CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

(fair use applies)

Hawaii remains last state with indoor mask mandates
Cases statewide have gone down 65% over the past two weeks.
By Madeleine Hubbard
February 22, 2022 - 11:03pm

Hawaii remains the only U.S. state that has not announced plans to lift its COVID-19 indoor mask mandate.

Hawaiian Democrat Gov. David Ige told local KITV4 that he is "working with the Department of Health to determine when the time is right for Hawaii to lift the indoor mask mandate."

All other states have either ditched the mask mandates completely or plan to do so in most settings.

Hawaii, which has implemented stringent COVID mandates throughout the pandemic, remains a stronghold.

Hawaii's COVID portal states that people are allowed to take their masks off when outdoors, eating or drinking or "[d]riving alone in your car."

Cases statewide have gone down 65% over the past two weeks. More than three-fourths of Hawaiians are vaccinated as well.

Domestic visitors to the state are required to self-quarantine for five days, unless they are fully vaccinated. International travelers to Hawaii are not subject to state requirements.

"Hawaii ranks second in the nation when it comes to COVID-deaths, in part because of the indoor mask requirement and other measures that have proven successful in protecting our community from this potentially deadly virus," Ige said. "We base our decisions on science, with the health and safety of our community as the top priority."

Puerto Rico, the U.S.'s largest territory, also has no plans to lift mask mandates, The New York Times reports.
.

(fair use applies)

Supreme Court rejects Maine healthcare workers' bid for religious exemption to COVID vaccine mandate
The high court declined to review the decision of a lower court in the matter.
By Sophie Mann
February 22, 2022 - 4:50pm

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to U.S. health care workers in Maine to stop the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The justices declined to hear arguments pertaining to a lower court's decision to leave the mandate in place.

The northern state's mandate for health care workers was announced by Gov. Janet Mills (D) back in August, and followed soon after by a decision to ban religious exemptions to mandatory vaccinations. A group of health care workers argued that the ban was unconstitutional and in direct violation of federal law.

The group of health care workers at the head of this issue were previously turned down by the Supreme Court in October 2021, but filed a writ of certiorari, requesting that the high court justices review the decisions of the lower court (which left the mandate and its non-exemption clause in place). The group argued that the state's failure to consider religious exemption requests is a violation of the First Amendment.

Mills and her government attorneys have, according to the Epoch Times, maintained that the lower courts were correct in their assessment that the Maine mandate does not "infringe or restrict a particular religious practice."

"Because Maine’s vaccine mandate permits nonreligious medical exemptions for virtually any reason, but prohibits individuals from obtaining an identical exemption based on sincerely held religious beliefs, it is not neutral or generally applicable. Put simply, Maine’s vaccine mandate cannot be viewed as neutral because it explicitly discriminates against religious exemptions while permitting the preferred nonreligious, medical exemptions," wrote the health care workers in their final filing before the decision of the court.

.

(fair use applies)

CDC recommends as many as four COVID-19 shots within six months for some immunocompromised patients
Following the guidance would result in a person getting as many as four shots in less than six months
By Just the News staff
February 22, 2022 - 9:46am

The federal government is now recommending people with weakened immune systems get four COVID-19 vaccinations shots, in a period perhaps as short as 140 days.

The recommendation was made in recent, updated guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and suggests those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised get a primary series of Moderna or Pfizer shots, followed by an additional one as early as 28 days later. Those patients would then get a second booster as soon as three months after the third dose, according to the Epoch Times.

Following the Feb. 11 guidance would result in a person getting as many as four shots in less than six months.
CDC officials recently told the agency’s vaccine advisory committee that shortening the time between doses can bolster their protections.

"The rationale for this decision was out of an abundance of caution to help this population that may not be as well protected get their booster dose sooner, particularly with concerns about initial immune response, loss of protection over time, and high community transmission due to the Omicron variant," Elisha Hall, a health education specialist at the CDC, told committee members.

Some institutions, including the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, have already begun allowing immunocompromised people to get booster doses based on the new schedule, the newspaper also reports.

The Epoch Times story did not include any comments in opposition to the guidance.

"In the past two months, I’ve seen many of these immunocompromised patients, who had followed all the rules, still have significant breakthrough infections. And I really think that this will help dramatically," said Dr. Camille Kotton, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
.

(fair use applies)

NIH Sent The Intercept 292 Fully Redacted Pages Related to Virus Research in Wuhan
The NIH continues to withhold critical documents that could shed light on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic.
Sharon Lerner
February 20 2022, 7:00 a.m.

With the global death toll from Covid-19 approaching 6 million, the need to understand the origins of the pandemic is both pressing and grave. But the National Institutes of Health continues to withhold critical documents that could shed light on this question. This week, in response to ongoing litigation over public records related to coronavirus research funded by the federal agency, the NIH sent The Intercept 292 fully redacted pages rather than substantive material that could help us understand how the virus first came to infect humans.


One of hundreds of redacted pages the NIH sent to The Intercept this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

At this point, no one can say for sure how SARS-CoV-2 set off the pandemic. It may have emerged naturally, jumping from a host animal to people, as many other deadly pathogens have. Or the coronavirus could have first spread to humans as the result of a research mishap — through bat capture and collection, risky experiments, or a host of other more mundane lab activities. U.S. intelligence agencies have assessedboth theories as possible. But knowing exactly what led to the worst disease outbreak in recent history requires more information.

The “lab-leak” hypothesis is bolstered by a long history of accidents at facilities that study pathogens and the fact that one such laboratory that specializes in coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, is located in the very city where the pandemic first began. As many have noted, China has not been forthcoming with information that could help us understand the origins of the pandemic, blocking access to a cave that may hold important clues, taking a database of information about coronaviruses offline, and refusing requests for records from the World Health Organization.

But the U.S. government, which funded some of the coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through a New York-based research organization called EcoHealth Alliance, has also withheld information that could provide insight into the origins of the pandemic. The Intercept filed a Freedom of Information Act request in September 2020 for grants the NIH provided to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. At the time, only summaries of the research were publicly available. The NIH initially refused to provide the documents. It was only after The Intercept sued the federal agency that it agreed to provide thousands of pages of relevant materials.

Some of these releases have proven newsworthy. The grant proposals received in an initial batch of documents in September revealed that scientists working under the grant in Wuhan were engaged in what most knowledgeable experts we consulted described as gain-of-function experiments, in which scientists created mutant bat coronaviruses and used them to infect “humanized mice.” The mutant viruses proved more pathogenic and transmissible in the mice than the original viruses. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, denied that the U.S. had funded gain-of-function work in Wuhan.

Communications received by The Intercept in December provided insight into the agency’s ongoing and largely unsuccessful efforts to obtain records pertaining to the biosafety of the work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And another grant proposal from EcoHealth Alliance that we received from the NIH clarified the extent to which ongoing work now funded by the U.S. government is similar to the work under the now-suspended bat coronavirus grant that has raised so many biosafety red flags and questions. We also learned that in 2020 the FBI sought documents related to the U.S.-funded coronavirus research in Wuhan.

But the most recent batch of documents, which the NIH sent The Intercept on Tuesday, underscores an ongoing lack of transparency at the agency. Even as members of Congress and scientists call for additional information that could shed light on the origins of the pandemic, 292 of 314 pages — more than 90 percent of the current release — were completely redacted. Besides a big gray rectangle that obscures any meaningful text, the pages show only a date, page number, and the NIAID logo. The remaining pages also contain significant redactions.

Even when the redactions are technically justifiable under the Freedom of Information Act, public agencies typically have the discretion to release documents anyway. In this inquiry, which could help us understand the how this pandemic began — and how we might avoid future outbreaks — the presumption should be to give the public as much as information as possible, not the least.


NIH FOIA Request 55058 February Production314 pages

The NIH still had more than 1,400 pages of relevant documents in its possession when it issued the almost entirely redacted release to The Intercept. Despite broad bipartisan agreement about the need to better understand whether research could have led to the deadliest disease outbreak in recent history, the agency appears to have no urgency to make this critical information public.
.

(fair use applies)

Pfizer Withdraws EUA Application for COVID Shot in India After Regulator Asks for Independent Safety Study
by Rishma Parpia
Published February 22, 2022

Pfizer, Inc. has withdrawn its emergency use authorization (EUA) application for its experimental BNT162b2 (also known as “Comirnaty”) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 biologic (developed in collaboration with Germany’s BioNTech) in India.1

Pfizer was the first pharmaceutical company to apply for an EUA to distribute a COVID biologic in India in 2021. However, India’s regulatory agency approved two other COVID vaccines that are more cost effective: AstraZeneca/Oxford University’s experimental AZD1222 vaccine and the locally-manufactured BBV152 (“Covaxin”) vaccine by Bharat Biotech.2

During Pfizer’s meeting with India’s drug regulatory agency, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), the pharmaceutical decided to withdraw its application after the regulator requested a local trial on the vaccine’s safety and immunogenicity specifically for Indians.3

After a meeting with Pfizer officials, CDSCO said, “After detailed deliberation, the committee has not recommended grant of permission for emergency use in the country at this stage.”4

Pfizer Refused to Conduct Local Safety Trial for Its COVID Biologic Before Being Denied EUA in India

In order for the CDSCO to grant Pfizer an EUA for BNT162b2, the drugmaker was required to conduct a local clinical trial in India to determine if the vaccine is safe and generates an adequate immune response in its citizens.5

Vinod K. Paul, head of India’s government panel on vaccine strategy said that all foreign developed vaccines have to undergo a “bridging trial” in India in order to receive approval. A “bridging trial” is required to determine the immune response and safety record of the vaccine in population with a different genetic makeup than in Western nations.6

Pfizer applied for an exemption from India’s “bridging trial” requirement by citing that it has received EUA approvals in other countries based on clinical trials conducted in the United States and Germany. Although there are provisions under India’s law to waive the requirements of “bridging trials” in certain circumstances, India’s regulatory agency decided not to waive the requirement for BNT162b2.7

The CDSCO’s website states:


Since BNT162b2 must be stored at a low temperature of minus 94 Fahrenheit, Indian Health Ministry officials said that the biologic is not the best option for the country given that it requires expensive freezers that are not readily available in India.9

Currently, a local pharmaceutical company in India known as Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories is conducting a “bridging trial” for Russia’s COVID vaccine called Sputnik Light (a component of Sputnik V) developed by Moscow’s Gamaleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, which is expected to be approved for EUA in India.10.

1. CNBC. Pfizer withdraws application for emergency use of its Covid-19 vaccine in India. Feb. 5, 2022.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Deutsche Welle. India: Pfizer withdraws COVID vaccine application for emergency use. Feb. 5, 2022.
5 Das K. Pfizer drops India vaccine application after regulator seeks local trial. Reuters Feb. 5, 2022.
6 Deutsche Welle. India: Pfizer withdraws COVID vaccine application for emergency use. Feb. 5, 2022.
7 Das K. Pfizer drops India vaccine application after regulator seeks local trial. Reuters Feb. 5, 2022.
8 Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. Recommendations of the SEC meeting to examine COVID-19 related proposal under accelerated approval process made in its 141st meeting held on 03.02.2021 at CDSCO, HQ New Delhi. Feb. 3, 2022.
9 Deutsche Welle. India: Pfizer withdraws COVID vaccine application for emergency use. Feb. 5, 2022.
10 Das K. Pfizer drops India vaccine application after regulator seeks local trial. Reuters Feb. 5, 2022.

.

(fair use applies)

17,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists Declare “COVID National Emergency Over” and Call on Congress to Restore Constitutional Democracy by Ending Emergency Powers
The International Alliance of Doctors and Medical Scientists announced their support to end the national emergency concerning COVID-19 as it is no longer necessary to protect public health.
Physicians and Medical Scientists
Feb 22, 2022

After two years of scientific research, clinical data and evidence from frontline medical professionals treating hundreds of thousands of patients, the international alliance of more than 17,000 physicians and medical scientists have concluded that the highly treatable COVID-19 illness, which is better addressed with natural immunity and proven medication, no longer requires national emergency status.

Vaccines have failed to reduce spread of COVID-19 and pose several health risks, while natural immunity for children and healthy adults has proven more effective. Moreover, treatment protocols that use well-studied, FDA approved medications are now proven to be effective in preventing severe illness and death from Covid-19.

With the success of treatments and broad natural immunity amidst waning strength of COVID-19 variants, there is no longer a credible need for a national emergency in the U.S.

On March 13th, 2020, Donald Trump used an Executive Order under the National Emergency Act to declare a national emergency concerning COVID-19. On February 24, 2021, the order was extended by President Biden. Since then, the constitutional rights of Americans have been trampled on by allowing governments aligned with pharmaceutical companies to exploit its citizens. Biden’s extension of the national emergency on February 18th, 2022 ignores the extensive medical and scientific data, confirming a non-medical agenda by the White House.

The over 17,000 independent physicians and medical scientists, who reject the corporate interests of pharmaceutical companies, are calling on Congress to reject President Biden’s extension of the national emergency that was declared by President Trump, to reinstate our constitutional democracy, restore doctor-patient relationships, medical privacy and personal medical choice, and end coercive tactics and mandates.

(fair use applies)

COVID-19 Survivors Face Increased Mental Health Risks Up to a Year Later – “It’s So Much More Serious”
By Washington University in St. Louis
February 22, 2022

Data point to rise in anxiety, depression, substance use disorders, suicidal thoughts.

As the COVID-19 pandemic stretches into its third year, countless people have experienced varying degrees of uncertainty, isolation, and mental health challenges.

However, those who have had COVID-19 have a significantly higher chance of experiencing mental health problems, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System. Such disorders include anxiety, depression, and suicide ideation, as well as opioid use disorder, illicit drug and alcohol use disorders, and disturbances in sleep and cognition.

In a large, comprehensive study of mental health outcomes in people with SARS-CoV-2 infections, researchers found that such disorders arose within a year after recovery from the virus in people who had serious as well as mild infections.


Overall, the study found that people who had COVID-19 were 60% more likely to suffer from mental health problems than those who were not infected, leading to an increased use of prescription medication to treat such problems and increased risks of substance use disorders including opioids and nonopioids such as alcohol and illicit drugs.

The findings were published on February 16, 2022, in the journal The BMJ.

“We know from previous studies and personal experiences that the immense challenges of the past two years of the pandemic have had a profound effect on our collective mental health,” said senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University. “But while we’ve all suffered during the pandemic, people who have had COVID-19 fare far worse mentally. We need to acknowledge this reality and address these conditions now before they balloon into a much larger mental health crisis.”

More than 403 million people globally and 77 million in the U.S. have been infected with the virus since the pandemic started.

“To put this in perspective, COVID-19 infections likely have contributed to more than 14.8 million new cases of mental health disorders worldwide and 2.8 million in the U.S.,” Al-Aly said, referring to data from the study. “Our calculations do not account for the untold number of people, likely in the millions, who suffer in silence due to mental health stigma or a lack of resources or support. Further, we expect the problem to grow because cases seem to be increasing over time. Frankly, the scope of this mental health crisis is jarring, frightful, and sad.

“Our goal was to provide a comprehensive analysis that will help improve our understanding of the long-term risk of mental health disorders in people with COVID-19 and guide their post-infection health care,” added Al-Aly, who treats patients within the VA St. Louis Health Care System. “To date, studies on COVID-19 and mental health have been limited by a maximum of six months of follow-up data and by a narrow selection of mental health outcomes — for example, examining depression and anxiety but not substance use disorders.”

The researchers analyzed de-identified medical records in a database maintained by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the nation’s largest integrated health-care delivery system. The researchers created a controlled dataset that included health information of 153,848 adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 sometime from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021, and who had survived the first 30 days of the disease. Few people in the study were vaccinated prior to developing COVID-19, as vaccines were not yet widely available at the time of enrollment.

Statistical modeling was used to compare mental health outcomes in the COVID-19 dataset with two other groups of people not infected with the virus: a control group of more than 5.6 million patients who did not have COVID-19 during the same time frame; and a control group of more than 5.8 million people who were patients from March 2018 through January 2019, well before the pandemic began.

The majority of study participants were older white males. However, because of its large size, the study included more than 1.3 million females, more than 2.1 million Black participants, and large numbers of people of various ages.

Compared with those in the control groups without any infections, people who contracted COVID-19 were 35% more likely to suffer from anxiety disorders and nearly 40% more likely to experience depression or stress-related disorders that can affect behavior and emotions. This coincided with a 55% increase in the use of antidepressants and a 65% growth in the use of benzodiazepines to treat anxiety.

Similarly, people who had recovered from COVID-19 were 41% more likely to have sleep disorders and 80% more likely to experience neurocognitive decline. The latter refers to forgetfulness, confusion, a lack of focus, and other impairments commonly known together as brain fog.

More worrisome, compared with people without COVID-19, those infected with the virus were 34% more likely to develop opioid use disorders and 20% more likely to develop nonopioid substance use disorders involving alcohol or illegal drugs. They were also 46% more likely to have suicidal thoughts.

“People need to know that if they have had COVID-19 and are struggling mentally, they’re not alone, and they should seek help immediately and without shame,” Al-Aly said. “It’s critical that we recognize this now, diagnose it and address it before the opioid crisis snowballs and we start losing more people to suicide.

“There needs to be greater recognition of these issues by governments, public and private health insurance providers, and health systems to ensure that we offer people equitable access to resources for diagnosis and treatment,” he added.

To better understand whether the increased risk of mental health disorders is specific to SARS-CoV-2 virus, the researchers also compared the COVID-19 patients with 72,207 flu patients, including 11,924 who were hospitalized, from October 2017 through February 2020. Again, the risk was significantly higher — 27% and 45% — in those who had mild and serious COVID-19 infections, respectively.

“My hope is that this dispels the notion that COVID-19 is like the flu,” Al-Aly said. “It’s so much more serious.”

Because hospital stays can precipitate anxiety, depression and other mental conditions, the researchers compared people who were hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first 30 days of the infection to those hospitalized for any other cause. Mental health disorders were 86% more likely in people hospitalized for COVID-19.

“Our findings suggest a specific link between SARS-Co-V-2 and mental health disorders,” Al-Aly continued. “We’re not certain why this is, but one of the leading hypotheses is that the virus can enter the brain and disturb cellular and neuron pathways, leading to mental health disorders.

“What I’m absolutely certain about is that urgent attention is needed to identify and treat COVID-19 survivors with mental health disorders,” he said.

Reference: “Risks of Mental Health Outcomes in People with COVID-19” Yan Xie, Evan Xu and Ziyad Al-Aly, 16 February 2022, The BMJ.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068993

People with suicidal thoughts should call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255). People struggling with mental health issues can call the National Alliance on Mental Illness at 800-950-NAMI (6264) or text “NAMI” to 741741.

(fair use applies)

Independent Studies Find Elevated Risk of Blood Clots in the Brain Following AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccination
February 22, 2022


Two large studies carried out independently in the UK both found a slight increase in risk of intracranial thromboses in some populations after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

There is a slightly elevated risk of intracranial thrombosis events following vaccination with the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S COVID vaccine, according to two new studies publishing today (February 22nd, 2022) in PLOS Medicine. The first paper, by William Whiteley of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and colleagues from the BHF Data Science Centre, UK, analyzed the electronic health records of 46 million adults in England. The second paper, by Steven Kerr of the University of Edinburgh, UK, and colleagues, used a dataset of 11 million adults in England, Scotland, and Wales.

Cases of thromboses—when a blood clot blocks a vein or artery—have been reported after vaccination with the Astra Zeneca ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 vaccine. However, the rates of common venous and arterial events, including stroke, myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, are hard to measure based on case reports alone.

In the first study, Whiteley and colleagues analyzed the electronic health records (EHRs) of 46 million adults living in England, of whom 21 million were vaccinated during the study time span, December 2020 to March 2021. For people aged 70 or over, the risks of arterial and venous thrombotic events were slightly lower in the 28 days following vaccination with either the Pfizer BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S vaccine, after adjusting for a range of demographic characteristics and comorbidities. In people under age 70, the risks of arterial and venous thrombotic events were comparable in the 28 days following vaccination, but a small increase in the rate of intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) was observed following the ChAdOx1-S vaccine. This corresponded to an estimated excess risk of 0.9–3 per million (varying by age and sex) and was approximately twice the rate compared to unvaccinated people, after adjusting for a range of demographic characteristics and comorbidities. The same effect was not seen after the BNT162b2 vaccine.

“In adults under 70 years, the small increased risks of intracranial venous thrombosis and hospitalization with thrombocytopenia after first vaccination with ChAdOx1-S are likely to be outweighed by the vaccines’ effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality and morbidity,” the authors say.

In the second study, the researchers linked data spanning December 2020 through June 2021 from multiple sources—including primary care, secondary care, mortality and virological testing—for more than 11 million people in England, Scotland, and Wales. They compared the rate of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) events—a rare type of blood clot in the brain—in the 90 days prior to vaccination and the four weeks following a first dose of ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2. The authors observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1-S, equivalent to one additional event per 4 million people vaccinated, which was approximately twice as high as before vaccination. The study found no association between the BNT162b2 vaccine and CVST.

“This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit evaluations for vaccine-related policies, and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public,” the authors say.

The authors of both studies caution that the low number of overall events of CVST and other subtypes of thromboses, even in large cohorts, makes precise estimates of the risks difficult. They plan to carry out future studies to include other vaccines as well as second and booster vaccinations.

Whiteley adds, “Because of its very large size, this research study has provided precise results on the risks of rare blood clotting events and of low platelet levels following COVID-19 vaccination. We were able to show that these risks occur only in people under 70 years old with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and that the increase in risk is extremely small – no more than a few people per million vaccinated.”

Kerr adds, “In this analysis using data from England, Scotland and Wales, we found a roughly two-fold increased risk of a rare form of blood clot in the brain following the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but we did not see any increased risk for the Pfizer vaccine. We used a novel method that allowed us to do the analysis across several countries without them having to share person-level data with each other, and we hope to take advantage of this in future to allow greater collaboration across the UK.”

References:
“Association of COVID-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 with major venous, arterial, or thrombocytopenic events: A population-based cohort study of 46 million adults in England: by Whiteley WN, Ip S, Cooper JA, Bolton T, Keene S, Walker V, et al., 22 February 2022, PLOS Medicine.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003926
“First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland, and Wales” by Kerr S, Joy M, Torabi F, Bedston S, Akbari A, Agrawal U, et al., 22 February 2022, PLOS Medicine.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003927

Josh Rogin
@joshrogin

The UK government now privately believes that a lab leak is the likeliest origin of Covid-19, report says:
View: https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1496454037780279298?s=20&t=Ue-ygEuRcQfi0EcQy6vkGA

Dr. Robert W. Malone on CDC Revelations: Smoking Gun of Scientific Fraud 12:01 min
Dr. Robert W. Malone on CDC Revelations: Smoking Gun of Scientific Fraud
Bannons War Room Published February 23, 2022

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18d9-8m9B3U
PREMIERE

NIH Cover-up. It Didn't Have To Be This Way.

Premiere in progress. Started 21 minutes ago


Peak Prosperity

The Intercept news organization has been trying to gain some insight into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. They have had top submit FOIA requests to a very reluctant NIH that seems quite uninterested in sharing anything about their role in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). The recent FOIA release is a case-study in guilty agency behavior. Out of 312 pages released, a full 297 of them were 100% redacted. Nada. Nothing. Well, when I won’t show you something, that means I am hiding something. I am 100% sure the NIH is hiding something here. Probably just a bad case of institutional embarrassment, but still, a hide. The NIH clearly funded activities related to Gain of Function at Chinese facilities, including the WIV. This we already know from prior releases. What are they hiding now that’s worse than that? Well, we can only guess. But now there’s also been great detective work to uncover how exactly the “furin cleavage site” (PRRA, baby!) got into SAR2. The precise genetic sequence is quite odd as it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the entire world of viruses or higher animals. But it does appear in several Moderna patents. We deserve answers as to how that might have come to be. After all, the entire world lost two years of proper living, and a bunch of draconian governmental programs were implemented People lost livelihoods, children lost childhoods, and people lost lives. How are we *not* deserving or proper answers and, where appropriate, full countability for anyone found to be responsible? Links: https://theintercept.com/2022/02/20/n... https://www.muckrock.com/news/archive... https://www.muckrock.com/news/archive... https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/... https://www.nature.com/articles/s4159...

Dr. Malone Grand Jury Trial - Covid Vaccine Crimes Against Humanity - Nuremberg 2.0 7:49 min

Dr. Malone Grand Jury Trial - Covid Vaccine Crimes Against Humanity - Nuremberg 2.0
Redzz Published February 22, 2022 987 Views

Rumble — Dr. Malone: "There is speculation Justin Trudeau & his families foundation holds 40% of Acuitas Therapeutics which is a lipid nano particle delivery system for Pfizer. There appears to be a major conflict of interest with Trudeau."
Dr. Malone also reveals how the WEF, though its Young Leaders program, has trained thousands of leaders who have been EMBEDDED in Western democracies…up to the cabinet/executive levels – Trudeau, Macron & Boris Johnson as prime examples.

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Grand Jury Trial - Covid Vaccine Crimes Against Humanity - Day 5 - Nuremberg 2.0 4:24:06 min

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Grand Jury Trial - Covid Vaccine Crimes Against Humanity - Day 5 - Nuremberg 2.0
Redzz Published February 22, 2022

4 Million Vaccine Passport Holders Get Deactivated in France Due To Not Taking A Booster Shot .38 min

4 Million Vaccine Passport Holders Get Deactivated in France Due To Not Taking A Booster Shot
Redzz Published February 22, 2022

Millennials and the Covid-19 Pandemic
Guest Written By Rachel J. Katz
With the digital era of information comes great power and opportunity for critical thinkers. Millennials know how to navigate it best.

Guest Written By: Rachel J. Katz

“With great power comes great responsibility,”
as Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben stated. Hopefully, this doesn’t get ‘Fact Checked’ for quoting a fictional character.


Pictured: Hi-Rez, Rachel J. Katz, Jimmy Levy. Photograph by Brandon Morin at Defeat The Mandates DC.

As millennials, we are the first generation of the digital age. We are also the last generation who had to call using a landline, send party invites via snail mail, and actually ring our friends’ doorbells to tell them to come outside and play ball. Some may say this is confusing for us, but I think it’s an incredible advantage. We can go back and forth between the real and digital worlds like it’s nothing. So how does this tie back to the Covid-19 pandemic? Well, we have the strong ability to dig and research on the internet, and then bring what we find back to apply it to real-world problems. In my opinion, this capability has been crucial over the last two years, particularly since our mainstream media has epically failed us. We easily shift from working in an office to virtual home telecommuting without missing a beat. We handle technology very well; it’s become our sixth sense.

Millennials have access to and rely on the most independent news sources- the ones that are not funded and monopolized by the big money Globalists. We can cut through tech algorithms like a hot knife through butter. Just to illustrate the point, I conducted my own social experiment a few weeks ago. I have a friend who is well aware of a lot of the media manipulation going on with society, but he chooses to move back and forth between acknowledging it and just ignoring it; a classic red pill/blue pill (“Matrix”) scenario. One day I decided to take his phone (without telling him) and go on multiple different news sources and influencer pages which he would never click on. The idea was that if I did this little test, in the coming days his entire popular page will recommend the same type of content I just viewed on his profile, and he will be sending it to me knowing I like to consume this type of content. And sure enough, in a matter of days that is exactly what happened.

With big tech algorithms, we are living in our own echo chambers. Hearing and seeing exactly what we are comfortable processing. Just like the “The Matrix”, tech feeds us what they think we want, and what they want us to want. I knew right then and there that we (as a society) are up to our eyeballs into a psychological operation designed to control us. But I also saw that we have the power to research for ourselves, and even dig deep on subjects we may disagree with or which tech thinks we may not be interested in. But we, the people, have the power.

Sometimes, we just need to pause for a moment and zoom out on the situation, closely analyze, reflect on our own thoughts and not rely on big tech’s algorithms about what we should be thinking. Otherwise, we will completely let the Globalists delete the critical thinking process from all of humanity.

While composing the previous paragraph, I realized that putting worlds down on virtual paper brought me closer to understanding how Big Tech, the Covid-19 pandemic, and Millennials all tie together. We risk loosing our individualism and ability to think critically as a result of our generation’s sheltered upbringing. We must not be the generation that lets our health suffer the same result. It’s time to realize that we must gather and analyze our own facts and then form our own opinions, so that we may raise a new generation that is more resistant to tyranny and which values to our natural God-given freedoms and liberties.



Photograph by: Rachel J. Katz. Pictured (among others): Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Christina Parks, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Alexander, Dr. Heather Gosling, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Lynn Fynn, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Ernest Ramirez, Hi-Rez, Jimmy Levy.

This brings me to another topic that I constantly think about as a 27-year-old who plans to be a mom someday soon. My fellow Millennials may say, “Well, how did our generation end up this way”? How did the Baby Boomer generation influence the Millennial generation? Let me paint this picture for you. Our parents grew up with TV dinners and two or three mainstream basic cable news stations, never questioning the validity or news sources used by these stations (because it was so new- this way of consuming news was a social experiment at the time). And a key component of the typical Millennial childhood is that we were raised by Baby Boomers. I do not mean this as a shot at our Boomer parents and their generation, and I absolutely love my family. But we must consider the facts. Our grandparents raised our parents after some serious Tyrannical times. This included the post-Nazi Germany era, the ending of the Jim Crow Era, the Vietnam War era, The Great Depression, and many more extreme events. Our grandparents knew what it was like to fight for freedom. They knew better yet what it was like to nearly lose it all. So, then we have the follow on generation, our Boomer parents, who have had a really nice ride because their parents sacrificed so much for them. In their own way they have developed a strong sense of their own privileges. So, would we be ignorant or naïve to think that this sense of urgency to fight for freedom may skip a generation or two? Speaking as only one of many Millennials with many different points of view, it certainly looks that way to me.

How do freedom and the COVID-19 pandemic go hand in hand? As Dr. Robert Malone stated in a previous Substack piece, it has everything to do with the Overton window and how much it has shifted in almost two years of the pandemic. If we discuss the stages of this pandemic and how millennials have reacted to each stage, we can better understand how we can slow down, research, and critically think about how to navigate through this.


Photographed: Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone. Photo By: Rachel J. Katz

I’m a Florida girl, so I’m used to cleaning up messes after a storm. Unfortunately, the mess our parents left behind through mass compliance and entrusting the media is the biggest hurricane of them all. The early to mid-1900s brought many challenges and burdens, and our grandparents really had to roll their sleeves up and struggle with their own sweat and hard labor to overcome those problems. If the early 1900s were a stock listed on Wall Street, it would have been a great time for government officials like Nancy Pelosi to buy in because it was only up from there. Conversely, our grandparents raised a very privileged generation that didn’t have to struggle nearly as much as they did. They protected and nurtured them, perhaps a bit too much. So now too many of them just accept what they are told to do by authority figures.

Many people find it selfish not just to follow the rules of the talking heads and local health officials. However, antithetically I find it selfish to force younger generations to put their lives on hold for older generations. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. testified before the Louisiana State Legislature, saying:

“Never in human history have old people required young people to take risks, make sacrifices and die to preserve older people. We have a fiduciary duty to our children. Older people sacrifice themselves for children in a moral society, in a robust society, in a society that we are proud of. We do not tell children to take risks to preserve older people. We need to stand up and make a moral choice and an ethical choice for our children.”

Click to expand...

The last battle on American soil was in 1890, and most of us just go on about our day as if another war in our backyard isn’t possible. Through all the progress we’ve made throughout the 1900s, many of us have been sheltered from what actually came before the struggles. It’s time to wake up and realize a war on our soil is and has been here. A war on religion, children, and tradition. This time the war is cultural, spiritual, technological, and biological. Baby boomers were raised ignorant of this conniving agenda of the government, big financial interests, and their allies in the intelligence agencies. We, as millennials, are fighting for the chance not to have to raise our kids the same way. We can’t let social media and Big Tech algorithms do our thinking and decision-making for us.

Now is the time for us to put the power back in the people. Realizing that we have the power to do this is the only barrier between what we have now and living that reality. We have to continue waking others up in a loving, compassionate, yet stern way. We must provide facts and back those facts up with evidence. I know it isn’t easy, and sometimes it feels like an eternity of chasing our tails, but revolutions don’t happen overnight, and this one won’t be televised.

So as Millennials, it’s our turn to step up to the plate. It’s our turn to raise a whole new generation of freedom-loving, God-fearing patriots who think critically, thoroughly research to discover the truth, and no longer take at face value the lies that the Boomer legacy media has tried so hard to make us believe.

German Public Health Insurer: Vaccine Side Effects Maybe 8 to 10 Times More Frequent Than Officially Reported

German publicly regulated health insurers, the Betriebskrankenkassen, report substantially higher vaccine adverse effects than the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, our vaccine regulatory body.

Andreas Schöfbeck, board member of BKK ProVita, one of these insurers, told Welt in the linked article that “The figures we have found are substantial and demand urgent verification.”

Basically, BKK ProVita noticed anomalous diagnoses indicating adverse vaccine side effects, particularly surrounding these codes: T88.0: Infection or sepsis after vaccination; T88.1: Other complications or skin rash following vaccination; Y59.9: Complications due to vaccines or biologically active substances; and U12.9: Undesirable side effects from Covid-19 vaccines.

Meanwhile, the official PEI reports figures almost one magnitude lower.



Percent of insured with vaccine side-effects. Yellow: All BKK-insured side-effects. Red: BKK ProVita insured side-effects. Grey: Side effects publicly acknowledged by PEI.

Schöfbeck says that probably there have been 400,000 clinical consultations by BKK insured alone due to vaccine complications. “Extrapolated to the total [German] population, the number would be three million.”

UPDATE: The data represents 10,937,716 German insured, over 13% of the country. The data comprises the first six months of 2021, and about half of the billing records for the third quarter of 2021. This is an extremely partial picture of the vaccine side effects, excluding much of the booster campaign here.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5I1Xujk0zs
3:53 min

The CDC CAUGHT Hiding Data | @You Are Here

Feb 23, 2022


BlazeTV

The CDC is refusing to release the data it has on boosters. They say it’s because they’re concerned people might misinterpret it and believe the vaccines are ineffective. Elijah and Sydney, joined by ¼ Black Garrett, discuss how they really just believe the public is too stupid to understand the data and don’t want anyone to realize what we’ve all known for a while.

Triple “Vaccinated” Deaths Skyrocketed 495% in January; 80% of All New Covid Cases Are Fully Jabbed

By Ethan Huff
February 17, 2022

The plandemic of the “fully vaccinated” rages on as the latest data shows that the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths from the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) are occurring in people who took the jabs.

Public Health Scotland (PHS) is reporting that an astounding four out of every five covid hospitalizations and deaths are jabbed, meaning only 20 percent of hospitalizations and deaths blamed on covid are occurring in the unvaccinated.

According to the figures, cases were down overall in February compared to January. However, the bulk is still comprised of fully vaccinated individuals, including the triple-vaccinated.

The data shows that the latest “wave” of negative health outcomes is occurring in three-pricked people, a demographic in which the death rate soared by 495 percent in the month of January.

“Overall cases have dropped in the last month in all demographics significantly compared to the number of cases recorded between 11th Dec and 7th Jan 22, but in both months the vaccinated have accounted for the vast majority of cases,” reported the Daily Exposé.

“The main difference between the two months is that the double vaccinated accounted for the majority of cases between 11th Dec and 8th Jan 22; recording 145,890 cases, but the triple vaccinated accounted for the majority of cases between 8th Jan and 4th Feb 22; recording 46,951 cases.”

The plandemic would already be over were it not for the “vaccines”
It turns out that the case rate is dropping substantially among the unvaccinated while it continues to rise among the fully vaccinated, and especially among the fully-fully vaccinated who are getting three shots or more.

Between December 11 and January 7, the non-jabbed population accounted for just 15 percent of all new cases of the Fauci Flu. One month later from January 8 through February 4, that percentage dropped to less than 13 percent.

Meanwhile, the vaccinated population accounted for 85 percent of all new cases between December 11 and January 7, with just 9 percent of those cases occurring in the one-dose vaccinated. (Related: Cases of covid among the fully vaccinated in Taiwan are also way, way up.)

Thirty-two percent of all new cases in the vaccinated category occurred in the triple vaccinated while 59 percent occurred in the double vaccinated.

“But fast forward one month and we find that the vaccinated accounted for 87% of cases, with the one-dose vaccinated accounting for 4% of those cases, the double vaccinated accounting for 33% of those cases, and the triple vaccinated accounting for 63% of those cases,” the Exposé further reported.

“This means that despite cases falling among all demographics they actually fell the most among the not vaccinated, single vaccinated, and double vaccinated, with the lowest drop coming in the triple vaccinated. This doesn’t make sense if the Covid-19 vaccines are effective.

Clearly they are not, at least when it comes to preventing infection.”

As for hospitalizations, the unvaccinated are doing better and better overall while the fully vaccinated are doing worse and worse overall.

The PHS data shows that hospitalizations among the unvaccinated fell by -24 percent in January compared to in December. Hospitalizations among the triple vaccinated, meanwhile, increased by an astounding 88 percent.

“The vaccinated population accounted for 75% of hospitalisations between 11th Dec and 7th Jan 22, with 7% of those hospitalisations among the one-dose vaccinated, 46% of those hospitalisations among the triple vaccinated, and 47% of those hospitalisations among the double vaccinated,” the Exposé further reported.

“But fast forward one month and we find that the vaccinated accounted for 80.5% of hospitalisations, with the one-dose vaccinated accounting for 6% of those hospitalisations, the double vaccinated accounting for 26% of those hospitalisations, and the triple vaccinated accounting for 68% of those hospitalisations.”

(fair use applies)

University of Virginia seeks participants for COVID-19 treatment study that includes Ivermectin
Researchers will also study Fluvoxamine, an anti-depressant that has been shown to decrease inflammation.
By Sophie Mann
February 23, 2022 - 3:35pm

The University of Virginia department of health is gearing up to conduct a nationwide study on drugs that effectively treat COVID-19, including one at the center of the debate over doctors prescribing known treatments for off-label use during the pandemic.

Researchers will study Fluvoxamine, an anti-depressant, and Ivermectin, a pill often used to treat parasitic infections, in people who test positive for COVID. The scientists will run the study on 15,000 participants ages 30 and up who test positive for symptomatic COVID.

Individuals participating may be (and are, in fact, encouraged to be) vaccinated and boosted, according to the principal Investigator for the clinical trial.

"If we can find drugs that are currently FDA approved, cheap, and readily available throughout the world I think that really gets us much closer to being able to turn COVID-19 into a mild illness where people can kind of get therapy," said Dr. Patrick Jackson, the lead researcher.

Jackson said the two drugs were selected because there have been indications that each can be helpful treating the viral illness. Fluvoxamine, typically used to treat depression, has been shown to decrease inflammation.

Ivermectin, Jackson said, can be used to "stop many viruses from replicating."

"Not everything that happens in a petri dish pans out to be useful in a human being. But that’s part of the reason why this drug has been included in this clinical trial," he added.
.

(fair use applies)

Italy to end Covid state of emergency and cut ‘super green pass’, PM confirms
The Italian government will not extend the Covid-19 state of emergency beyond its current deadline of March 31st, Prime Minister Mario Draghi said on Wednesday.
Published: 23 February 2022 17:41 CET

“The goal is to open everything back up as soon as possible,” Draghi told a business conference in Florence, according to Italian media reports.

Though ministers have repeatedly indicated that the state of emergency would likely come to an end on that date, the move had not yet been confirmed.

The state of emergency is the condition which has allowed the Italian government to bring in emergency measures by decree over the past two years.

While the end of the state of emergency does not necessarily mean the end of all pandemic-related restrictions, the prime minister said the use of the ‘green pass’ health certificate scheme would also be scaled back.

The government will gradually remove the obligation to show proof of vaccination or recovery at many venues under the system, Draghi said, without giving any dates.

Italy currently operates a two-tiered green pass health certificate system, meaning proof of vaccination or recovery is currently needed for access to everything from hotels and restaurants to public transport and many workplaces in Italy.

“We will gradually put an end to the enhanced green certificate obligation, starting with outdoor activities including fairs, sports, parties and shows,” he said.

“We will continue to monitor the pandemic situation closely, ready to intervene in case of resurgence.”

Rules on quarantine and the use of higher-grade FFP2 masks in schools are also to be eased in April, he said.
.

(fair use applies) EMPHASIS IN ARTICLE; NOT ADDED BY ME


122 Countries On Track To Miss COVID-19 Vaccine Goal
by Tyler Durden
Wednesday, Feb 23, 2022 - 06:00 PM

In October 2021, the WHO’s Independent Allocation of Vaccines Group (IAVG) outlined its Strategy to Achieve Global COVID-19 Vaccination by Mid-2022. In it, the group called for an internationally coordinated vaccine rollout to reach the following objectives: achieve 10 percent vaccine coverage in all countries by the end of September 2021, 40 percent coverage in all countries by the end of December and, ultimately, 70 percent vaccine coverage in all countries halfway through 2022.

By the time the strategy was made public, Statista's Felix Richter notes that the 10 percent goal had been missed by 56 countries, while 70 countries had already surpassed the 40 percent target by the end of September.
In late December, the IAVG rang the alarm bells once again, saying that 98 countries were about to miss the 40 percent target, citing “the severe vaccine supply constraints to COVAX, which persisted until the last quarter of 2021” as the main reason for the shortfall.

Aside from supply constraints, which are expected to gradually ease in 2022, the IAVG identified further challenges in achieving the 70 percent coverage goal by mid-2022.


According to latest estimates by Our World in Data, large parts of the world are likely to fall short of the WHO’s vaccination target.


You will find more infographics at Statista

Looking at current coverage and the rate of new vaccinations over the past 14 days, the researchers find that 122 countries are currently on a trajectory to miss the 70 percent vaccination goal by the end of June 2022, while 34 countries are on track to meet the target.

Meanwhile most high-income countries have already surpassed the 70 percent milestone, further illustrating the wide gulf in global vaccine distribution.
.

(fair use applies)



Video: Bill Gates Sardonically Compares Wearing A Mask To Wearing Pants
Asks “what is the downside?” while not wearing a mask
Published 2 days ago on 22 February, 2022
Steve Watson

Bill Gates has mocked people who are against mask mandates by sarcastically comparing wearing one to having to wear pants in public.

A maskless Gates along with a maskless panel at the 2022 Munich Security Conference laughed it up as they mocked people who point out the downside of face coverings.

CNBC ‘jounalist’ Hadley Beale asked “What about masks? I think there are a lot of people in America who are confused about whether they should be wearing a mask, and in the United Kingdom for, example, they’ve scrapped that all together.”

Gates replied “Well that’s interesting you know what is the downside of wearing a mask?”

Adopting a sardonic tone, he then declared “I mean it’s got to be tough, you know, you have to wear pants. I mean this is tough stuff, these societies are so cruel, why do they make you wear pants? I’m trying to figure it out.”

Then all five of them laughed it up as Beale added “We’re very glad you have yours on.”

Yeah, doesn’t have a mask on though does he.

“That will be on the web, that will be on the web,” another panelist stated.

Yes, because yet another example of unmasked elitists laughing at everyday people who protest their governments forcing them to cover up their faces in spite of science proving it does nothing to prevent the virus spreading is newsworthy:

Philanthropist Bill Gates has been discussing mask mandates at the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

"What is the downside of wearing a mask? You have to wear pants." pic.twitter.com/Kdh85YRuIn​

​

— talkRADIO (@talkRADIO) February 19, 2022​

Click to expand...

Of course, this little nugget was an aside from Gates’ hours long diatribe about how his vaccines are the miracle cure and how its “sad” that people have become immune to the virus because it has mutated into milder strains.

Maybe Bill should ask people with speech impediments, the deaf and hard of hearing. While he’s at it he should speak to child psychologists about the importance of small children seeing faces when learning social cues and how to speak.https://t.co/UAmqPAheb7​

— Inquisitor Fox (@HalfMoonFox) February 22, 2022​

Click to expand...

If there is NO downside, why is he not wearing one now?​

— Lucas70 (@luke_b70) February 19, 2022​

Click to expand...

Difference is Bill, it's someone's choice what they wear (be it pants, a dress or whatever). Nobody is told they HAVE to wear one particular garment. If someone wants to wear a mask they have the right to do so, as does someone who does not want to. It's called choice.​

— The Rooster (@ZeeRoosta) February 19, 2022​

Click to expand...

The downside, Dipshit, is that human social/emotional intelligence is entirely dependent on our ability to discern facial expressions and interpret vocal inflection. @BillGates​

— Lindsey (@theLP) February 22, 2022​

Click to expand...

breathing through my arse from now on, bill is the man​

— Spencer Garner (@SpencerGarner) February 19, 2022​

Click to expand...

FOLLOW UP ON THE QUEEN AND IVERMECTIN FAKE NEW STORY THAT WAS CIRCULATING.



(fair use applies)

Australian News Show Apologises for Implying Queen Could Benefit From Ivermectin
By Daniel Y. Teng
February 22, 2022 Updated: February 23, 2022



The shot from Nine's "A Current Affairs" program including an image of Stromectol, the U.S. brand name for ivermectin, which was published on Feb. 21 and subsequently edited and removed. (Screenshot by The Epoch Times)


Australian news program “A Current Affair” has apologised for accidentally implying Queen Elizabeth II—who is suffering from COVID-19—could benefit from being treated with ivermectin.

The segment produced by the program showed a video package including a voiceover, interview, and images of two different drugs, which, when edited together, unintentionally implied to the viewer that general practitioner, Dr. Mukesh Haikerwal, was suggesting the head of the British royal family could benefit from ivermectin.

The program, which aired on the evening of Feb. 21, starts with footage of Dr. Haikerwal walking around his clinic.

The voiceover begins: “Dr. Mukesh Haikerwal says a COVID patient the Queen’s age should be isolating and might benefit from new medicines currently approved for high-risk patients at Australian hospitals.”

The video then cuts to images of Sotrovimab, a novel monoclonal antibody treatment, and Stromectol, the U.S. brand name for ivermectin.

The interview with Dr. Haikerwal then picks up again with the doctor saying: “These tablets, or these infusions, can make a dramatic difference to their immediate welfare and health to how they feel, but also the long term benefits as well.”

The choice of positioning the shot of Stromectol in between the narration and Dr. Haikerwal’s quote conveyed a meaning the show did not seem to intend.

The clip was quickly picked up on social media and gained traction—given the contentious nature of ivermectin.
Queensland Senator Gerard Rennick posted the clip on his Facebook page saying, “What does Channel 9 know that we don’t? Is Ivermectin (Stromectol) … being administered to COVID patients at Australian hospitals?”

“The Therapeutic Goods Administration and Health Departments have been caught out lying on so many occasions it would not surprise me,” he said.

A spokesperson from the program said producers had apologised to the doctor and the program has been corrected.

“Last night our report on the Queen contained a shot that shouldn’t have been included. The shot was included as a result of human error,” according to a statement sent to The Epoch Times.

“We were highlighting an approved infusion medication called Sotrovimab and the report accidentally cut to a shot of Stromectol. As a program, we’ve done numerous stories highlighting the concerns around taking Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

“We did not intend to suggest Dr. Mukesh Haikerwal endorsed Stromectol. We’ve apologised to him this morning, and he has accepted that apology,” the statement read.

The spokesperson added that “A Current Affair” did not intend to suggest the Queen was using ivermectin.

Meanwhile, Dr. Haikerwal took to Twitter to post a link outlining what drugs were approved in Australia to treat COVID-19.
Australia’s federal Department of Health re-emphasised that ivermectin does not have regulatory approval for treating COVID-19 in Australia or in any OECD country.

“Oral ivermectin (Stromectol) is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for the treatment of river blindness, threadworm of the intestines and scabies, and is available on prescription for these indications,” a federal health department spokesperson said.

“Certain specialists are permitted to prescribe ivermectin for unapproved indications where the specialist believes it is appropriate for a particular patient. This restriction is outlined in the Poisons Standard.”

Drug regulatory bodies including Australia’s TGA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have taken a firm stance against the use of ivermectin for treating COVID-19.

In November, the TGA fined an Australian man $7,992 (US$5,754.84) for advertising ivermectin and zinc lozenges to treat the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.

Ivermectin is a generic medicine that can be produced cheaply in many places around the world and has been widely used in humans against parasitic worms, and to combat scabies, lice, as well as rosacea. It is also used as an anti-parasite drug in livestock, including horses and cows.

Some doctors and healthcare professionals have considered ivermectin as a suitable alternative for tackling COVID-19, especially when used in early treatment.
.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMsAJzwKwVY
Natural immunity, answers
13min 46sec
Feb 23, 2022





View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlBLZaw2DkY
Inflammatory Syndrome in Children
18min 53sec
Feb 23, 2022
Cases of this severe disease in children are very low in omicron times
.

(fair use applies)

Research Shows Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Protection Is Not As Strong Against Omicron Variant
By Kaiser Permanente
February 23, 2022

Kaiser Permanente study shows 3 doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine highly effective against hospitalization from omicron or delta.

New Kaiser Permanente research published on February 21, 2022, in Nature Medicine shows that while Moderna COVID-19 vaccine protection is strong against coronavirus infection by the delta variant, it is not as strong against infection from the omicron variant.

Three doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine were highly effective against hospitalization caused by infection from either the omicron or delta variant.

This study was conducted within the racially and ethnically diverse membership of Kaiser Permanente in Southern California using specimens collected between December 6 and December 31, 2021.

It included 26,683 patients who tested positive for COVID-19, 16% of whom had delta infections and 84% of whom had omicron infections, and more than 67,000 individuals who tested negative as a comparison group. Specimens were primarily collected using nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs for people with COVID-19 symptoms and saliva for people who did not have symptoms.

• Two doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine were 44% effective against omicron infection within 3 months after vaccination, and effectiveness quickly declined thereafter.
• Three doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine within 2 months of vaccination were 94% effective against delta infection and 72% effective against omicron infection.
• For people who had compromised immune systems, 3-dose effectiveness against omicron infection was lower at 29%.
• The 3-dose effectiveness against hospitalization with delta or with omicron was above 99%.

“Our results suggest that third doses may be needed sooner than 6 months after the second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to protect against omicron infection,” said Hung Fu Tseng, PhD, a researcher with the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research & Evaluation and a faculty member of Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, both located in Pasadena, Calif. “And that 3 doses may be inadequate to protect people who are immunocompromised from omicron infection.”

He added: “Reassuringly, 3 doses provide strong protection against COVID-19 hospitalization due to either the omicron or delta variant.”

Reference: “Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants” by Hung Fu Tseng, Bradley K. Ackerson, Yi Luo, Lina S. Sy, Carla A. Talarico, Yun Tian, Katia J. Bruxvoort, Julia E. Tubert, Ana Florea, Jennifer H. Ku, Gina S. Lee, Soon Kyu Choi, Harpreet S. Takhar, Michael Aragones and Lei Qian, 21 February 2022, Nature Medicine.
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-01753-y

(fair use applies)

Blood Clots in COVID-19 Patients Triggered by “Rogue” Antibodies
By Michigan Medicine - University of Michigan February 23, 2022


The finding brings researchers closer to finding the exact cause of inflammation and clotting in severe COVID-19 patients.

Scientists have discovered that “rogue” antibodies found circulating in the blood of COVID-19 patients have the potential to cause cells to lose their resistance to clotting.

Researchers at Michigan Medicine and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute studied the blood samples of nearly 250 patients hospitalized for COVID-19. They found higher-than-expected levels of antiphospholipid autoantibodies, which can trigger blood clots in the arteries and veins of patients with autoimmune disorders, including lupus and antiphospholipid syndrome.

Antibodies typically help the body neutralize infections. Autoantibodies are antibodies produced by the immune system that mistakenly target and sometimes damage the body’s own systems and organs.

In a 2020 study, the research group found that autoantibodies from patients with active COVID-19 infections caused “a striking amount of clotting” in mice. In the new study they uncover the possible reason: the autoantibodies appear to stress the endothelial cells that make up the inner lining of blood vessels and, in doing so, cause the cells to lose their ability to prevent blood clots from forming. The results are published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“This provides an even stronger connection between autoantibody formation and clotting in COVID-19,” said Hui Shi, M.D., Ph.D., lead author of the paper and rheumatology research fellow at Michigan Medicine. “When endothelial cells are activated, they cause healthy blood vessels to become ‘sticky,’ attracting other cells to the vessel walls and becoming more prone to thrombosis. This can affect many of the body’s essential organs.”

The researchers found that when they removed the antiphospholipid autoantibodies from COVID-19 blood samples, the endothelial cell activation that promotes clotting was lost. While the link is strong, future studies must be done to find whether these autoantibodies are the precise cause of thrombosis that contributes to clotting and increased severity of COVID-19, says Jason Knight, M.D., Ph.D., co-author of the study and associate professor of rheumatology at Michigan Medicine.

“We must do more research to decide if it is beneficial to screen patients with severe COVID-19 for these autoantibodies to evaluate their risk of clotting and progressive respiratory failure,” Knight said. “Eventually, we may be able to repurpose treatments used in traditional cases of antiphospholipid syndrome for COVID-19. This is a further step towards a full understanding of the interplay between coronavirus infection, the human immune system and vascular health.”

For more on this research, see Scientists Pinpoint “Rogue Antibodies” Associated With Severe COVID-19 Blood Clotting.
Reference: “Endothelial cell-activating antibodies in COVID-19” by Hui Shi MD, PhD, Yu Zuo MD, Sherwin Navaz BS, Alyssa Harbaugh BS, Claire K. Hoy BS, Alex A. Gandhi BS, Gautam Sule PhD, Srilakshmi Yalavarthi MS, Kelsey Gockman BS, Jacqueline A. Madison MD, Jintao Wang PhD, Melanie Zuo MD, Yue Shi PhD, Michael D. Maile MD, Jason S. Knight MD, PhD and Yogendra Kanthi MD, 17 February 2022, Arthritis & Rheumatology.

DOI: 10.1002/art.42094
Additional authors include Yu (Ray) Zuo, M.D., Sherwin Navaz, B.S., Alyssa Harbaugh, B.S., Claire Hoy, B.S., Alex Gandhi, M.S., Gautam Sule, Ph.D., Srilakshmi Yalavarthi, M.S., Kelsey Gockman, Jacqueline Madison, M.D., Melanie Zuo, M.D., Michael Maile, M.D., all of Michigan Medicine, as well as Jinato Wang, NHLBI, Yue Shi, Shanghai University of Sport, Yogendra Kanthi, M.D., NHLBI

This work was supported by a grant from the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

(fair use applies)

COVID-19 Virus Can Cause Severe Testicular Damage – Possible Low Sex Drive and Infertility
By Hong Kong University February 23, 2022

Researchers at the Department of Microbiology of The University of Hong Kong (HKU) have found that the COVID19 virus can cause acute testicular damage, chronic asymmetric testicular atrophy, and hormonal changes in hamsters despite a light pneumonia.

“In managing convalescent COVID-19 males, it is important to be aware of possible hypogonadism (low sex drive) and subfertility,” said Chair of Infectious Diseases Professor Kwok-yung Yuen, who led the research effort. “ COVID-19 vaccination can prevent this complication.”

The HKU study of testicular damage of the virus, SARS-CoV-2, has been accepted for publication in the leading journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Previous studies have reported testicular pain in COVID-19 patients. One autopsy study of males who died from COVID-19 showed orchitis with lots of testicular cell damage, but SARS -CoV-2 was not consistently found in semen specimens.
The HKU team investigated the testicular and hormonal changes of hamsters infected by virus given through the intranasal or direct testicular route using the influenza virus in the control group. The research finds that virus-infected hamsters developed self-limiting pneumonia. But even intranasal SARS-CoV-2 challenge caused acute decrease in sperm count, and serum testosterone starting from the 4 to 7 days. The SARS-CoV-2 infected hamsters developed testicular atrophy with reduced testicular size and weight. The serum sex hormone level was markedly reduced at 42 to 120 days after infection (dpi). Acute testicular inflammation, haemorrhage, and necrosis of seminiferous tubules, and disruption of spermatogenesis were seen.



From 7 to 120 dpi, the inflammation, degeneration, and necrosis of testicular tissue persisted. Intranasal challenge with Omicron and Delta variants were found to induce similar testicular changes. These testicular damages can be prevented by vaccination.

The control group of hamsters challenged by influenza A virus given intranasally or intra-testicularly showed no testicular infection or damage.

Reference: “Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections by intranasal or testicular inoculation induces testicular damage preventable by vaccination in golden Syrian hamsters” by Can Li, Zhanhong Ye, Anna Jin-Xia Zhang, Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan, Wenchen Song, Feifei Liu, Yanxia Chen, Mike Yat-Wah Kwan, Andrew Chak-Yiu Lee, Yan Zhao, Bosco Ho-Yin Wong, Cyril Chik-Yan Yip, Jian-Piao Cai, David Christopher Lung, Siddharth Sridhar, Dongyan Jin, Hin Chu, Kelvin Kai-Wang To and Kwok-Yung Yuen, Accepted, Clinical Infectious Diseases.

PDF
.

(fair use applies)

February 23, 2022

Number of COVID-19 infections missed by lateral flow tests 'substantial enough to be of clinical importance'
by British Medical Journal

The proportion of people with current COVID-19 infection missed by the Innova lateral flow test (LFT) is substantial enough to be of clinical importance, particularly when testing people without symptoms, warn experts in The BMJ today.

An analysis by Professor Jonathan Deeks and colleagues predicts that Innova would miss 20% of viral culture positive cases attending an NHS Test-and-Trace center, 29% without symptoms attending mass testing, and 81% attending university screen testing without symptoms—many more than predicted by mathematical models on which policy decisions are based.

The authors acknowledge that LFTs are an important tool in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, but say claims that LFTs can identify "the vast majority who are infectious" have been overstated, with risk of false reassurance to those seeking to rule-out infection.

Lateral flow tests (LFTs) for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) have been recommended for widespread use, largely based on predictions made by mathematical models.

While empirical data show LFTs give a positive result when virus is present on a swab in high quantities, and therefore can detect people who are likely to be infectious, the proportion missed who are infectious has not been evaluated.

To address this evidence gap, Deeks and colleagues drew on empirical data from several sources to predict the proportion of Innova LFTs that produce negative results in those with a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness. They then compared these with predictions made by influential mathematical models.

Their focus was to identify the joint probability that people are likely to be infectious (in that they have a viral culture positive result or are a secondary case) and that they test negative on Innova.

Their results are based on testing in three settings: symptomatic testing at an NHS Test-and-Trace center, mass testing in Liverpool in residents without symptoms, and in students at the University of Birmingham.

The analysis predicted that of those with a viral culture positive result, Innova would miss 20% attending an NHS Test-and-Trace center, 29% without symptoms attending municipal mass testing, and 81% attending university screen testing without symptoms, along with 38%, 47%, and 90% of sources of secondary cases.

In comparison, two mathematical models underestimated the numbers of missed infectious individuals (8%, 10%, and 32% in the three settings for one model, whereas the assumptions from the second model made it impossible to miss an infectious individual).

The authors stress that evaluating the accuracy of a test for current infection or infectiousness is challenging owing to the lack of a reference standard, and say there is the potential for error in their estimates. "The findings in this analysis therefore must be taken as illustrative and not exact," they say.

However, they point out that these data "are currently the best available and clearly show that missing people with current infection or who are infectious is possible in all settings."

"Allowing for the uncertainties in the results from our analyses, the proportion of people with current infection missed by the Innova LFT is likely to be of public health importance, particularly in settings with greater proportions of infectious people with lower viral loads; where the tests are often being applied," they write.

They argue that key models have failed to appropriately use empirical evidence to inform assumptions of test accuracy and chances of infectiousness, resulting in unrealistic overestimates of test performance, and say until new generation LFTs are available that meet the regulatory performance requirements, negative test results from LFTs cannot be relied on to exclude current infection.

"Policy makers need to ensure that the public are aware of the risk of being infectious despite testing negative, and that tests are not used in situations where the consequences of false negative results are considerable," they conclude.

When rapid antigen tests were introduced, we were promised they would "identify those who are likely to spread the disease, and when used systematically in mass testing could reduce transmissions by 90%." Yet despite the UK spending more than £7bn on lateral flow devices since mid-2020, the lack of hard evidence on this promised impact is striking, argue public health experts in a linked opinion article.

They point out that observational studies attempting to assess the impact on transmission as a result of testing asymptomatic non-contacts have struggled to show an effect and none seem to have examined the costs of the programs.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization cautions against mass asymptomatic testing because of high costs, lack of evidence on the impact, and risk of diverting resources from more important activities.

"Surely it is time to start afresh," they say. "Publication of this new paper should prompt the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to reassess its authorisations of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic people. The public deserves to have better evaluations, ensuring good test performance in real life settings, and a policy that specifies effective and efficient test use for carefully targeted purposes," they conclude.
.

(fair use applies)

Oregon aims to roll out digital COVID-19 vaccine cards by late March
Joelle Jones
Posted: Feb 22, 2022 / 01:25 PM PST
Updated: Feb 23, 2022 / 11:07 AM PST

OHA plans to launch opt-in QR COVID-19 vaccine cards

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — As Oregon prepares to lift indoor mask mandates by March 31, the state is also planning to launch voluntary digital COVID-19 vaccine cards, which would allow residents the option to prove vaccination status using just their cell phones.

The Oregon Health Authority began developing the optional digital vaccine verification tool in early December, though the program has largely flown under the radar.

The tool, which is closely modeled after those rolled out in California and Washington, would grant Oregonians a digital option to verify vaccination status, in addition to the CDC-approved paper vaccine cards.

Similar to the Washington model, the OHA pilot program would prompt opt-in residents to provide their name, birth date and contact information, along with a security password and pin to confirm and match State immunization records.

According to OHA, once vaccination status is confirmed, the user would be notified with a link to their corresponding digital vaccine card and state-approved digital QR (or quick-response) code.

KOIN 6 News reached out to OHA for an update on the program roll-out and received the following response:

“OHA is still testing this tool, which will be available for free to anyone in Oregon who received a COVID-19 vaccine,” OHA Lead Communications Officer Jonathan Modie said.

The agency previously said the tool would be available to all Oregonians who received a vaccine, regardless of whether the vaccination was recorded in their electronic health records or not. According to OHA, the tool was primarily designed to increase equity, especially for residents who received a vaccine through a pop-up clinic and may not have had their online records updated.

During a recent press conference OHA Director, Patrick Allen said, “What we’re trying to do is provide that same easy capability to people who don’t have easy access to an electronic health record.”

OHA did not provide an exact date for the roll-out but told KOIN 6 News they plan to officially launch the tool by late March.

“It’ll be an electronic means for people in Oregon to share their vaccination status with businesses that ask for proof of verification,” Modie stated. “And will be completely voluntary.”

According to OHA, the digital QR code should be an accepted, valid form of vaccine verification at most Oregon businesses, restaurants and events.

OHA told KOIN 6 News it is still too early for residents to opt-in for the program, but they plan to announce digital vaccine card sign-ups when the tool becomes available to the public.
.

Profit of Doom found this article but can't post it so I am posting for him. It's pretty long so it will be broken down into 3 posts. Thank you PoD.



(fair use applies)
VIDEO AT LINK

UVC: Dr. Jessica Rose: VAERS: Key Ways to Prove C19 Jab Harm Causation

The inaugural Understanding Vaccine Causation Conference, convened by World Council for Health Steering Committee Member, Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, took place on Feb. 5, 2022. The WCH Law and Activism Committee brought together legal practitioners, doctors, scientists, and jab victim data and advocacy groups to explore a key question: How are jab adverse events proved?

Dr. Jessica Rose joined the Science in Action panel for her presentation, VAERS: Key Ways to Prove C19 Jab Harm Causation.


[00:00:05] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: We’re now onto the very last session “Science in Action” and it is my great pleasure to welcome both an expert and my friend, Dr. Jessica Rose, who will be talking to us, I believe, about Bradford Hill as well as VAERS, key ways to prove C 19 jab harm causation. Jessica, you are warmly welcomed. Tell us a little about yourself and why this conference is important and then launch into your presentation.
[00:00:34] Dr. Jessica Rose: First of all, wow, you guys are troopers for putting this together. It’s so important. Thanks for everyone for staying around too, it’s five hours now, guys, we’re heroes already. I am a Canadian researcher. This is my cat checkpoint. He’s always with me in these debates and conversations.
[00:00:55] I currently reside in Israel. I came here to complete a PhD. I stayed to do two post-docs and now I’m kind of here whether I like it or not, and I’ve become a data analyst, I suppose. That’s what I do with most of my time. I became very interested in what’s going on in the vaccine adverse event reporting system of the states a little over a year ago.
[00:01:17] So yes, without further ado, by the way that the talks today have been kick ass. Ted, your talk was amazing, I just have to tell you. And Ryan as well, like really, really good. Everyone’s were. But, um, so I’m going to provide some evidence to support the Bradford Hill criteria, which pretty much is the way that you can provide evidence of causation from biological or epidemiological data.
[00:01:47] All right. So the title of the talk is Assessing Causality from Adverse Event Data. You’ll never hear me say that they’re proved because it’s almost impossible. So I’m going to provide some background for those of you who aren’t aware. I’m sure everybody is. The vaccine adverse event reporting system, or VAERS, is a collection of data reservoir, which was created by the CDC and the FDA in 1990, in order to monitor side effects or adverse event reports that weren’t detected in pre-market tests or clinical trials.
[00:02:22] Basically it came about as the product of vaccine companies having blanket immunity from liability. This was the, kind of ‘solution’, quote on quote, to that problem. But of course we all know that’s not a solution at all. It’s important, but we need to make sure that these companies are liable at some point in human history.
[00:02:45] An adverse event is just a side effect that’s reported in temporal proximity to an injection. Severe adverse event is a death or disability, hospitalization, emergency room visit, a life-threatening illness or a birth defect, by definition. Pharmacovigilance, VAERS is a pharmacovigilance tool. All of these adverse event data collection systems are pharmacovigilance tools, which means that they’re designed to detect safety signals. Causal inference is the process by which we can use data to make claims about causal relationships.
[00:03:24] And how do we provide evidence of causality? So like I said, there’s this thing called the Bradford hill criteria, which I’ll get into which we can use to provide very strong evidence of causal effects.
[00:03:36] So pharmacovigilance, it’s a very important concept. So the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse events, most importantly. And this applies equally before and after approval, which these products still haven’t been, throughout the life cycle.
[00:03:56] So it’s not just that, ‘Okay. We did a clinical trial and everything looks fine,’ then you just start ignoring everything, like the adverse event data that’s coming into VAERS. No, no, no. You have to maintain your diligence and your pharmacovigilance throughout the life of the product.
[00:04:14] And if causation is suspected, which in this case, I think it’s more than suspected. I think it’s very clear. Then it’s of utmost relevance and importance to inform the public. And if you willingly withhold safety data from the public and know that there’s a problem with the safety profile and you continue to administer those products, you’re guilty of malfeasance. I think it’s pretty clear.
[00:04:41] So the talking points today will be on the WHO criteria, that’s the World Health Organization criteria of causality, applying the Bradford Hill criteria to, say, VAERS data. And to ask the question, why is there such a strong denial of causation when it comes to vaccines? It’s not even scientific to do that.
[00:05:04] So, I didn’t know this before I started working on this presentation, you guys probably do, that the WHO actually have a criterion list to disprove or prove causation. They use five criteria, which actually are five of the Bradford Hill criteria that are listed here on the left. And so they’re using the Bradford Hill criteria and they only need five to tick off in the boxes in order to make a good case for causation. They even have a form, which I didn’t know about. Now, I don’t know if they use them or not, but I did find this online and for which, once you fill out this form and you go through their methodology or assessment program, they have six possible outcomes. And one of them actually is that the vaccine caused the injury. So, they do have this process. That’s good, I think that’s good. You’ll find out in the end why. So that’s the WHO definition of causality.
[00:06:04] This presentation is going to be my attempt to go through every single one of the 10 criteria in which nobody does. You don’t have to prove 10, as I just said, you can prove five and then provide good evidence, but I’m going through all 10. And I’m going to try my best using VAERS data and papers and all sorts of reports that I’ve collated to provide evidence for each point.
[00:06:28] So these are the 10 Bradford Hill criteria. There are strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, analogy, and reversibility. A lot of these have overlap and you’ll notice that as I’m presenting data, but they each kind of have their own special quality.
[00:06:52] So let’s get into this. Strength of association can be measured using Chi-square test, which is a categorical test. Recently, I wrote a Substack article on a set of data that came out, which is basically the efficacy data from the Moderna products that came out November 4th. What’s interesting in this document, or the parts of the document that are hidden in the appendix, are not the efficacy data, it’s the safety data that come out. It’s crazy what’s in this document. I think everyone should run after this presentation and go read it.
[00:07:26] This is one of the things that they report in their appendix. When you compare the, SAE here stands for severe adverse event, when you compare the number of severe adverse events in the drug arm, the mRNA 1, 2 7, 3 arm versus placebo, you find a statistically significant difference between the two groups. And you can see that the number of severe adverse event reports was actually higher in the drug arm.
[00:07:54] The P-value was very, very low, which means that this indicates a very strong association. I also looked at the correlation. So if you take any standalone adverse event from VAERS, these are the disability reports from VAERS plotted against the doses administered for Pfizer, and each dot represents the number of each per week. So it’s the intersection point. And then you do a linear regression. You see that the R-value, which is basically, this is the correlation coefficient, and the closer to one that it is, the stronger the correlation. So this is almost one. This is R equals 0.99, which is a really high number and the P values indicate significance. So there’s strong correlation here as well. And like I said, you can pick just about any adverse event from VAERS and see this trend. And I tried out a negative control. I took smallpox data from 2018 against the Covid- 19 adverse events, and I lost the significance. So it actually worked out to be a good negative control.
[00:09:04] This is across the board. The lowest R-value that I found in the standalone adverse events that I looked at was death. And it’s still a 0.94 for the R-value. So it’s reproducible and consistent. I also plotted the data. The number of people fully injected from Our World in Data as a data source against all the adverse events reported in VAERS against the dates. And I did a significance test and, or a correlation linear regression, sorry. And I still found a high R-value.
[00:09:32] You’ll also notice in this plot that the, well, this significance is one in the logistic phase of the curve, which are, sorry, the exponential phase of these curves. And just as a point of interest, eventually I hope the injection rollout is going to slow down. It already is. People are starting to say, no, I don’t want any more of this crap. So we would expect the rate of injections to start to go down soon. But my suspicion is that the rate of adverse events is not going to slow down and you’ll see why as I go through here.
[00:10:02] So the trend toward the continuing rise in the adverse events, I think is going to continue. So to answer our question, I want you guys to answer this question in your own minds. There are going to be 10 yes or no questions. Just keep note of what you think based on what I showed you. The next Bradford Hill criteria is consistency. And the question you can ask pertaining to this point is do all the existing data indicate that A causes B, A being the drugs and B being the adverse events.
[00:10:31] And so these are three of the big, sorry, I didn’t throw SAVAERS in here, but these are three of the big adverse event data collection systems across the world. There’s VAERS on top, the Yellow Card in the UK, and the EudraVigilance System for the EU. And each of these systems has over a million reports in them, which is consistent for all three. And also it’s consistent based on the fact that this has never happened before in any of these systems. Never have we seen, within a year, a million reports for a single product. It’s crazy.
[00:11:05] So consistency, do all the data indicate that A causes B? Bradford Hill criteria is specificity. So is A causing B in specific populations? Now, what you have to do here is look at subpopulations of people who are having something happen to them. So let’s, let’s look at healthy people, healthy young people. I chose two groups here. I chose the athletes. And everyone’s heard the stories of perfectly healthy fit, young athletes just dropping dead on the field. And this is a phenomenon and you see the number here. It’s 108. And the background rate, according to Josh [inaudible], who’s done research on this is about five per year. So we’re way above background for this. This is an NFL player here and he died at 37, shortly after his, I think his second dose. Don’t quote me on that. Pfizer.
[00:11:59] And another example of this, it can be found in our kids. Everyone has heard, of course here that myocarditis is becoming a thing in children, which is bizarro world. And they’re calling it rare and mild, and it’s neither of those things. And this is the CDC’s own bloody data. And you can see that the above background reported a number of cases that they observed – it’s off the charts. So the specificity for the subgroup of athletes, healthy, dropping dead from heart attacks and the young people who are young and healthy and fit, you know, no senescent cells. Succumbing to myocarditis and heart problems. I mean, it’s pretty clear to me. You can answer the question is A causing B specific populations?
[00:12:45] Temporality. This one is easy. Does A come before B? That’s really the only question you have to answer, but I want to push it further and say that the shorter the timeframe between those two points, makes an even stronger case for this point and causality itself.
[00:13:01] So I published a paper back in May, which provided supportive evidence of causation by generating plots where the X axis was the difference between the injection date and the onset date, against the percentage of the adverse events, according to standalone adverse event or groups. And what I found was that there was a significant clustering around zero and one, which meant that in most of them, it was about 50% of the reports were being made within 48 hours.
[00:13:31] A lot of people said, well, that’s just because of the psychologic, you know, nobody’s going to report after a certain amount of time, that’s just that phenomenon. And I’m not denying that that’s a factor, but it doesn’t explain everything. And it definitely doesn’t rule out causation.
[00:13:46] So this is an example. Using anaphylaxis as an internal positive control. Everybody here knows that anaphylactic shock is an acute reaction to a trigger. So 92% of the reports in the anaphylaxis reports were made within 48 hours. That’s great. You know, 87 were made within 24. And by the way, I want to remind everyone, this is done by day. So within 24 hours could literally mean 10 minutes after the shot. And within 48 hours could be, you know, 25 hours. So just bear that in mind, these are loose. And it takes time to file a VAERS report and get it into the front end system.
[00:14:24] So if we’re seeing something within 24 hours, that’s fast. I also show an example of the cases of reports of children aged five through 11. There are millions of injected kids, five to 11 in the states. Now within one week of them giving the go ahead on November 4th, there were over a million children injected. And the percentage of the reports that were made immediately, I mean like really immediately, as I explained, within 24 hours was very high. Now, as of last Friday, yesterday, it’s 84%. So this is pretty strong evidence of temporality.
[00:15:00] So does A come before B? Dose response is next. Everybody’s heard of myocarditis, I’ve already mentioned it in this presentation. But this is the heart, the human heart. So just a schematic, but it does the job. The myocardium is the muscly layer in the middle of the heart that allows the heart to do this gorgeous beating thing via the blood. So these are the inflammation of this inner lining.
[00:15:26] I’ll also point out that there is the phenomenon of pericarditis and endocarditis, which is inflammation of the outer layer of the heart and the inner layer. So if you look at all the myocarditis reports, only in the domestic dataset, and you plot the data by age group, and according to dose, you’ll see that in children, especially 15 year old boys, you can’t see gender data here, but take my word for it. 15 year old boys, there’s a four times higher reporting rate of myocarditis. So something happens. A lot of people are claiming, and I also agree with this, that there’s a cumulative effect of these shots. The more you give them and the shorter duration between the two is giving like a double punch to whatever organ system or whatever, you’re, you’re having the injury in. So this is indicative of a dose response whereby the cumulative effect is showing upon the second dose. So does, does more of A result in B?
[00:16:31] Plausibility. I’m going into this from two points of view, first one is biological plausibility. And there are two mechanisms of action that I can think of that would answer this question pretty easily. First of all, the spike proteins have been pronounced to be cytotoxic.
[00:16:47]

CONTINUED


[00:16:48] Dr. Jessica Rose: I think that’s pretty clear by now and something that’s not being talked about as much, which I’ve taken a keen interest in lately are the toxicity of the lipid nano particles themselves. Maybe toxicity isn’t the right word, but maybe it is. So in order to go into that, I want to just give everyone a good background on both of these components. The lipid nanoparticles, the fat bubble, that encases the mRNA as a protective thing, which is used to administer the payload of the mRNA into the body. These are manufactured out of four different fats in the Pfizer products. Some of these fats are for evasion of immune components, macrophages, for example, but all of them come in a certain concentration and they’re mixed together in a certain way to enhance the deliverability of the the payload, which is the mRNA.
[00:17:43] One of these fats is called a Cationic lipid and I’ve been talking about this for like two years. These are highly, highly toxic to cells. What happens is the mixture of these, these fats, and when they gain entry into cells, they actually damage the membrane upon entry. So they’re harmful to cells as they enter and once they’re inside us. The cationic lipids are the ones that kind of surround and protect the mRNA within the fat bubble. And just a side interest here because I love scale diagrams. This is the SARS virus on the right, uh, the top, right, compared to the size of the LNPs. And they’re both about a hundred nanometers, which is really cool. I’m just a nerd. So I think that’s really cool. for those of you who don’t know what the spike protein is and the difference between the spike protein and the SARS virus and the alleged spike protein that’s being manufactured according to the mRNA template, in these fat bubbles, this is a spike protein on the coronavirus. Corona actually means crown in Latin. So the reason why we call these Coronaviruses is because they’re crowned with all these spike jewels on their surfaces, which are actually embedded in the membrane. These undergo confirmational changes as they meet their cognate receptor, which is the ACE-2 receptor in just about every human cell you can find. And so they undergo this confirmational change to allow entry into cells via fusion of membranes, eventually. And these spike proteins are different in two really big ways that I can think of off the top of my head, than the spike proteins that are encoded by the Pfizer and the Moderna products.
[00:19:31] These are different by the way, these are modified spike proteins. There are two pro liens substituted for two other residues in the formulation. I think of the Moderna product and, and the Pfizer don’t quote me, which result in the confirmation of the spike protein staying in the locked, like the closed locked phase, locks it in the closed phase. So the hypothesis was that this would prevent binding and downstream signaling of ACE-2 because once ACE-2 in the, in the human cell, uh, the receptor’s found then this whole series of downstream signaling events, ensues, and dah, dah, dah, we won’t get into that.
[00:20:11] Another huge modification that they made was that they replaced the uridines with pseudo uridines. And the reason they did this was definitely on purpose because it makes them less immunogenic. The toll-like receptors are, it masks them from toll-like receptors and the innate immune response is general. So it makes it more polarizable by the human body and the immune system. And I stole this little far right bottom picture from Robert Malone’s latest presentation, which was really good. This is a scale, uh, schematic of a spike protein on the SARS virus and an antibody. Cause I think a lot of people think that antibodies are like way smaller than the spike protein, but they’re not. So you basically get one or two that can find the spike protein to neutralize a a virus. I just thought that was cool too.
[00:21:08] So spike proteins, uh, mRNA, which encodes these spike proteins is processed. And as part of the processing, and as part of our gorgeous immune response inside the cell, these little bits of the proteins are processed and mounted on these special receptors called MHC class one and two molecules, which basically tells the T-cells and the CD four positive and the CD eight positive. And also the B cells that, hey, we have these proteins that are not supposed to be here, which basically makes them targets for extermination by CD eight positive T-cells.
[00:21:51] These spike proteins can also embed in the, impregnate themselves, I love that terminology, into cells and also make some targets for neutralization. Which is problematic for our cells, right? And here’s just a sample of some of the papers that do address the problem of toxicity of Cationic lipids. It’s a very, it’s a well-known thing. They claim that, you know, well the concentration’s not high enough to cause problems…agh, I’d rather not have it injected into me, personally. And also some problems with the spike and, and I’m missing a whole bunch here. So yeah, I, I know that there are a lot more papers.
[00:22:30] But I will point out here that there was recently a paper that came out that provided evidence that the spike protein sticks around for a long time. So even if you stopped getting injected with this stuff and you, you stopped the cumulative effect, it’s still going to take your body a little while to clear these things.
[00:22:49] And this is the second point of plausibility. These two companies that are producing the mRNA based gene therapies, they don’t have a good track record. Ted knows this better than anyone. Pfizer has had to pay out the most money in, in, in harm, you know, anyway, not, not a good track record. Moderna, if you go to the Wikipedia site, not that I’m promoting going to Wikipedia or anything, but they actually say in this bottom little blurb, you probably can’t read it, but I’ll give you my slides, that these treatments would never be safe for humans. They Actually say that. Anyway, you can read about that.
[00:23:28] And so the question, coherence, does it make sense that A can cause B? Is this in line with with what we’re seeing. So, what I’m going to do is provide another example of the Moderna clinical trial lab data, it’s their own data, versus what I’m calling epidemiological data, which is the adverse event data in the VAERS system.
[00:23:49] So what you can see here is another screenshot of one of the tables in the appendix of this efficacy data thing that they sent out. And you can see here, that this is the data for Bell’s Palsy. There are 10,910 different metric codes in, in VAERS right now in the context of Covid products. So this isn’t just about Bell’s Palsy or myocarditis or Guillain Barre, there’s a huge list here. So I picked Bell’s Palsy because I have data in three different ways. I can see there’s a 2.7 times higher rate of Bell’s Palsy in the drug arm. Think about that.
[00:24:29] Like, if you think about that and you say, well, okay, what’s going to happen if we inject a billion people with this and we collect adverse event data, what will we see all? Well, I think we’d probably see something like we see them on the bottom figures here. This is the data from VAERS only from the domestic data set associated with the Covid products, only. Compared to the Bell’s Palsy report for Bell’s Palsy compared to the Bell’s Palsy reports for every single year, going back to 2016. So we have like nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing kind of something, which I dare say is because of the tail end of 2020. And we have a whole lot. So, this is, it’s pretty clear cut.
[00:25:08] And this is also backed up by papers that are coming out in case reports that show that there is something going on here in the context of the injections within temporal proximity with Bell’s Palsy. And specifically, like I said, there’s a ton of other adverse events that have the same pattern, but I just picked Bell’s Palsy as an example experiment.
[00:25:32] Now, most people would say, well, the only real way to determine causation is to do a double blinded randomized control trial. And yeah, okay, that’s, that’s a good way, and we’re not really in a randomized controlled trial now, but we’re definitely in an experiment.
[00:25:47] So I’m going to go out on a limb here and I’m going to say, well, if this is an experiment, if every single person who has gotten an injection is a volunteer member of this experiment and all the data that’s collected thereafter is good to go for providing evidence of causation. So all of the adverse event data that’s been collected in my opinion is good to go, for providing evidence.
[00:26:10] This is very general here. The bar plot on the left represents all the adverse event data for 2021 only against all the adverse event data collected for all the non-Covid vaccines. And there were millions of vaccines administered in the U.S in 2021. Millions. Probably hundreds of millions. So here you see a stark contrast between the number of reports. And on the right is the same concept but for death. So there’s no comparison here. There’s definitely something, there’s something going on here in the data, which is the by-product, the result of this experiment that we’re in.
[00:26:51] And just to back this up, because I really like papers, the deployment is definitely seemingly followed by many studies that are signaling danger. I’m really glad that Ryan pointed out this paper, which has been my favorite paper since it came out. This comprehensive investigations revealed consistent pathophysiological alterations, because I’m all about CD eight T-cells and NDK cells. I love these guys. They’re the killers.
[00:27:19] So this is showing weird gene profiles in the context of TNF alpha, interferons, and CD eight positive T cells and all of this. And the other papers that are coming out are giving strong, they’re strong indicators, I’m not saying they’re proof, but they’re indicators that these things are causing immune deficiencies, not just hyper inflammation, immune deficiencies in at least subpopulations of the people. And we need to figure out which people those are.
[00:27:50] Are they the people who had autoimmune conditions? Are they only the ones that had a cancer that was in remission? Are they the people who didn’t get a placebo? We don’t know the answers to very basic questions here. So there’s a lot of papers, including my own very famous paper and it’s still withdrawn and missing in action.
[00:28:13] And the last one, I’m sorry, the second, last one. I’m almost done. Analogy. Has this happened before in history? Ted knows very well, the answer to this question. I’m going to give you two specific examples. This very famous one of intussusception that was actually, it was VAERS that they used to detect the safety signal in children. And thanks to VAERS the rotavirus vaccine was pulled. Intussusception is not a happy thing. Definitely not if you’re a child. And acute encephalopathy, which is also not a happy thing, associated with permanent brain injury, in the context of MMR vaccines. And we all know, well whoever knows about the whistleblower story in Vaxxed, we know that they hid the data that showed that autism was much more prevalent in young boys, if they got the the MMR shot before 18 months, et cetera. So there are, there are many analogies, not just the ones that I’ve listed here.
[00:29:14] And this is the final .Point reversibility. And everybody who talks about Bradford Hill says, no, you don’t have to show this one, and I think I understand why, in this context.
[00:29:24] If we stop the shots, will the adverse events stop too? And my answer to this question is no, because of what I just said about the dysregulation of the immune system in, in either, I don’t know why, nobody knows why. We have to figure out who this is affecting that way, very quickly actually. And I would also like to quote Ruben, except I want to turn his little sentence around. And I’d say, we won’t know if these products are unsafe until we stopped giving them to people. That’s just the way it goes.
[00:30:02] So I don’t know what the answer to this question is. And I fear that we, we just won’t be able to find out because, like it’s actually, it might be a point that they can use against us. They’re going to be like, well, we stopped the shots, but people are still having these adverse events, so it couldn’t be that they were caused by the shots. But anybody who’s been looking at this will say, well, actually, yeah, it really, really could be, because of the claim of dysfunction of the immune system.
[00:30:30] So, why the causation denial? It’s not just, I really loved that people talked about this like it’s a religion because it’s. This isn’t science that’s like backing up these very ferocious defenders of the narrative. It’s really weird. And it seems to be the same group of people who absolutely deny even the possibility that there could be a causal effect in the context of any vaccine, which, like I said before, it’s not even scientific to say that. You can’t say that none of them will ever cause anything. That’s just stupid. Of course, sometimes it’s going to happen. And the responsibility’s on the manufacturers and the regulators to find out when it’s happening and if it’s happening – we need to stop the things that is happening in.
[00:31:20] So my question is, if the WHO used these same criteria, I don’t know how many yeses you guys have, I have 10. But if the WHO uses the same criteria – they only used five. Why were they not admitting the likelihood or the possibility, even on the cause effect relationship? I wonder.
[00:31:41] There is something going on in VAERS. It’s not deniable. Everybody’s probably seen these plots before. These are up to date. This is only the domestic data. If you combine this with the foreign data set, it’s much worse. This is going back 10 years. VAERS data, all vaccines combined. There’s no comparison between what happened historically and what’s happening now. The left is total reports. The right is deaths. And these are, this is from my new website.
[00:32:15] You could see the grouped adverse events, the immunological, pedological, neurological, cardiovascular. It’s insane, how many reports there are. And here, I want to reiterate what Shabnam said about the under-reporting factor. None of these numbers I’ve reported to you today from VAERS have considered the under-reporting factor. So like she said, the most conservative estimate that’s been calculated is mine, which is 31. So you can multiply all of these numbers by 31, which is insane.
[00:32:48] I also want to go down to the bottom because somebody mentioned prion diseases, which I’m really happy about and unhappy about at the same time, because there is nothing that I am more concerned about them this. There are 24 reports that, sorry, the bracket number is the total number from the foreign and domestic data and the one on the left without the brackets is the domestic data alone. So there are 24 reports of prion diseases in VAERS right now. And it’s possible that those represent the background reports that would always be there. Not saying that it’s because of the products. I’m also not saying anything else because prion diseases don’t get reported in VAERS before 2021. So this is a point of real concern.
[00:33:38] And the final message, it’s easier to disprove causality than to prove it. All you have to do is take one of these points and p. Anybody who thinks there’s a problem with any one of these points, I welcomed the opportunity to discuss it with you. But the onus is on the manufacturers to prove that there’s no causal effect here.
[00:34:11] And this is where you could find me. And that’s the end of my presentation. I have no idea what time it is. So I hope I’m on time,
[00:34:20] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Slightly over Jessica Rose, but outstanding presentation and talking to people criteria. That’s exactly what we needed to see. And I know that, I think it was Ryan that mentioned the Bradford [Hill] as well, and then you just brought it in. It was great.
[00:34:33] Megha Velma will be moderating the science in action panel. Mega, you can ask Jessica two questions before we hand over to our next speaker, who is the very patient Dr. Rob Verkerk. Megha, questions for Jessica.
[00:34:49] Megha Verma: I’m just checking the chat for the Q and A. I thought it was a fantastic presentation. I was just taking so many notes.
[00:34:57] Dr. Jessica Rose: I can send you, I want everyone to have these slides. It’s been too long that I didn’t do this. I’m really genuinely grateful to every single person who made this happen. Shabnam, you’re, you’re a heroine. I mean, it needed to happen. And every single person in the world, I think, needs to see what everybody, or hear, what everybody here today has said, because everyone contributed something and everything dovetailed really beautifully together. I think it’s been a really extraordinary conference, I really do.

CONTINUED


[00:35:31] Megha Verma: Yeah, you’re totally right. This was a long time coming, I think ever since the eighties, when they remove liability from the pharma companies. But there are a lot of great questions in the chat. One of them is someone from named Tango, he said, playing the devil’s advocate, what do you say when someone argues that all of these adverse events, including , could be caused by the Covid infections themselves as well?
[00:35:55] Dr. Jessica Rose: So you’re saying that everybody who got the shot got Covid and the reason they had the symptoms would be because of the Covid and not the shots? I would say that’s highly unlikely. But it’s worth investigating man. Take a crack at that. If there’s a way, I mean, in VAERS, they actually do report whether or not somebody has Covid in the context of say myocarditis sometimes. Um, yeah, you can investigate that.
[00:36:25] Megha Verma: This is a great question because this comes up often when we say that there are adverse events, they say that, well, we have to balance them with the adverse events of getting Covid as well. And all of the sequella of Covid.
[00:36:39] Another thing that I wanted to point out that hasn’t been pointed out yet, is that when patients are reported as unvaccinated in the data, they can still be vaccinated, but it hasn’t crossed the two week mark, which makes absolutely no sense to include in the vaccinated group because the two week mark is just for one day claim that the vaccines become “effective”. Not that their adverse events may not be visible.
[00:37:05] Dr. Jessica Rose: And you know what, that, that just confounds all the data sets and me and a group in the UK are attacking this in the UK data and Pierre Kory revealed from his personal experience that there’s a form. When someone comes into the hospital in the, into the emergency room with whatever, you know, they, they just end up in the ER for a broken arm or something. On the form there’s a new section on the top, right that says that you have to click off if you’re vaccinated or what do you think the other one is? On?
[00:37:36] Megha Verma: Has it been two weeks?
[00:37:38] Dr. Jessica Rose: It’s unknown. So it’s really weird, what’s going on in terms of collecting data in the categorizations of – and nobody knows what it means to be fully vaccinated anymore because there’s no definition. It’s like, is it two, is it three? Is it four? Is it for your green pass? Like what, what is it? So, yeah, I’m getting a bit riled up because it’s really a non…
[00:38:00] Megha Verma: I understand this is a very emotional topic and for good reason.
[00:38:04] Dr. Jessica Rose: ….from a data point of view though, because you can’t really make an assessment, you know what I mean?
[00:38:08] Megha Verma: I think it’s a feature, not a bug that they’re collecting the data like this.
[00:38:12] Dr. Jessica Rose: Nicely put.

[00:38:15] Megha Verma: More confusion helps to support their point of view because if you confuse the people who are trying to logically dismantle what you’re saying. then, you win.
[00:38:25] Dr. Jessica Rose: Yeah, but they don’t know how type A we, data scientists are. I mean, my, my friend Joel, is like, wow, it’s like dangling like a carrot in front of someone who loves carrots. It’s like, I’m going to get that carrot. You can make it go farther and farther away, but I’m going to go after it and I’m going to get it. So, uh, yeah. Good luck guys.
[00:38:46] Megha Verma: I understand. I used to do data science and I just remember making enormous scripts on Python and like, it’s just so sad.
[00:38:52] So another question they asked was from Feisal Mansoor. My question is how do we respond to the CDC claim that unvaccinated people are several times more likely to die from the disease? This is, I guess interesting because now the narrative has shifted that even if you get Covid following vaccination, you’re still less likely to die. Do you know of any data that contradicts that?
[00:39:18] Dr. Jessica Rose: Well, all the data that’s in indicates that the chance of dying from Covid for most people is zero. If you’re under like 55, it’s like zero. Kids, kids do very well with Covid. The balance is, is completely tipped now, if you ask me. if you actually look at the data, not just listen to legacy media, but look at the data, the Covid data, the SARS related Covid data and the adverse event data, it just seems very apparent to me, the risk. It’s not just present and clear, but it seems like it’s much bigger in the, in terms of the injections, especially if you’re healthy and you don’t need it anyway. It doesn’t prevent transmission. It doesn’t provide protective immunity. So why the hell would you take it? Just get Omicron, get over it. Like that’s, that’s what I would say.
[00:40:09] And on the subject of Omicron, what a gift that is, right. It’s basically a live attenuated vaccine. It’s a gift instead of getting a true variant of concern, which is a variant that’s more transmissible and more virulent, what we get is this beautiful version that gives people the sniffles, in most cases. Some people not, but here we go with the risk bennefit. Isolate the vulnerable or take care of the vulnerable, treat the vulnerable with known off-label drugs, for example. We have many doctors who’ve spent two years now and treated thousands of patients with centuries of experience between them who develop
[00:40:54] Megha Verma: Little risk. Nope, no less.
[00:40:56] Dr. Jessica Rose: Right. They’ve established these gorgeous treatment protocols. So if, if you do get Covid and you do get to symptomatic phase where it’s looking bad for you, we can treat it. So the, these injections are totally pointless. I mean, you can look at it from any way you want to. You have to back that question up and ask, do I need this? And most people can say no.
[00:41:22] Megha Verma: Thank you for answering all of our questions and for your fantastic presentation.
[00:41:26] Dr. Jessica Rose: You’re welcome. I’m really happy to have participated, genuinely.
[00:41:31] Shabnam Palesa Mohamed: Thank you. Once more, Jessica Rose, Dr. Jessica Rose, just such a stalwart in this movement for freedom that we’re in, but through the lens of data and actual evidence. So Jessica, they are some comments and questions, if you can address them in the chat in Q&A, we would absolutely appreciate.
[00:41:47] Thank you. Once again, we look forward to seeing you at the next UVC.
[00:41:51]

(fair use applies)

More evidence Covid was tinkered with in a lab? Now scientists find virus contains tiny chunk of DNA that matches sequence patented by Moderna THREE YEARS before pandemic began

• Genetic match discovered in Covid's unique furin cleavage site on spike protein
• Matched genetic sequence patented by Moderna for cancer research purposes
• Researchers say one in 3trillion chance Covid developed the code naturally

By Connor Boyd Deputy Health Editor For Mailonline
Published: 12:48 EST, 23 February 2022 | Updated: 14:50 EST, 23 February 2022

Fresh suspicion that Covid may have been tinkered with in a lab emerged today after scientists found genetic material owned by Moderna in the virus's spike protein.

They identified a tiny snippet of code that is identical to part of a gene patented by the vaccine maker three years before the pandemic.

It was discovered in SARS-CoV-2's unique furin cleavage site, the part that makes it so good at infecting people and separates it from other coronaviruses.

The structure has been one of the focal points of debate about the virus's origin, with some scientists claiming it could not have been acquired naturally.

The international team of researchers suggest the virus may have mutated to have a furin cleavage site during experiments on human cells in a lab.

They claim there is a one-in-three-trillion chance Moderna's sequence randomly appeared through natural evolution.

But there is some debate about whether the match is as rare as the study claims, with other experts describing it as a 'quirky' coincidence rather than a 'smoking gun'.


SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid, carries all the information needed for it to spread in around 30,000 letters of genetic code, known as RNA. The virus shares a sequence of 19 specific letters with a genetic section owned by Moderna. Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of Covid's furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome.


Moderna filed the patent in February 2016 as part of its cancer research division, records show. The patented sequence is part of a gene called MSH3 that is known to affect how damaged cells repair themselves in the body. It was approved on March 7 the following year

In the latest study, published in Frontiers in Virology, researchers compared Covid's makeup to millions of sequenced proteins on an online database.

The virus is made up of 30,000 letters of genetic code that carry the information it needs to spread, known as nucleotide

The US-based pharmaceutical firm filed the patent in February 2016 as part of its cancer research division, records show.

The patented sequence is part of a gene called MSH3 that is known to affect how damaged cells repair themselves in the body.

Scientists have highlighted this pathway as a potential target for new cancer treatments.

Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of Covid's furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome.

Writing in the paper, led by Dr Balamurali Ambati, from the University of Oregon, the researchers said the matching code may have originally been introduced to the Covid genome through infected human cells expressing the MSH3 gene.

Professor Lawrence Young, a virologist at Warwick University, admitted the latest finding was interesting but claimed it was not significant enough to suggest lab manipulation.

He told MailOnline: 'We're talking about a very, very, very small piece made up of 19 nucleotides.

'So it doesn't mean very much to be frank, if you do these types of searches you can always find matches.

'Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it's the result of convergent evolution (when organisms evolve independently to have similar traits to adapt to their environment).

'It's a quirky observation but I wouldn't call it a smoking gun because it's too small.

He added: 'It doesn't get us any further with the debate about whether Covid was engineered.'

Dr Simon Clarke, a microbiologist at Reading University, questioned whether the find was as rare as the study claims.

He told MailOnline: 'There can only be a certain number of [genetic combinations within] furin cleavage sites.

'They function like a lock and key in the cell, and the two only fit together in a limited number of combinations.

'So it's an interesting coincidence but this is surely entirely coincidental.'

MailOnline has approached Moderna for comment.

Circumstantial evidence has long raised questions about the origin of Covid and its link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The facility was known to be conducting experiments on bat coronavirus strains similar to the one responsible for the pandemic.

China insisted early and often that the virus did not leak from the lab, claiming that crossover to humans must have occurred at a 'wet market' in Wuhan that sold live animals.

Perhaps driven by animosity for then-US President Donald Trump, who embraced the lab leak theory early on, mainstream media and academics in the West heaped scorn on the possibility, calling it an unhinged conspiracy theory.

But leaked emails showed that top scientists advising the UK and US Governments expressed concerns about the official narrative privately.

Sir Jeremy Farrar, an eminent British expert who publicly denounced the theory as a 'conspiracy', admitted in a private email in February 2020 that a 'likely explanation' was that the virus was man-made.

The then-UK Government adviser said at the time he was '70:30 or 60:40' in favour of an accidental release versus natural origin.

In the email, sent to American health chiefs Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins, Sir Jeremy said it was possible Covid had been evolved from a Sars-like virus in the lab.

He went on that this seemingly benign process may have 'accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans'.

But the British scientist was shut down by his counterparts in the US who warned further debate about the origins of the virus could damage 'international harmony'.

In the latest twist, a study earlier this month found traces of Covid samples that contained genetical material from humans, hamsters and monkeys and may have predated the official pandemic timeline.


China's official pandemic timeline of the coronavirus pandemic and the evidence that undermines it

Official timeline

Dec 8, 2019 - Earliest date that China has acknowledged an infection

Dec 31 - China first reported 'pneumonia of unknown cause' to the World Health Organisation

Jan 1, 2020 - Wuhan seafood market closed for disinfection

Jan 7 - President Xi Jinping discusses coronavirus outbreak with his politburo

Jan 9 - China makes public the genome of the coronavirus

Jan 11 - China reported its first death

Jan 13 - First case outside China is confirmed

Jan 20 - China's National Health Commission confirms human-to-human transmission

Jan 23 - Wuhan locked down

Jan 31 - WHO declared 'outbreak of international concern' as China admitted having thousands of cases

Feb 23 - Italy reports cluster of cases in first major outbreak in the West

May 29 - China claims virus did not originate in wet markets but in Chinese bats before it jumped to humans via an 'intermediary animal'

July 31 - Chinese researcher admits some coronavirus experiments conducted in lower biosafety labs

Dec 16 - WHO announces it will travel to Wuhan to probe origins of virus in January

Jan 5, 2021 - China denies entry to WHO's investigatory team

Feb 9 - WHO dismisses theory virus leaked from lab - backs China's claim it was imported from frozen meat

Mar 28 - Former US national security officials says intel shows 'there was a direct order from Beijing to destroy all viral samples' at Wuhan lab


New evidence

2012: Six miners struck down with with a mysterious flu-like illness in Mojiang cave in Yunnan.

They were found to have been infected with the closest known relative to Covid, sharing 97% of its genes.

Samples RATG13 are sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to be studied.

Sep 2019- Blood samples are taken in a lung cancer screening trial in Italy which later test positive for coronavirus

Oct - Whistleblower Wei Jingsheng claims China deliberately spread Covid at The World Military Games in Wuhan in October, two months before the rest of the world knew about the virus

Oct - Xi Jinping's authoritarian regime tried desperately to shut down whistle-blowers like Mr Jingsheng. Any references made in social media about a new SARS virus or 'outbreak' were censored

Oct-Dec - Rise in 'flu and pneumonia' cases in northern Italy which could be linked to coronavirus

Nov - Whistleblower Mr Jingsheng claims he took his concerns about the military games to senior figures within the Trump administration but was ignored

Nov - Intelligence report passed to agencies in Washington claims three members of staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology sought hospital treatment in November 2019 after experiencing symptoms consistent with Covid

Nov - Sewage samples taken in Florianópolis, Brazil, suggest virus was present

Nov 10 - Milanese woman has a skin biopsy, producing a sample which later shows signs of the virus

Nov 17 - Leaked documents suggest case detected in China on this date

Dec - Doctors in China, including Li Wenliang, report existance of new type of respiratory infection. But Chinese police arrested him and eight of his colleagues for questioning - instead of publicising reports and warning public

Dec 1 - Chinese researchers report an infection on this date in a peer-reviewed study, but it has not been acknowledged by Beijing

Dec 18 - Sewage samples taken in Milan and Turin suggest virus was circulating in the cities

Dec 26 - Samples analysed suggested a new type of SARS was circulating as early as December 26, but Wuhan was not locked down until January 22

Jan 2020 - Sewage samples from Barcelona suggest virus was in the city

Jan 3 - Covid-19 infections begin sweeping across other nations including the U.S. as the WHO labelled the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern

May - Scientists at a government lab in California concluded that Covid-19 may have escaped from a facility in Wuhan

July - WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said China failed share vital raw data during their investigation in Wuhan. China rebuffed those claims

June 2021: Leading US virus expert Dr Anthony Fauci was warned Covid may have been engineered in a lab, emails publicly released reveal.

August: The world's first Covid-19 patient may have been infected by a bat while working for a Wuhan lab in China, WHO chief Dr Peter Embarek said

August: A damning report by Republicans in the US claims coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, shortly after the facility tried to improve air safety and waste treatment systems

The report also cited 'ample evidence' that lab scientists were working to modify coronaviruses to infect humans and such manipulation could be hidden.

October: US intelligence review into origins of pandemic does not reach a judgement on whether the virus emerged via animal-to-human transmission or a lab leak.

Chinese officials branded the report 'political and false'.

January 2022: Leaked emails from top UK scientist Sir Jeremy Farrar showed he admitted in February 2020 that it was a 'likely explanation' that the virus could be man-made. But he went on to brand the theory a 'conspiracy'.

February: Sir Farrar is called to be interviewed under oath at the US Congress. Officials want him to explain why he shifted away from the lab leak theory.




WHAT IS THE FURIN CLEAVAGE SITE?

SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid, carries all the information needed for it to spread in around 30,000 letters of genetic code, known as RNA.

But it is the only coronavirus of its type to carry 12 unique letters that allow it to be activated by a common enzyme called furin.

This in turn makes the virus better at invading neighbouring cells.

The so-called furin cleavage site is located on the virus' spike protein, the structure that binds to human cells in the first place.

Scientists sometimes add this element to lab viruses to make them more infectious, but in nature, pathogens can acquire it by swapping genetic code with other members of their family.

The furin has been the focal point of intrigue for many scientists studying the origins of the virus because no other known member of Covid's family - a group called Sarbecoviruses - have the site.

marsh said:

The data shows that the latest “wave” of negative health outcomes is occurring in three-pricked people

Click to expand...

Found you a date;

Heliobas Disciple said:

University of Virginia seeks participants for COVID-19 treatment study that includes Ivermectin

Researchers will also study Fluvoxamine, an anti-depressant that has been shown to decrease inflammation.

justthenews.com

(fair use applies)

University of Virginia seeks participants for COVID-19 treatment study that includes Ivermectin
Researchers will also study Fluvoxamine, an anti-depressant that has been shown to decrease inflammation.
By Sophie Mann
February 23, 2022 - 3:35pm

The University of Virginia department of health is gearing up to conduct a nationwide study on drugs that effectively treat COVID-19, including one at the center of the debate over doctors prescribing known treatments for off-label use during the pandemic.

Researchers will study Fluvoxamine, an anti-depressant, and Ivermectin, a pill often used to treat parasitic infections, in people who test positive for COVID. The scientists will run the study on 15,000 participants ages 30 and up who test positive for symptomatic COVID.

Individuals participating may be (and are, in fact, encouraged to be) vaccinated and boosted, according to the principal Investigator for the clinical trial.

"If we can find drugs that are currently FDA approved, cheap, and readily available throughout the world I think that really gets us much closer to being able to turn COVID-19 into a mild illness where people can kind of get therapy," said Dr. Patrick Jackson, the lead researcher.

Jackson said the two drugs were selected because there have been indications that each can be helpful treating the viral illness. Fluvoxamine, typically used to treat depression, has been shown to decrease inflammation.

Ivermectin, Jackson said, can be used to "stop many viruses from replicating."

"Not everything that happens in a petri dish pans out to be useful in a human being. But that’s part of the reason why this drug has been included in this clinical trial," he added.
.

Click to expand...

I’m sure they’ll find a way to puck it up somehow.

Heliobas Disciple said:

Researchers at the Department of Microbiology of The University of Hong Kong (HKU) have found that the COVID19 virus can cause acute testicular damage, chronic asymmetric testicular atrophy, and hormonal changes in hamsters despite a light pneumonia.

Click to expand...

Won Hun Lo?

Found this on Twitter

Attorney Thomas Renz Reveals the Bias and Impropriety of the Judges Upholding Vaccine Mandates 2:47 min
Attorney Thomas Renz Reveals the Bias and Impropriety of the Judges Upholding Vaccine Mandates
Red Voice Media Published February 23, 2022

^^^^
Dr. McCullough: "The Vaccines Cause Heart Damage" 1:48 min
Dr. McCullough: "The Vaccines Cause Heart Damage"
Red Voice Media Published February 24, 2022

^^^^
Dr. Peter McCullough Provides Insight into the Efficacy and 'Fact Checks' on Ivermectin 3:29 min
Dr. Peter McCullough Provides Insight into the Efficacy and 'Fact Checks' on Ivermectin
Red Voice Media Published February 24, 2022

Edward Dowd Breaks Down the Latest Vaccine Side Effect Data From Germany 2:35 min
Edward Dowd Breaks Down the Latest Vaccine Side Effect Data From Germany
Red Voice Media Published February 24, 2022

(fair use applies)

COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations Jump Among Vaccinated: CDC Data
By Zachary Stieber
February 24, 2022

COVID-19 case and hospitalization rates increased among people who got a COVID-19 vaccine following the emergence of the Omicron virus variant, according to newly published data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

According to the data, which is submitted to the CDC by health departments across the country, the COVID-19 case rate in fully vaccinated people rose by more than 1,000 percent between Dec. 11, 2021, and Jan. 8, 2022.

Fully vaccinated refers to people who received two doses of the Moderna or Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC doesn’t count a person as fully vaccinated until 14 days have elapsed from his or her final shot.

The case rate among those who also received a booster dose skyrocketed as well, rising some 2,400 percent between the same dates.

While cases also rose among the unvaccinated, the jump in infections among the vaccinated closed the gap between the populations. As a result, people who haven’t received a vaccine were just 3.2 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in January.

COVID-19-associated hospitalizations also increased among the vaccinated, from 1.4 per 100,000 for the fully vaccinated for the week ending Dec. 18, 2021, to 35.2 per 100,000 in the week ending Jan. 8, according to data from a surveillance system managed by the CDC.

People who got a booster were less likely to require hospital care, but the hospitalization rate among the boosted also rose from December 2021 to January.

And deaths attributed to COVID-19 increased during the same time period among the vaccinated, including among the boosted.


(CDC)

Other data sources also point to vaccines performing worse after Omicron, including studies published by the CDC in January, which has narrowed the gap between the unvaccinated and vaccinated in terms of cases and hospitalizations.
Some research, though, signals that boosters restore much of the lost protection, including a study performed by researchers with Kaiser Permanente and Moderna published in Nature Medicine on Feb. 21.

“Our results suggest that third doses may be needed sooner than 6 months after the second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to protect against omicron infection,” Hung Fu Tseng, a Kaiser researcher, said in a statement. “Reassuringly, 3 doses provide strong protection against COVID-19 hospitalization due to either the omicron or delta variant.”

Just days after the study, though, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel told investors on a call that a second booster would be necessary because of waning protection from the vaccine, including the first booster.

“This year, we expect to see continued primary vaccination and boosting in the Southern Hemisphere in the first half, and a shift to boosters as a fourth dose booster in the Northern Hemisphere in the second half of the year, similar to flu vaccines,” Bancel said.

U.S. health officials have said they’re considering whether to authorize second boosters for the general public.
The CDC data also showed a jump in case, hospitalization, and death rates among the unvaccinated, but the increase wasn’t as significant as compared to that recorded among the vaccinated.

The CDC says unvaccinated adults were 2.6 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in January compared to fully vaccinated adults and 3.2 times more likely when compared to boosted adults; at least 30 times more likely to be hospitalized in December 2021 due to COVID-19 compared to boosted Americans 18 or older, 14 times more likely to die from COVID-19 in December 2021 compared to the fully vaccinated, and 41 times more likely to die in December 2021 versus the boosted.

Cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have plummeted in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated in recent weeks, driving many states to rescind COVID-19 restrictions.
.