Killing Fields refer to places where mass killings have occurred either during war or even by serial killers. With more deaths being reported to VAERS from the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ than all other vaccines in the last thirty years combined, it has become clear we have created a medical killing field. What’s worse, it is known that systems like VAERS only capture about 1% of the adverse effects actually being experienced in the general public. In this video, Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor Of The mRNA ‘Vaccine’ Technology, Dr. Maria Gonzales, U.S. Department of Health & Jodi O’Malley, R.N., U.S. Department of Health discuss and comment on the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ adverse effects.

Share this post:

Researchers: Priyamadhaba Behera ¹, Binod Kumar Patro ¹, Arvind Kumar Singh ¹, Pradnya Dilip Chandanshive ¹, Ravikumar S R ¹, Somen Kumar Pradhan ¹, Siva Santosh Kumar Pentapati ¹, Gitanjali Batmanabane ², Prasanta Raghab Mohapatra ³, Biswa Mohan Padhy ⁴, Shakti Kumar Bal ³, Sudipta Ranjan Singh ⁵, Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty ⁶

Background: Ivermectin is one among several potential drugs explored for its therapeutic and preventive role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study was aimed to explore the association between ivermectin prophylaxis and the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers.

Conclusion: Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. Chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic.

[National Institutes of Health]

Share this post:

Published: 05th November 2020 12:55 AM  |   Last Updated: 05th November 2020 12:55 AM

BHUBANESWAR: In a significant finding, two-dose Ivermectin prophylaxis has led to 73 per cent
reduction in COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs), who are more likely to contract the virus given their nature of job.

“Earlier, at least 20 to 25 HCWs were getting infected with the virus daily. After the workers started taking Ivermectin, the number of infection has come down to one or two per day,” Dr Batmanabane said.

“Considering the fact that Ivermectin had been shown to have diverse mechanisms by which it successfully attacks the SARS-CoV-2, we decided to use it. The Ivermectin has a proven safety profile as a safe drug which has been used for many decades. The encouraging results of a study from Egypt prompted us to explore its role as prophylaxis for HCWs,” she said. . . .

[New India Express]

Share this post:

Following an intense daylong public discussion, a panel of scientific advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today voted 16 to 2 against recommending a third shot of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for people 16 and older.

The Biden administration has been hoping the FDA would approve a third shot of the Pfizer vaccine in time to begin rolling out boosters for Pfizer recipients next week, the New York Times reported.

The vote came after a sharp debate in which many of the panel’s independent experts, including infectious disease doctors and statisticians, challenged whether the data justified a broad rollout of extra shots when the vaccines appear to still offer robust protection against severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalization, at least in the U.S.

“It’s unclear that everyone needs to be boosted, other than a subset of the population that clearly would be at high risk for serious disease,” said Dr. Michael G. Kurilla, a committee member and official at the National Institutes of Health.

The issue of whether or not to approve boosters has become increasingly contentious, dividing scientists, both outside and inside the FDA, including two scientists who recently announced they are leaving the agency because of pressure from the Biden administration to approve boosters, citing the lack of data to support a third shot.

“It’s a welcome sight to see actual deliberations in meetings about vaccine booster shots at the FDA,” said Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense. “It’s encouraging that a panel of experts stood up to political and corporate pressure based on the lack of convincing data for safety and efficacy of boosters.”

Holland added:

“One can only hope the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panels will continue to engage in vigorous debate about vaccine science and medicine.”

As The Hill reported, the advisory panel’s vote is not binding, so the FDA doesn’t have to accept the results. But if the agency doesn’t, it will raise significant questions of political interference and pit agency scientists against political officials who signed off on the booster plan.

In an unusual move last month, Biden and top health officials, including Surgeon General Vicek Murthy, acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock and CDC  Director Dr, Rochelle Walensky, publicly announced a booster shot program would begin the week of Sept. 20, well before the FDA and CDC examined the evidence.

On Thursday, FDA scientists had expressed skepticism about the need for Pfizer COVID vaccine booster shots in a report released Wednesday.

In 23-page report, FDA officials said, based on their analysis of data submitted by Pfizer and BioNTech, they could not yet take a stance on whether to recommend COVID boosters for the general public.

SIGN UP #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/dvbbGv87R2

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) September 16, 2021

The 23-page report analyzed data submitted by Pfizer and BioNTech as part of the drugmakers’ request for authorization for their vaccine to be given as a booster shot in people 16 years and older.

[Children’s Health Defense]

Share this post:

As of September 2021, the standard protocol for Covid-19 patients is still to be sent home and when their lips turn blue from low oxygen, they are hospitalized. Knowing they’re at risk of being hospitalized Americans are desperately seeking for some sort of treatment.

Share this post:

Dr. Malone discusses the bizarre amount of misinformation that is being spread about perfectly safe and useful medications, such as the Nobel Prize winning drug for human use, Ivermectin.

Share this post:

What ever happened to the Liberal cry that government should not come between a patient and her doctor?

Share this post:

Sweden became the second European Union country to ban Israeli residents from entry due to a rise in COVID-19 cases in Israel, despite the country being one of the most vaccinated countries in the world.

Portugal on Wednesday became the first EU country to ban travel from Israel due to a rise in cases. Both countries are following the EU’s recommendation to remove Israel from its list of green countries.

Sweden also banned the entry of citizens from the United States, Kosovo, Lebanon, Montenegro, and North Macedonia.

Interior Minister Mikael Damberg told news outlets that the sharp increases in COVID-19 cases in Israel, the United States, and other countries are the reason why they were removed from Sweden’s travel ban exemption. Despite Israel’s mass vaccination campaign, the virus has continued to spread, Damberg said.

According to a news release from the Swedish government, it will reintroduce a travel ban on Israel, the U.S., and other countries starting from Sept. 6.

“Regarding foreign citizens travelling to Sweden from the US, Israel, Kosovo, Lebanon, Montenegro, and North Macedonia as of 6 September, only those covered by another exemption from the entry ban may enter Sweden,” said the release. “This could concern foreign citizens who have residence permits in Sweden, have particularly urgent needs or are to carry out essential functions, and who can also present a negative COVID-19 test. The negative COVID-19 test result may not be older than 48 hours. This requirement applies to foreign citizens aged 18 and older, with certain exemptions.”

The Swedish government said it is following the EU’s guidelines on removing those countries from its safe travel list, and it said the directive will be revisited at a later date.

Several Israeli politicians criticized the EU’s directive and Portugal’s mandate. . . .

[The Epoch Times]

Share this post:

Breakthrough cases reach majority levels in some jurisdictions but numbers elude CDC.

“I’m not going to arm wrestle with the administration about where to put you,” Dr. C., a highly skilled gastroenterologist, said gently to my friend who was in bed in a triage room in the ER. “We just want to get you into a bed so we can figure out what’s wrong and get you treated.”

We were at our small town’s hospital. No one was sure why, but my friend had not been able to keep anything more than a handful of raspberries down since a complicated surgery for a chronic health condition three weeks before. Dehydrated and unable to eat, my friend had been violently vomiting after taking just a sip of water or sucking on an ice chip, and had lost nearly twenty-five pounds.

I was by my husband’s side when he had a gallbladder attack so severe that it left his hands shaking. I’ve had three unmedicated childbirths and attended many more, both as a journalist and a patient advocate. Still, I’ve never seen a human in so much pain.

Diagnosed with a Pancreas Disorder, Admitted as a COVID Patient

After a battery of testing, my friend was diagnosed with pancreatitis. But it was easier for the hospital bureaucracy to register the admission as a COVID case.

Let me explain. This patient had none of the classic symptoms of COVID: No shortness of breath, no fever, no chills, no congestion, no loss of sense of smell or taste, no neurological issues. The only COVID symptoms my friend had were nausea and fatigue, which could also be explained by the surgery. However, nearly three weeks earlier, a COVID test had come back positive.

The mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people. An Associated Press headline from June 29 reads: “Nearly all COVID deaths in US are now among unvaccinated.” Another, from the same date: “Vast majority of ICU patients with COVID-19 are unvaccinated, ABC News survey finds.”

Is that what’s really going on? It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government.

After carefully reviewing the available data, including the safety and efficacy profiles of the mRNA vaccines, my friend had taken a cautious approach. Though a medical doctor who gives vaccines in the office every day, my friend opted to wait and see. According to WebMD, a “huge number” of frontline hospital workers have also chosen not to get the vaccine. Indeed, various news reports, from California to New York, confirm that up to 40 percent of health care workers have decided the risks of the vaccines do not outweigh the benefits.

After admission, I spoke to the nurse on the COVID ward. She was suited up in a plastic yellow disposable gown, teal gloves, and two masks underneath a recirculating personal respiratory system that buzzed so loudly she could barely hear. The nurse told me that she had gotten both vaccines but she was feeling worried: “Two thirds of my patients are fully vaccinated,” she said.

[The Epoch Times – Full Article]

Share this post:

Published online 2021 Apr 22.

Title: Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

Researchers: Pierre Kory, MD,^1,* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,² Joseph Varon, MD,³Jose Iglesias, DO,⁴ and Paul E. Marik, MD⁵

Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

[Full Article At NIH]

Share this post:

So the FDA warns against using Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc, Fauci reluctantly says Vitamin D3 may help and now the FDA and Medical Boards are lined up against Ivermectin. Perhaps it’s because they reduce death and disease without an mRNA ‘vaccine’ as published at the National Institutes of Health.

Published online 2021 Aug 3.

Title: Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19

Researchers: A.D. Santin,¹ D.E. Scheim,^2,∗ P.A. McCullough,³ M. Yagisawa,⁴ and T.J. Borody⁵

Abstract, Partial, Paragraph 1 : “Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments.”

[Full Article, National Institutes of Health]

Share this post:

In a very telling interview, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology, explains that governments have been denying that there are any issues with the mRNA ‘vaccine’, how long Covid symptoms match up with mRNA adverse reaction symptoms, and finally, how ‘masking’ causes mRNA adverse reactions to be missed by doctors and researchers.

Share this post:

Title: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Researchers: Andrew Bryant, MSc,^1,* Theresa A. Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD,²Therese Dowswell, PhD,² Edmund J. Fordham, PhD,² Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS,³ Sarah R. Hill, PhD,¹ and Tony C. Tham, MD, FRCP⁴

Conclusion: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

[Full Article: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines]

Share this post:

Once again, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology hits the nail on the head. Not only is there Ivermectin, there is a whole host of therapeutics going unused for treating Covid-19 to reduce death and disease.

Share this post:

“Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world. Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it kills a wide range of internal and external parasites in commercial livestock and companion animals. It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. This paper looks in depth at the events surrounding ivermectin’s passage from being a huge success in Animal Health into its widespread use in humans, a development which has led many to describe it as a “wonder” drug.” (Introduction To: Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective)

[Full Article On US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health]

Share this post:

When Dr. Ryan Cole decided to become a physician, he took an oath to protect his patients and to treat them to the best of his ability.

Cole, CEO of Cole Diagnostics and a board-certified dermatopathologist trained at the Mayo Clinic, said he has a motto when it comes to the coronavirus: Test and treat — and treat earlier with the Delta variant.

Cole told Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” that while the Delta variant is spreading “like a wildfire right now,” data show it’s less deadly.

Cole, who reviews the lab tests of about 30,000 patients a year at his independent lab in Boise, Idaho, said he uses a multi-drug approach when treating patients for COVID.

Some of the drugs he’s found effective include ivermectin — an antiparasitic drug proven beneficial for treating SARS-CoV-2 — hydroxychloroquine, steroids, and the cholesterol drug fenofibrate and fluvoxamine for patients with neural symptoms.

Monoclonal antibodies are a good treatment, too, said Cole.

Treatments using monoclonal antibodies are “parked in infusion centers and emergency rooms around the country,” said Cole. “But there are crickets about this drug that decreases death and hospitalization by 50%.”

Cole told Kennedy his first COVID patient was his brother, who was considered “high risk” for the virus due to his weight. He was on the way to the emergency room when I told him, “No, you’re going to the pharmacy,” said Cole.

Cole said his brother had chest pains on a nine out of 10 level before he called in a prescription for ivermectin. Six hours later, his pain was down to a two, and by the next morning, his oxygen levels had risen from 80 to 98.

Ivermectin saved my brother’s life, said Cole.

Cole, who also treated his 78-year-old mother and 83-year-old father, said out of the hundreds of patients he’s treated, zero have gone to the hospital.

“Test and treat early,” said Cole. “Not treating early is doing harm. It’s a sin of omission by not treating.”

Cole said if you do get COVID, finding a good doctor to treat you is key. He pointed to several websites that provide tele-health services including Frontline MDs, My Free Doctor and America’s Frontline Doctors.

Viruses aren’t “politically red, blue or even purple,” said Cole. “This is about humanity” and doing the “proper thing by our fellow citizens.”

Listen to the interview:

Share this post:

A letter this week to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other UK government officials, signed by more than 130 UK medical professionals, accused the government of mishandling its response to the COVID pandemic, resulting in “massive, permanent and unnecessary harm” to the country.

The letter, “Our Grave Concerns About the Handling of the COVID Pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK,” outlined 10 ways in which the authors argued UK government policies not only failed to protect citizens, but in many cases caused additional, unnecessary harm.

The letter’s 10 lead authors wrote:

“We write as concerned doctors, nurses and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally ‘smeared’ by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.”

The authors accused government officials of failing to measure the harms of lockdown policies, of exaggerating the virus’ threat and of improper mass testing of children.

They wrote:

“Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.”

The letter also called out officials for actively suppressing discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere, and said vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.

The authors concluded:

“The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group — the elderly — the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children.”

In addition to Johnson, the letter was addressed to Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland; Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales; Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland; Sajid Javid, Health Secretary; Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer; and Dr. Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer.

Read the full letter:

22 August 2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

• The  Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
• These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
• You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
• Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
• The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
• Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic

preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

2. Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease, as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS.

Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

3. The exaggerated nature of the threat

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born.

This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate.

Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense — hundreds of millions of pounds.

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

4. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed.

For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.

Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.

Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

5. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies.

Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2.

Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental.

This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

6. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains — especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination — is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified.

Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

7. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith.

Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies.

In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions.

The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness.

Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings.

The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred.

Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear.

The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

8. Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

9. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions

Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed — without proper debate or rigorous analysis — to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:

• The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
• The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines — which have no associated long-term safety data — could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

10. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit — they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

Conclusions

The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group — the elderly — the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children.

Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms.

To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with — according to the previous Health Secretary — a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms.

As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM,  Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM

Mr. Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon

Dr. Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Mr. Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR

Dr. Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Dr. Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Mr. Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon

Dr. Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Click here, for the complete list of signatories.

Share this post:

Guest post by Kevin Moncla

Are effective COVID medications like Ivermectin being suppressed because they could cause vaccines to lose government funding?

Not very long after the pandemic lockdowns began last year, we heard of a potential treatment for COVID-19 involving the off-label use of an existing medication called Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).

A French doctor published two studies which showed amazing results. Soon thereafter President Trump mentioned the drug in a press conference as a potential game changer.  Dr. Fauci dismissed the studies as “anecdotal”.

Hospital trials and observational studies soon began but they quickly showed the medication to be ineffective as a prophylaxis or as a treatment.  But in every study, there was something wrong. Either the dosage was way too high or too low, it was only given to patients in severe stages impossible to recover or without Zinc, which was imperative. It seemed as if only minutes later, HCQ and anyone who mentioned it were viciously attacked for promoting quacks and snake oil.

Then an observational study was published in prestigious medical journals that claimed HCQ was ineffective and dangerous, causing cardiac-related complications.  Ongoing trials and testing were halted immediately, and the FDA issued a warning advising HCQ not be used to treat COVID.  Then, for the first time in history, the FDA restricted doctors from prescribing an approved medication for off-label use.  The WHO and the rest of the world immediately followed suit literally stopping all research and testing of HCQ overnight.

Months later we learn that same study was completely fabricated and fraudulent after an investigative journalist analyzed the data.  The study was retracted, but the damage had already been done.

At the time, it defied logic for someone to sabotage such an effective and promising medication.

Then In December, Senator Ron Johnson (WI) held a hearing on potential treatment options for Covid-19. Dr. Pierre Kory was one of the first to testify and he explained that himself, and some of the country’s top practitioners in their field formed a group at the outset of the pandemic called Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC. Their sole objective was to find existing medications which could be repurposed to treat those with COVID.  The doctor said they had discovered exactly that with Ivermectin.  An FDA-approved medication introduced in 1981, it has been prescribed to over 3 billion people as an antiparasitic agent. Dr. Kory said the medication is proving to be a “wonder drug”, highly effective both as a prophylaxis and for early treatment of Covid-19.

8 months later we have witnessed the same disturbing pattern as we saw with HCQ.  The group of doctors who brought news of the treatment to the public have been attacked, censored, and ridiculed. The video of the United States Senate hearing described above was even removed from YouTube.  Studies and trials proving Ivermectin’s effectiveness were suppressed and marginalized.  Clinical trials have been sabotaged using the same tactics as were used to affect the HCQ studies, and in one case, the conclusion of a study was rewritten after being submitted for peer review.

Through subterfuge and sabotage, censorship and subversion, reports of Ivermectin’s success have been stymied and contained in the United States.

But those powerful forces didn’t work everywhere.

Remember that it was not long ago when India was facing an overwhelming surge in cases and death.  Remdesivir was widely administered and failed miserably.

Faced with an insurmountable humanitarian crisis of apocalyptic proportion, many areas of India were willing to try almost anything to stop the suffering and death.  Ivermectin was introduced into the standard treatment protocol against WHO advisements.  In those areas the virus was obliterated just as Dr. Kory described. Ivermectin stopped a raging surge of death in its tracks. The results were nothing short of miraculous.

With the successful results of India, the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is no longer debatable.  Anyone can see that it is every bit of effective as Dr. Kory described during the senate hearing in December of last year. Yet the FDA warns against taking Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.  While the WHO advises that Ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials, and the NIH recommends that there is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel.

We know Ivermectin works.  We know Ivermectin is safe, cheap, approved by the FDA, and available now.  The obvious question is:

Why are the FDA, CDC and WHO suppressing Ivermectin?

From the FDA website it may be related to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)?

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.

The Emergency Use Authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines is contingent upon “…no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”.

If the CDC, FDA or WHO acknowledge the existence of an effective treatment, such as Ivermectin, then the pharmaceutical companies lose their cash-cow vaccines and their immunity from liability.  The vaccine would be subject to normal safety requirements with which the vaccines arguably could not meet.  Under the EUA, the safety standard of a medication is extremely low.  For instance:

“…FDA must determine that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine.”

In other words, the minimum safety threshold is that it only helps more people than those it hurts. The lesser of two evils, and something is better than nothing comes to mind.  If there were another more effective treatment option available, those emergency-calibrated standards would no longer apply.

With the quick emergence of variants, waning effectiveness of the vaccine’s protection and the spike in number of hospitalizations, we have no effective therapy for those getting sick.  Like before, even after testing positive for COVID-19, the standard treatment outpatient recommendations are nearly the same as last year.  Go home, rest, drink lots of fluids and wait for your lips to turn blue before going to the hospital.

An effective therapeutic and prophylactic treatment like Ivermectin is exactly what is desperately needed and needed now.

It is just what the doctor would have ordered if the doctor wasn’t conditioned, pressured and threatened of being ostracized to ignore his medical training and only follow the CDC guidelines.

For more information on clinical trials and studies of Ivermectin, please visit:

https://ivmmeta.com

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19

https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Share this post:

This study would explain why highly ‘vaccinated’ nations with mRNA technology are having their hospitals overrun with SEVERE Covid-19 patients. . . . who are fully vaccinated.

Title: Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

“Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

[medRXiv Full Pre-Print Study]

Share this post:

Rice University in Houston, Texas, announced last week that the first two weeks of the fall semester would be moved online because of a high number of COVID-19 cases among students. It now says the data the decision was based upon were flawed.

In an Aug. 22 letter to the campus community, Rice’s Vice President for Administration Kevin E. Kirby said “anomalies” in the initial testing data prompted the university to retest dozens of students deemed positive for COVID-19, and “all but one of those have turned out to be negative.”

According to the letter, Rice started to ramp up its testing program on Aug. 13 with three different test providers and conducted about 4,500 tests over 9 days with initial results showing 81 positive results. This positivity rate of 2 percent, although much lower than that of the city of Houston, Kirby said in the letter, was still concerning enough that the university officials delayed the start of in-person classes.

“For Rice, a 2 percent rate would be significantly higher than our historical positivity rate of 0.24 percent over the last year when we ran about 150,000 tests,” Kirby said. “This unusual campus positivity rate prompted us to take quick action and assume a more cautionary posture until we could determine whether there was a significant risk of widespread infection.”

Rice began investigating the results when it realized that over 90 percent of the positive infections came from a single test provider, and most of those cases involved people who reported no symptoms or had been fully vaccinated. It turned out that the provider had changed its testing protocol without the university’s knowledge.

“Then we retested about 50 people who initially tested positive. Each of them was tested two additional times, on two different days, by two different test providers, and all but one came back negative,” Kirby wrote, adding that the university released students who were falsely determined to be COVID-19 positive from isolation.

Rice officials said they’ll stick to two weeks of online classes, considering that many of the students and faculty had already adjusted their plans based on that schedule. But students who were told to delay moving on campus until after Sept. 3 can now move in as soon as they want.

“Our commitment is to be fast, flexible, and nimble responding to anything involving the safety of individuals and the overall health of our community,” the letter reads. “We recognize and regret that these testing anomalies have caused tremendous difficulties for all involved.” . . .

[Epoch Times]

Share this post:

In France, the vaccine mandate has been extended from health care workers to other professions. But as the mandate deadline approaches, some military service members and firemen are speaking out against it.

Share this post:

The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee defied State Department guidelines by traveling to France this month. That didn’t stop him from lecturing Americans about the importance of following federal health and safety protocols.

“We all have to do our part to crush this virus,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D., N.Y.) wrote on Aug. 14, in the middle of his maskless European vacation. “Get your shot, wear a mask, and follow CDC guidelines. It’s just the right thing to do.”

A Washington Free Beacon investigation of the Instagram accounts of Maloney and his husband, Randy Florke, found that the power couple’s trip in France was in violation of U.S. health and safety guidelines. The State Department’s website is unequivocal: “Do not travel to France due to COVID-19.”

While in France against the advice of the U.S. government, the congressman appeared to exercise little to no caution against the coronavirus. His Instagram stories included footage from a wedding at the Villa et Jardins Ephrussi de Rothschild, which is outside of Nice on the Mediterranean coast. None of the guests were wearing masks. The bride is a longtime ally of Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance (D.), who declined to prosecute sex criminal Harvey Weinstein.

Maloney and his husband also traveled to Italy, even though the State Department has recommended that Americans “reconsider travel” to the country because of COVID-19. Once again, the couple did not do their part to “crush the virus,” as they were photographed without masks at an indoor art studio in Puglia.

After he returned to the United States, the congressman traveled to Napa Valley for a Democratic fundraiser that featured House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. Donors paid as much as $29,000 for tickets to the élite soirée. Servants were fully masked; Maloney and the other guests were not.

The fundraiser took place near the French Laundry, the luxury restaurant where Gov. Gavin Newsom (D., Calif.) was infamously busted for violating his own COVID-19 guidelines by attending a maskless dinner party in Nov. 2020.

Maloney’s trips come at a perilous time for elected Democrats, many of whom spent the summer engaging in the sort of activities they have sought to discourage among the general population. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), for example, was caught dancing without a mask at an indoor wedding, in violation of county guidelines, on the same day she attacked Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) for criticizing COVID-19 restrictions.

Earlier this month, former president Barack Obama threw himself a massive birthday party at his $17.5 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard. Several weeks after the super-spreader event, the island’s only hospital is struggling to cope with the surge in patients testing positive for the so-called Obama variant of of the deadly virus. . . .

Share this post:

As the number of breakthrough COVID cases continues to climb, there is growing concern fully vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought — and some fully vaccinated people now sick with the virus are speaking out.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 9,716 breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization or death as of Aug. 16. However, the agency states those numbers are underreported. On May 1, the CDC made a decision to stop tracking all breakthrough cases and instead only track cases in the fully vaccinated that resulted in hospitalization or death.

That leaves public health officials without the full data that can answer questions as the new Delta variant spreads.

In an interview with PBS News Hour, Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist and research fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital and former science communications lead at the COVID Tracking Project, said not tracking breakthrough data with as much granularity as we would hope is “basically creating blind spots in our understanding of the true impact of the virus, especially the variants that are circulating so widely in the United States.”

Rivera said she has yet to see an explicit explanation for why the CDC stopped tracking all breakthrough cases. “I’ve heard rumors of things like lack of resources, lack of funding, lack of staff. But to me, it seems pretty, from an epidemiology standpoint, not defensible,” she said.

A breakthrough case refers to a person who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated 14 days after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine, or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.

The New York Times recently published data from seven states — California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Vermont  and Virginia — that keeps particularly detailed records on breakthrough cases.

Analysis showed that in six of the states, breakthrough infections made up 18% to 28% of all newly diagnosed cases of COVID in the past several weeks, and 12% to 24% of all COVID-related hospitalizations, with reported deaths higher than the CDC’s original estimate of .5%.

The figures on non-hospitalized breakthrough infections are also assumed to be underestimations since many fully vaccinated people who become infected may not feel sick enough to be tested for the virus, The Times reported.

About 30% of the new COVID cases in Los Angeles are breakthrough cases, Deadline reported. The number is up from 13% in July and 5% in April.

As of Aug. 17, more than 12,500 fully vaccinated Massachusetts residents had tested positive for COVID and an additional 18 had died, according to NBC Boston.

Fully vaccinated celebrities, elected officials speak out after getting COVID

Melissa Joan Hart, the former “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” star is “really mad” she has a breakthrough case. Hart shared on Instagram Aug. 19 that despite being vaccinated, she got COVID.

“I never do videos but I feel like this is important,” Hart, who recently moved to Tennessee, told her 1.6 million followers. “I got COVID. I am vaccinated. And I got COVID. And it’s bad. It’s weighing on my chest, it’s hard to breathe.”

Heart’s oldest son, Mason, also tested positive for COVID, as did her youngest son — who experienced no symptoms. Her middle child tested negative and her husband is still waiting for his results.

Hart blamed the vaccine’s failure to protect her on her kids not having to wear masks in school. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee on Aug. 16  signed an executive order allowing parents to choose whether their child should wear a mask in school.

“I’m mad, really mad,” Hart said, “because we tried, and we took precautions and we cut our exposure by a lot. But we got a little lazy, and I think as a country we got lazy. And I’m really mad that my kids didn’t have to wear masks at school because I’m pretty sure that’s where this came from.”

Celebrity Hilary Duff, revealed she had COVID on Instagram Aug. 20. Duff said she was experiencing a bad headache, brain fog, sinus pressure and a loss of taste and smell despite being vaccinated.

“That Delta … she’s a little b****,” Duff wrote, referring to the variant that accounts for 98.8% of current U.S. infections, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Slipknot singer Corey Taylor, 47, was devastated after testing positive for COVID and was forced to call off his upcoming appearance at a Michigan pop culture convention this weekend, Rolling Stone reported.

“I wish I had better news,” said Taylor in a recorded video message last week on Facebook. “I woke up today and tested positive and I’m very, very sick.”

The singer assured fans he “should be okay” because it’s the flu and he’s vaccinated.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, and his wife, Jacqueline, remained under doctors’ observation Monday at a Chicago hospital after getting COVID. Both were “responding positively to treatments,” Politico reported.

The couple was admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital Aug. 20 so physicians could carefully monitor their condition, one of the couple’s five children, said in a statement.

Jackson, a Chicago civil rights leader, was fully vaccinated and received his first dose in January during a publicized event where he urged others to receive the vaccine as soon as possible.

Three U.S. senators — John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) — announced Aug. 19 they tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated, CBS News reported.

“Despite taking precautions and receiving the vaccine, this morning I tested positive for COVID-19,” King tweeted. “While I am not feeling great, I’m definitely feeling much better than I would have without the vaccine.”

The news came days after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who also was fully vaccinated, tested positive for COVID.

Illinois state Sen. Dan McConchie announced Aug. 21 he had a “breakthrough” case of COVID. The Republican leader of the Illinois Senate said in a statement he was vaccinated against the virus this spring, and he urged others to get vaccinated.

COVID data show waning immunity

Of 514 patients in Israel hospitalized with COVID as of Aug. 15, 59% were fully vaccinated, according to an article from Science. The article cited national data tracked by Israel’s largest health management organization. The figures suggest breakthrough infections may be more common than previously thought.

Most of the vaccinated patients who were hospitalized, about 87%, were at least 60 years old.

“This is a very clear warning sign for the rest of the world,” said Ran Balicer, CIO at Clalit Health Services, Israel’s largest health maintenance organization. “If it can happen here, it can probably happen anywhere,” Balicer told Science.

Israel has one of the world’s highest COVID vaccination levels with 78% of the population over age 12 fully vaccinated — mostly with Pfizer’s vaccine. The country now has one of the highest infection rates in the world.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, said “What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101.”

Hooker said the more a variant deviates from the original sequence used for the vaccine, the less effective the vaccine will be on that variant, which could explain why fully vaccinated people are getting infected with the Delta variant.

This isn’t the case for natural immunity, Hooker explained:

“The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus. Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”

As The Defender reported Aug 2, vaccinated people may play a key role in aiding the evolution of COVID variants.

Scientific Reports research: highest risk for establishing a vaccine-resistant virus strain occurs when large fraction of population has already been vaccinated but transmission is not controlled.

SUBSCRIBE #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/LpHKxgIbg0

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) August 3, 2021

According to research published July 30 in Scientific Reports, the highest risk for establishing a vaccine-resistant virus strain occurred when a large fraction of the population has already been vaccinated but the transmission is not controlled.

The data was consistent with a CDC study, also released July 30, which showed vaccinated people may transmit the Delta variant just as easily as the unvaccinated.

According to a pre-print study published Aug. 10 in The Lancet, vaccinated individuals carry 251 times the load of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in their nostrils compared to the unvaccinated.

The study, by the Oxford University Clinical Research Group, demonstrated widespread vaccine failure and transmission under tightly controlled circumstances in a hospital lockdown in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. . . .

Share this post:

More than 267,000 excess infants deaths were reported worldwide in 2020 due to economic fallout from COVID-19, study suggests

• A new study looked at GDPs for 128 low- and lower middle-income countries and the infant mortality rate per 1,000 children
• An excess 267,000 infant deaths were reported in 2020, which is 7% higher than the 248,000 fatalities initially projected last year
• The highest number of estimated excess infant deaths were seen in India, which had a total of 99,642
• Researchers say the economic fallout likely led to malnutrition, lack of ability to access healthcare services and poor quality of these services . . .

Hundreds of thousands of babies died last year due to the economic fallout from COVID-19, a new modeling study suggests.

Researchers from World Bank Group, a financial institution headquartered in Washington, DC, estimated that an extra 267,000 infant fatalities were reported n 2020 in low- and middle-income countries.

This is seven percent higher than the number of newborns that usually die in the course of a year. . . .

[Daily Mail]

Share this post:

Because the results of mask wearing were so dismal for efficiently keeping aerosol build up down, AIP could draw no conclusion other than even low ventilation of a space out performs even the best masks being worn for the prevention of Covid-19.

“The results also suggest that, while higher ventilation capacities are required to fully mitigate aerosol build-up, even relatively low air-change rates (2h−1) lead to lower aerosol build-up compared to the best performing mask in an unventilated space.”

[AIP Full Report]

Share this post:

A civil liberties group has filed a lawsuit against South Carolina officials, asserting the state’s ban on school mask mandates violates federal laws aimed at protecting the rights of disabled Americans.

South Carolina’s legislature included a prohibition on school mask mandates in its budget, which it passed in June, and Molly Spearman, South Carolina’s education superintendent, later told each school board that because of that the school districts were barred from requiring students or employees to wear the face coverings.

That order violated the rights of students with disabilities, including those with certain underlying medical conditions that increase their risk of contracting the virus that causes COVID-19, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued in a complaint lodged this week.

More specifically, the barring of school mask mandates goes against the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, the group said.

“Both federal disability rights laws prohibit outright exclusion, denial of equal access, or unnecessary segregation for students with disabilities in public education. Both laws also prohibit methods of administration that defeat the fundamental goals of public schools, that is, to provide an education. Finally, both federal disability rights laws impose affirmative obligations on covered entities to proactively provide reasonable modifications or reasonable accommodations to ensure that individuals with disabilities have an equal opportunity to benefit from their public education,” their lawsuit stated.

The group noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends masking in schools, even though many other countries have forgone masking children because they’re at low-risk of contracting serious cases of COVID-19. They cited a collaborative that said recently that data from 100 school districts in North Carolina experienced low COVID-19 transmission when masking was in place.

“This finding strengthens CDC’s claim that ‘when teachers, staff, and students consistently and correctly wear a mask, they protect others as well as themselves,’” the suit stated.

COVID-19 is the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. . . .

Share this post:

The campaign for Virginia GOP nominee for governor Glenn Youngkin is taking aim at Democrat rival Terry McAuliffe for recently suggesting the only way for the country to finally beat back COVID-19 is to “make it hard” for unvaccinated Americans to fly on airplane and enter a movie theatre.

“We have 93 million Americans today that are not vaccinated,” McAuliffe said a conference earlier this month in Las Vegas. “And we need to do everything that we possibly can. I tell my private businesses all the time, ‘I hope you mandate vaccine for people coming in.’

“Until we make it hard for people to get on planes or go to movie theaters, people just aren’t going to do it. We’re not going door to door right, but you make life difficult.”

Team Youngkin tweeted a video taken from a panel discussion at the event, hosted by the company HIMSS21.

Share this post:

“So she’s had this cascade of events. And she’s surrounded by friends, family, social contacts that all believe that the vaccines are fully safe and she must be crazy. It can’t possibly be that there is any relationship between vaccine acceptance, uptake, and her symptoms. So let’s say this person goes on Facebook and joins the Facebook group that’s been created for people that have had, believe they’ve had symptoms that have been triggered by vaccines. So there’s a group there and they build up to a hundred, one hundred and fifty thousand people. Facebook deletes them. The practical implication is, for this cohort of people, who believe they’ve had post vaccination syndrome, whether or not they did, they’re getting all kinds of social messaging from the top of the government all the way down. . . . They’re not even able to communicate on social media with others and they’re all isolated, of course, to discuss what their symptoms are as opposed to somebody else’s symptoms. It is the ultimate gaslighting.”

Share this post: