How Covid Policies Strangely Defied What We Knew

Robert Clancy expresses his consternation about the last three years in his Spectator Australia article Strange times.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

We live in strange times, when the globalisation of a narrative formulated and
promoted by powerful interests linked to the lure of massive profit and control,
threatens 500 years of the enlightenment and science.

As a clinical immunologist with a research interest in mucosal immunology and airway infection, the Covid-19 pandemic became a point of convergence for my interests in medicine, research and history.

The Rise of Pandemic Expert Knowledge

A pattern of confusion had evolved in Australian pandemics in the 20th century, followed by a science-based rebound led by great Australians such as Ashburton Thompson with plague in 1900 and, Macfarlane Burnet and Peter Doherty with influenza in 1919, 1957,1968 and Frank Fenner and eradication of smallpox in 1980. Lessons were learned and the community prepared for the next pandemic.

The response to the Covid pandemic by a powerful pharmaceutical industry
became a point of difference.

Earlier pandemics were a tussle between medical and political leaderships, which between 1900 and 1970 diminished as science-based programmes were adopted and supported. Outcomes included strong public health systems and world leading research programmes in immunology and infection control.

An Australian response to pandemics over 70 years was a critical influence in public health and applied research reflecting informed leadership.

The Covid-19 pandemic has not followed that course.

Suddenly everyone was an ‘epidemiologist’, dominating the airwaves and working with political and regulatory organisations to protect the global narrative, reinforced and uncritically accepted by the mainline press, to ‘combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation’.

Three years ago, there was every reason to fear Covid-19. High mortality and transmission rates were reported in China, and the world experience with pandemics was sobering. No effective drug or vaccine existed, with management focused on public health measures. Genetic vaccines were available from January 2021, with Australia becoming one of the most vaccinated countries. Total Covid-19 deaths per million paralleled global mortality, though later in the pandemic from the less virulent Omicron variant. This surge followed relaxation of lockdowns, and the vaccine booster programme

Returning to 2020, it was natural to think that vaccines may play a role in managing Covid-19. In various forms, vaccines were used in earlier pandemics without playing a decisive role. But there were important lessons that should have informed a less sanguine approach to the narrative of mRNA vaccines being the global panacea for Covid-19. This information was available before 2021!

The apologists backtracking on mistakes in the vaccine roll-out,
with ‘we just did not know’, have no argument.

First, 80 years of vaccine development for inhaled viral infections, failed to develop one sterilising vaccine capable of inducing herd immunity.

Second, no vaccine induces stronger immunity than that following the disease, yet it took a recent Lancet meta-analysis to confirm that post Covid-19 trumps vaccine immunity.

Third, respiratory viruses like Sars-CoV-2 infect a mucosal space subject to the rules of mucosal immunology. The major difference from the systemic immune response to invasive pathogens is suppression of all immune responses by T reg cells (to control the inflammatory response to the sea of microbes bathing mucosal surfaces). With Covid-19, immunity following injected vaccines is limited; repeated ‘boosters’ favour progressive immune suppression with more frequent and more severe infections. ‘Allergy-shots’ do the same – they turn off damaging immune responses to inhaled antigens. There is little cross-over between compartments: injected vaccines will not prevent infection, or transmission of disease (a claim used to support community vaccination).

Fourth, RNA viruses undergo mutations facilitating ‘immune escape’, risking ‘selection’ of mutant virus by non-sterilising vaccines.

These ‘rules’ predict outcomes of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out. Vaccination induced systemic immunity probably prevented admission to hospital and death by neutralising virus that ‘escaped’ from the mucosal compartment, but only early in the pandemic when vaccine antigen matched prevailing virus and before priming of suppression from repeated vaccinations. There was no impact on infection or transmission of the virus. Repeated ‘boosters’ gave 30 to 40 per cent protection for a couple of months, followed by cumulating ‘negative protection’ with more severe and frequent infections. New Zealand figures indicate higher Covid-19 mortality in every age bracket, in those with ‘boosters’, reflecting a global pattern described by some as a ‘pandemic of the vaccinated’.

The mRNA vaccines differ from classical antigen vaccines.

They spread and persist for months, producing Spike protein (the viral antigen stimulating immune protection) on cells throughout the body. The consequences are an uncontrolled amount of antigen that can downregulate antibody, and a new target for T cells to attack. Reports of serious adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination including heart and brain damage and deaths outstrips combined reports for all other vaccines. Prospective study of adolescents using laboratory and MRI technology showed 2 to 3 per cent had myocarditis, contrasting with less sensitive hospital figures of one in 10,000 vaccinations.

Asymptomatic myocarditis leaves a scar, claimed to underpin a recent spate
of adrenaline-initiated deaths on sporting fields.

German post-mortem studies confirm vaccine pathology as a significant cause of sudden unexplained deaths. Statisticians across the world are seeing an increase in deaths of the order of 10 to 20 per cent greater than noted in previous years, time-matched with vaccine rollouts. These data demand proper assessment despite dismissal by authorities. Reversal of mRNA encoded information into host DNA has been documented, with unknown impact on the recipient or their progeny.

The point is this. How could a novel vaccine involving mRNA with scarce testing, with no demonstrated advantage over traditional vaccines, against all principles of mucosal immunology, and likely complicated by major adverse events, not be red-flagged by the medical-regulatory network charged with our protection? Peter Doshi, an editor of the prestigious BMJ, co-authored a review of the trial data used to underpin vaccine mandates. The authors concluded, ‘the risk of serious adverse events surpassed the risk reduction for Covid-19 hospitalisation’, demanding a ‘formal harm-benefit analysis’. This never occurred. How can it be?

We live in strange times, when the globalisation of a narrative formulated and promoted by powerful interests linked to the lure of massive profit and control, threatens 500 years of the enlightenment and science. In Australia, acceptance of the Covid-narrative was made easy by the unrecognised power of these interests and a disintegration of core medical structures that once would have demanded science-based analysis, regulatory integrity and effective review. The introduction of unique, clever technology blindsided mainstream professionals who failed to understand the implications of genetic vaccines, or the immunology of the airway. These ‘experts’ and bureaucrats made poor decisions which became rubber-stamped by administrators and politicians. ‘Cancellation’ threats to those scientists and clinicians wishing to speak out against the narrative, enabled disinformation to become convention, with frightening unknown consequences.

Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM was Foundation Professor of Pathology in the Medical School, University of Newcastle. He is a clinical immunologist.

 

 

How Wu Flu Originated

Update February 28, 2023

Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan reacts to a classified intelligence report from the Energy Department that found COVID-19 most likely came from a Chinese lab on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’ Video below followed by transcript from closed captions. TC is Tucker Carlson and LMY is Dr. Li-Meng Yan.

TC: Li-Meng Yan was one of the first people to tell the truth in the United States.  At great personal cost she was there. She joins us now: Doctor, thank you so much for coming on. You said three years ago you believed that this virus was intentionally released by the government you once worked for, the government of China.  Today we’re hearing in the Wall Street Journal that it was accidental. Do you believe this leak was accidental or intentional?

LMY: Hi Tucker thank you for having me again. First I really appreciate you and also Fox News have been taking so much effort pursuing the truths of Covid origin. Without your help, there wouldn’t be such milestone achievements. And I want to say, of course it was not an accident. And maybe for people who don’t have this kind of biosafety labs, this kind of experience on coronavirus, maybe it’s easy for them to accept the accidental lab leak idea.

However I’m the scientist working in such lab using coronavirus, and I can tell you based on the print protocol and also the other surveillance, it will be impossible for the lab leak to accidentally happen in such a lab. Because of the Wuhan outbreak and also the pandemic, so definitely now we just reach to the first step: It was from China’s lab. Now we need to pursue the truth of origin and we need to keep going on.

TC: We know the Chinese government allowed its infected citizens to travel in huge groups to Western Europe in the early days of the pandemic–that was intentional. But you believe the whole thing: that they came up with this virus and then they unleashed it on the world to destroy the Western economies and to elevate their own position globally.

LMY: I want to emphasize one thing. I would say based on the evidence and the sources I have, that the virus was intentionally brought out of this strict lab and released into the community. However I don’t think the outbreak in Wuhan was intentional. I would say it was because CCP government and Military scientists underestimated the transmissibility. That’s why finally it got out of control and caused the local outbreak. However we should know that CCP government intentionally made it go all over the world to kill millions of people all over the world later.

TC: We just have to hope and pray that you will be interviewed by many other journalists in this country over the coming weeks now that this has been confirmed. You’re an eyewitness to it, you have a I think a credible story to tell, and I really hope you’re no longer ignored. I appreciate you’re coming on again tonight Li Meng Yan.

Background from 2021 Post:   Ex-CDC Director Believes Wuhan Flu Escaped from a Lab

Live Science reports Ex-CDC director believes COVID-19 escaped from a lab, but cites no evidence

Excerpts in italics with my bolds.  A previous post is reprinted further on showing the evidence not discussed and hand-waved away by Fauci, whose NIH funded the Wuhan research facility from which the virus likely came.

Dr. Robert Redfield told CNN that this was his opinion on the origins of the virus.

“I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped,” Redfield told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. “Other people don’t believe that, that’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out.”

Still, a number of scientists say the most likely explanation is that the virus emerged naturally, passing from bats to another animal and then to humans, Live Science previously reported. Recently, a team from the World Health Organization, which is investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2, said that it agrees with this hypothesis — WHO officials said the virus likely passed from bats to animals on wildlife farms in China, and then to humans, Live Science previously reported.

Redfield said he didn’t believe the bat theory. “Normally, when a pathogen goes from a zoonosis to humans, it takes a while for it to figure out how to become more and more efficient in human-to-human transmission,” Redfield told CNN. “I just don’t think this makes biological sense.”

The former CDC chief wasn’t suggesting SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus — another theory with no supporting evidence — just a natural escapee. “In the lab, you think that that process of becoming more efficient was happening?” Gupta asked. [Note:  There is significant evidence of an engineered virus documented in the discussion below.]

“Yeah, let’s just say I have coronavirus that I’m working on. Most of us in the lab, we’re trying to grow a virus, we try to help make it grow better and better and better … so we can do experiments,” Redfield responded.

Why Wu Flu Virus Looks Man-made ( previously posted Sept. 2020)

A virologist who fled China after studying the early outbreak of COVID-19 has published a new report claiming the coronavirus likely came from a lab.  This adds to the analysis done by Dr. Luc Montagnier earlier this year, and summarized in a previous post reprinted later on.  Dr. Yan was interviewed on Fox News, and YouTube has now blocked the video.

If you are wondering why Big Tech is censoring information unflattering to China, see Lee Smith’s Tablet article America’s China Class Launches a New War Against Trump  The corporate, tech, and media elites will not allow the president to come between them and Chinese money

Doctor Li-Meng Yan, a scientist who studied some of the available data on COVID-19 has published her claims on Zenodo, an open access digital platform. She wrote that she believed COVID-19 could have been “conveniently created” within a lab setting over a period of just six months, and “SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus”.

The paper by Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang  is Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview

The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory.

The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.

Contents

Consistent with this notion, genomic, structural, and literature evidence also suggest a non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. In addition, abundant literature indicates that gain-of-function research has long advanced to the stage where viral genomes can be precisely engineered and manipulated to enable the creation of novel coronaviruses possessing unique properties. In this report, we present such evidence and the associated analyses.

Part 1 of the report describes the genomic and structural features of SARS-CoV-2, the presence of which could be consistent with the theory that the virus is a product of laboratory modification beyond what could be afforded by simple serial viral passage. Part 2 of the report describes a highly probable pathway for the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2, key steps of which are supported by evidence present in the viral genome. Importantly, part 2 should be viewed as a demonstration of how SARS-CoV-2 could be conveniently created in a laboratory in a short period of time using available materials and well-documented techniques. This report is produced by a team of experienced scientists using our combined expertise in virology, molecular biology, structural biology, computational biology, vaccine development, and medicine.

We present three lines of evidence to support our contention that laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2:

i. The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

ii. The receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which determines the host specificity of the virus, resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated.

iii. SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein, which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature. In addition, rare codons associated with this additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin-cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.

Background from Previous post June 30, 2020:  Pandemic Update: Virus Weaker, HCQ Stronger

In past weeks there have been anecdotal reports from frontline doctors that patients who would have been flattened fighting off SARS CV2 in April are now sitting up and recovering in a few days. We have also the statistical evidence in the US and Sweden, as two examples, that case numbers are rising while Covid deaths continue declining. One explanation is that the new cases are younger people who have been released from lockdown (in US) with stronger immune systems. But it may also be that the virus itself is losing potency.

In the past I have noticed theories about the origin of the virus, and what makes it “novel.” But when the scientist who identified HIV weighs in, I pay particular attention. The Coronavirus Is Man Made According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Contrary to the narrative that is being pushed by the mainstream that the COVID 19 virus was the result of a natural mutation and that it was transmitted to humans from bats via pangolins, Dr Luc Montagnier the man who discovered the HIV virus back in 1983 disagrees and is saying that the virus was man made.

Professor Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine, claims that SARS-CoV-2 is a manipulated virus that was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. Chinese researchers are said to have used coronaviruses in their work to develop an AIDS vaccine. HIV RNA fragments are believed to have been found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

“With my colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus,” explains Luc Montagnier, interviewed by Dr Jean-François Lemoine for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur, adding that others have already explored this avenue: Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, … the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.

To insert an HIV sequence into this genome requires molecular tools

In a challenging question Dr Jean-François Lemoine inferred that the coronavirus under investigation may have come from a patient who is otherwise infected with HIV. No, “says Luc Montagnier,” in order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory.

According to the 2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine, a plausible explanation would be an accident in the Wuhan laboratory. He also added that the purpose of this work was the search for an AIDS vaccine.

In any case, this thesis, defended by Professor Luc Montagnier, has a positive turn.

According to him, the altered elements of this virus are eliminated as it spreads: “Nature does not accept any molecular tinkering, it will eliminate these unnatural changes and even if nothing is done, things will get better, but unfortunately after many deaths.”

This is enough to feed some heated debates! So much so that Professor Montagnier’s statements could also place him in the category of “conspiracy theorists”: “Conspirators are the opposite camp, hiding the truth,” he replies, without wanting to accuse anyone, but hoping that the Chinese will admit to what he believes happened in their laboratory.

To entice a confession from the Chinese he used the example of Iran which after taking full responsibility for accidentally hitting a Ukrainian plane was able to earn the respect of the global community. Hopefully the Chinese will do the right thing he adds. “In any case, the truth always comes out, it is up to the Chinese government to take responsibility.”

Implications: Leaving aside the geopolitics, this theory also explains why the virus weakens when mutations lose the unnatural pieces added in the lab. Since this is an RNA (not DNA) sequence mutations are slower, but inevitable. If correct, this theory works against fears of a second wave of infections. It also gives an unintended benefit from past lockdowns and shutdowns, slowing the rate of infections while the virus degrades itself.

lb210330c20210330112317

10 Times Covid Experts Failed Us

Marty Makary presents a list of failures in his NY Post article 10 myths told by COVID experts — and now debunked.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

In the past few weeks, a series of analyses published by highly respected researchers have exposed a truth about public health officials during COVID:   Much of the time, they were wrong.

To be clear, public health officials were not wrong for making recommendations based on what was known at the time.  That’s understandable. You go with the data you have.

No, they were wrong because they refused to change their directives
in the face of new evidence.

When a study did not support their policies, they dismissed it and censored opposing opinions.

At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention weaponized research itself by putting out its own flawed studies in its own non-peer-reviewed medical journal, MMWR.

In the final analysis, public health officials actively propagated misinformation
that ruined lives and forever damaged public trust in the medical profession.

Here are 10 ways they misled Americans:

Misinformation #1: Natural immunity offers little protection compared to vaccinated immunity

A Lancet study looked at 65 major studies in 19 countries on natural immunity. The researchers concluded that natural immunity was at least as effective as the primary COVID vaccine series.  In fact, the scientific data was there all along — from 160 studies, despite the findings of these studies violating Facebook’s “misinformation” policy.

Since the Athenian plague of 430 BC, it has been observed that those who recovered after infection were protected against severe disease if reinfected.  That was also the observation of nearly every practicing physician during the first 18 months of the COVID pandemic.

Most Americans who were fired for not having the COVID vaccine already had antibodies that effectively neutralized the virus, but they were antibodies that the government did not recognize.

Misinformation #2: Masks prevent COVID transmission

Cochran Reviews are considered the most authoritative and independent assessment of the evidence in medicine.  And one published last month by a highly respected Oxford research team found that masks had no significant impact on COVID transmission.

When asked about this definitive review, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky downplayed it, arguing that it was flawed because it focused on randomized controlled studies.

But that was the greatest strength of the review! Randomized studies are considered the gold standard of medical evidence.

If all the energy used by public health officials to mask toddlers could have been channeled to reduce child obesity by encouraging outdoor activities, we would be better off.

Misinformation #3: School closures reduce COVID transmission

The CDC ignored the European experience of keeping schools open, most without mask mandates. Transmission rates were no different, evidenced by studies conducted in Spain and Sweden.

Misinformation #4: Myocarditis from the vaccine is less common than from the infection

Public health officials downplayed concerns about vaccine-induced myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle.  They cited poorly designed studies that under-captured complication rates.

A flurry of well-designed studies said the opposite.  We now know that myocarditis is six to 28 times more common after the COVID vaccine than after the infection among 16- to 24-year-old males.

Tens of thousands of children likely got myocarditis, mostly subclinical, from a COVID vaccine they did not need because they were entirely healthy or because they already had COVID.

Misinformation #5: Young people benefit from a vaccine booster

Boosters reduced hospitalizations in older, high-risk Americans. But the evidence was never there that they lower COVID mortality in young, healthy people.

That’s probably why the CDC chose not to publish its data on hospitalization rates among boosted Americans under 50, when it published the same rates for those over 50.

Ultimately, White House pressure to recommend boosters for all was so intense that the FDA’s two top vaccine experts left the agency in protest, writing scathing articles on how the data did not support boosters for young people.

Misinformation #6: Vaccine mandates increased vaccination rates

President Biden and other officials demanded that unvaccinated workers, regardless of their risk or natural immunity, be fired.  They demanded that soldiers be dishonorably discharged and nurses be laid off in the middle of a staffing crisis.

The mandate was based on the theory that vaccination reduced transmission rates
— a notion later proven to be false.

But after the broad recognition that vaccination does not reduce transmission, the mandates persisted, and still do to this day.

A recent study from George Mason University details how vaccine mandates in nine major US cities had no impact on vaccination rates.  They also had no impact on COVID transmission rates.

Misinformation #7: COVID originating from the Wuhan lab is a conspiracy theory

Google admitted to suppressing searches of “lab leak” during the pandemic.  Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, claimed (and still does) he didn’t believe the virus came from a lab.

Ultimately, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to a lab leak origin — the same origin suggested to Dr. Anthony Fauci by two very prominent virologists in a January 2020 meeting he assembled at the beginning of the pandemic.

According to documents obtained by Bret Baier of Fox News, they told Fauci and Collins that the virus may have been manipulated and originated in the lab, but then suddenly changed their tune in public comments days after meeting with the NIH officials.

The virologists were later awarded nearly $9 million from Fauci’s agency.

Misinformation #8: It was important to get the second vaccine dose three or four weeks after the first dose

Data were clear in the spring of 2021, just months after the vaccine rollout, that spacing the vaccine out by three months reduces complication rates and increases immunity.

Spacing out vaccines would have also saved more lives when Americans were rationing a limited vaccine supply at the height of the epidemic.

Misinformation #9: Data on the bivalent vaccine is ‘crystal clear’

Dr. Ashish Jha famously said this, despite the bivalent vaccine being approved using data from eight mice.  To date, there has never been a randomized controlled trial of the bivalent vaccine.

In my opinion, the data are crystal clear that young people should not get the bivalent vaccine. It would have also spared many children myocarditis.

Misinformation #10: One in five people get long COVID

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that 20% of COVID infections can result in long COVID.

But a UK study found that only 3% of COVID patients had residual symptoms lasting 12 weeks. What explains the disparity?

It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weakness for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well.  Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of ordinary life.

Summary

What’s most amazing about all the misinformation conveyed by CDC and public health officials is that there have been no apologies for holding on to their recommendations for so long after the data became apparent that they were dead wrong.

Public health officials said “you must” when the correct answer
should have been “we’re not sure.”

Early on, in the absence of good data, public health officials chose a path of stern paternalism.

Today, they are in denial of a mountain of strong studies showing that they were wrong.

 

 

 

Covid Coercion Coverup in Canada

In recent months, some demonstrators in Quebec have denounced what they consider government fear campaigns over COVID-19. The new measures included a mandatory rule on wearing masks during demonstrations. Sept. 2020 (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press)

John Hardie et al. dissect a recent publication attempting to whitewash blacken over suspension of citizens’ rights as well public health principles during the pandemic.  Their Epoch Times article is Pandemic Performance Study Blatant Attempt to Justify Feds’ Actions? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The Public Health Agency of Canada study’s conclusions are a fantasy,
quite divorced from reality

Rather than learning from the painful lessons of the past three years, it’s obvious that we’ve entered a post-pandemic phase of government-led alarmism.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)—including Theresa Tam—has published a study in a Canadian public health journal declaring that pandemic-inspired restrictions substantially reduced the impact of COVID-19 in Canada. “Counterfactuals of effects of vaccination and public health measures on COVID-19 cases in Canada: What could have happened?” asks us to believe an imagined story about what may have happened had Canada’s public health measures not been implemented.

However, the result is a counterfactual narrative of a fantasized Canada quite divorced from reality.

An elementary school in Montreal North is seen, Thursday, May 14, 2020 in Montreal. PHOTO BY RYAN REMIORZ /THE CANADIAN PRESS

Recent debate on the study’s findings has made it evident that Theresa Tam and her collaborators (“the authors”) are victims of common modelling pitfalls that have stripped their objectivity and, accordingly, affected the quality of their model and its output.

Instead of relying on modelling forecasts, the authors resort to “back-casting” to state “what may have happened” or “what could have been” had governments not acted on our behalf.

However, giving credence to such questionable results occurs all too often when sensational outcomes are observed. Unfortunately for any modelling study, the historical path—the one involving no interventions—was foreclosed the moment pandemic responses began. Neither the authors, nor anyone else, can ever observe the simultaneous response and non-response of Canada’s experience with COVID-19.

Quebec Premier François Legault says police in the province’s red zones — regions where COVID-19 cases are surging — will be issuing $1,000 fines to those who violate newly strengthened public health rules.  With fees, those fines will top $1,500 and can be issued for gathering in private residences or protesting without a face covering.

Their most dramatic claim is that, without social restrictions and vaccines, up to 800,000 COVID-related deaths could have occurred. The figure below shows 12 years of all-cause mortality data in Canada (blue line), with the authors’ “worst case” superimposed (red line).

The figure shows 12 years of all-cause mortality data in Canada (blue line), with the authors’ “worst case” superimposed (red line).

For us, two things make the authors’ assertion incompatible with any reasonable view: one, there was no obvious increase in all-cause mortality between 2020 and 2021 that exceeded historical trends (blue line), and two, the death count of “up to 800,000 people” (red line) surpasses the number of Canadians killed in the 1918 influenza pandemic and two World Wars—combined. It begs the question:

Could an infection with a survival rate >99 percent really have been
the single most devastating health event in a century?
The reader can decide if they find these results plausible, or fantastic.

All models are unrealistic to a degree (although this is not a “fatal flaw”). However, models are only as good as the assumptions upon which they are based. Unfortunately, the authors have hung their results on assumptions that underestimate the acquisition, extent, and durability of natural immunity and that very likely overestimate early viral spread and the duration of vaccine-acquired immunity.

The authors also assume that the spread of infection dropped consistently with the stringency of closures and other social restrictions: when strict, transmission was low; when relaxed, transmission increased. However, there is evidence that these measures didn’t work “as advertised.” In many provinces, their effect may have plateaued by April 2020.

Stricter measures did not translate into a proportionately slower spread.

Unfortunately, this didn’t stop the authors from forcing their model to respond as if they had. In their “worst case” scenario, large amounts of infection and disease are—conveniently—a foregone conclusion unless they get flattened by top-down government actions. The agency of Canadians and its bottom-up influences on transmission, such as people’s natural tendency to avoid contagion, are never considered.

Their least subtle omission was the failure to disclose conflicts of interest. While PHAC scientists might claim they only provide guidance on sub-national pandemic responses, the interests of many federal health-related agencies are certainly evident.

For example, the federal government’s purchase of COVID-19 vaccines preceded their approval by Health Canada, and some of the most restrictive measures imposed on Canadians (such as vaccine requirements for commercial travel) came from the federal level. As it happens, four of the authors are also directly employed by the federal government.

The study’s authors can hardly be viewed as not having competing interests
in favourably evaluating pandemic policies.

All this leads us to wonder: was their article a genuine evidence-based analysis of government policies? Or, rather, a blatant attempt to justify these policies? To their credit, the authors admit that Canada’s response to the pandemic was imperfect and any unintended consequences need to be investigated. It will truly be a measure of the honesty and integrity of PHAC and their provincial partners if the latter is ever realized.

Footnote Quebec Covid Situation October 1, 2020

Note that testing has quadrupled since July and the number of new cases followed, especially in the last month.  Meanwhile daily deaths are unchanged at less than five a day, compared to Quebec losing 186 lives every day from all causes..  Recoveries are not reported to the public, perhaps due to the large number of people testing positive but without symptoms or only mild illness and no professional treatment.  The graph below estimates recoveries assuming that people not dying 28 days after a positive test can be counted as cured or in recovery.

Recoveries are the number of people testing positive (misleadingly termed “cases”) minus deaths 28 days later.  Obviously, the death rate was high early on, and now is barely visible.  Meanwhile the Positivity rate (% of people testing positive out of all subjects) went down to 1% for several months before rising recently.  Since there is a lag of 28 days, we don’t yet see the outcome of the rise in positives along with the increased testing.

And yet, with an edict, as of October 1 the government of Quebec put 60% of the provincial population under strict restrictions, about 4.8 million people.  The article from CBC News provides the details Quebec gives police legal tools to enter homes quickly to stop gatherings during COVID-19

Why Was Covid-19? Follow the Money.

Michael Bryant has the background in finances and health to help us understand why Covid-19 plandemic  pandemic happened the way it did.  His off-guardian article is COVID-19: A Global Financial Operation.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The COVID phenomenon cannot be understood without understanding the un-televised 2019-2020 unprecedented financial collapse threatening the entire global financial system.

The Covid-19 Pandemic story makes little sense when viewed through the lens of health, safety and science. Viewed through the lens of money, power, control, and wealth transfer, however, then all of it makes perfect sense.

The lockdowns, mandatory muzzles, anti-social distancing and the plethora of additional measures did nothing to protect or improve public health- they were never designed to do so.

The numerous mandates birthed by the onset of the Covid-19 scenario were all designed to deliberately break the global economy and crush small businesses as well as break people’s minds, will and the social fabric, in order to “build back a better society” that conforms to the dystopian visions of the psychopaths waging this class war.

The desired result is a billionaire’s utopia, in which they will own and control the planet in the form of a techno-feudal fiefdom where digitally branded humanity is regulated like cattle in a super-surveilled technocracy.

What this manufactured crisis conveniently camouflages is that we are in the midst of a planned total economic collapse- a collapse which was inevitable.

The timing of the COVID fraud became necessary as world markets were faced with an emergency debt crisis in Fall of 2019 which popped up in formerly mostly liquid markets: Repo Markets, Money Markets and Foreign Exchange Markets.

Western governments began a rush to salvage this decaying system, stem this cataclysmic landslide, bail out large scale investors and proactively install a security infrastructure to control the inevitable social disorder resulting from this collapse. This would be followed by a global financial reset, after a period of hyperinflation, destroying both the value of debt and the corresponding paper claims.

The financial system was already in an advanced stage of decline by the fall of 2019 as illustrated by the Fed taking over the Repo market in September to short-circuit the Repocalypse. This collapse began in earnest in 2008/09 and attempts over the last decade and a half to salvage this corrupt economic system only delayed the inevitable.

In the Fall of 2019 the crisis began to rapidly unravel again.

A dramatic decrease in industrial production characterized the banking crisis of August 2019– the so-called Repo crisis when suddenly banks started to refuse US sovereign debt instruments as collateral for overnight loans, forcing the Federal Reserve to step in and print money to cover this massive shortage.

The Repo market is where banks borrow money each day so that they have a certain percent of liquid assets at the end of each day in order to meet certain fiduciary requirements.

Around the middle of September the Fed started pumping $10-20 billion per day into the Repo market to keep interest rates down so banks could borrow the money to stay in business. Even as the Fed was pumping as much $10’s of billions per day into the Repo market it was still not enough.

By early March the Fed was pumping $100 billion into the Repo market in order to stem this existential crisis.

Simply everyone on Wall Street was loaded with enormous debt and was holding on to US cash in order to service this debt, refusing to finance purchases of foreign currencies and then US currency as the Repo Market froze at 10% interest on overnight Repo loans. US treasury bonds and even US bills were being rejected as collateral for Repos.

In March 2020 the liquidity crisis spread from primary dealer markets (TBTF banks and Hedge funds were bailed out in September) toward all other stocks, commodities, bonds, Collateralized Loan Obligations, Mortgage Backed Securities, Mutual Funds, Exchange Traded Funds, as well as various Ponzi schemes such as Structured Derivative Products traded on proprietary platforms representing up to several thousand trillions of dollars.

When US treasury bonds became illiquid due to exponential growth of public, but mostly private, dollar debt, even as the FED was sucking up cash from financial markets all hell broke loose.

The entire House of Cards which was falling for six months could not be stopped so COVID hysteria was manufactured to cover up to what amounts to $10-15 trillion of FED bailout in cash and stock boosts via Permanent Open Market Operations (POMO)- a fancy way of saying that the Fed is buying Treasuries, pumping money into the financial markets and handing out guarantees of value of collateral used in structured derivatives.

The end game, currently in motion, is for the Central Banks (Fed) to buy up all the toxic, worthless debt from the hedge funds and banks, including the 1.5 quad trillion of derivatives, and then transfer the debt to the treasury as sovereign debt. They will then print money to infinity, already fully underway, to service this fictitious debt to sink the dollar via hyperinflation and then foreclose on the US and everyone else holding debt in worthless dollars.

More than 25,000 troops from across the country were dispatched to the US capital on January 13, 2021 and stayed until end of May 2021.

That’s the coup: global hyperinflation to vaporize the assets of the masses and the states in order to hand over public assets to private investors. This allows the ruling class to mop up properties (bankrupted small businesses, foreclosed homes etc.) in order to stake limitless claims on everything in the world.

The timely arrival of the Covid-19 “emergency” provided the rationale and the opportunity to freeze the US banking collapse with massive injections of cash. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $8-10 trillion was paid to US banks up until March 2020 with an additional $5 trillion in economic stimulus promised by the Fed.

The manufactured perception that there was a global medical emergency, beginning in March 2020, was an artifact of mass media manipulation, behavioral conditioning techniques and social engineering. All of this was made possible through institutional programming and accelerated media messaging disallowing basic cognitive processes and eliminating critical thinking possibilities.

With this incessant and overwhelming media drumbeat of the Virus Narrative, and the world unified in its response to the ‘Covid Pandemic’, no other stories were permitted to exist in the media or the public conscience.

Without any external threat like a ‘Killer Virus’ this massive financial collapse would have immediately caused panic and threatened dollar credibility. Without the Covid-19 smokescreen this widespread Ponzi Scheme and the ongoing historical wealth transfer would be seen for what they are- ongoing theft by the financial aristocracy.

The Covid Operation: The Trojan Horse to Usher in the New World Order

As the “War on Terror” illustrated, these deep events are constructed to exploit as many different lines of acquisition as possible. With the “Covid Pandemic” replacing the phony “War on Terror” yet another revamped “worldwide crisis” miraculously morphs into a ruling class multi-purpose golden opportunity.

While the immediate necessity was to staunch the bleeding of the global financial system many other purposes were and are to be served by this multifaceted operation. None of this is accidental. All of this is hidden in plain sight, planned and executed as evidenced in multiple tabletop exercises such as “Event 201” and delineated in numerous documents such as “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

The Covid Operation itself covers many objectives:

  1. Pre-emption of and disguising the reasons for the aforementioned economic implosion;
  2. Acceleration of the largest upwards transfer of wealth in human history;
  3. Justification for and entrenchment of the Bio-Security State, including AI surveillance across multiple sectors of society;
  4. Empowering and enriching the Security State’s counterpart the Big Tech Cartel via tracking apps, proliferating and normalizing social media and communication platforms as “the middle man” in all walks of life. Moving all social life towards the technological imperative– meals ordered via DoorDash, meetings on Zoom, increased spending via Visa/MasterCard by ordering goods online with Amazon, films via Netflix etc., were all forced onto a gullible and largely compliant world public during the Covid tyranny;
  5. The creation of “The Pandemic” as a financial mechanism. Manufactured pandemics have become mammoth investment opportunities that increase the wealth of billionaires and further consolidate their power;
  6. Expansion of the public health industry itself into all walks of public and economic life. The public health industry is now directly tied to global markets and financial conglomerates and has become one of the most critical financial instruments for investors;
  7. Creation of an entirely new and lucrative Bio-Medical “health management” system in order to introduce and codify an entirely new Bio-Tech medical model for the Pharmaceutical Industry with a focus on “revolutionary” uploadable mRNA “vaccines”;
  8. Expansion of and normalizing the use of digital IDs, including vaccine passports, connecting these to a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC); a Universal Basic Income (UBI) scrip, allowing for the tracking of purchases; medical interventions, “lifestyle choices”, etc. “nudging” us towards ‘desired’ behaviors or shutting us out of the system altogether as they wish;
  9. A re-organisation, privatization and reduction of public services under the pretense of making them “more nimble” for “public emergencies”;
  10. Conditioning the public to perpetual “States of Emergency” preparing them for the implementation of “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
A final Word

We are living through the biggest worldwide organized crime since WW2. The scale of the deception is too large for even many who consider themselves “in the know” to accept or comprehend and remain trapped in some version of the “Covid” merry-go-round. Others are still asleep or traumatized as the social fabric is being smashed to pieces as the world around them is being completely transformed.

The financial elites know that they have run up massive unpayable debts and deficits. They know the promises of pensions and benefits cannot be paid. They know the system has reached its Waterloo and social unrest is inevitable.

They know they must act rapidly and comprehensively to subvert this inevitable collapse in order to protect the financial Leviathan which underpins their capacity to maintain power and control.

Put simply, Covid-19 was not a widespread medical emergency, it was a money laundering scheme, a massive psychological operation and a smoke screen for a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current social and economic world order.

Covid-19, the disease, is nothing more than a disease of ATTRIBUTION.

Covid-19, the media event, was the Trojan Horse constructed to usher in a complete transformation of our society.

Covid-19™, the operation, was never an epidemiological event, it is a business model meant to increase the portfolios of the super-wealthy.

There is no such thing as “Covid 19” except as a criminal conspiracy.

 

 

Dr. Li-Meng Yan: President Xi Jinping’s China

As noted in a previous post linked later on, Dr. Li-Meng Yan was one of the first to make the case for WuFlu created and released from Wuhan, China. Derided at the time (2020), she is now vindicated and goes further to explain current events in China, as reported in UncoverDC.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dr. Li-Meng Yan graciously agreed to speak with UncoverDC for two hours on Tuesday about President Xi’s terrifying grip on mainland China. Dr. Yan says Xi is, for all intents and purposes, now the “Emperor” of China, a “sociopath” who has been consolidating power for many years. Dr. Yan flew to the U.S. from Hong Kong, where she worked in a prominent virology lab at the University of Hong studying coronaviruses and other emerging viral diseases under Malik Peiris on April 28, 2020. Yan says she has a “duty” to inform the world about the dangers of Communist China under Xi Jinping.

Peiris is a powerful, CCP-linked virologist at The University of Hong Kong. In 2003, Professor Peiris and his research team “discovered SARS-CoV, a novel coronavirus, as the etiological agent for SARS.” Through her trustworthy network of mainland China friends and colleagues, Dr. Yan began to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2. She is exposing how Xi purposely allowed the highly transmissible virus to travel outside China, crushing Western economies and killing many people unnecessarily. She claims the virus was well-coordinated by the PLA in China and was not limited to the lab in Wuhan. Yan communicated anonymously with a Chinese broadcaster based in the West whose channel is Lude media. He helped her get the word out through his broadcasts.

Dr. Yan says there is no doubt that the pandemic is indirectly responsible for the current protests in response to the lockdowns in China. However, she clarifies that while the press—both in China and in Western countries—are reporting the lockdowns are because of reinstated COVID policies, she says the lockdowns have “nothing to do with COVID.” During the pandemic, it became brutally clear to the mainland Chinese that President Xi’s draconian Zero Covid policies were “anti-human” and really had very little to do with protecting the people of China. Rather, she says Xi used the pandemic as a way to further extend and tighten his grip on the country. Dr. Yan explains:

“It is not COVID at all. SARS-CoV-2 is a weapon, a weapon more powerful than traditional bioweapons. So you see that it was released to foreign countries. It created a lot of social problems and chaos, and when it happened in China, it actually gave Xi great pretext to launch this very strict policy to restructure China’s society, its culture, and its people.

I believe Xi Jinping is using the People’s Liberation Army now to transform China from a peaceful time to wartime policies. It is a period of reformation. He is reinforcing his power with policies to control people, minimize people’s living standards, concentrate the money in his favor in places like the biomedical technology and weapons industry. He is training people to become obedient to listen to these ridiculous anti-human rules. This type of policy has been adopted by emperors in China going back 2000 years. Xi Jinping is using it in a modern way. “

Xi’s social credit system is used masterfully to control the movement of citizens. It is a “digital cuff.” Those who have cell phones are tracked and monitored no matter where they go. They are forced to use a “traffic light system,” red for no-go zones, or to indicate an individual does not have permission to move. Green means you are free to move about based on whether you have been tested or, many times, whether you “know the right local authorities.” It is human-tracked, which means there are people, local police, volunteers, and Party members who monitor and control all movement. Elderly people who do not know how to use the digital system are tracked on paper at checkpoints. Cameras are collecting biometric data everywhere. The tracking system is everywhere, not just in big cities. This policy is a “national strategy,” just like the “one-child policy.”

Additionally, President Xi recruited people all over China who wear white PPE-type uniforms. These enforcers are called “Big Whites,” and they enforce the lockdowns and movement of Chinese citizens. Big Whites are civilians hired with the promise of “big salaries” during the pandemic. Few have been compensated, and local CCP officials are now punishing many for asking to be paid. According to Yan, “Big whites are allowed to legally break into people’s homes. They can rape girls, kill their pets, take their possessions, and people are not allowed to get help. If the people call to get help, the message will be deleted, and the police will come and tell them to shut up.”

Yan says the protests are much more widespread than in the days of Tiananmen Square. Over 170 Universities country-wide have organized protests simultaneously, and it is not just the young protesting. Yan referenced a December 3, 2022, column by the New York Post that documented four Chinese citizens and their reasons for protesting. Many protested because of a deadly apartment fire in northwestern China’s Xinjiang region that allegedly killed ten people. These people were locked in the building from the outside because of the Zero COVID policy. One resident said, “Xinjiang is an open-air prison.”

Background from Previous Post Why Wu Flu Virus Looks Man-made

Doctor Li-Meng Yan, a scientist who studied some of the available data on COVID-19 has published her claims on Zenodo, an open access digital platform. She wrote that she believed COVID-19 could have been “conveniently created” within a lab setting over a period of just six months, and “SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus”.

The paper by Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang  is Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.   A brief synopsis in italics with my bolds.

We present three lines of evidence to support our contention that laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2:

i. The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

ii. The receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which determines the host specificity of the virus, resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated.

iii. SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein, which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature. In addition, rare codons associated with this additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin-cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.

 

Masquerade Charade Warning

Sylvia Shawcross provides the alert in her article The Maskparade Charade.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images. H/T Tyler Durden

In the ridiculous world of the New Abnormal where we apparently find ourselves it is critically important to add your opinion to the cacophony of why we are who we are, where we are on the path to seeming totalitarianism and… why people are still wearing masks.

Here in Canada apparently 7 out of 10 members of the public would want mask mandates back while most of the rest of the world has abandoned the concept to the rearview mirror.

Perhaps understandable if you have a medical condition but now study after study. Peer-reviewed. Well-researched. Top quality medical journals. Top-of-the-line researchers. All saying these masks do very little good.**

Even Fauci himself said so once…before he changed his mind as he tends to do when the landscape changes with the weather.

And in response, of course, drug companies and governments sponsored researchers in duelling studies to prove the opposite because that’s the game being played. It’s all about who you believe. It’s not about “the science”. Quite the game really.

In fact, most now know that masks are harmful in many cases, with children paying the biggest price by far on many different levels.

We know now masks don’t work for covid but perhaps they work for RSV or the flu? Maybe that’s why the push is on again. Because here in Canada it certainly is. Maybe that’s why we have the new narrative and being good abnormal citizens we must comply.

Do you think?  Don’t be silly. We know why. We just don’t want to say.

So the Media and their polls have told us that 7 out of 10 people want to keep the masks. And why might that be?

They can hide their crooked teeth. Or their unbrushed teeth. Or their morning-after-the-night-before breath. They don’t have to wear make-up. Or shave. Or wash their faces or their children’s faces.

They can stick their tongue out at people without being caught. They can whisper without lip readers. They can smile and smirk and bite their lips. They can hide their cosmetic surgery in progress. They can hide their chin hairs and warts and zits and leftover food in their moustaches.

They can rob a bank or say whatever they want to strangers because no one knows who they are and even the cameras don’t know.

God only knows what’s going on behind those masks!

But! Those mask-wearing people are free in a weird weird way. Advocates of the new abnormal have found a form of freedom from social norms behind a mask.

How is that possible? Is it possible that masks are freedom? No wonder we’re all mixed up. We don’t even know what freedom is anymore.

Or is it because we lost the freedom to have crooked teeth, no makeup and snarky opinions in the real world due to ever evolving relentless social norms and now have to hide for any sort of freedom…Hmmm…

Seems to be true for a lot of things now doesn’t it?

(Except for anything sexual. You can pretty much proclaim or do anything publicly now. Except child molestation. You can apparently sniff but not anything else. But I’m doing that digression thing again…)

So, let’s get this straight— when we see someone in a mask are they to be feared as nasty snaggle-toothed leprous sneaky sociopaths with sharp tongues and nefarious intentions?

Or are they just victims grasping for what little freedom they can garner in a socially punishing world? Hmmm… It could well be either one… How would we know?

Nevertheless, this is all terribly alarming. WHAT is going on? 7 out of 10 of us!!!

Well, I have a theory. Beyond the usual theories of enforced enslavement, virtue signaling, forced shame, neurosis, herd-like conditioning, continued fear porn dehumanization/ objectification/ subjugation/ alienation, circumvention of facial-recognition systems, gateway moves to social credit scores, anti-feminist one-step-to-the-forced-wearing-of-shuttlecock-burkas assault and the ultimate theory that this poll is nonsense propaganda from our captured media.

All of these theories are as good as the next as long as science seems to have little to do with mask mandates. I mean, real science by independent researchers.

Beyond these theories is the “we’re in the Dark Ages during the plague years of 1346 or so again” theory of mine which I thought I might as well throw into the mix now that we’re all mixed up about freedom and stuff.

Not that there is a plague or anything really at the moment but because people’s reactions don’t change. Not through all these centuries. We’ve changed NOT at all.

Here’s my theory: People wearing masks are the flagellants of the dark ages during the plague years who would run around whipping themselves publicly for God’s forgiveness and atonement or something.

Now during the plague years we would have asked a priest about all this guilt and fear stuff that drive flagellants to be flagellants but today we ask the psychologists.

This is because many if not all of the first world countries have become atheistic and have abandoned religion. But human nature needs what human nature needs—hence the psychologists for priests e.g. or Fauci as Pope and Schwaub as God and Greta as Mother Mary Marx.

Some people believe either technology, money, or medicine has replaced religion but it is clearly evident that it is the Green movement. If we can accept that religion is something that people participate in every day in a meaningful way, then clearly the Green movement has it all. It has priests, codes of behaviours, dictates and forbidden things.

It has a hell (the world as it is going now) and it has a heaven (sustainable development in utopia) It has worshippers. It has the holy and the damned. It has flagellants. And the people now wearing masks are them.

After thirty or so years of being told humans are responsible for killing the planet and being driven to weeping guilt over spending and frivolity and recycling and plastic and gas and beef-pork pies, humans are despicable.

They know it.  They’re guilty as hell. They want to be punished. They believe they deserve it and they are doing this as an appeal to their new Gods of the Environment.

Masks appear not to be about the virus, but about supporting the true religion of the Environmental Zealotry in all its glory and condemnation no matter whatever absurd, illogical or terribly hurtful thing that might bring in whatever sphere of influence.

For many masks might even be called the uniform of the uninformed.

No wonder they read the riot act to the truckers protest of Canada over things like mask mandates. Those heretics!

Well… that’s my theory. It’s as good as any of those other ones, isn’t it? Or maybe not. What do I know… As far as wearing masks is concerned, I appreciate that people are afraid and don’t wish to make too much light of it. Fear isn’t fun. It’s just important to know what to fear and why. Mostly I’m all for following the law of the land as long as the law isn’t an ass. That’s the hard part to figure out.

Two sides of the same coin.

 

 

Blood Clotting from Spike Proteins

Dr. Yuhong Dong and Dr. Jordan Vaughn write at Epoch Health Why Spike Protein Causes Abnormal, Foot-Long Blood Clots, 200 Symptoms.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

In this two-part paper, we aim to give an overview on COVID-19 related abnormal blood clots, how they form, how to detect them early, and how they’re being treated

Strange Blood Clots

Since mid-2021, unusual, lengthy blood clots found in the vessels of COVID-19 patients and jab recipients have been reported across the world.  

Fibrous Clots found in corpses by Richard Hirschman (Courtesy of Richard Hirschman)

Where do these strange, fibrous clots come from? How do they form?

Spike Protein: The First Domino Toppled

Blood is a liquid that circulates under pressure through the blood vessels in our whole body, like the water flowing through the house that you then use to shower, do the dishes, and so on.

Following a vascular injury, any blood “leaking out” must rapidly be converted into a gel (a “clot”) to fill in the hole and minimize further blood loss.

Normally, the plasma portion of blood contains a collection of soluble proteins that act together in a series of enzyme activation events that result in the formation of a fibrin clot. This process is protective, as it prevents excessive blood loss following injury.

Unfortunately, the blood clotting mechanism can also lead to unwanted blood clots inside blood vessels (pathologic thrombosis), e.g. heart attack or stroke, both of which are a leading cause of disability and death in the world.

COVID-19’s way of causing abnormal blood clots has spurred many discussions since early 2020.

It appears that the virus’s unique spike protein triggers the cascade via many “non-traditional” pathways.

The spike protein’s direct invasion of the epithelium cells is the first domino toppled.  Subsequent cascade effects finally cause the blood clotting. 

CV Spike Proteins Work in Multiple Ways

The article goes on to discuss the several mechanisms employed by spike proteins to clot blood.

Spike Proteins Impair Epithelium Cells

Spike Proteins Trigger the Clotting Cascade

Spike Proteins Dysregulate RAAS, Worsening the Clotting State

Spike Proteins Directly Disrupt the Clot Dissolving Mechanism

Spike Proteins Form Amyloid-Like Substance

Spike Proteins Inhibit Another Anti-Clot Mechanism

Spike Protein Is the Smoking Gun

There is clinical evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has been detected in clots retrieved from COVID-19 patients with acute ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction.

Recent research conducted by cardiologists from the University of Colorado sheds light on the crucial role of spike protein in the pathology of COVID and COVID vaccine-related injuries.

They analyzed seven COVID-19 patients and six mRNA vaccinated patients with myocardial injury and found nearly identical alterations in gene profiling patterns that would predispose them to clotting state, inflammation, and myocardial dysfunction.

In other words, whether the myocarditis was caused by the virus or vaccine, similar
changes were exhibited in the expression of genes responsible for prothrombotic state
in response to spike protein, inflammation, and myocardial dysfunction.

Based on gene analysis, COVID-19 and post-mRNA vaccine injury have a common molecular mechanism.  The altered genes pattern includes down-regulation in ACE2, ACE2/ACE ratio, AGTR1, and ITGA5, and up-regulation in ACE and F3 (tissue factor).

Rendering of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins binding to ACE2 receptors. (Shutterstock)

What is more alarming and not reported before is that microvascular thrombosis has been found in post-vaccinated patients, indicating that spike protein itself is able to trigger blood clots in susceptible patients.

Tip of the Iceberg

Based on the causal relation between ChAdOx1-S vaccines (the AstraZeneca adenovirus COVID vaccine) and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, the product information for ChAdOx1-S has been updated to include thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome as a very rare side effect.

This has been named as vaccine induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), due to the fact that in almost every patient in these reports, high levels of antibodies to platelet factor 4 (PF4)–polyanion complexes were identified in their body.

These unusual blood clots in combination with thrombocytopenia were reported predominantly in women aged under 60 years. Accordingly, several European countries restricted the use of adenovirus vaccines in younger age groups.

This risk has been recently systematically analyzed in an international network cohort study from five European countries and the United States, confirming pooled 30 percent increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine, as well as a trend towards an increased risk of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after Ad26.COV2.S (the Janssen COVID vaccine) compared with BNT162b2 (the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine).

However this may be only the tip of the iceberg. There are many more events that could be attributed to the clotting issues including sudden death, cardiovascular events, cardiac death, stroke, disabilities, thrombotic events, etc.

Blood vessels are in all our organs. The vessel problems could explain a wide range of symptoms from the dysfunction to mild decline of our brain, heart, lung, and extremities.

Footnote  Why I Boosted with Novavax

Inside New Hit Job on Ivermectin Covid Potency

Once again New England Journal of Medicine published a study refuting positive results for Covid patients from Ivermectin.  At least this time, they are not claiming IVM is dangerous to humans, only that it doesn’t help the infected.  Yet that conclusion, welcomed by all invested in big pharma, was the result of data torture.  Similar to previous hit jobs, patients did not get the full treatment protocols so effective around the world, but only Ivermectin without the additional nutrients.  It may even be that the placebo was vitamin C. The many weaknesses of this study are explained by Charles L. Hooper and David R. Henderson in their Cato article Ivermectin and the TOGETHER Trial.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

In our recent Regulation article “Ivermectin and Statistical Significance” (Spring 2022), we looked at the empirical evidence and debate over whether the antiparasitic drug ivermectin helps prevent or treat COVID-19 infection. As indicated by the title, much of our article was devoted to the long‐​running issue of the use and misuse of a defined statistical threshold researchers employ to determine if results for the treatment group are genuinely different from results for the control group. We also discussed the incentives that both the pharmaceutical giant Merck (the developer of ivermectin, whose patent has now expired) and the Food and Drug Administration have to dismiss evidence that the drug is effective against COVID-19.

About the time our article appeared, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a multi‐​author article on ivermectin’s effects on COVID patients in Brazil. The authors conducted a large‐​scale trial known as TOGETHER that looked at both ivermectin and the antidepressant fluvoxamine as possible treatments, and they concluded that ivermectin is not useful against the disease. According to the article, “Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid‐​19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid‐​19.” Reporting on the article, the New York Times quoted one infectious disease expert who had read the study, Dr. David Boulware of the University of Minnesota, stating, “There’s really no sign of any benefit,” while another, Dr. Paul Sax of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said, “At some point it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach.”  Given this negative news, it appeared, ivermectin had reached the end of its COVID road.

However, a careful reading of the NEJM article finds it is not nearly as conclusive and persuasive as the two doctors’ quotes and other media coverage would lead us to believe.

In fact, because the results of the TOGETHER Trial suggest that ivermectin actually did benefit the Brazilians in the treatment group — results that are in agreement with 87% of the other clinical trials that have tested ivermectin — there is still good reason to continue studying the drug as a possible preventative or treatment for COVID-19.

Clinical trials and the truth 

By the very nature of clinical trials, there is only an indirect linkage between their results and the truth. Ideally, a trial uses a relatively small sample to represent a population — say, a thousand people to represent all of humanity — some of whom receive the treatment under investigation while others do not. Investigators then try to determine if the treatment, or “active,” group has a different outcome than the control group,  with the hope that the only difference between the groups is the treatment under investigation and with the further hope that the sample truly is representative of the population.

Running clinical trials on medications is difficult and many things can go wrong. We must scrutinize each trial to see its strengths and weaknesses and then look at the whole body of evidence concerning the possible intervention that is under investigation. Here’s a partial list of factors to consider when evaluating a drug study:

  • Was the correct dose given? If not, was the dose too low or too high?
  • Was the treatment given at the correct time? Was it given too late in the course of the illness to be effective?
  • Was the drug correctly formulated? Was the active ingredient actually active?
  • Were the study participants split properly between active and control groups? Were there material differences between the two?
  • Was something else happening in the background that might have limited the ability of the study to tease out the results of interest?
  • Was the study properly administered or were there errors that could have compromised its integrity?
  • Was the study adequately powered — meaning did it include enough test subjects — to detect the intended result? All studies are powered to a certain level, meaning that even if the drug actually works, there is some probability that the study won’t uncover that efficacy.
  • Were the investigators potentially biased?
  • Did the study truly find a negative result or was it an artifact of how the researchers looked at the data?

With these questions in mind, we offer the following criticisms of the TOGETHER ivermectin trial and resulting report.

Study issues 

Many of the outcomes specified in the TOGETHER trial protocol for ivermectin are missing from the final report. The reason for this, in part, is that several mid‐​trial protocol changes were made. Trial protocols are typically set before a trial begins and are not subsequently changed. Yet, in the case of the TOGETHER ivermectin study, all‐​cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality outcomes were removed, and inclusion/​exclusion criteria were changed from including to excluding vaccinated patients.

Every clinical trial is required to have an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC). The integrity and independence of the committee are critical. The DSMC for this trial had deep connections to the co‐​principal investigator, McMaster University health science professor Edward Mills, and to a key funder of the study, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Two other members of the DSMC have also published papers with Mills. In noting this, we do not accuse any of these people of acting unethically, but rather note that they do not appear to be impartial.

The placebo used in the trial was not specified in the NEJM article. An earlier trial announcement said it would be a vitamin C pill. Vitamin C has been studied in 42 clinical trials as a treatment for COVID-19, with some indications of efficacy. Obviously, a potentially efficacious substance is not a good placebo.

Also, this clinical trial was powered at 80%. That means there was a 20% chance of a false negative result even if the trial had been conducted flawlessly.

Background issues 

Ivermectin treatment of parasitic infection is common in Brazil, and researchers needed to take care that trial participants had not recently used the drug. Yet, recent ivermectin use was not a formal exclusionary criterion for the study. The authors say that such patients were excluded via “extensive screening,” but if prior ivermectin use was not part of the official exclusion criteria for the trial (and it wasn’t), then we don’t know how widespread this screening was and what form it took.

Further, ivermectin is widely available in Brazil as an over‐​the‐​counter drug — unlike in most clinical trials, where the drug under study is available only via the trial. Prospective participants who wanted ivermectin because they believed they had COVID could have taken it on their own and thus would have been disinclined to enroll in a trial where they faced a 50% chance of getting a placebo. Further, those who wanted ivermectin likely would have had a serious case of COVID, hence their desire for the drug. Therefore, we can assume that the trial participants skewed toward those who considered themselves at low risk from the illness. This conflicts with the stated goal of the trial, which was to study high‐​risk patients.

Reporting issues 

There are some data inconsistencies in the tables and figures in the NEJM article. In one place, it reports on 288 patients who were studied, but in another it states 228. The article is even inconsistent about the number of patients who died while in the trial.

The subgroup analysis is missing some patient data. For instance, the time since onset of symptoms is missing for 23% of patients. Similar data on patient age are missing. That information is important for good analysis.

The missing data lead to a curious result when the authors compare the outcomes of patients identified as having received early treatment with the outcomes of those identified as having received it later. Both groups did worse than what is shown as the average outcome for treated patients. The only way to explain this result mathematically is if the ivermectin recipients with missing timing data experienced efficacy that was seven times the average — something that is highly unlikely. Many other similar problems are in the analysis.

Trial implementation issues 

The randomization of patients in the trial does not match the protocol. This suggests major problems with the study.

One problem is that the patients in the control and ivermectin treatment groups faced different virus variants because the control group was generally treated earlier in the pandemic than the active group. Based on an analysis over time of the patients on placebo, the case fatality rate may have been twice as high during the period when most ivermectin‐​receiving patients were enrolled — that is, ivermectin recipients faced a more formidable virus.

Another problem: many of the placebo patients were treated when vaccination was an inclusion criterion (patients may or may not have been vaccinated) while many of the ivermectin patients were treated after vaccinations were considered an exclusion criterion (patients were not vaccinated). In other words, there were material differences between the control and active groups other than the administration of ivermectin.

Blinding 

Patients who received a placebo had a treatment duration of one, three, 10, or 14 days, while those who received ivermectin had a treatment duration of three days. This meant that doctors treating patients receiving one, 10, or 14 days of treatment could have figured out that their patients were on a placebo.

Suggesting that did indeed happen, 92% of ivermectin recipients claimed to adhere completely to the dosing regimen, while those on placebo had only 34% or 42% adherence (the NEJM article shows inconsistent numbers). This suggests the clinical trial wasn’t properly blinded.

Treatment timing

Other studies strongly suggest that ivermectin works better when administered early in an infection. The TOGETHER study allowed for and apparently included many patients treated late in their infection. Patients were randomized within seven days but didn’t receive treatment until the next day, meaning that some patients received treatment eight days after symptom onset. Eight days is a very long period for COVID-19. The results of other trials show that the effect of ivermectin drops to about zero at eight days.

Treatment dose

In the TOGETHER trial, ivermectin was administered to patients on an empty stomach, reducing the absorption rate of the drug. That makes the effective dose about 15% to 40% of what current clinical practice suggests. Further, as previously noted, treatment was limited to three days. In addition, the dose of 0.4 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight was capped for patients weighing more than 90 kg (200 lbs.), meaning that heavier patients got an even lower dose relative to body weight. Half of all patients in the study had a body mass index of 30 or more, suggesting that 30%–50% of patients had their dose capped.

Divergence of data results and study conclusions

If a scientist told you that a study showed that ivermectin “did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid‐​19 or of prolonged emergency department observation,” you would expect that result to show up in the data analysis. Yet, the TOGETHER study found that ivermectin was associated with a 12% lower risk of death, a 23% lower risk of mechanical ventilation, a 17% lower risk of hospitalization, and a 10% lower risk of extended ER observation or hospitalization. So what gives?

This underscores the discussion in our earlier article about statistical significance. If the confidence level of the results does not eclipse a stipulated threshold, it is often said that the treatment did not work. However, in this case, the results suggest that the drug did work, but the results weren’t as definitive as the researchers might have wanted.

A more accurate interpretation of the findings would be to say that the drug showed promise and that a larger trial may yield the desired statistical significance.

Based on our analysis of the published study results, we have estimated the probability that ivermectin helped patients in the TOGETHER trial. The results are shown in Table 1. To compute these probabilities, we used the point estimates and the 95% Bayesian Credible Intervals from the NEJM article’s Table 3. (To better understand our methodology, see “Metalog Distributions,” by Tom Kreelin, www​.met​a​logdis​tri​b​u​tions​.org.) Based on our results, it is difficult to agree with the conclusion that the TOGETHER trial showed “no sign of any benefit” for ivermectin.

Other studies

When one study produces weakly positive results, we should look at other studies to see if there is any consensus. After all, the TOGETHER trial studied 1,358 patients; that is only about 1% of the patients studied in all trials of ivermectin for COVID-19. When we look at the 81 other trials that have been completed, we see a range of results across studies, but generally the results are positive. In addition, because so many trials have been run, their combined data indicate that the results for ivermectin are positive and strongly statistically significant. Removing the few studies that have been heavily criticized does not change this encouraging picture. In the worst case, 54 of the 82 clinical trials would need to be removed to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.

Of course, neither the TOGETHER trial nor the other studies are the final, definitive word on ivermectin’s effects on COVID-19, either as a treatment or a preventative. Research goes on, as it should in the fight against this dangerous virus.

Footnote:  Fresh Evidence from Brazil that Ivermectin Works

From Your News New Ivermectin Study Demonstrates 92 Percent Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A new peer-reviewed study concluded that the mortality rate in people who used ivermectin regularly was 92 percent lower than in non-users and 84 percent lower than in irregular users.

Among the authors are Flávio Cadegiani, a board-certified endocrinologist, and Pierre Kory, an outspoken pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist, as well as president and chief medical officer of the Front Line Critical Care Alliance.

The study, published on Aug. 31 in the Cuerus Journal of Medical Science, was conducted via a prospective observational study of a “strictly controlled population” of 88,012 subjects in the Brazilian city of Itajaí.

The individuals that took ivermectin as a preventive medicine prior to COVID infection saw remarkable reductions in hospitalization as well as death, according to the publication.

The citywide program ran through July 7 and Dec. 2 of 2020, and was collected prospectively and systematically.

The method involved giving a smaller dose of ivermectin (proportional to body weight) for 150 days to a group considered the “irregular” group and up to three times or more of that dosage to the “regular” group.

“Comparisons were made between non-users (subjects who did not use ivermectin), and regular and irregular users after multivariate adjustments. The full city database was used to calculate and compare COVID-19 infection and the risk of dying from COVID-19. The COVID-19 database was used and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed for hospitalization and mortality rates,” the study states.

In addition, the study asserts that the hospitalization rate was reduced by 100 percent in the “regular” group.

Hazardous Spike Proteins from mRNA Shots

Case Report Confirms mRNA Spike Proteins Found in the Heart and Brain of a Deceased Man – Spike Protein may have Contributed to the Patient’s Lesions and Illness.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dr. Michael Mörz, who works at Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt in Germany, did a case report on a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after getting his third COVID-19 shot.

The case report was published in the top journal “Vaccines” on Monday.

According to the report, the patient received the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vector vaccine in May 2021, followed by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in July and December of that same year.

When the deceased’s family members noticed certain discrepancies in the clinical symptoms that occurred just before the death, they requested for an autopsy to be performed.

From the case report:

The clinical history of the current case showed some remarkable events in correlation to his COVID-19 vaccinations.

Already on the day of his first vaccination in May 2021 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vector vaccine), he experienced cardiovascular symptoms, which needed medical care and from which he recovered only slowly. After the second vaccination in July 2021 (BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine), the family recognized remarkable behavioral and psychological changes and a sudden onset of marked progression of his PD symptoms, which led to severe motor impairment and recurrent need for wheelchair support.

He never fully recovered from this but still was again vaccinated in December 2021. Two weeks after this third vaccination (second vaccination with BNT162b2), he suddenly collapsed while taking his dinner. Remarkably, he did not show any coughing or other signs of food aspiration but just fell from his chair.

This raises the question of whether this sudden collapse was really due to aspiration pneumonia. After intense resuscitation, he recovered from this more or less, but one week later, he again suddenly collapsed silently while taking his meal. After successful but prolonged resuscitation attempts, he was transferred to the hospital and directly set into an artificial coma but died shortly thereafter. The clinical diagnosis was death due to aspiration pneumonia. Due to his ambiguous symptoms after the COVID-vaccinations the family asked for an autopsy.

Although there was no history of COVID-19 for this patient, immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins) was performed.

Spike protein could be indeed demonstrated in the areas of acute inflammation in the brain (particularly within the capillary endothelium) and the small blood vessels of the heart. Remarkably, however, the nucleocapsid was uniformly absent. During an infection with the virus, both proteins should be expressed and detected together.

On the other hand, the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines encode only the spike protein and therefore, the presence of spike protein only (but no nucleocapsid protein) in the heart and brain of the current case can be attributed to vaccination rather than to infection. This agrees with the patient’s history, which includes three vaccine injections, the third one just 3 weeks before his death, but no positive laboratory or clinical diagnosis of the infection.

Since the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 was consistently absent, it must be assumed that the presence of spike protein in affected tissues was not due to an infection with SARS-CoV-2 but rather to the transfection of the tissues by the gene-based COVID-19-vaccines,” Dr. Mörz stated.

“This is strongly suggestive that the spike protein may have played at least a contributing role to the development of the lesions and the course of the disease in this patient,” he added.

In his conclusion, Dr. Mörz stated, “Numerous cases of encephalitis and encephalomyelitis have been reported in connection with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, with many being considered causally related to vaccination. However, this is the first report to demonstrate the presence of the spike protein within the encephalitic lesions and to attribute it to vaccination rather than infection. These findings corroborate a causative role of the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, and this diagnostic approach is relevant to potentially vaccine-induced damage to other organs as well.”

Full Report  Below

 

Background Post:  Why I Boosted with Novavax

Ok, my hand was forced because we booked a transatlantic cruise for November, after which the company informed us proof of a Covid booster shot would be required to board the ship in Civitavecchia (Rome).  My blood test last December showed plenty of antibodies and I’ve tested negative for Sars CV2 many times.  For reasons described later on, I do not want more gene therapy experimentation in my body.  Fortunately, Novavax is now approved and available, and I got boosted with a real vaccine shot yesterday in Montreal where I live.

Overview from Yale Medicine

How is Novavax different than the other COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.?

Though COVID vaccines may utilize different delivery mechanisms, the end result is the same: cells in the body recognize that a spike protein (the spikes you see sticking out of the coronavirus in pictures) doesn’t belong, and the immune system reacts by activating immune cells and producing antibodies to attack the real virus if you get exposed.

But, unlike the other vaccines, Novavax directly injects a version of the spike protein, along with another ingredient that also stimulates the immune system, into the body, leading to the production of antibodies and T-cells. (It injects a version of the spike protein that has been formulated in a laboratory as a nanoparticulate that does not have genetic material inside and cannot cause disease.)

“I often tell people, imagine an eggshell without an egg in it. That’s what it is,” Dr. Wilson says.

The Novavax vaccine is a traditional one compared to the other vaccines. Its technology has been used before in vaccines to prevent such conditions as shingles, human papillomavirus, and DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), among others.

Has the Novavax vaccine been authorized outside of the U.S.?

Yes. The Novavax coronavirus vaccine (brand names: Nuvaxovid and Covovax) is already being used to prevent the coronavirus in 40 other countries, including Canada.

Novavax is based in Maryland, and the vaccine was developed in the U.S. in 2020 with support from the federal government program Operation Warp Speed, but it’s progress was slowed by manufacturing difficulties. Finally, in November 2021, countries around the world, starting with Indonesia and the Philippines, later followed by the United Kingdom, began granting authorizations for the vaccine.

Novavax applied to the FDA for authorization in January of this year.

Europe Approves Novavax’s COVID-19 Vaccine Booster For Adults

    • The European Commission has approved the expanded conditional approval of Novavax Inc’s (NASDAQ: NVAX) Nuvaxovid COVID-19 vaccine as a homologous and heterologous booster for adults aged 18 and older.
    • The approval follows the recommendation made by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use earlier this month.
    • The expanded approval was based on data from Novavax’s Phase 2 trial conducted in Australia, a separate Phase 2 trial conducted in South Africa, and the UK-sponsored COV-BOOST trial.
    • The third dose produced increased immune responses comparable to or exceeding levels associated with protection in Phase 3 trials. In the COV-BOOST trial, Nuvaxovid induced a robust antibody response when used as a heterologous third booster dose.
    • In the Novavax-sponsored trials, local and systemic reactions were generally short-lived following the booster.
    • Nuvaxovid has also been authorized in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand as a booster in adults aged 18 and older and is actively under review in other markets.
A Distinction Which is a Real Difference

My discomfort with mRNA shots is multiple:  The trial data from Pfizer and Moderna is still being withheld; the trial period was too short to reveal any long-term side effects; the companies were given total immunity from liability for damage to people injected with their products. And, they unscrupulously trashed effective generic viral treatments like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin to protect their vaccine payday. A more detailed analysis is below.

From Joseph Mercola writing at Bright Health News COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Not a vaccine in the medical definition, the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is really an experimental gene therapy that does not render immunity or prevent infection or transmission of the disease.

♦  mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters because you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for

♦  mRNA contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies

♦  The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community

♦  Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine — at least not until the CDC redefined “vaccine” — marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices

♦  SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked

Illegal to Promote mRNA Products without Evidence of Safety and Effectiveness 

The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. Per this law,[13][14] it is unlawful to advertise “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”

Here’s the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.

What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.[15[16] However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.

That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”

Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna eliminated their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it.[17] The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible.

Gene Therapy is a Last Resort, not the First Response

Here, it’s worth noting that there are many different treatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. For example, research shows the antiparasitic ivermectin impairs the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes.[19]

It also can help prevent blood clots by binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This prevents the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells and triggering clumping.[20]

It makes sense, then, that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:[21]

Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

    • Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
    • Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
    • Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”
Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea

I’ve written many articles detailing the potential and expected side effects of these gene therapy “vaccines.”

The take-home message here is that these injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.

If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:[32]

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website