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

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

 

 

Let Wuhan Whistles Blow!

We have long awaited hearing from governmental insiders regarding the swamp creatures embedded inside various federal agencies and now directing policies dangerous and destructive to the republic.  For example, FBI professional agents are coming out to congress representatives about partisan and illegal behavior by their superiors.  This post concerns a similar outing of Anthony Fauci regarding the origins of the Covid plandemic pandemic.

At Just the News ‘Fauci knows’ he funded gain-of-function research, ‘misled Congress,’ former CDC director says.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

“Nothing’s going to happen as long as the Biden administration is here,” Robert Redfield says, citing threats on his life for promoting the lab-leak theory.

The former Center for Disease Control and Prevention director who was cast as a conspiracy theorist for saying the evidence supported the lab-leak explanation for COVID-19 – allegedly provoking death threats – claims that the real “conspiracy is Collins, Fauci, and the established scientific community.”

Robert Redfield told former Senate Finance Committee investigator Paul Thacker that National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci “knew” he funded gain-of-function research that makes viruses more dangerous, and “misled Congress” when he denied it,” but “[n]othing’s going to happen as long as the Biden administration is here.”

“Tony and I are friends, but we don’t agree on this at all,” Redfield said in an interview published in Thacker’s Disinformation Chronicle newsletter.

“Everyone had to agree to the narrative” pushed by Fauci and then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a “wet market” in Wuhan, not the Fauci-funded Wuhan Institute of Virology miles away, to avoid becoming a public target of the two officials, he said.

The virologist Redfield told the immunologist Fauci from the “second or third week in January” 2020 that “I’m very concerned that he was championing this theory that it came from animals.”

The particulars of the novel coronavirus, such as the furin cleavage site and the “human” sequence in it, make clear that it’s not from bats, he said. “This thing was manipulated, orchestrated. That cleavage site was created.”

Transmission doesn’t make sense under natural evolution, according to Redfield. “You have a virus that is one of the most infectious viruses in the history of humanity, and yet that virus no longer can infect the bat? … No, this is highly abnormal.”

Redfield said he believes The Lancet spring 2020 letter that lumped in the lab-leak hypothesis with “conspiracy theories” was “orchestrated … under direction of Fauci and Collins, trying to nip any attempt to have an honest investigation of the pandemic’s origin.”

“There was nothing scientific about that letter.
It was just an attempt to intimidate people,” he also said.

“Tony had over a year looking for an intermediate host” to explain the natural-evolution theory of COVID-19 “and still hadn’t found one” when Redfield went on CNN in 2021 to defend the lab-leak hypothesis, Redfield continued.

Scientific American accused Redfield of promoting a conspiracy theory based on “xenophobia,” which Redfield suspects was due to Fauci’s influence at that publication.

“I was threatened, my life was threatened,” he said. “I have letters I got from prominent scientists, that previously gave me awards, telling me that the best thing I could do for the world was to shoot myself because of what I said.”

He believes that “Fauci and Collins were behind a lot of” the conspiracy and “anti-Asian hate” claims about the lab-leak theory, and plans to elaborate in a book once Chinese Communist Party leadership changes. Redfield said “big publishers” frowned on his book proposal because it promotes the lab-leak theory.

Thacker noted that newly released emails show January 2020 discussions within NIH about Fauci’s funding of the EcoHealth Alliance and a 2015 paper in Nature about the Wuhan lab manipulating coronaviruses.

“Yeah, I think Tony tried to kill” the inquiries into the Wuhan funding and lab experiments, Redfield said, while clarifying that “I don’t believe there was any intent to harm people” through suppression. NIAID didn’t immediately respond to a request for Fauci’s response. Neither did Collins, who remains at NIH as head of the molecular genetics section.

“The whole thing is scientific arrogance. There was an arrogance that they could contain this, that it wouldn’t escape it,” he said. “I worked with the Chinese CDC for many years while in the military and while at the University of Maryland. And viruses get out of labs. That’s just the nature of the beast.”

Science + Politics = Politics

Jukka Savolainen writes at City Journal And Yet It Moves.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A top scientific journal places political correctness above the search for truth.

Nature Human Behavior, one of the most prestigious journals for social science research, recently published an editorial titled “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.” Though short, the article generated tremendous pushback among academics and intellectuals concerned about the spread of social-justice ideology into science. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker said the journal was “no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed,” while Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, described the journal’s statement as “an epistemic catastrophe.” What did the editorial say?

In short, it took the position that scientific truth should defer to politics. The journal now considers it appropriate to suppress research that “undermines—or could reasonably be perceived to undermine—the rights and dignities” of people or groups, as well as “text or images that disparage a person or group on the basis of socially constructed human groupings.” Researchers are urged to “consider the potential implications of research on human groups defined on the basis of social characteristics” and “to contextualise their findings to minimize as much as possible potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied groups in the public sphere.”

Anything that could be perceived as disparaging is now fair game for rejection or retraction.

The implications on scientific inquiry and truth-seeking are clear. As the journalist Jesse Singal observed, an empirically flawless study could be retracted under the guise of social justice. “What’s most alarming is that unless I’m missing something, research that is perfectly valid and well-executed could run afoul of these guidelines,” he wrote.

In the words of a scientist and commentator, the Nature Human Behavior editorial codifies policies “that most social science journals already have.” In his 2014 book The Sacred Project of American Sociology, Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith laments the discipline’s unwillingness to come clean with the reality that pursuing specific kinds of social-justice goals is its central mission. As regrettable as the new editorial guidelines of Nature Human Behavior may be, at least they express honestly how contemporary social science is actually practiced.

Indeed, scientific journals cannot afford to remain neutral—but they need to take a strong stand for the pursuit of truth, not for any political cause. Like democracy, scientific inquiry does not happen by default; it requires unwavering commitment among its participants to play by the rules.

It is not acceptable to retract or suppress a methodologically sound study
simply because you don’t like the results.

Background Post:  Science Discredited by “Scientists”

Toby Young writes at Spectator How science became politicized. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

New rules from a leading journal do not bode well

Here’s a paradox. Over the past two-and-a-half years, a cadre of senior politicians and their “expert” advisors across the world have successfully promoted a series of controversial public policies by claiming they’re based on “the science” rather than a particular moral or ideological vision. I’m thinking of lockdowns and net zero in particular. Yet at the same time, this group has engaged in behavior that has undermined public confidence in science.

Why appeal to the authority of science to win support for a series of politically contentious policies — and then diminish its authority?

Take Anthony Fauci, for instance, who recently announced he’s stepping down as chief medical advisor to Joe Biden. Even though he once claimed to “represent science” in the eyes of the American people:

♦ he misled them about the likely duration of the lockdowns (“fifteen days to slow the spread”),
♦ overstated the efficacy of the Covid vaccines when they were first rolled out,
♦ refused to countenance the possibility that Covid-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology
♦ it later emerged that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, under his leadership, had given a grant to the EcoHealth Alliance, which helped fund “gain-of-function” research at the Chinese lab,
♦  and he conspired with other prominent scientists, such as Francis Collins, to besmirch the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (“There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises,” Collins told Fauci in an email).

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal concluded: “His legacy will be that millions of Americans will never trust government health experts in the same way again.”

Another case in point is a recent editorial in Nature Human Behaviour, one of several journals in the Nature Research stable, the world’s pre-eminent publisher of scientific research. “Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded,” it begins, and then proceeds to set out rules that future academic papers will have to comply with in addition to meeting all the usual standards for publication, e.g. peer review. It says the journal won’t publish articles that might cause “potential harms” (even “inadvertently”) to individuals or groups that are most vulnerable to “racism, sexism, ableism or homophobia.” “Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups; assumes that a human group is superior or inferior over another simply because of a social characteristic; includes hate speech or denigrating images; or promotes privileged, exclusionary perspectives raises ethics concerns that may require revisions or supersede the value of publication,” it says.

It should be obvious that far from being politically neutral, these rules embody a particular ideology and in future the truthfulness of a scientific finding will be subordinate to this perspective.

To see this, you just need to do a simple thought experiment, as Bo Winegard has done in Quillette. Imagine, he says, if this editorial had been written by political conservatives who announced that “any research promoting (even ‘inadvertently’) promiscuous sex, the breakdown of the nuclear family, agnosticism and atheism, or the decline of the nation state, would be suppressed or rejected lest it inflict unspecified ‘harm’ on vaguely defined groups or individuals.” Those progressive scientists applauding Nature Human Behaviour would throw up their arms in horror and point out – correctly — that these rules are at odds with one of the foundational principles of science, which is to pursue the truth, wherever it may lead.

This editorial is a disaster from the point of view of closet ideologues who want to appeal to the authority of science to promote lockdowns and net zero, including, I suspect, its authors. After all, the reason rhetorical phrases like “the science” are supposed to win round those who are skeptical about these policies — conservatives, for the most part — is that they invoke a popular conception of scientists as politically neutral, disinterested “experts” who are basing their guidance on reason and evidence, uncontaminated by value judgments.

Yet here is a group of senior scientific gatekeepers announcing that the only knowledge that will count as “scientific” is that which promotes their agenda.

It’s as if they’re saying that scientific research unconstrained by this progressive straitjacket, i.e. science as conventionally understood, will yield results that are incompatible with their radical egalitarian agenda and so ought to be suppressed. In other words, “the science” is actually at odds with their political views.

How to explain this own goal? As I say, it’s a head-scratcher.

Covid Jabs Mess With Your Blood

Figure 1. These photos are at 40x magnification. At the left side, (a) shows the blood condition of the patient before the inoculation. The right side image, (b) shows the same person’s blood one month after the first dose of Pfizer mRNA “vaccine”. Particles can be seen among the red blood cells which are strongly conglobated around the exogenous particles; the agglomeration is believed to reflect a reduction in zeta potential adversely affecting the normal colloidal distribution of erythrocytes as seen at the left. The red blood cells at the right (b) are no longer spherical and are clumping as in coagulation and clotting.

Source:  Dark-Field Microscopic Analysis on the Blood of 1,006 Symptomatic Persons After Anti-COVID mRNA Injections from Pfizer/BioNtech or Moderna,  International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research in August 2022.

Report on study from Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang at Epoch Times Peer-Reviewed: 94 Percent of Vaccinated Patients With Subsequent Health Issues Have Abnormal Blood, Italian Microscopy Finds.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Physicians in Italy studied the blood of patients who had been injected with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and found foreign matter long after vaccination, a new study shows.

The three doctors, all of whom are surgeons—Franco Giovannini, M.D., Riccardo Benzi Cipelli, M.D., and Giampaolo Pisano, M.D.—examined freshly drawn blood of more than a thousand patients using direct observation under microscopes to see what was happening in the blood.

For this study, the Italian doctors used optical microscopy, that is, regular light microscopes, to examine the blood. Blood cells are easily visible under a microscope. Their shape, type, and how and if they are aggregated—clumped together—can help the skilled physician better understand the patient’s health.

In their 60-page peer-reviewed study, the Italian researchers reported case studies from their observations. Although they could not explain what they observed, they noted in the study that what they saw was so strange that they felt the need to alert the medical community.

Unlike electron microscopy, light microscopy provides a direct image of what is under the lens. With light microscopy, scientists can either use a bright white background behind the cells, with the light shining from behind the slide, or they can use a dark background.

Abnormal Blood

Of the 1006 patients, 426 were men and 580 were women. One hundred and forty-one received only one dose of an mRNA vaccine, 453 got two doses, and 412 received three doses in total. The patients ranged in age from 15 to 85. The average age of the patients was 49. All 1,006 patients were seeking healthcare because they were not feeling well: presenting with a wide variety of health issues.

On average, the patients whose blood was examined had been vaccinated about one month prior.

Of the 1,006 patients, after vaccination, only about 5 percent—just 58 people—had blood that looked normal.

The doctors were able to examine the blood of 12 of the patients before they had received any vaccines. At that time, previous to being vaccinated, all 12 patients presented with normal, healthy blood, according to the researchers.

The authors did not reveal how many people were vaccinated in total, so the percentage of vaccinated people who developed abnormal blood is unknown. This is a shortcoming of their research. What is known, however, is that 94 percent of the patients surveyed in this study, who developed subsequent symptoms, had abnormal blood.

Each of the patients was being reviewed for symptoms, a wide range of which had arisen since their vaccinations.

The images are dramatic. Side-by-side pictures of a patient’s blood before and after vaccination show stark differences. Before vaccination, the red blood cells are separate from each other and are round, while the blood drawn after vaccination shows red blood cells that are deformed, and that cluster in coagulation around visible foreign matter that was not present before.

Foreign Material Aggregated in the Blood

This foreign material seemed to collect itself into structures, sometimes forming crystals and other times forming long tubes or fibers.

The foreign-body structures in the patients’ blood, which had not been there before vaccination, certainly look unusual in the photos included in the study.

The large shapes seemed to the doctors to have aggregated in the blood, and they observed shapes that suggest the way graphene can self-assemble into structures.

Graphene is a form of carbon that occurs when the atoms are arranged in hexagons, making a flat crystal, like a sheet. In this form, though the carbon is not a metal, it behaves chemically like a metallic compound.

The two shapes they noticed in the blood stream were crystal-like chunks and tube-like lengths. While the researchers could not confirm that what they saw was graphene, they pointed out that graphene can aggregate into shapes similar to those the doctors observed.

Is It Graphene?

Graphene has been used in nasal-delivery flu vaccinations, and is being developed for use in other medicines. However, it is not listed as an ingredient in any of the mRNA vaccines.

The Italian doctors did not chemically test for graphene. They only speculated that graphene may be a component of the structures. Graphene can self-assemble tiny nano-structures, making it useful for carbon nanotubes and carbon fiber. However, as the authors mentioned, graphene self-assembling into structures in the bloodstream could provide something for blood to clot on, potentially causing large-scale blood clots.

These speculations raise more questions than answers, as neither graphene nor other metallic compounds were supposed to have been used in the vaccines. So why did over 950 people experiencing post-vaccination health issues present with foreign material in their blood?

This is not the only study to find blood abnormalities post-mRNA vaccination.

In a previously published study in the same journal, a Korean team also showed that mRNA-vaccinated blood contained metallic objects that should not have been there. The Korean scientists analyzed samples of centrifuged blood from eight people who had received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against two people who did not receive any COVID-19 vaccines.

The team of three South Korean medical doctors, Young Mi Lee, Sunyoung Park, and Ki-Yeob Jeon, explained that: “The preponderance of evidence suggests that the foreign materials found in the COVID-19 vaccine recipients … were injected into their bodies when they received one or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

According to this study: “From the 8 COVID-19 vaccine recipients: 6 plasma samples contained a multilayered disc of unidentified composition; 3 samples contained beaded coil-like materials; 1 plasma sample contained a fibrous bundle of similar appearing beaded foreign material; and a different group of 3 samples had crystal-like formations of foreign material. The various shapes and sizes of foreign materials in the centrifuged plasmas of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals closely resembled the shapes and sizes of foreign materials previously observed directly in the vaccines themselves.”

The Italian study, which analyzed over 10 times as many blood samples, appears to confirm the findings from Korea. However, it is difficult to extrapolate from their findings. It would be easier to confirm that the vaccines were indeed the cause of the blood abnormalities if the Italian researchers had also analyzed the blood of a control group of patients presenting with similar unusual symptoms (or lack thereof) who had not been previously vaccinated.

Clotting Problems

Clotting problems are one of the hallmark complications seen after COVID-19 vaccination.

As the subject pool was of people who had been recently vaccinated and subsequently had health problems arise, this new science suggests that these structures in the blood and the abnormal clotting behavior of the blood cells could be a major part of why clinical doctors are seeing so many unusual health issues consequent to mRNA vaccination.

Indeed, large clots have even been found in the bodies of the deceased since the vaccine program started. An embalmer in Alabama noticed that large clots of a sort he had never seen in his 20-year career started to become commonplace once the vaccine program started, according to a non-profit Alabama news agency.

Richard Hirschmann told 1819 News that he has collected pictures of over a hundred cases of these blood clots. Hirschmann also alerted local labs and has been working with a radiologist, Phillip Triantos, M.D., to better understand why and how patients are presenting with large-scale slow-forming blood clots.

Other doctors, including Ryan Cole, M.D., a dermatopathologist (which is a doctor who uses a microscope to examine samples of skin, hair, and nails to diagnose diseases) and founder of the Idaho-based company, Cole Diagnostics, have also seen large blood clots becoming an emerging phenomenon since widespread vaccination campaigns started, according to 1819 News.

Microscopes in Medicine

It used to be common for medical doctors to have microscopes in their offices and to examine their patients’ blood (and other bodily fluids) themselves, according to Barron Lerner, M.D., author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics.”

While medical doctors today, with some exceptions, almost always send tests off to outside laboratories for analysis, Barron Lerner described how senior physicians used to feel it was their duty to teach their younger colleagues and medical students how to do testing themselves: Gram stains to test for bacterial infections, urine analysis under the microscope, and centrifuging blood to check for anemia and other issues.

Akin to medical doctors of past eras, the Italian team of doctors who published these new findings explained that they have looked at the blood of patients over their entire careers, including after every other sort of vaccination. But they have never seen foreign bodies of this sort before.

Post-market surveillance of medical devices, new medications, and vaccinations is of the utmost importance to ensure safety. These unusual and widespread findings of abnormalities in the blood post-mRNA vaccination should be of global concern. If 94 percent of patients with adverse health problems have occlusions in their blood that were not present before they were vaccinated, these scientists may have uncovered an unanticipated and dangerous side effect of mRNA vaccines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Immunity Superior to Jabs

Natural Immunity Offered More Protection Against Omicron Than 3 Vaccine Doses, New England Journal of Medicine Study Finds is a report at FEE.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Natural Immunity vs Vaccination

While it’s true that immunization wanes, new scientific research from The New England Journal of Medicine suggests natural immunity lasts longer than immunity acquired from vaccines.

The study, a case–control analysis based on data from Qatar collected from December 23, 2021 through February 21, 2022, involved millions of people, including 1,306,862 who received at least two doses of the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2) and 893,671 people who received at least two doses of the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273), as well unvaccinated individuals.

The results of the study are a mixed bag for the vaccines.

The best news is that “any form of previous immunity, whether induced by previous infection or vaccination, is associated with strong and durable protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death.” (In other words, both vaccines and natural immunity reduce the risk of hospitalization or death from Covid.)

Also good news is that both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines “enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection.”

“The combination of prior, full vaccination and prior infection was maximally protective,” researchers said in a summary of the study’s findings released last month by the Weill Cornell Medicine Newsroom. “Individuals with prior infection and three doses of either mRNA vaccine were, overall, nearly 80 percent protected from symptomatic infection during the omicron wave.”

But the study also found that two doses of vaccines offered “negligible” protection against Omicron infection.

“A key finding was that a history of vaccination with the standard two doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, but no history of prior infection, brought no significant protection against symptomatic omicron infection,” researchers said.

In regards to the Pfizer vaccine, three shots offered considerably more protection. But the protection was still lower than natural immunity, which offered stronger and more sustained protection from infection than vaccination. (Researchers noted that “people with a prior-variant infection were moderately protected from omicron with little decline in protection even a year after their prior infection.”)

The findings are not unlike those out of Israel published last year, which found that natural immunity offered more robust protection against the Delta variant than vaccines.

“The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” Science reported in August 2021 in a piece exploring the Israel findings.

More than a dozen other studies also found that natural immunity offered powerful protection against Covid, equal to or stronger than vaccination.

‘The Foundation of All Rights’

Even absent these findings, vaccine mandates were dubious from the beginning. The morality of violating bodily autonomy through government coercion is a serious and dangerous matter. In light of these findings, however, vaccine mandates also appear nonsensical.

While many institutions now consider Covid infection a form of immunization—including the NCAA, which in January changed its policy to accommodate athletes who’d had Covid—many have not. Thousands of soldiers have been discharged because of their vaccination status. Healthcare workers continue to face vaccination mandates in many places.

It’s time for all institutions—especially governments—to recognize vaccination choices should remain with individuals. The idea that freedom over one’s own body is the most basic and essential freedom is one embraced not just by libertarians like Ron Paul but by international leaders like Natalia Kanem, a physician who leads the United Nations Population Fund.

“Bodily autonomy is the foundation on which all rights exist,” Kanem bluntly states.

See Also Omicron the Liberator

 

 

 

Unaccounted Excess US Deaths in the Time of Covid

Eyal Shahar writes at Brownstone Institute The Mystery of Unaccounted Excess Deaths in the US.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

By April 2022, the number of reported Covid deaths (993,739) had accounted for almost all of the CDC estimate of excess deaths (about 1,080,000). The official narrative will tell you that most of the difference is missing Covid deaths – people who died from Covid but were not diagnosed.

That’s a simpleminded summary.

First, flu returned last winter (Figure 1) and its share in excess mortality is unknown. A comparison of Covid deaths with excess deaths must be truncated in September 2021, before the beginning of the flu wave.

Second, Covid deaths might have been missed early on, but it is absurd to assume that they continued to be missed throughout the pandemic. On the contrary, liberal coding rules, financial incentives, extensive testing, and a Covid-oriented mindset must have led to overcounting of Covid-related deaths.

Third, lockdowns, social isolation, fear-mongering, and disruption of normal life took their toll, too. There is no doubt that those baseless interventions have cost (and will cost) lives. So the question is not whether they contributed to excess mortality, but how much? What percentage of the excess mortality in the US is due to panic reaction and official fear-mongering? How many excess deaths are not accounted for by Covid?

Sources of data

Three sources of data were used to check the robustness of the main results (qualitatively), and to obtain a range of estimates: 1) CDC excess death file (weekly estimates), from which it is also possible to compute weekly Covid deaths. 2) CDC Covid death file (cumulative by each day), from which weekly deaths can be computed. 3) Our World in Data (OWID) website, from which Covid deaths and estimated excess deaths can be computed between various dates.

Cutoff dates for selected periods were dictated by weekly end-dates in the CDC excess death file. Available OWID dates were within two days.

Unaccounted excess deaths

Figure 2 shows data from an 18-month period – April 2020 through September 2021 – terminating the observations before the return of the flu. Counts of Covid deaths are shown from the three sources, and estimates of excess deaths from two. The difference between excess deaths and Covid deaths is unaccounted excess deaths.

Overall, the share of unaccounted excess deaths over the 18-month period was 6-9% (CDC) or 16% (OWID). This summary, however, is hiding important variation over time.

Three consecutive periods

Review of weekly estimates revealed two periods with a significant percentage of unaccounted excess deaths (April-December, 2020 and June-September, 2021), separated by a five-month period (January – May, 2021) in which the opposite was observed: the number of Covid deaths exceeded the estimate of excess deaths. It was seen in 20 of 21 weeks of that period.

The data for each of the three periods is shown next.

First period
In the first nine months of the pandemic, the share of unaccounted excess deaths ranged from 11% to 27% of all excess deaths, depending on the source of data (Table). The OWID estimate is higher than CDC-based estimates due to a lower count of Covid deaths and a higher estimate of excess deaths (as seen in the entire period.) Notice, again, that the count of deaths in the Covid file is closer to the OWID than to the excess death file.

Interim period
At the beginning of 2021, the pattern was reversed. The number of Covid deaths exceeded the estimate of excess deaths, indicating overcounting of Covid deaths (Table). A so-called Covid death that did not contribute to excess mortality was not caused by Covid. It was death “with Covid,” or sometimes death “with a positive PCR.”

Other than data error, the only alternative explanation to overcounting is overestimation of the “normal” number of deaths (by both sources), resulting in underestimation of excess deaths. There was no drastic change, however, in the CDC estimates of weekly expected deaths, which gradually declined from about 61,000 at the beginning of January to about 55,000 by the end of May.

Misattribution of deaths to Covid during that five-month period was substantial: One-quarter to one-third of reported Covid deaths would have happened regardless of a Covid diagnosis.

Direct evidence of misattribution requires selecting a large sample of death certificates from different times, retrieving the associated medical records, and reclassifying Covid deaths by a panel of experts. Don’t count on the CDC to initiate a study that might shatter the official narrative.

Last period
The results for the last period are striking (Figure 5). Not only do we observe, again, unaccounted excess deaths, but their share is substantially higher than in the first part of the pandemic. Unaccounted excess deaths make up 26% to 43% of the excess mortality in these four months, as compared with 11% to 27% in the first nine months. The average number of unaccounted excess deaths per month was doubled (CDC data) or increased by almost 50% (OWID).

What has accounted for these 47,000 to 82,000 excess deaths?

The last period contained the rising part of the Delta wave (as of July). Were some Covid deaths of vaccinated people not attributed to Covid (because the vaccines were promised to be 95% effective)? Did some of those deaths result from the continued effects of panic and fear-mongering? Were some of them vaccine fatalities?

Estimates of unaccounted excess deaths (April 2020 – September 2021)

The first table (Figure 2) showed 6-16% unaccounted excess deaths over an 18-month period. That computation assumed that no death was misattributed to Covid, which is nonsense, of course – on both theoretical grounds and empirical evidence. We just saw substantial overcounting in the first five months of 2021.

A conservative estimate of misattribution over the 18-month period would allow for just 10%. That is, 90% of reported Covid deaths were true Covid deaths. The remainder belong to the category of unaccounted excess deaths. A realistic estimate might be 15%.

On these two assumptions, unaccounted deaths make up 15% to almost 30% of the excess mortality (Figure 6). The average of the six estimates is 21%.

Were these unavoidable pandemic deaths?

The CDC and other officials will call these deaths “indirect pandemic deaths.” They are not. Most of these deaths would not have happened if the Covid pandemic were handled like a previous flu pandemic – without fear-mongering, without lockdown, without symbolic masks, and without disruption of normal life. One journalist attributed them to “circumstances of the crisis.” Who created these circumstances?

The mystery of unaccounted excess deaths in the US is solved, at least in part. Many of them are accounted for by poorly justified interventions and relentless impositions on normal human activity.

At least 115,000 deaths belong in that category and the true number might be twice as high.

Postscript 2022 Excess Death Statistics

Jesse Santiano, M.D. brings the analysis up to date and adds an element in his article Excess deaths continue in 2022.  Excerpts in italics.

I went to the CDC Wonder website to see if excess deaths are still present in 2022. February 2022 is still incomplete, so I compared only the month of January for each year from 2018 to 2022. Using the same month from 2018 to 2022 removes the seasonal variations in deaths.

2018 and 2019 are the pre-pandemic years and serve as a baseline trend. 2020 is the start of COVID-19, but in January 2020, it was just beginning, and there were only a tiny amount of COVID-19 deaths.

CDC: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Case Surveillance — United States, January 22–May 30, 2020

Since the shots were started in December 2020 (see appendix at the bottom), January 2021 will reflect the excess deaths from (a) COVID-19, (b) its injections for 18 and older, and (c) the effects of the lockdowns like suicides and domestic violence.

January 2022 reflects the excess deaths from the five years and older. Those are primarily due to the COVID injections since the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant is the Omicron which is much less deadly than previous variants.

I grouped the ages into 10-year groups for simplicity. The years 2018 to 2022 have different features, which are discussed below. The table below is presented and repeated in the lower part of the page. The excess deaths (in red) for 2022 are in the right-most column.

What the table means

2018, 2019, and 2020
The number of deaths for all age groups in 2019 is lower than in 2018. There is a downward trend in mortality based on United Nations projections, as shown by the graph from macrotrends.net below.

A slight increase in deaths in January 2020 is expected, and this is due to population growth. According to the CDC, the rise in fatalities secondary to COVID-19 started in March 2020. (See CDC graph above)

2021
January 2021 shows the deaths from all causes, including COVID-19 and its shots. The age groups 18 and above who started to have the COVID injections in December 2020 will have more deaths in January 2021 than in January 2020.

In contrast, the <1 year to 14 years old who started late in getting the COVID shots (October 29, 2021, for 5-11 years old) have a lower number of deaths in 2021.

2022
The all-cause deaths in 2022 will include deaths from the less lethal Omicron variant and booster shots. The expected number of mortalities should be known for baseline comparison to know if there are excess deaths. The 

In summary, this article shows that in January 2022, the death rates continue to exceed the expected number of deaths. If my assumptions and calculations are accurate, we may be witnessing the lasting effects of experimental gene therapy shots.