Apr 12, 2021
Systemic Anti-White Racism in Vermont: Black, Indigenous and People of Color Prioritized Over Whites to Get Coronavirus Vaccine First
Coronavirus – COVID-19 articles, news, conspiracies, facts and discussions.
“Today the 7-day Covid positivity rate dropped to a new recorded low: 4.95%. Hospitalizations dropped to a 6 month low. This week we have 1 million 1st vaccines available,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott wrote in a tweet on Sunday. “Everyone now qualifies for a shot. They are highly recommended to prevent getting Covid but always voluntary.”
According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, at least 1,900 new virus cases were reported on Sunday, which is the lowest daily number the state has seen since early June.
Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that the seven-day moving average number of cases in Texas dropped to the lowest level since mid-June. According to the CDC, Texas was averaging 3,783 daily cases as of March 27.
Abbott’s tweet also notes that hospitalizations dropped to their lowest number in the past six months. According to data from the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), 3,104 COVID-19 patients were in hospitals across the state as of Saturday. Data shows that the state has not recorded a number this low since September 19, when there were 3,081 hospitalizations.
As of Monday, Texas has reported more than 2.3 million confirmed coronavirus cases and at least 47,156 deaths.
Mississippi also removed its COVID-19 restrictions around the same time. Like Texas, Mississippi has seen a drop in virus cases and hospitalizations. According to CDC data, as of Saturday Mississippi was seeing an average of 254 daily cases, which is a decrease from the previous month, where the state was averaging around 520.
According to the state’s health department, Mississippi also saw a drop in COVID-19 hospitalizations, reporting 238 hospitalized patients with confirmed infections this past Friday, which is the lowest the state has seen since May.
Before the decreases in cases and hospitalizations in Texas and Mississippi, they received criticism for their coronavirus policies, including from President Joe Biden. Shortly after both states said they were lifting their COVID-19 restrictions, Biden said, “The last thing we need is Neanderthal thinking, that, in the meantime, everything’s fine, take off your mask, forget it. It still matters.”
Twitter censored Harvard professor of medicine Martin Kulldorff, a member of the COVID-19 vaccine safety subgroup that advises the CDC, FIH, and FDA, because he challenged the notion that children and young people require COVID-19 vaccination.
The platform applied a warning label to Kulldorff’s tweet about the matter, and prevented users from liking or retweeting it.
“Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should,” said Kuldorff in his now-censored tweet. “COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”
Kulldorff is one of the most cited experts on infectious diseases alive today, with over 25,000 academic citations. In addition to his role as a Harvard professor, he is a biostatistician and epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
He co-created the Great Barrington Declaration, a call for an approach to containing COVID-19 focused on the most at-risk groups rather than the entire population. It has been signed by thousands of medical experts and practicing medical doctors around the world.
Kulldorff continues to argue that the response to COVID should focus on older, vulnerable populations while easing restrictions on young, healthy people.
According to Twitter, Kulldorff violated the platform’s rules on “COVID-19 misinformation.”
In a follow-up tweet commenting on Twitter’s decision, Kulldorff slammed the platform for making decisions on medical debates that are beyond Twitter’s expertise.
“When making unscientific claims, media often refer to “health officials” or “experts” without citing anyone,” said Kulldorff
A study published by the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research finds that coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic by the domestic press was overwhelmingly negative. More negative than the international press. More negative than the local press. And more negative than the science. But then a funny thing happened after President Donald Trump lost his reelection bid.
Researchers at Dartmouth College and Brown University did a content analysis of tens of thousands of COVID-19 news stories to look at the levels of negativity. What they found was that 87% of the stories published by the top 15 news sources in the country were negative in tone. That compares with 50% of international news sources, and 64% for scientific journals. They also found the mainstream media were 25 percentage points more likely to be negative than more general U.S news sources.
What’s more, this overwhelming negativity included even “areas with positive developments, including school re-openings and vaccine trials.” And, the researchers determined, the mainstream media coverage was “unresponsive to changing trends in new COVID-19 cases.”
In other words, the national press in the U.S. was putting a negative spin on everything COVID-related. (The study is titled “Why Is All COVID News Bad News?”)
Those 14 top news sources tracked by the researchers, by the way, included only two that might be considered conservative – Fox News and the New York Post.
The researchers claim that the major U.S. media outlets were simply feeding the public’s desire for gloomy news.
“Our results suggest that U.S. major outlets publish unusually negative COVID-19 stories in response to reader demand and interest,” authors write.
But that doesn’t make sense. Why wouldn’t local news be just as negative? Or international news?
We have a much better theory: The mainstream press was feeding the public a steady diet of negative COVID stories to tarnish Trump in hopes of driving him from office.
Even the authors sort of acknowledge this, without pointing out the implications. At one point, they write that: “Potentially positive developments such as vaccine stories receive less attention from U.S. outlets than do negative stories about Trump and hydroxychloroquine.”
What’s more, a chart published by the New York Times based on the study’s data shows that the mainstream press’ fixation on bad COVID news started to lift once Joe Biden declared himself winner of the November 2020 election.
The Times’ David Leonhardt inadvertently admits the real reason for tone of COVID coverage.
“I have worked in media for nearly three decades, and I think you might be surprised by how little time journalists spend talking about audience size,” he writes, commenting on the NBER study. “We care about it, obviously, but most journalists I know care much more about other factors, like doing work that has an impact.”
”Has an impact,” eh? Like, say, driving a president you don’t like out of office?
There’s a precedent for this. When George H.W. Bush was running for reelection in 1992, coverage of the economy was overwhelmingly negative, despite the fact that one of the shallowest and shortest recessions on record ended in March 1991.
One survey found that “a majority of U.S. journalists who followed the 1992 presidential campaign believe President Bush’s candidacy was damaged by press coverage of his record and of the economy.”
As soon as that election was over, the press suddenly started reporting good economic news.
We all know how deplorably biased the mainstream media is. But even we can be stunned when we see blatant evidence of it like this.
We analyze the tone of COVID-19 related English-language news articles written since January 1, 2020. Ninety one percent of stories by U.S. major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty four percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty five percent for scientific journals. The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials. Media negativity is unresponsive to changing trends in new COVID-19 cases or the political leanings of the audience. U.S. major media readers strongly prefer negative stories about COVID-19, and negative stories in general. Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumber stories of decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 even during periods when new cases are declining. Among U.S. major media outlets, stories discussing President Donald Trump and hydroxychloroquine are more numerous than all stories combined that cover companies and individual researchers working on COVID-19 vaccines.
The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.
Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.
Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.
Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?
Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.
But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”
Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.
Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”
They did it; but why?
In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.
Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”
But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.
In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”
Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”
Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues. He may be reached at [email protected].
Late last year, a semi-retired British scientist (the former vice president of Pfizer where he spent 16 years as an allergy and respiratory researcher) co-authored a petition to Europe’s medicines regulator. The petitioners made a bold demand: Halt COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials because they could cause infertility.
They speculated, without providing evidence, that the vaccines could cause infertility in women.
But the MSM can say without providing evidence that the vaccine is safe and that everyone should take it…
The Public Health Agency does not advise against face masks for children in its guidelines, but states: “Children do not need to wear face masks. It is difficult for children to handle and wear face masks the right way, and children are not the drivers [of infection] in this epidemic and do not spread infection in the same way as adults.”
Stockholm’s regional coronavirus recommendations currently include using face masks on public transport at all times, as well as in situations where close contact can’t be avoided, for example in the workplace, hairdressing salons, pharmacies or the supermarket.
It does not however extend to schools. “At school it remains the case that face masks are only recommended in the specific situation where you, as an adult, cannot maintain distance for an extended period of time. In general, the use of face masks is not recommended in school environments,” the region said in a press statement as it called for masks to be used on public transport.
Florida has had roughly 3 percent more COVID-19 cases per capita than the US total but 8 percent less deaths.
While research has found that mask mandates and limits on group activities can help slow the spread of COVID-19, states with greater government-imposed restrictions, such as California, have not always fared better than those without them.
Florida’s response to the pandemic has meant its economy has been booming.
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) is covering up state data to show the extent of devastation from Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s repeated orders last year which forced COVID-stricken patients into nursing homes.
Whitmer signed an executive order on April 15 demanding long-term care facilities “must not prohibit admission or readmission of a resident based on COVID-19 testing requirements or results,” and renewed the policy several times until it was rescinded in September. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo passed similar orders last year and engaged in a cover-up which has left the governor in the fight for his political life against calls for impeachment.
Whitmer, who now faces potential criminal charges of her own, appears to be engaging in a cover-up as her administration heads to court to keep state death data on nursing homes hidden from public view.
On Tuesday, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of Michigan Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Charlie LeDuff to force the MDHHS to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request to release data on nursing homes.
“Given the recent nursing home policy failures in other states, the need for transparency has become even more critical,” Holly Wetzel, a spokeswoman for the Mackinac Center told The Federalist. “We are disappointed in the consistent lack of transparency demonstrated by the governor’s administration and hope that both MDHHS and Gov. Whitmer bring clarity by voluntarily providing the information we are seeking.”
LeDuff, according to the complaint, first requested aggregate data on Michigan’s death count in late January, which was promptly denied an hour later by state officials claiming a violation of privacy laws. After a back-and-forth with the public health department, LeDuff simplified his request to include merely the age of those who died from COVID, the dates of their death, the date their death was added to the statewide toll, and whether the deceased were infected at a long-term care facility.
The state again denied the request on privacy grounds, although anyone may still go online to request individual death certificates for a $34 fee which includes far more information.
The Michigan public health department said it did not discuss ongoing litigation when reached for comment.
Nearly 17,000 people have died from the novel Wuhan coronavirus in Michigan as of this writing. It remains unclear how many deaths were a consequence of Whitmer’s nursing home policy replicated by Democratic governors in New York, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
Pfizer has been forced to pay out over $4b in criminal and civil settlements for various frauds and immoral acts over the last 20 years, but that only represents about a quarter of their projected 2021 net income. Are we really going to trust them this time around, with no liability and no reason to care?
Be aware that doctors believe that less than 1% of vaccine damage is ever reported:
“The doctors emphasize how “fewer than 1% percent of vaccine adverse events are even reported. So, theoretically, that 1/39 number [2.6% vaccine damage previously estimated] discovered from the data mentioned above is actually a lot greater given the fact that many adverse events aren’t even reported.
Of all the threats we’re facing right now, I consider the mRNA “vaccine” to be the most pressing and immediate.
Where in all of the MSM is any semblance of informed consent? This wilful ignorance like a spell over it and the people who consume it is sickening and most probably criminal.
While, disappointingly, most still believe in the COVID psyop, I believe there is an instinctual revulsion and mistrust surrounding vaccines in general and the mRNA treatments specifically. Rather like the U.K. and its initial implicit belief that the royal family had a hand in Princess Diana’s death, we KNOW something is wrong with this picture. Most would prefer to wait, despite being told vaccines are the only possible ransom/ parole for their current captivity. Calling this mad scramble “Operation Warp Speed” in the US and “Operation Moonshot” in the U.K., does little to dispel such fears. The former connotes an intense, irresponsible rush, the latter an ”enterprise” with an unlikely and uncertain outcome.
Here are my edited top 23 reasons to avoid the current rollouts:
23) UK citizens going blind and deaf: https://thecovidblog.com/2021/02/16/united-kingdom-12-deaf-five-blind-after-pfizer-mrna-shots
What worries me about these symptoms and the Bell’s Palsy etc is that we hear they are temporary side effects, but this never gets followed up, if reported at all by MSM. Jim Ross of WWE suffered from BP for decades.
22) They’re giving people COVID (there never was any promise of preventing infection or transmission, only perhaps limiting already mild symptoms)
From the official U.K. Yellow Card website:
21) “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease” – risk of ALS, Alzheimer’s and autoimmune diseases amongst other long term possibilities. Also posits that the vaccine might be a form of bioweapon. The study has been accepted The Journal of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, which is a peer-reviewed publication.
“The enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit.”:
20) MIS-A and -C – “The Centers for Disease Control is investigating if Dr. Barton Williams, an orthopedic doctor, died from Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome.“
“Williams also had been vaccinated for COVID about a month ago and that testing found the two types of antibodies in his system – one type of antibody that results from a natural COVID infection, and a second type of antibody from the vaccine. Threlkeld also said Williams tested negative for COVID-19 while in the hospital.“
Not knowing how many of us us have already had mild or asymptomatic COVID, this is a real concern.
“Threlkeld said one way to avoid MIS-A would be to get vaccinated.
“This is not a reason, not to get the vaccine. It’s a reason to get the vaccine, because only people who have had the infection have had this occur.” Please can someone explain the logic of this statement?
19) “Doctors Link Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines to Life-Threatening Blood Disorder: “A second New York Times article quotes doctors who say the mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines may cause immune thrombocytopenia, a blood disorder that last month led to the death of a Florida doctor after his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine”:
18) Pharma does not consider this a vaccine – it is intended as a platform and an operating system.
“Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein.
I have yet to read a creepier paragraph. I know Pharma has recently redefined vaccine to incorporate mRNA treatments (much like they have for the words ‘pandemic‘ and the phrase ‘herd immunity‘ to suit their purposes, but this should only highlight their subterfuge.
Is this mRNA gene therapeutic called a vaccine so it can be fraudulently covered under the vaccine liability shield? (see point 11))
17) The fact that they have to bribe us to take this trustworthy, perfectly safe solution to all our troubles:
16) AI needed to help reporting of expected high volume of ADR due to ‘vaccine’:
“The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed”.
15) Threats to fertility via spike protein effects on the placenta. Pharma can’t allay these fears, and are open (in their documentation, at least) about their ignorance on this matter. They’ve recently back-pedalled on discouraging pregnant women and women hoping to become pregnant from taking it though. Below you will see the discrepancy between information given to patients and doctors on this issue:
Edit: This from early February 2021:
14) Antibody-dependent enhancement or pathogenic priming – another still-unproven yet undebunked threat. Does the “vaccine” create a greater threat to the immune system from contact with the wild virus? In the FDA documents, “vaccine enhanced disease” is listed as a possible outcome. (See below). The skipped animal trials might have highlighted this issue.
13) The worrying outcomes in Australia, whereby guinea pigs/ cannon fodder somehow tested positive for HIV. MSM claims these are false positives, but it does play into fears of autoimmune disasters predicted in FDA’s/ Pfizer’s own documents (see photo below).
12) Bell’s Palsy – cases of this appearing globally. Reported initially by the MSM as temporary (worrying enough) but predictably never followed up by the MSM. How do we know?
11) Pharma has no financial liability for any damage or fatality resultant from their mRNA treatment. Why should they care about safety, let alone efficacy? No wonder most sensible people are baulking.
10) The trials skipped crucial steps, such as animal trials, and were only unleashed on the public as a result of governmental fiat emergency powers. None of these treatments has been officially approved, and experimental substances were permitted to be injected into subjects only via emergency powers acts. Crucial stages have been skipped. Every original SARS vaccine trial fifteen years ago ended in animal fatality, especially when confronted by the wild virus.
9) The “authorities” have been very clear that it is only designed to reduce symptoms and not infection transmission. Masks, social distancing and lockdowns will continue nonetheless, so why bother for a virus with an over 99% recovery rate?
“Covid-19 mRNA vaccine is leaky and can accelerate deaths.
Vaccines are ‘perfect’ (stops you from getting sick and getting others sick) or ‘imperfect/leaky’ (reduces symptoms, doesn’t stop you from getting others sick). Imperfect vaccines can make viruses spread farther (host doesn’t die) and become much deadlier (stronger versions survive).
Don’t hang out around vaccinated people, unless you are.”
8) The fact that we’ll need 2 doses and the cavalier recommendation (in the U.K. at least) that you can mix and match the treatments from different companies to ensure you get both does not promote confidence. My father was given the first dose from Pfizer and the second from AstraZeneca a month later, one mRNA and one attenuated and apparently still safe and effective, despite zero trials to back up that claim.
7) Before unleashing the treatments, the FDA published this:
Not exclusively related to mRNA treatments (don’t call them “vaccines”) but if they appear in the lists for adverse effects they have already occurred in the trials.
6) Possible permanent, unresearched and unpredictable modifications on human DNA. However much we hear in the MSM that it doesn’t and can’t affect DNA, many doctors claim otherwise. Changes to RNA messaging for DNA sounds to me like it will have a definite effect.
Dr Carrie Madej’s work and research on the nano-program/ AI/ Transhumanist Agenda can be found here:
5) The allergic reactions that started immediately. Aren’t all adverse reactions considered “allergic”? Aren’t all adverse reactions “significant”? Subjects with allergies were being told to hold off from having the “vaccine”. Think those proposed delays have now been removed.
4) It’s meagre weeks of trial testing (sometimes lasting 5 days) on predominantly youngish and healthy subjects can tell us little about their safety and efficacy on the elderly and the vulnerable (yet they’re the first to receive it)
Be cognisant of the fact that the public rollout IS the continuation of the Phase 3 trial. We are the guinea pigs and cannon fodder.
UK authorities explicitly say that under-16s, pregnant women, those with history of allergies (and the elderly) should NOT take the vaccine. Still pushing it on all three though, despite no specific testing at all on these demographics.
“It’s not safe for these 3 groups of people to get a COVID-19 vaccine”:
“We don’t know anything about groups they didn’t study, like children, pregnant women, highly immunocompromised people and the eldest of the elderly,” Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, said.
3) Almost half of medical professionals are refusing to take it:
2) The medium to long term effects which NOONE can predict or debunk, due to the insane, headlong rush to “save us” from this “pandemic”. “No time to test, just get it out there“ is apparently the mantra (though I suspect they have been testing these experimental treatments privately for decades…)
See no.22 above:
“In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”
Here is Dr Vernon Coleman’s list of international COVID vaccine deaths in the media:
(Click on Health in the left-hand subject bar, then “How Many People Are The Covid Jabs Killing?”)
Another valuable vaccine-damage anthology resource is here:
Anew study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic did not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.
The peer reviewed study, which was conducted by a group of Stanford researchers and published in the Wiley Online Library on January 5, analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.
Using that model, the researchers determined that there is “no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country.”
Lumps in breasts
Snopes “debunks” female sterilization claim – reality is that it blocks protein that forms placenta
Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
Peer-reviewed study finds no significant benefits of mandatory lockdowns or business closures. In fact, in 75% of the comparisons, the interventions actually increased contagion, 1 in 5 significantly. [Study link]
Two women have described how they were surrounded by police, read their rights and fined £200 each after driving five miles to take a walk.
The women were also told the hot drinks they had brought along were not allowed as they were “classed as a picnic”.
Guidance for the current lockdown says people can travel for exercise as long as it is in their “local area”.
HHS tracks total daily hospital levels in all the states dating back to Jan. 1, 2020. If you take the average daily total hospitalization levels in Florida for the fourth quarter of 2020, you will find an average (some days are more, some are less) of 43,150.
Naturally, I wondered what the levels were in previous years, because the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration publishes quarterly data of hospital censuses for several recent years. I started with the first quarter of 2018, which included the harshest flu season we had in a decade. If you average the total hospital census over the 90 days from Jan. 1 to March 31, it works out to 41,094 people in the hospital on an average day. Adjusting for the population at the time, that would be 1,972 hospitalizations per 1 million people. That is compared to 1,998 per 1 million for this past quarter of 2020 with COVID as the predominant illness.
As you can see, although the hospital numbers for the fourth quarter of 2020 were about 6%-8% higher than in the fourth quarter of the previous two years, it was barely higher than the first quarters of every year. The reason it is fair to compare to the worst months of previous years is because it has become clear that the flu is gone for this year and that COVID-19 is this year’s version of the flu. Thus, with flu cases down 98.8%, it is reasonable to assume that the January census will not grow as it typically does during peak flu season.
By the most critical metric, deaths per capita, DeSantis has outperformed Cuomo enormously. Cuomo’s led one of the most disastrous crisis responses in US history. If NY were a country it’d have the highest death per capita IN THE WORLD. And yet look at the biased coverage:
Three experts–Schdmit, Lipsitch, and Gould– say that more white people dying will “level the playing field”, teachers are “too white” to deserve a vaccine, but that their “Black and Brown” students make them deserving.
The researchers recruited more than 6,000 volunteers from around the country who spent at least three hours each day with people from other households and didn’t wear masks for their jobs. About half of these volunteers were chosen at random to receive 50 surgical masks and were asked to wear them whenever they left home for the next month. The other half did not get masks and served as controls.
Overall, 95 of the 4,862 volunteers who made it to the end of the study became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. That’s an infection rate of just under 2%.
But no matter how the researchers sliced and diced their data, they could not find a strong signal that the volunteers in the mask group were more protected than their counterparts in the control group.
In a typical clinical trial, this is the point where researchers would say their intervention didn’t work. But in this case, the investigators went the other way.
The problem, they said, wasn’t with the masks. The problem was that people didn’t use masks enough.
The tests are close to completion. The trial data is almost ready. And the paperwork will be filed with the regulators soon. We may be just a few weeks away from the approval of the first vaccine for Covid-19.
A couple of shots to the arm, and we will be out of this crisis. Shops, restaurants and gyms can reopen, and we can all put this whole nightmare behind us.
But hold on.
There is just one flaw in that rosiest of all possible scenarios: a lot of people don’t want to take the vaccine. And if not enough people take it, then we can’t reach herd immunity and the virus will remain a constant threat.
Government has a big role to play in persuading us all to sign up to a shot. So do scientists, celebrities and anyone with a public voice. Most of all, however, businesses need to take on the anti-vaxxers.
Like how? Offer time off, and workplace vaccination centres; offer a bonus for getting injected; fire anyone who refuses, and who can’t come back to work; and refuse to serve the unvaccinated.
Surveys suggest 30pc to 40pc of people don’t want to take a shot. Anti-vaxxer propaganda is spreading all the time, creating fear and nervousness. But unless a critical number of people take it, the vaccine won’t solve the crisis.
Proof of COVID-19 vaccination will be a non-negotiable condition of international air travel, according to the Qantas CEO Alan Joyce.
Anti-vaxxers will be grounded in the brave new world, with Mr Joyce confirming vaccination will be a requirement to fly internationally.
Mr Joyce has repeatedly warned that international air travel won’t resume until there’s a vaccine available for staff and travellers, but on Monday night he went a step further, telling A Current Affair host Tracy Grimshaw that as soon as a vaccine becomes available it will be a condition of travel.
“For international travellers, we will ask people to have a vaccination before they get on the aircraft,’’ he said.
“Certainly, for international visitors coming out and people leaving the country we think that’s a necessity.”
When COVID-19 tore through Donald Wallace’s nursing home, he was one of the lucky few to avoid infection.
He died a horrible death anyway.
Hale and happy before the pandemic, the 75-year-old retired Alabama truck driver became so malnourished and dehydrated that he dropped to 98 pounds and looked to his son like he’d been in a concentration camp. Septic shock suggested an untreated urinary infection, E. coli in his body from his own feces hinted at poor hygiene, and aspiration pneumonia indicated Wallace, who needed help with meals, had likely choked on his food.
“He couldn’t even hold his head up straight because he had gotten so weak,” said his son, Kevin Amerson. “They stopped taking care of him. They abandoned him.”
As more than 97,000 of the nation’s long-term care residents have died in a pandemic that has pushed staffs to the limit, advocates for the elderly say a tandem wave of death separate from the virus has quietly claimed tens of thousands more, often because overburdened workers haven’t been able to give them the care they need.
Nursing home watchdogs are being flooded with reports of residents kept in soiled diapers so long their skin peeled off, left with bedsores that cut to the bone, and allowed to wither away in starvation or thirst.
Beyond that, interviews with dozens of people across the country reveal swelling numbers of less clear-cut deaths that doctors believe have been fueled not by neglect but by a mental state plunged into despair by prolonged isolation ̶ listed on some death certificates as “failure to thrive.”
A nursing home expert who analyzed data from the country’s 15,000 facilities for The Associated Press estimates that for every two COVID-19 victims in long-term care, there is another who died prematurely of other causes. Those “excess deaths” beyond the normal rate of fatalities in nursing homes could total more than 40,000 since March.
Women in New South Wales who have found themselves unemployed due to the pandemic will be offered back-to-work grants of up to $5000.
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced the grants for NSW women on Monday as part of a $10 million Return to Work program.
“These grants will help women whose employment has been affected by COVID-19 to overcome some of the obstacles in returning to the workforce,” she said.
“I encourage women from all walks of life to apply for these grants and use this springboard to jump back into their former career, or even start a new one.”
This fall, I had the disturbing experience of sitting in on my daughter’s second-grade Zoom class. A full-time school psychologist kicked off her weekly session of “Social Emotional Learning” by prompting the seven-year-olds to admit that COVID-19 is scary. Do you have anything at home that makes you feel better when you’re frightened? She instructed the kids to leave their computers and return with an object that they might cuddle for the remainder of class.
The remarkable thing about this scheduled lesson was that it was not prompted by any indication that the students were afraid of COVID. The lesson itself seemed as likely to induce anxiety in those who were not anxious as it might be to soothe it in those who were. A class begun with girls sitting like scholars ended with them slouching like Linus, clutching a blankie.
Since the advent of lockdowns, parents have been catching glimpses of what’s actually being taught in school. Because I send my daughter to a religious school that shares our values, I’ve gotten off easy. Many parents are discovering content—much of it lectures and online material that appear in no textbook—stunningly radical, devoid of rigor and apparently calculated to alarm.
“The only way to characterize the messages being pushed are the words ‘negative,’ ‘nihilistic’ and ‘anxiety-inducing,'” said Luke Rosiak, an investigative journalist who’s been following what’s being taught in secondary schools for over a year. “The prospect that adults are inducing depression and hopelessness in children to further political aims is something that I think should disturb anyone.”
Pfizer announced positive trial results for their coronavirus vaccine today. That’s great news, but it’s undermined when Dems & others have pushed a conspiracy that, because Orange Man Bad, the vaccine won’t work.
Pew Research data proves your media source determines your reality. Believe the U.S. did all it could to control COVID:
FoxNews / Talk Radio Only: 90% yes
MSNBC/CNN/NPR Only: 3% yes
On Oct. 4, 2020, three preeminent experts — Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and epidemiologist at Stanford University — delivered the following declaration, calling for a different approach to dealing with the novel coronavirus than the lockdown model:
As infectious-disease epidemiologists and public-health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental-health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short- and long-term public health.
The results (to name a few) include lower childhood-vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular-disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health — leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins cries about Trump removing his mask after coming back to white House, but she herself removes her mask after white house press briefing.
This week, House Democrats whose colleagues rushed to investigate President Donald Trump’s coronavirus response amid the ongoing pandemic once again refused to give the green light to an effort to investigate China’s lies and malfeasance regarding the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. Democrats blocked the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis from investigating China’s malfeasance.
“Coronavirus Committee Dems won’t let us investigate China’s cover-up,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) tweeted. “Why? – China’s lies caused global suffering & economic devastation – China undermined our efforts to combat the virus – China is reportedly trying to steal our vaccine research They must be held accountable.”
Republicans on the committee have repeatedly asked about opening an investigation into China. Lauren Fine, Scalise’s communications director, told PJ Media that in a hearing on Thursday, Republicans on the committee again asked about looking into China, and Democrats again refused them.
“It’s disappointing—but not surprising—that Congressional Democrats have harsher words for President Trump, rather than the Communist Chinese regime responsible for wreaking havoc against our citizens and the rest of the world,” Fine told PJ Media. “Republicans on the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis will continue to press for answers on the origins of this crisis and accountability from the Chinese government and World Health Organization for their deception, and would urge Democrats to put their personal vendetta against President Trump aside to join us in this effort.”
The Victorian Labor government has introduced a bill to parliament that coupled with other measures is one of the most egregious attacks on civil liberties seen in war or peacetime.
The Bill would allow people to be detained indefinitely and give sweeping powers to untrained people to become “authorised officers” with sweeping powers to arrest and detain fellow Victorians.
Called the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Amendment Bill, it overrides all other laws and legislation with the exception of the Charter of Human Rights (which the government ignores as it is not binding), the State Constitution Act 1975 and the laws created by the Bill itself.
The Bill confers and extraordinary power to the Secretary of the Department of Health to appoint public servants as “authorised officers” with the same powers as police.
However worse than that is a provision which allows the secretary to appoint any of the following as an “authorised officer”:
[A] person the Secretary considers appropriate for appointment based on the person’s skills, attributes, experience or otherwise…
This will expand the persons who may be appointed as authorised officers. It is intended to include additional public sector employees from Victoria as well as such employees from other Australian jurisdictions, and individuals with a connection to particular communities to ensure that certain activities, such as contact tracing, can be conducted in a culturally safe manner.
This sweeping power means the Secretary could appoint anyone as an “authorised office”; a member of the ADF who already patrols Melbourne streets with police or even a member of the Hell’s Angels.
Imagine a world where Covid-19 has been eliminated. To be certain this is true, the government conducts regular tests at random. The number of positive results should be zero, right? Wrong. There will always be a proportion of cases tested that come back with a false positive test result. Thankfully, for Covid-19, the false positive rate is less than one per cent of tests done. But it is not zero. It will be impossible for us to ever reach zero. Why? Because Covid-19 cannot be eliminated, even if it is likely to evolve to be more benign and become a seasonal problem like influenza.
Actual Covid cases during the epidemic were disproportionately seen among older people; in fact, 60 per cent were over 60 years old. Of the cases we are seeing now, only 11 per cent are in the over 60s, despite that age making up 24 per cent of the whole population. This means they are slightly under represented, but this may be a reflection of their willingness to be tested compared with younger people, and it would help to know the age of those tested for comparison. In contrast, only two per cent of cases were seen in the under 20s during the epidemic and this is now up to 19 per cent, much closer to the 24 per cent that would be seen if positive tests were distributed entirely randomly through the population.
A new case in an area that has not had a true case for months is extraordinary, as is any child ever testing positive for Covid. Extraordinary claims require exceptional evidence. Without genome sequencing, viral culture or chest CT results then any claim that a new Covid-positive case has suddenly appeared in an area or population must be questioned. Only by adopting this approach can we tackle the Covid false positive test problem.
Emails between the mayor’s senior advisor and the health department reveal only a partial picture. But what they reveal is disturbing.
The discussion involves the low number of coronavirus cases emerging from bars and restaurants and how to handle that.
And most disturbingly, how to keep it from the public.
In the first metaanalysis of its kind, published on 26 August in Obesity Reviews, an international team of researchers pooled data from scores of peer-reviewed papers capturing 399,000 patients. They found that people with obesity who contracted SARS-CoV-2 were 113% more likely than people of healthy weight to land in the hospital, 74% more likely to be admitted to an ICU, and 48% more likely to die.
“We didn’t understand early on what a major risk factor obesity was. … It’s not until more recently that we’ve realized the devastating impact of obesity, particularly in younger people,” says Anne Dixon, a physician-scientist who studies obesity and lung disease at the University of Vermont. That “may be one reason for the devastating impact of COVID-19 in the United States, where 40% of adults are obese.”
People with obesity are more likely than normal-weight people to have other diseases that are independent risk factors for severe COVID-19, including heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes. They are also prone to metabolic syndrome, in which blood sugar levels, fat levels, or both are unhealthy and blood pressure may be high. A recent study from Tulane University of 287 hospitalized COVID-19 patients found that metabolic syndrome itself substantially increased the risks of ICU admission, ventilation, and death.
The largest descriptive study yet of hospitalized U.S. COVID-19 patients, posted as a preprint last month by Genentech researchers, found that 77% of nearly 17,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were overweight (29%) or obese (48%).
The physical pathologies that render people with obesity vulnerable to severe COVID-19 begin with mechanics: Fat in the abdomen pushes up on the diaphragm, causing that large muscle, which lies below the chest cavity, to impinge on the lungs and restrict airflow. This reduced lung volume leads to collapse of airways in the lower lobes of the lungs, where more blood arrives for oxygenation than in the upper lobes. “If you are already starting [with] this mismatch, you are going to get worse faster” from COVID-19, Dixon says. Other issues compound these mechanical problems. For starters, the blood of people with obesity has an increased tendency to clot—an especially grave risk during an infection that, when severe, independently peppers the small vessels of the lungs with clots.
Add obesity to the mix, and the clotting risk shoots up. In COVID-19 patients with obesity, Hunt says, “You’ve got such sticky blood, oh my—the stickiest blood I have ever seen in all my years of practice.”
A Boston lab suspended coronavirus testing after an investigation uncovered nearly 400 false positive COVID-19 results.
Orig3n, a biotechnology company which counts dozens of nursing homes as its clients, ceased testing on Aug. 8 at the request of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. The suspension came days after state health officials became aware of an unusually high number of positive coronavirus tests.
An investigation found that there were at least 383 inaccurate positive results from the lab that, upon re-testing, came back as negative.
On Aug. 27, the MDPH said it notified Orig3n they had been cited with “three significant certification deficiencies that put patients at immediate risk of harm.”
Last part of the quote “Because I don’t want to create a panic”
Literally the same concept behind authorities saying to not wear masks at the beginning – so that there won’t be chaos and panic along with rushing to stores to stock up on masks aside from other things.
As you can see – the largest set of cases/100K are found in the most stringent orders to population and the least impactful order yielded the lowest metrics. Be sure to check the second tab where we ad state to the mix (tabs at the top) – (CDC source)
Yale University Professor Harvey Risch says all studies that examine the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine on high risk population groups show the drug is “uniformly beneficial” in treating COVID-19.
“What clinicians have found around the world is that a class of people called high-risk people are the ones who need to be treated,” he said. “These are people generally over aged 60 or who have chronic conditions like diabetes, or obesity, or heart disease, high blood pressure or are immuno-compromised.
“These are people that need to be treated and the studies that look at them and them only show that hydroxychloroquine cuts the risk of hospitalisation and mortality by at least 50 per cent.”
Mr Risch said there are no published studies that show the drug is not beneficial for those people. “There are plenty of other studies that show other things but the problem is they are not looking a the right people.
“All of the pushback that is against this drug has been on the basis of blurring the distinction as to who needs the drugs and who needs to be treated.”
“Young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19.”
The original article was published in the Swiss magazine Weltwoche (World Week) on June 10th. The author, Beda M Stadler is the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus. Stadler is an important medical professional in Switzerland, he also likes to use provoking language, which should not deter you from the extremely important points he makes.
That’s when I realised that the entire world simply claimed that there was no immunity, but in reality, nobody had a test ready to prove such a statement. That wasn’t science, but pure speculation based on a gut feeling that was then parroted by everyone. To this day there isn’t a single antibody test that can describe all possible immunological situations, such as: if someone is immune, since when, what the neutralising antibodies are targeting and how many structures exist on other coronaviruses that can equally lead to immunity.
In mid-April, work was published by the group of Andreas Thiel at the Charité Berlin. A paper with 30 authors, amongst them the virologist Christian Drosten. It showed that in 34 % of people in Berlin who had never been in contact with the Sars-CoV-2 virus showed nonetheless T-cell immunity against it (T-cell immunity is a different kind of immune reaction, see below). This means that our T-cells, i.e. white blood cells, detect common structures appearing on Sars-CoV-2 and regular cold viruses and therefore combat both of them.
The next joke that some virologists shared was the claim that those who were sick without symptoms could still spread the virus to other people. The “healthy” sick would have so much of the virus in their throats that a normal conversation between two people would be enough for the “healthy one” to infect the other healthy one. At this point we have to dissect what is happening here: If a virus is growing anywhere in the body, also in the throat, it means that human cells decease. When [human] cells decease, the immune system is alerted immediately and an infection is caused. One of five cardinal symptoms of an infection is pain. It is understandable that those afflicted by Covid-19 might not remember that initial scratchy throat and then go on to claim that they didn’t have any symptoms just a few days ago. But for doctors and virologists to twist this into a story of “healthy” sick people, which stokes panic and was often given as a reason for stricter lockdown measures, just shows how bad the joke really is. At least the WHO didn’t accept the claim of asymptomatic infections and even challenges this claim on its website.
So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]. That’s exactly what happened, when there was the global news, even shared by the WHO, that 200 Koreans who already went through Covid-19 were infected a second time and that there was therefore probably no immunity against this virus. The explanation of what really happened and an apology came only later, when it was clear that the immune Koreans were perfectly healthy and only had a short battle with the virus. The crux was that the virus debris registered with the overly sensitive test and therefore came back as “positive”. It is likely that a large number of the daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris.
Sandra Whittington died in February but the test supposedly took place in June.
20-08-29: Buzzfeed is suddenly concerned about lack of social distancing… during Trump’s RNC speech
20-08-29: MSNBC concerned about no social distancing at white house RNC speech but praises BLM protest also without social distancing:
20-08-29: New York Times concerned about social distancing at Trump speech but not march on Washington
Human Rights Campaign scolding Trump speech for no social distancing, then promotes and participates in march on washington
CNN contradicts themselves live on air
20-08-29: Leftist MSM all concerned about social distancing for coronavirus, but only during Trump’s RNC speech. The mass riots, protests, demonstrations and gatherings for BLM are OK.
past 30-day Case Fatality Rate (CFR) for COVID-19 in Europe* CFR = 0.76% (IFR is much lower)
There are currently <2 daily deaths per TEN MILLION persons from COVID-19……
This is lower than Europe’s suicide rate.
*Spain, Italy, France, UK, Switzerland, Sweden
Daily deaths per million in Europe: Cancer: 73, heart disease: 36, suicide: 3.2, COVID-19: 1.9
The paper’s conclusion is that the data trends observed above likely indicate that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – such as lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates – do not seem to affect virus transmission rates overall.
Why? Because those policies have varied in their timing and implementation across countries and states, but the trends in outcomes do not.
Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus . The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people . This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase .
A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs . Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus . A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings .
>A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
>A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medince found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
>A Covid-19 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection. https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/-/new-study-reveals-blueprint-for-getting-out-of-covid-19-lockdown
>An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
>An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
>An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks in the general population or health care workers didn’t reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10
>An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine (preprint) found that “the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks”, but supports the use of masks by “vulnerable individuals when in higher risk situations.” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10
>A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks “offer zero protection against coronavirus” due to their large pore size and generally poor fit. http://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articl
>A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/
>Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, experienced its most recent influenza epidemic with more than 5 million people falling ill just one year ago, in January and February 2019. However, unlike SARS-2, the influenza virus is transmitted by children, too https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World
A new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha focused on countries and U.S. states with more than 1,000 COVID deaths as of late July. This analysis is the largest and most comprehensive analysis of the largest datasets to date. In all, the study included 25 U.S. states and 23 countries.
The paper’s conclusion is that the data trends indicate that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – such as lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates – do not seem to affect virus transmission rates overall.
Decades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2.
In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.
Some people, of course, did not wear their masks properly. Only 46 per cent of those wearing masks in the trial said they had completely adhered to the rules. But even if you only look at people who wore masks ‘exactly as instructed’, this did not make any difference to the results: 2 per cent of this group were also infected.
When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.
But overall, there is a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19. There have only been three community trials during the current pandemic comparing the use of masks with various alternatives – one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and this latest trial in Denmark. The low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of Covid-19 – a subject of global importance – suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine. And this starkly contrasts with the huge sums they have spent on ‘boutique relations’ consultants advising the government. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-/amp?__twitter_impression=true
One of the largest and highest level of evidence studies on the effectiveness of face masks on the transmission of respiratory viruses, which was recently released by the CDC, is Jingyi Xiao, et al., Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings— Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 5, (May 2020). https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
This CDC meta-analysis found that face masks failed to provide a significant reduction to virus transmission.
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 [Randomly Controlled Trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”
There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Ten. That’s the number of otherwise healthy people who have died from COVID-19 in Alberta since the beginning of the pandemic.
Out of that number, 75.3% of Albertans who died had done so while suffering “with 3 or more conditions” in addition to COVID-19.
The next highest figure were those suffering from two comorbidities in addition to COVID-19, which made up 16.5% of cases. Those with one extra condition made up 5.4%. And those without a comorbidity were 2.7% of the tally, or 10 persons.
Statistics are at 4 minutes in the video.
50% of the control group (13 people) required admission to the ICU. Only 2% of those in the vitamin D group (one person) required admission to the ICU.
Expressed as relative risk, vitamin D reduced the risk of ICU admission 25-fold. Put another way, it eliminated 96% of the risk of ICU admission.
These results are consistent with the first observational study on vitamin D, which found that 96% of severe and critical cases occurred at 25(OH)D under 30 ng/mL, whereas 97.5% of mild cases had 25(OH)D above 30 ng/mL.
This study couldn’t measure the effect on mortality, but all two deaths were in the control group and the near abolition of ICU risk suggests that death would also be nearly abolished. This is consistent with the second observational study finding that only 4% of those with vitamin D status above 30 ng/mL died, while 88% of those with vitamin D status at 20-30 ng/mL died, and 99% of those with vitamin D status lower than that died.
This was statistically significant at p<0.001, and the 95% confidence interval was 0.002-0.17. This means that the probability of observing differences this large or greater if there is no true effect of vitamin D is less than one in a thousand, and that the probability is 95% that the true effect lies somewhere between an 83% and a 99.8% reduction in the odds of ICU admission.
The vitamin D was provided as oral calcifediol, also known as calcidiol, 25(OH)D, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This is a metabolite of vitamin D that our livers make. It is is the principle form of vitamin D that circulates in the blood, and we use it as a measure of vitamin D status.
Traces of 25(OH)D occur in food, and it is five times as potent as vitamin D. As described on page 255 of the 1997 DRI Report, 25(OH)D is given an international unit (IU) value that equates it to vitamin D. Whereas one microgram (mcg) of vitamin D is 40 IU, 1 mcg of 25(OH)D is 200 IU.
The treatment in this RCT was soft capsules of 532 mcg 25(OH)D on day 1 of admission to the hospital, followed by 266 mcg on days 3 and 7, and then 266 mcg once a week until discharge, ICU admission, or death.
This is equivalent to 106,400 IU vitamin D on day 1, 53,200 IU on days 3 and 7, and 53,200 IU weekly thereafter. If this were given as daily doses, it would be the equivalent of 30,400 per day for the first week, followed by a maintenance dose of 7,600 IU per day.
The vitamin D status of the patients was not measured. However, the average vitamin D status in this region of Spain during the time of year in which the study was conducted is 16 ng/mL. A single dose of 100,000 IU vitamin D tends to raise a 25(OH)D of 10 ng/mL into the 20-30 ng/mL range. My suspicion is that the bolus dosing in the first week brought the patients’ vitamin D status into the 30-40 ng/mL range by the end of the week, and that most of the healing took place in the circa 40 ng/mL range.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
Virus tolls similar despite governors’ contrasting actions
Nearly a year after California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered the nation’s first statewide shutdown because of the coronavirus, masks remain mandated, indoor dining and other activities are significantly limited, and Disneyland remains closed.
By contrast, Florida has no statewide restrictions. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has prohibited municipalities from fining people who refuse to wear masks. And Disney World has been open since July.
Despite their differing approaches, California and Florida have experienced almost identical outcomes in COVID-19 case rates.
Connecticut and South Dakota are another example. Both rank among the 10 worst states for COVID-19 death rates. Yet Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, imposed numerous statewide restrictions over the past year after an early surge in deaths, while South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, issued no mandates as virus deaths soared in the fall.
Youtube censored a video of 2 Doctors discussing the current Coronavirus situation and ask whether the quarantine and shelter in place is necessary at this time. All the models failed, predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths even with social distancing.
American College of Emergency Physicians denounced their video in a statement. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi.
Excerpts from video: (Video was made April 23, 2020)
The coronavirus (COVID-19) has spread throughout the world, having infected more than 100,000 people and causing the deaths of more than 4,000. Officials in charge of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have rightly received plenty of criticism about how they’ve managed the outbreak, with nearly half a million people calling on WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to resign. (more…)
Consider this most basic stat: deaths per a million residents:
New York 1684
Florida has roughly 25% of the overall deaths of New York despite having an older population than New York. Meaning not just has Florida done nearly 4x as good of a job protecting its residents lives as New York, it’s done that despite having a more vulnerable age population.
If New York had the same rate of death of Florida the state of New York would have around 9,000 deaths instead of 32,000 deaths, meaning 23,000 people who are currently dead in New York would still be alive.
Far from doing a good job, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York may well have done the worst job in the entire world. Indeed, the only competitor with him is New Jersey governor Phil Murphy.
Look at the death rates per million in New York and New Jersey compared to the worst death rates in the entire rest of the world:
1. New Jersey 1807
2. New York 1694
3. Belgium 861
4. Peru 831
5. Spain 617
6. England 610
7. Italy 586
8. Sweden 575
9. Chile 564
10. United States 544
So New York and New Jersey were three times as bad as the average in the United States. (Indeed, they are the primary reasons why the United States death rate is so high.)
Look at the current unemployment rates in the four largest states as well:
Texas is 8%
Florida is 11.1%
California is 13.3%
New York is 15.9%
So New York had the most deaths from the coronavirus in the nation and has the second worst unemployment rate in the entire nation, by far the worst of our four biggest states. (Massachusetts has the worst unemployment rate in the nation at 16.1%).
If data mattered, Ron DeSantis would be one of our nation’s heroes and Andrew Cuomo would be a national pariah. Instead, it’s the exact opposite.
Frontline NYC doctors think COVID19 should be treated like hypoxemia (altitude sickness) and not like ARDS (respiratory disease). This means less use of ventilators.
2020-04-04: Been chatting with retired docs in my family. Showed them some of the research (one study from March 3rd, that far back) of blood tests showing impaired hemoglobin in a large percentage of hospitalized WuFlu patients. Showed them the NY ICU doctor’s interview. We did some other searches and found recovered patients developing delayed post-hypoxic leukoencephalopathy (DPHL) weeks after recovery, which lines up with the 19-22 day cycle of myelin production in the brain getting impaired after prolonged hypoxia.
Something about WuFlu impacts the body’s ability (likely by interfering with hemoglobin as we saw) to absorb O2. This leads to pneumonia-like presentations in patients but it’s just a side effect.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is an adviser to President Donald Trump and something of an American folk hero for his steady, calm leadership during the pandemic crisis. At least one poll shows that Americans trust Fauci more than Trump on the coronavirus pandemic—and few scientists are portrayed on TV by Brad Pitt.
But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.
Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.
SARS-CoV-2 , the virus now causing a global pandemic, is believed to have originated in bats. U.S. intelligence, after originally asserting that the coronavirus had occurred naturally, conceded last month that the pandemic may have originated in a leak from the Wuhan lab. (At this point most scientists say it’s possible—but not likely—that the pandemic virus was engineered or manipulated.)
China deliberately suppressed or destroyed evidence of the coronavirus outbreak in an “assault on international transparency’’ that cost tens of thousands of lives, according to a dossier prepared by concerned Western governments on the COVID-19 contagion.
The 15-page research document, obtained by The Saturday Telegraph, lays the foundation for the case of negligence being mounted against China.
It states that to the “endangerment of other countries” the Chinese government covered-up news of the virus by silencing or “disappearing” doctors who spoke out, destroying evidence of it in laboratories and refusing to provide live samples to international scientists who were working on a vaccine.
Unemployment has long been associated with a significantly increased risk of death in general, particularly for low-skilled workers in the U.S.. The risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in the U.S. at almost 650,000 deaths per year, has been shown to increase by 15–30 percent in men unemployed for more than 90 days. Among older workers, involuntary job loss can more than double the risk of stroke, which already claims 150,000 lives in the U.S. per year, as well as increase the likelihood of depressive symptoms that then persist for years. Such harms are likely exacerbated by concomitant longer term social isolation, which in of itself is associated with a 30 percent increase in mortality risk. Loneliness and social isolation have been associated with a 29 percent increase in risk of incident coronary heart disease and a 32 percent increase in risk of stroke. The scale of these elevated health risks is significant—comparable to that caused by taking up light smoking or becoming obese.
The loss of earnings associated with being on a recessionary economic curve upon graduation also leads to adverse and lasting health outcomes. Graduating in a recession is associated with roughly a 6 percent increase in that cohort’s mortality rate, adjusting for age. A 1 percent increase in state unemployment level when first entering the job market has been associated with a 6.7 percent increase in depressive symptoms among men by age 40.
Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.
The head of the trauma in the department believes mental health is suffering so much, it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.
“Personally I think it’s time,” said Dr. Mike deBoisblanc. “I think, originally, this (the shelter-in-place order) was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients.We have the current resources to do that and our other community health is suffering.”
The numbers are unprecedented, he said.
“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” he said. “I mean we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”
Researchers at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine found patients given the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine along with zinc sulphate and the antibiotic azithromycin were 44 percent less likely to die from the coronavirus.
The study looked at the records of 932 COVID-19 patients treated at local hospitals with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
More than 400 of them were also given 100 milligrams of zinc daily.
Researchers said the patients given zinc were one and a half times more likely to recover, decreasing their need for intensive care.
The number of positive tests in a state is not equal to the number of cases, as one person may be tested more than once.
The estimates, made by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and analysts from several government departments, suggest there were 38,500 excess deaths in England connected to COVID-19 between March and 1 May.
However, the report concludes 41% of those deaths were the result of missed medical care rather than the virus itself.
Of the 16,000 deaths, the paper estimates 6,000 were as a result of a “significant reduction in A&E attendances and emergency admissions”.
It states: “Some of this is unmet need, possibly due to patients’ reluctance to seek medical attention or other changes to protocols.”
The report says the other 10,000 excess deaths likely occurred in care home settings due to patients having been discharged from hospitals, or not wanting to be transferred to hospital.
A commentary published in the journal Pediatrics, the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, concludes that children infrequently transmit Covid-19 to each other or to adults and that many schools, provided they follow appropriate social distancing guidelines and take into account rates of transmission in their community, can and should reopen in the fall.
The authors, Benjamin Lee, M.D. and William V. Raszka, Jr., M.D., are both pediatric infectious disease specialists on the faculty of the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine. Dr. Raszka is an associate editor of Pediatrics.
The authors of the commentary, titled “COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame,” base their conclusions on a new study published in the current issue of Pediatrics, “COVID-19 in Children and the Dynamics of Infection in Families,” and four other recent studies that examine Covid-19 transmission by and among children.
In the new Pediatrics study, Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, M.D., a faculty member at University of Geneva’s medical school, and her colleagues studied the households of 39 Swiss children infected with Covid-19. Contact tracing revealed that in only three (8%) was a child the suspected index case, with symptom onset preceding illness in adult household contacts.
In a recent study in China, contact tracing demonstrated that, of the 68 children with Covid-19 admitted to Qingdao Women’s and Children’s Hospital from January 20 to February 27, 2020, 96% were household contacts of previously infected adults. In another study of Chinese children, nine of 10 children admitted to several provincial hospitals outside Wuhan contracted Covid-19 from an adult, with only one possible child-to-child transmission, based on the timing of disease onset.
In a French study, a boy with Covid-19 exposed over 80 classmates at three schools to the disease. None contracted it. Transmission of other respiratory diseases, including influenza transmission, was common at the schools.
In a study in New South Wales, nine infected students and nine staff across 15 schools exposed a total of 735 students and 128 staff to Covid-19. Only two secondary infections resulted, one transmitted by an adult to a child.
“The data are striking,” said Dr. Raszka. “The key takeaway is that children are not driving the pandemic. After six months, we have a wealth of accumulating data showing that children are less likely to become infected and seem less infectious; it is congregating adults who aren’t following safety protocols who are responsible for driving the upward curve.”
Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa, CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta and Chairman of a Medical Biotechnology company SELLING THE COVID-19 TEST:
“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. This is nothing more than a bad flu season. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game.
“There is no action needed…Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence whatsoever they are even effective. It is utterly ridiculous seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people walking around like lemmings obeying without any evidence. Social distancing is also useless… The risk of death under 65 is 1 in 300,000…response is utterly ridiculous.” [mirror]
Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studiesThe World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company, also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries. It was also behind a decision by the WHO and research institutes around the world to halt trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine. On Wednesday, the WHO announced those trials would now resume.Two of the world’s leading medical journals – the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine – published studies based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored by the firm’s chief executive, Sapan Desai.Late on Tuesday, after being approached by the Guardian, the Lancet released an “expression of concern” about its published study. The New England Journal of Medicine has also issued a similar notice.An independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has now been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere because of “concerns that have been raised about the reliability of the database”.The Guardian’s investigation has found:
- A search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist whose professional profile suggests writing is her fulltime job. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess, who also acts in videos for organisations.
- The company’s LinkedIn page has fewer than 100 followers and last week listed just six employees. This was changed to three employees as of Wednesday.
- While Surgisphere claims to run one of the largest and fastest hospital databases in the world, it has almost no online presence. Its Twitter handle has fewer than 170 followers, with no posts between October 2017 and March 2020.
- Until Monday, the “get in touch” link on Surgisphere’s homepage redirected to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency website, raising questions about how hospitals could easily contact the company to join its database.
- Desai has been named in three medical malpractice suits, unrelated to the Surgisphere database. In an interview with the Scientist, Desai previously described the allegations as “unfounded”.
- In 2008, Desai launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website Indiegogo promoting a wearable “next generation human augmentation device that can help you achieve what you never thought was possible”. The device never came to fruition.
- Desai’s Wikipedia page has been deleted following questions about Surgisphere and his history, first raised in 2010.
The shape of the infection curve – for that is what it is, and presented differently would show a bell-curve – is strikingly similar for all three countries – Germany, Sweden, UK
Now let’s bring in the reproduction rate of Covid-19 for two other European countries; one lionised for its early response (Germany – green), and one that has eschewed lockdown altogether and has allowed group immunity to build without sacrificing civil liberty and education (Sweden – blue). Again, drawn from the actual hospital data and working back. You’d imagine the difference would be night and day, no?
A study from Bristol University has already done this for infections, showing them peaking before lockdown. But Prof Ferguson is doubling down on his original line today, talking as if lockdown slammed an emergency break on the virus.: ‘The epidemic was doubling every three to four days before lockdown was introduce,” he told MPs. “So had we introduced lockdown measures a week earlier, we would have reduced the final toll by at least a half.’ Cue tomorrow’s headlines. But how many of them scrutinise the assumptions behind his claim?
The R number – the rate of infection – can be deduced by looking at deaths. It is simply a measure of the difference in the number of infections between each ‘generation’ of an infectious disease and the next. For Covid-19, an average (established early on by the WHO) of five days elapse between me becoming infectious and (having given it to you) you becoming infectious: this is the ‘serial interval’. So if four people have Covid and five days later 12 people have covid, the R is 3 (12 divided by 4).
We now know enough about the virus to look at hospital figures and work backwards, drawing a chart of its likely infection rate. These tend to draw a different shape: the infection rate rising, hitting a peak, then falling fast. But what makes it fall? Lockdown – or something else? Norway found that the virus had peaked before lockdown and was in fast decline. This led the Norwegian public health chief to say that they could have controlled it without locking down – relying, instead, on the social distancing going on at the time. This is relevant, the Norwegians say, because if there is a second wave we need to be brutally honest about what works and what does not.
It shows that infections peaked about five days before lockdown and were in fast decline by the time it was introduced. Several social distancing measures were already in place by then – but all on a voluntary, rather than compulsory basis. ‘It is suggestive that pre-lockdown social distancing may have been sufficient for the fatal infections to have started declining in England and Wales some time before lockdown,’ Prof. Wood tells me. This does not say that lockdown was pointless: the decline in infections might have been far less steep without it.
One of the largest studies in the world on coronavirus in schools, carried out in 100 institutions in the UK, will confirm that “there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted” there, according to a leading scientist.
Professor Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a member of the government advisory group Sage, said: “A new study that has been done in UK schools confirms there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted in schools.
“This is the some of the largest data you will find on schools anywhere. Britain has done very well in terms of thinking of collecting data in schools.”
Maricopa Co. health says that counting deaths around a certain timeframe is a standard practice in public health. “We follow state and federal standards to ensure that all state and local health departments are counting deaths the same
Bill was passed unanimously. They will even hide it from the parent’s insurance documents so they won’t know.
WASHINGTON — The D.C. Council is inching closer to approving a bill that would allow children as young as 11 years old to get recommended vaccines without their parent’s approval. There would be some requirements, but direction overall would come from a doctor. A final vote from the council is expected Tuesday.
When Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced the Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019, it was in response to a measles outbreak that spread from coast to coast in the U.S.
At the time, many wondered if the District would become the next hot spot as vaccination rates trended downward in the city.
“I think it should be worrisome to people when children are not vaccinated for these diseases,” Cheh said.
The bill would give kids as young as 11 years old the green light to get a vaccination without parental consent if a doctor recommends it. The doctor would also determine if the child meets a certain standard of “informed consent” before administering the vaccine.
To prevent the parents from knowing, health providers would be required to bill insurers directly and send vaccination records to the school.
“The gateway again is the physician who has to make this judgment that ‘is that person, 11,12, 15, 18 capable of giving informed consent and is it consistent with the physician’s medical judgment?’ ” Cheh said.
Asha Pinkney Gillus has a 5-year-old daughter and a 14-year-old son. She tells WUSA9 the measure is concerning to her household.
She does not believe her teenager is old enough or “emotionally ready” to make decisions, without her help.
“I am 100% against that [the bill],” Gillus said. “I think it violates my fundamental right as a parent to manage the upbringing and the health and welfare of my child.”
“If my child goes and gets a vaccination and has an adverse reaction to that vaccination, I won’t know what’s going on because I’ve never been told my child has been inoculated,” Gillus said.
According to a July 6 letter to D.C. School leaders from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, fewer families have paid visits to the doctor’s office because of the pandemic. Officials cite a lack of access to care and families avoiding offices overall.
New questions are being asked about whether the WHO has sought to curry favour with China in ways that have undermined the reliability of its advice.
In the early afternoon of Jan. 31, the lead World Health Organization representative in Beijing held a video briefing to update diplomats on the spread of a deadly new virus – and to laud China for everything it was doing.
“Examining noninfluenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively) (Table 5).”
Such an observation may seem counterintuitive, but it is possible that influenza vaccines alter our immune systems non-specifically to increase susceptibility to other infections; this has been observed with DTP and other vaccines. (Benn et al, Trends in Immunology, May 2013) There are other immune mechanisms that might also explain the observation.
Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% – almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago. [CDC source]
Four infectious disease doctors in Canada estimate that the individual rate of death from COVID-19 for people under 65 years of age is six per million people, or 0.0006 per cent – 1 in 166,666, which is “roughly equivalent to the risk of dying from a motor vehicle accident during the same time period.”
This FPR means that thousands of the people testing positive for coronavirus in the community are NOT in fact currently infected with Covid and they CANNOT infect others with the virus. That’s why the “rising Covid cases” is not translating into mass deaths.
Oxford Uni Prof @carlheneghan has already shown that, even an FPR as low as 0.1% in community testing returns *over 55% false positives*. The Government is planning to lockdown our country again when there is no evidence of a second wave.
>A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
>A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medince found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth masks against virus infection or transmission.
>A Covid-19 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection.
>An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control).
>An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that cloth face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life.
>An April 2020 Cochrane review (preprint) found that face masks didn’t reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers.
>An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine (preprint) found that “the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks”, but supports the use of masks by “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”
>A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks “offer zero protection against coronavirus” due to their large pore size and generally poor fit.
>A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.
>An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections.
>An analysis by the US CDC found that 85% of people infected with the new coronavirus reported wearing a mask “always” (70.6%) or “often” (14.4%). Compared to the control group of uninfected people, always wearing a mask did not reduce the risk of infection.
China was evidently hiding the extent of a pandemic that endangered the world while covertly securing PPE at low prices. This “surreptitious” operation left “the world naked with no supply of PPE,” Jorge Guajardo, Mexico’s former ambassador to Beijing, told Global News.
The result: starting in March, after COVID-19 had circled the globe, countries that provided masks to China in January and February were forced to compete for China’s supply.
By late January, sources in manufacturing and military circles were warning western governments that China seemed to be covertly seizing global PPE supply, O’Toole and Guajardo said.
The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of someone’s life.
Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the federal government is continuing to count the suspected COVID-19 deaths, despite other nations doing the opposite.
Essentially, Dr. Ezike explained that anyone who passes away after testing positive for the virus is included in that category.
“If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who’s listed as a COVID death doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death.” Dr. Ezike outlined.
We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility
In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission. Although these measures have mechanistic support based on our knowledge of how influenza is transmitted from person to person, randomized trials of hand hygiene and face masks have not demonstrated protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza
First the MSM downplays the coronavirus, equating it with the flu. More info in a post about the fake news propaganda in the beginning of the outbreak here.
Liberals are for lockdowns, quarantines, against protesters and anyone who wants to get back to work – unless there’s a demonstration or riot they want to attend. Then the coronavirus is not dangerous.
At this time, 8 US States did not issue shelter in place orders: Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. They are below national average of cases. Wilford Riley analyzed those states vs. locked down states and saw no difference in outcome. Sweden did not lock down and fared better than Britain, Italy, Spain and Belgium Article: https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/22/there-is-no-empirical-evidence-for-these-lockdowns/
OMG ???? Tucker is tellin’ us the truth about the lockdowns – they DIDN’T HELP at all????
We allowed liberal azzhat Mayors & Governors to take away our civil liberties, right in front of our noses.
What’s worse, they succeeded????
— Todd With Trump (@THeinrich22) April 24, 2020
In scenarios where they assume higher virus transmissibility and disease severity, survivability is 99.2% – 0.8% chance of death.
Even in a very bad case of COVID that requires hospitalization, 18-49 year olds have a 98% survivability rate. 50-64 year olds have a 90.2% survivability rate.
The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug.
Dr. Oskoui: It’s really devastating to Dr. Fauci, Dr. Hahn, Dr. Redfield and their performance. I think not only should they be embarrassed but I think they really need to be held to account… Physicians have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of their patients.
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.