still exists in the evidence, perhaps they can begin to regain some of the trust they have so negligently lost.

David Paton is Professor of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University Business School. 

November 10, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »