Quote from uncertainH

The vaccination status of a person is irrelevant to the "danger" they pose to others

I agree that vaccination status is not an accurate estimate of danger.

However, vaccination reduces danger by a large amount (how large depending on many factors including how recently vaccinated).

The balance between freedom and safety in usage of common space: shops, transport, clubs is one which inevitably both sides will end up unhappy about. Humans pose a risk to others. Those who pose most (criminal) risk we lock up or in the US kill. Those who pose obvious infectious disease risk we quarantine. In schools space we require childhood vaccination because it protects all.

Covid is just another balance.

I think many people are indignant about this because it motivates people to get vaccinated. That is true, and it is probably the main reason many have for having such restrictions.

I am mildly against it for the same reason - it will be seen as coercion to get vaccinated which actually makes persuading the vaccine-hesitant more difficult.most of them can be persuaded without coercion when given facts in a non-confrontational way.

THH

Quote from Alan Fletcher

That's a reversal. In the early days my local anti-maskers were saying "if you don't want to be infected, stay home"

That was actually good advice for elderly people or people with weak immunity. It was the only choice they had, with no vaccine available. Now that there is a vaccine, any individual can reduce the likelihood of getting sick by a huge margin. Or anyone can decide to forgo the vaccine and risk their lives. The problem is, when risk your life, you also risk my life, and everyone else's. We might get a breakthrough case from you. It is as if you decide to go skydiving but you insist the rest of us should be tied to you when you jump out of the airplane.

If COVID were like lung cancer from smoking, instead of being an infectious disease, I would have no objection to people risking their lives. I do not go around telling people they should not smoke.

Note that the reduction in risk is far greater than the statistics for the vaccine indicate. The stats for someone vaccinated months ago now show Delta infections reduced by about half. I think that is the latest. Yet the graph from Japan above shows that infections have fallen to 3% of the peak, which was August 27. That is because the vaccinated population went from around 20% in August (mostly elderly) to 70% (any adult). Infections fell by a factor of 30, much more than the efficacy of the vaccine against Delta. That is the onset of herd immunity. It means each sick person is infecting fewer than 1 other person (the R0 is less than 1). That is why your vaccination protects me. There are many antivaxxer memes such as: "why should I put on suntan lotion to protect you against sunburn?" People who ask that are very stupid.

Quote from uncertainH

The vaccination status of a person is irrelevant to the "danger" they pose to others

Wrong. It is direct threat to the life and liberty of everyone in the community. That is why U.S. laws have mandated vaccines since the early 19th century, and why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of them in 1905. That is why all U.S. and Canadian schools mandate vaccinations for children. It is no threat to civil liberties any more than laws mandating speed limits are, or laws that prohibit you from selling contaminated food.

As I said, infections in Japan have been reduced infections by a factor of 30. Not because the vaccines are that effective. Delta is the main variant in Japan and the vaccines only reduce it by about half (I think). The numbers have gone down by a factor of 30 because your vaccination stops other people from being infected, by reducing the transmission rate.

Note that children has as many civil rights as adults. If vaccination violates your rights as an adult, they violate your children's rights too. I doubt many people would agree with that, given the danger of infectious diseases in schools.

Cellular and Antibody Immunity after COVID-19 Vaccination at >4-Month Follow Up in Immunocompetent and Immunocompromised Subjects

Abstract

We evaluated post-vaccination immunity after COVID-19 vaccination with serial changes in cellular and antibody responses to the spike protein S, its S2 component which is conserved between SARS-CoV-2 and human coronaviruses, and the S1 component, which is specific to SARS-CoV-2 and also contains its receptor binding domain (RBD). In 21 healthy immunocompetent subjects all of whom demonstrated circulating IgG antibodies 4 months after mRNA1273 or BNT162b vaccination, a) the strength of S-IgG was stable while RBD-IgG declined, b) S2-reactive B-cell frequencies increased progressively (p=0.002) c) S1-reactive CD8+T-cells and CD19+B-cells were undetectable after a transient increase, and d) monocytic and polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells (M-MDSC, PMN-MDSC) increased after the first vaccine dose. Compared with 4-month measurements from immunocompetent subjects, single samples from 20 vaccinated immunocompromised (IC) subjects revealed a) circulating S-IgG and RBD-IgG in 13 (65%) and 9 (45%) subjects, respectively, b) no differences in S2-reactive T- and B-cells, c) undetectable S1-reactive T- and B-cells, and d) fewer S-reactive CD8+T-cells and CD19+B-cells (p<0.05). Among 11 IC recipients who failed to make RBD-IgG, frequencies of PMN-MDSC were significantly higher (p<0.0004) compared with IC or immunocompetent subjects with RBD-IgG. COVID-19 vaccination induces stable antibodies to the spike protein and expands circulating B-cells reactive to the conserved spike protein sequence in immunocompetent subjects. MDSC which are known to suppress T- and B-cells, and which increase after vaccination, may limit post-vaccination responses especially among immunocompromised subjects. Antibody and cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2-specific spike antigenic sequences appear to be less durable.

DISCUSSION

Four or more months after vaccination, immunocompetent subjects demonstrate declining RBD-IgG strength and loss of the transient increase in CD8, CD4 and CD19 cell responses to the S1 antigenic sequence, which is more specific for SARS-CoV-2 (Figures 1 and 2). In contrast, spike-IgG strength remains stable between the second dose and the fourth month. The most noteworthy change during this time period is a progressive increase in S2 and S-reactive B-cells (Figures 2 and 3). This change contrasts with a numeric but not statistically significant decrease in S2 and S-reactive CD4 and CD8 T-cells after the first vaccine dose and a return to pre-vaccination levels. After the first vaccine dose, M-MDSC and PMN-MDSC increase (Figure 4). Decreased T-cell responses to the spike protein and increased MDSC frequencies have been observed early after COVID-19 infection (Ashokkumar)(6). Thus, the T-cell response to vaccines recapitulates the effects of COVID-19 infection.

These observations lead to several inferences. First, the cellular and antibody response to S1 or its RBD component, which has some sequence-specificity for SARS-CoV-2 is shorter lived compared with Spike-IgG which remains stable until the fourth month. Emerging data at 6 months which will be reported demonstrates stability in the strength of Spike IgG. In this setting, the rationale for early boosters is the declining RBD-IgG response and not the spike-IgG response. Second, vaccination augments pre-existing B-cell reactivity to the coronaviruses. Nearly all or 20 of 21 vaccinated immunocompetent subjects achieved S2-reactive B-cell frequencies in the Q3 or Q4 range, 4 months after vaccination compared with 11 of 21 who were in these ranges prior to vaccination (Figure 3).

Sub-phenotyping of S2-reactive B-cells can help to determine whether these cells are memory B-cells, which are known to expand after vaccination, and whether these memory cells augur improved antibody responses to subsequent booster vaccination (Goel)(12). Third, the T-cell response to these first vaccinations against the COVID-19 coronavirus appears transient. S1-reactive T-cells declined rapidly, while S2-reactive T-cells were not enhanced above pre-vaccination levels in 4-month follow-up (Figure 2). The T-cell suppressive effect of MDSC which increased significantly after the first vaccination dose provides one explanation (Figure 4). Minimizing the MDSC response to vaccination may increase vaccine efficacy. We have avoided co-stimulation or the use of immunodominant peptides in our cell-based assays, to reduce any likelihood of overinterpreting the T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination of immunocompromised patients (Braun, Grifoni, Sekine, Ashokkumar)(6, 13-15). It is possible that if used in our subject population, these assay modifications may also confirm vaccine-induced reinforcement of pre-existing T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2, as has been reported recently (Loyal)(16).

Observations in IC subjects and comparisons between immunocompetent and IC subjects expand on the abovementioned inferences. RBD-IgG was detected in 9 of 20 or 45% while Spike-IgG was detected in 13 of 20 or 65% of vaccinated IC subjects, approximating the incidence of these antibodies in previous reports from vaccinated IC populations (Figure 5). The absence of RBD-IgG in 11 of 20 IC subjects was associated with enhanced circulating PMN-MDSC frequencies in this sub cohort compared with immunocompetent subjects (p<0.0004). These associations are supported by studies in which PMN-MDSC inhibit B-cell proliferation and antibody production (Lelis, Knier)(17, 18). However, MDSC are also known to expand in IC populations such as transplant recipients, and cancer patients (Lee, Feng, Cassetta)(19-21). This expansion was not apparent in vaccinated IC subjects with RBD-IgG, in whom M-MDSC and PMN-MDSC frequencies approximated those seen in immunocompetent subjects. Notably, over half or 11 of 21 immunocompetent subjects received mRNA1273 vaccination compared with a fourth or 5 of 20 IC subjects (p=0.11, NS). Also, 11 IC subjects without RBD-IgG included six solid organ transplant recipients on Tacrolimus, steroids, or mycophenolate mofetil (Supplementary Table 1), compared with one such recipient in IC with RBD-IgG. In the RBD-IgG-negative IC group, belatacept which inhibits donor-specific antibody development in transplant recipients and velcade which is used to treat antibody mediated rejection in transplant patients were used in a subject with multiple myeloma and a kidney transplant recipient, respectively. To better understand the post-vaccine antibody response in IC subjects, the role of MDSC and immunosuppressive regimens will need ongoing reassessment.

Vaccinated IC subjects also revealed a heterogenous cellular response to the conserved S2 and the complete S antigenic sequences suggesting varying immunogenicity of the spike antigenic sequences (Figure 5). The frequencies of S2-reactive CD4, CD8 and CD19 B-cells were not significantly different between immunocompetent subjects and the two IC sub cohorts, one of which failed to make RBD-IgG. This observation is of interest because S2-reactive B-cell frequencies rose progressively until the fourth month after vaccination. Thus, similar ranges of S2-reactive B-cell frequencies in immunocompetent and IC subjects at an average of 132 and 101 days after vaccination, respectively, would imply a post vaccination augmentation in both types of subjects, and also suggest that pre-existing immunity due to previous exposure to human coronaviruses may offer some protection in both types of subjects. Serial observations are needed in IC subjects. In contrast, S-reactive CD4+T-cell and B-cell frequencies were significantly lower in the IC sub cohorts compared with immunocompetent subjects but similar between the two IC sub cohorts, one of which failed to produce RBD-IgG after vaccination. The dynamic range of S-reactive cell frequencies is larger than S2-reactive cells and may better discern differences between groups. Other reasons may include a greater immunogenicity of the S1 and S2 components together, than either component alone. In support of this inference, T- and B-cells responsive to stimulation with the isolated S1 antigenic mixture were not detected 4 months after vaccination, suggesting that this component may be less immunogenic by itself. This heterogeneity suggests that T- and B-cells respond variably to the spike antigenic components. Further, cellular and humoral immunity does not go hand in hand in IC subjects. Thus, protective immunity may be an aggregate of many known and unknown responses to vaccination.

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination induces a transient increase in cellular and antibody responses to the SARS-CoV-2-specific S1 spike antigenic sequence. A sustained antibody response to the complete spike protein that is stable for at least 4 months is accompanied by a progressive increase in B-cells that are responsive to this spike protein, and its component that is conserved between the human coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2. Although half of the IC subjects in this study failed to seroconvert after vaccination, T-cell and B-cell reactive to the conserved S2 component of the spike protein may provide cellular immunity at levels similar to those seen in IC and immunocompetent subjects who seroconverted after vaccination.

Quote from JedRothwell

Canadian schools mandate vaccinations for children

Not in Canada, I don't know about the USA:

Is Immunization Mandatory in Canada? | immunizecanada

"Immunizations are not mandatory in Canada"

Quote from JedRothwell

The numbers have gone down by a factor of 30 because your vaccination stops other people from being infected, by reducing the transmission rate.

That is still inconclusive:

Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination

Not peer reviewed yet but even in Ontario at least they recognize that the evidence is still unclear.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/phm/2021/06/covid-19-transmission-vaccinated-cases.pdf?sc_lang=en

"Infections in vaccinated individuals are less severe and more likely to be

asymptomatic, but the risk of onward transmission of infection from fully vaccinated individuals is unclear"

So again I say. I am pro-vax but I do not believe in making coercive, mandatory vaccination policies and infringing on peoples' rights based on unclear evidence

Quote from JedRothwell

The problem is, when risk your life, you also risk my life, and everyone else's. We might get a breakthrough case from you.

It is ironic.

The main risk that the antivaxxers present is not individual to the vaccinated - because the risks for them are much lower.

It is to the whole of society. If too many people end up in hospital it clogs up the health system. No government can stand by and let that get too bad.

The antivaxxers were saying originally that we should treat covid as Flu and let a few people die, get on with our lives. That is more of less what is happening noe in countries with high vaccination rate. What prevents it is the unvaccinated - whether young people, spreading covid to everyone else, or as in the US the old people, clogging up hospitals.

In the end - those not vaccinated will get covid. But the antivax memes have slowed down our return to near normalcy. As have the (maybe not antivax) my freedom not to wear a mask (or get vaccinated) is more important than our children going to school ideas.

Freedom is good, always it has its rewards, and its costs. Those who are absolutist and talk about rights are forgetting the costs. I have little sympathy.

California Physician & Whistleblower—Time to Bring Attention to Vaccine Adverse Event Cases

California Physician & Whistleblower—Time to Bring Attention to Vaccine Adverse Event Cases

Recently a law firm called Siri & Glimstad LLP wrote a letter to two heavy hitters within the U.S.--the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the

trialsitenews.com

Recently a law firm called Siri & Glimstad LLP wrote a letter to two heavy hitters within the U.S.–the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on behalf of their client, Dr. Patricia Lee, an ICU physician, and surgeon who has had the unfortunate experience of treating many COVID-19 vaccine-injured patients. In the letter addressed to the FDA, CBER Director Dr. Peter Marks, CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force Deputy Director Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, and the law firm’s Managing Partner, Aaron Siri, raised attention to serious claims. Specifically, they stated that both critical public health-related agencies are ignoring pleas from Dr. Patricia Lee to investigate the catastrophic effects of the COVID-19 vaccines on some of her patients. In the 15 years Dr. Lee has practiced medicine she has never seen the level of adverse events she now observes with the COVID-19 vaccines. Reporting serious and often fatal injuries to the agencies, the whistleblower doctor detailed many adverse events including transverse myelitis leading to quadriplegia, pneumocystis pneumonia, multi-system organ failure, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, postpartum hemorrhagic shock, and septic shock, as well as disseminated CMV and CMV viremia.

The law firm’s letter, made public, includes a quote from Dr. Lee who stated: “It appears statistically improbable that any one physician should witness this many COVID-19 vaccine injuries if the federal health authority claims regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety were accurate.” The letter indicates that Dr. Lee has been in discussions with other physician colleagues, and they report similar unfortunate observations.

The Whistleblower

Dr. Patricia Lee brings an impeccable pedigree with board certifications—she has served her California Northern California community as a physician for two decades. Earning her medical degree from the University of Southern California (USC), she did post-graduate training at Georgetown University in Washington, DC as well as Harvard-affiliated hospitals. Based on her observations of severely injured persons (in some cases leading to death) the doctor declared to the FDA and CDC director that she can “no longer silently accept the serious harm being caused by the Covid-19 vaccines.”

The Claims

Yet she has been completely ignored. She reported in a written communication to America’s leading drug regulator (FDA) and other public health agencies her concerns, listing six detailed cases that in her professional opinion are directly related to the COVID-19 immunization. Unfortunately, she notes “Approximately half of the patients detailed above died.” She also notes that “Those who survived are struggling with long-term sequelae and a diminished quality of life.”

Lee acknowledged that she is but one physician, however, both Marks and Shimabukuro pointed out that her observations “appear statistically improbable that any one physician should witness this many COVID-19 vaccine injuries if the federal health authority claims regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety were accurate.” Lee shared with the two federal health-related agency directors that her physician colleagues are reporting similar trends.

Data Anomalies?

Of course, there is a probability that what Dr. Lee is reporting are data anomalies unless there are serious investigations into these disparate, often anecdotal claims of Covid-19 vaccine injury, including a large number of reported adverse events and deaths in the CDC’s Vaccine Event Reporting System (VAERS). These types of reports remain just claims and not an actual indication of the fact.

Liability Shields

TrialSite reminds all that while the Comirnaty vaccine produced by BioNTech was recently formally approved by the FDA, it is still not in use. Rather the product called BNT162b2 produced by Pfizer-BioNTech is the vaccine in circulation in America. This product still falls under the emergency use authorization (EUA) category.

As it turns out for purposes of liability discussions that doesn’t matter much. All the drug makers, health systems, hospitals, and others in the supply chain are effectively shielded by the Public Readiness and Emergency Responsiveness Act or PREP Act as stated in “FDA Approval of Pfizer puts Consumers in Ultimate Squeeze: PREP Act Liability Shields Ongoing While Fed/State & Local Authorities Now Force Vaccinations”

TrialSite shared that no consumer has recourse for product liability in this emergency declaration. It is a powerfully thick uniform tort liability shield that ensures drug makers can maximize profits while mitigating risk. Only a government fund is available for liability with considerable limitations in financial outlay.

A Plea for Health Care Professionals

Dr. Lee’s letter also reminds the federal bureaucrats that many of her colleagues served on the front lines of the pandemic fearlessly working in ICUs, for example, during the early deadly spikes of the pandemic. Many of them, she reported, were infected with Covid-19 at various times and now have some protection from natural immunity. Yet countless health care professionals now either resign or are removed from their position rather than getting subjected to a vaccine mandate.

The Ask

Undoubtedly the law firm and the good doctor understand the legal liability limitations at this stage—unless POTUS declares a change, or Congress changes the law. Serving as a messenger for many more in her situation she respectfully asks Director Marks (FDA) and Director Shimabukuro to “recognize the pain and injury” associated with the vaccines. Denying the patients and health care professionals “the truth of their experiences only adds deep insult to their injury.”

What is Needed?

A proper investigation into the true nature of Covid-19 vaccine injuries makes sense. TrialSite suggests that the numbers in VAERS alone call attention to at least conduct more intensive analyses into the claimed problems. These public health-related agencies’ reputations are historically high—however now polls indicate a declining trust in America’s public health institutions. One way to turn around perceptions would be to launch serious independent agency investigations into claims of mass injury.

Considering Canadian COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Considering Canadian COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Deanna McLeod, Principal,

trialsitenews.com

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Deanna McLeod, Principal, Kaleidoscope Strategic. Inc and Ilidio Martins, Senior Researcher, Kaleidoscope Strategic Inc.

October 8, 2021

We are now returning to an in-person fall in Canada and other countries – return to school, larger social gatherings, the economy opening further, and more.

With the transition, the pressure to vaccinate is increasing. Numerous vaccine mandates are being imposed by governments, organizations, and institutions alike and the federal government is providing lucrative financial incentives to provinces to set up vaccine passport systems.

Here, we outline some items to think about when considering whether these mandates and passports are good for our individual and collective health.

Are Vaccine Mandates Necessary?

It is now well established that the only people who are at high risk of serious disease from COVID-19 are the elderly, those with major illnesses, and those living in shared living facilities like long-term care centers (LTCs).

Healthy people under 70 years old, living and working in the wider community have a low risk of getting seriously sick or dying from COVID-19.

For those who might be at risk of serious illness, there are now a number of inexpensive, multi-drug therapies that, when administered early, can avert major sickness and death in most people.

On top of that, it is now clear that anyone who has recovered from even a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection has long-lasting immunity that is broad enough to handle variants.

So if those in the wider community are at little to no risk of serious illness from COVID-19, treatment is readily available, and the COVID-19-recovered have long-lasting protection, then do we need vaccines in general and mandates in particular?

Do Vaccine Mandates Make Sense?

COVID-19 vaccination mandates are rooted in the claim that vaccines are safe, effective and prevent transmission. If true, then anyone who wants protection can be vaccinated. So, why are mass vaccination programs necessary?

Some would argue that mass vaccination is needed to reach herd immunity, which then will inhibit transmission of the virus to the vulnerable. Experts say that if a vaccine is 90% effective, 55% of the population will need to get vaccinated to halt the spread of the virus.

As of October 1, 2021, 86% of eligible people have undergone voluntary vaccination including vulnerable persons, so in theory, no one should be at risk. If this is the case, do mandates make sense? What cut-off is acceptable and based on what data? Will officials be satisfied with two shots or will more be required?

Are Vaccine Mandates Reasonable?

In order for vaccine mandates to be considered reasonable, we would need an accurate way of measuring infection.

The main test used to date in the pandemic response is the PCR test, a test that detects genetic fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in tested individuals.

However, a recent article published in The Lancet outlines the main limitation of this test, which is that when the PCR test is run at high cycle numbers there is an increased possibility of false positives, i.e., that a person testing positive does not actually have an active and transmissible infection; a limitation that is now acknowledged by the CDC.

If we can’t reliably gauge infectivity, is it reasonable to mandate vaccination to prevent infection?

Are Vaccine Mandates Able to Stop Infection?

The most reliable way to prove that something prevents infection or is “effective” is to test it in a randomized trial compared to a placebo.

The mRNA vaccines were tested in healthy adults for 2.5 months to see if they could lower infection rates. As reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, both the BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines were considered highly effective as they lowered infection rates by about 95% relative to placebo.

Data through 6 months was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The data showed that the vaccine reduced the relative risk of contracting symptomatic COVID relative to placebo by 91.3% and severe COVID by 96.7% an impact that was experienced by up to 3.7% of vaccine recipients. However, the vaccines also increased the relative risk of adverse events, which were predominantly COVID-like symptoms compared to placebo by 298.3% and severe adverse events by 71.4%. When both severe COVID cases and severe adverse events were pooled to determine the likelihood of experiencing any severe event, vaccines increased the risk of severe outcomes by 48.7% relative to placebo.

When these findings are considered in conjunction with data showing that vaccines don’t reduce transmission or viral spread as acknowledged by the Vaccine Advisory Group and the CDC, we need to ask if it is reasonable to require vaccination when the harms outweigh the benefits?

Are Vaccine Mandates Able to Prevent Lockdowns?

Some argue that vaccine mandates are necessary to avert the need for a fourth lockdown.

However, if this were true, then vaccination would have prevented the recent surges seen in the UK and Israel, two of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world.

If mass vaccination can’t prevent surges, which can lead to lockdowns, are vaccine mandates necessary?

COVID-19 Cases (7-day avg. per 100,000)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/…her-key-nations-1.4881500, Accessed on Oct 1 2021

Are Vaccine Mandates Safe?

If we are to mandate vaccination, we need to be 100% confident that it won’t harm anyone.

This is why vaccines are extensively tested for up to 10 years and assessed against placebo in randomized trials prior to widespread use.

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were compared to placebo in healthy volunteers for only 2.5 months before being used in the broader population.

Even in that very short time, two doses of the Moderna vaccine caused more than half of recipients to get so sick that it interfered with or prevented them from carrying out their daily activities.

The trials also did not include people who were COVID-19 recovered, immunocompromised, had major illnesses, the frail elderly or pregnant women.

It would be reasonable to conclude that sick or elderly people would be more affected than healthy people by the vaccine and there is no proof that the vaccines would not harm groups that were not studied.

To determine the safety of the vaccines in the wider population, health authorities have relied on vaccine tracking systems. It is well known that side effects are underreported in these systems.

In fact, a Harvard Pilgrim Study concluded that even the CDC VAERS system, one of the best in the world, only captures between 1% and 10% of side effects.

And yet VAERS has been recording unprecedented rates of serious injury and death from COVID vaccines.

Over a third of all of the reports linked to vaccine injury in VAERS over the last 30 years are linked to the COVID-19 vaccines.

When adjusted for only a 10-fold lower level of underreporting in VAERS, it is possible that the COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with 159,370 deaths, 168,740 life-threatening episodes, and 223,420 permanent disabilities.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) / Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) 1990 – 08/20/2021, CDC WONDER On-line Database. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html on Aug 30, 2021 12:50:41 PM. Query criteria – Vaccine Products: COVID19 VACCINE (COVID19); Group By: Event Category; Show Totals: True; Show Zero Values: False.

On top of that, because the vaccines have only been in use for a short time and because the tracking systems aren’t good at detecting long-term effects, we have absolutely no way of proving that these vaccines won’t cause harm long-term.

So, if we know that vaccines have been proven to increase COVID-19-like symptoms, have not been proven safe in many people, have been linked with serious harm and death, and have not been proven safe long-term, can we really mandate their use in good conscience?

Are Vaccine Mandates Legal?

Canada is a free society and we have the right to medical privacy, informed consent, freedom of movement, and bodily autonomy. These rights are protected under the Nuremberg Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian Law.

For a government to mandate vaccination they would have to ensure that it did not violate the rights of its citizens or the laws of the land.

Nicholas Wansbutter, a criminal lawyer, explains how these mandates not only violate our rights and freedoms but could be considered assault under Canadian law.

Are Vaccine Mandates Prudent?

These are unprecedented times. We’ve all experienced suffering and loss over the last year and a half, and we certainly want this pandemic to end as soon as possible.

However, we should think carefully before giving the government unilateral authority in any area of our lives.

Our constitution and our laws have been put in place to foster the conditions for human flourishing, and protect us from the aggression of other citizens as well as from government overreach and abuse, as seen historically in residential schools.

Given the influence politics and greed exert over health care, is it wise to cede our bodily autonomy and other human rights to unelected health officials who are exerting power they do not rightly possess?

What Can You Do To Stop Vaccine Mandates?

If you’re concerned with the implementation of vaccine mandates and what they mean for our individual and collective health please consider the following:

Follow the Science – To understand your risks of COVID-19 and the options you have to protect yourself and those you love join the COVID Sense email list, YouTube or Rumble Channel.

Know your Rights – To understand your rights and how to protect them reach out to organizations like the Children’s Health Defence Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada or the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Stand Up – If you are experiencing intimidation or coercion as it relates to vaccines, learn how to protect your health through accessing InPower Movement resources or by using the Notice of Liability forms developed by CCCA or Children’s Health Defense, the Demand of Accommodation Letter, or the Religious Exemption Letters developed by Liberty Coalition Canada.

Speak Out – Track and participate in freedom rallies. Be active on social media and share information from trusted sources. Find the rally near you and sign this Petition to stop COVID 19 vaccine mandates and support Bill 6, Jobs and Jabs Act, 2021 putting a stop to vaccine coercion in the workplace.

Litigate – Lawsuits are underway regarding the pandemic response and vaccine mandates. Vaccine Choice Canada has filed a suit against the various levels of government, public health officials, and the CBC and concerned citizens of BC have launched a class action suite against British Columbia’s Provincial Health Officer for their pandemic response. While the Children’s Health Defense has recently launched a suite against Ontario Colleges and Universities for recent vaccine mandates and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom again Seneca College.

Given the recent mandates for Federal Employees and Ontario Health Care Workers as well as vaccine passports there are likely new lawsuits that will be launched. Reach out to Take Action Canada, Children’s Health Defense Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada or the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom for more information.

Quote from uncertainH

Not peer reviewed yet but even in Ontario at least they recognize that the evidence is still unclear.

Quote from uncertainH

"Infections in vaccinated individuals are less severe and more likely to be

asymptomatic, but the risk of onward transmission of infection from fully vaccinated individuals is unclear"

So again I say. I am pro-vax but I do not believe in making coercive, mandatory vaccination policies and infringing on peoples' rights based on unclear evidence

What is unclear is how much vaccination reduces transmission. The evidence overall lies strongly on the side of reduction - by an unclear amount. We know the reduction is larger when vaccination is recent.

You might perhaps consider a precautionary principle here. We don't know that increasing vaccination (if passports do that) or reducing spreading at big indoor events (they may do that, but by how much?) will happen.But if these things are very important we might prohibit the possibly dangerous actions.

Stopping people from doing things that risk others may seen like coercion, but it is passive. No-one has to get vaccinated, they just can't do the specific things that risk others if they are not. There is much precedent for this. For example medical staff need certain Tropical disease vaccines in many countries etc.

What is different here is that the risks are less clear, and in your view so unclear that they do not count. We cannot base rules in society on every individual's judgment in that way - because everyone who wants to do something (that could be risky) will claim that in their judgment it is not risky. They may be right, or wrong. Either way we need to decide overall based on a collective view, however we reach that. However we decide, people will not all agree.

THH

Quote from uncertainH

https://immunize.ca/immunization-mandatory-canada

"Immunizations are not mandatory in Canada"

This says:

"Is Immunization Mandatory in Canada?

Immunizations are not mandatory in Canada; however, in OntarioOpens in a new window , and New BrunswickPDFOpens in a new window, proof of immunization is required for children and adolescents to attend school. In these same provinces, exceptions to immunizations can be made only for medical (can require a note from a healthcare provider) or ideological reasons."

It is the same situation in most U.S. states. Perhaps I should have clarified that. You do not need to vaccinate your kids, but they cannot go to school if you do not. In some states, I think you have to vaccinate them no matter what. "Ideological reasons" were allowed, but several states have cracked down on them, especially California.

In my opinion, not vaccinating children should be considered child abuse. It is like not feeding them, or not putting toddlers in seat belts. Parents who do that should be punished.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What is unclear is how much vaccination reduces transmission.

You can see it has reduced transmission by a huge amount in Japan. Cases are down by a factor of 30. As I said, the vaccine itself is not that effective, but it reduces cases, which reduces transmission, which reduces cases, in a feedback loop. For the same basic reason, the vaccine does not have to be 100% effective to eliminate the pandemic completely, nor does it have be given to the entire population.

Quote from JedRothwell

You can see it has reduced transmission by a huge amount in Japan. Cases are down by a factor of 30. As I said, the vaccine itself is not that effective, but it reduces cases, which reduces transmission, which reduces cases, in a feedback loop. For the same basic reason, the vaccine does not have to be 100% effective to eliminate the pandemic completely, nor does it have be given to the entire population.

Here is an interesting report, dealing with potentially less virus spreading of infected vaccinated people vs non-vaccinated, due to enhanced antibody levels in mucosa…needs to be further verified.

„Breakthrough infections might not be as contagious as previously thought, say UC scientist

According to an immunologist from the University of Colorado School of Medicine, vaccinated individuals and got a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection might not be as contagious as was initially thought.

In a report by NPR, immunologist Ross Kedl said that the virus that a vaccinated person transmits is different from the virus coming from a person who hasn't had any vaccination. Kedl points to the antibodies that vaccinated persons naturally develop over time, thereby making the risk for downstream transmission very low.

His claims were corroborated by Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist Michal Caspi Tai, whose research shows that vaccinated persons will have a considerable amount of antibodies living in their mucosal membranes (mouth and nose), which are the two main points of entry. With this knowledge, Tai said that a vaccinated person who sneezes or coughs would most likely be less infectious.

These hypotheses are making the rounds in the health care community, with some scientists finding a lot of sense in the claims. Further research is still required, however, to take these as conclusive.“

China Tests Blood Samples to Determine Virus Origins and More COVID-19 Research Updates | BioSpace

Research on the ever-evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus continues as scientists scramble to make sense of it and find cures. Here's a look.

www.biospace.com

Quote from Fm1

California Physician & Whistleblower—Time to Bring Attention to Vaccine Adverse Event Cases

It is also time to Bring Attention to the bodily harm and lives lost by unicorns goring people in public parks.

Quote from zorud

„Breakthrough infections might not be as contagious as previously thought, say UC scientist

According to an immunologist from the University of Colorado School of Medicine, vaccinated individuals and got a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection might not be as contagious as was initially thought.

In a report by NPR, immunologist Ross Kedl said that the virus that a vaccinated person transmits is different from the virus coming from a person who hasn't had any vaccination. Kedl points to the antibodies that vaccinated persons naturally develop over time, thereby making the risk for downstream transmission very low.

His claims were corroborated by Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist Michal Caspi Tai, whose research shows that vaccinated persons will have a considerable amount of antibodies living in their mucosal membranes (mouth and nose), which are the two main points of entry. With this knowledge, Tai said that a vaccinated person who sneezes or coughs would most likely be less infectious.

These hypotheses are making the rounds in the health care community, with some scientists finding a lot of sense in the claims. Further research is still required, however, to take these as conclusive.“

This is fascinating: and good news if true.

Either way, it is very tough to get hard info on how much vaccines reduce transmissability. The bottom line is that they reduce chances of infection (at least a bit) and therefore chances of a given person transmitting. Great if more.

Quote from JedRothwell

It is also time to Bring Attention to the bodily harm and lives lost by unicorns goring people in public parks.

Let us not forget the very real danger of spontaneous human combustion.

Here is a detailed review of covid vaccine safety from Australia - maybe better than the US where everything is higly politicised...

Adverse reactions: Guillain Barre, TTS and the fine mesh net

The COVID vaccines have rare – but serious – side effects. Based on 21 million vaccinated Australians (and 5.6 billion globally) we can base our calculation

cosmosmagazine.com

Those on sentry duty feel their responsibility keenly. As paediatric immunologist Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), explained to me, Australia had ramped up its vigilance in the last 10–15 years after some batches of flu vaccines caused extremely high fevers in children, while others were potentially linked to an increase in Guillain Barre Syndrome (more on GBS shortly).

In the 2000s, the system relied on doctors to tick the boxes against a checklist of predicted side effects. Now the limited checklist is gone and the net has been cast much wider. “Our message to the doctors is report, report, report,” says Macartney.

On sentry duty – paediatric immunologist Kristine Macartney.

As well as capturing information from GPs, NCIRS established a fully automated surveillance system that sends out texts to people three days after vaccination to ask them about side effects. It’s known as AusVaxSafety – and so far it’s received 2.4 million replies. Self-reporting is not as accurate as a doctor’s report, but the trigger for AusVax to follow up is if there’s been a hospitalisation, says Macartney. These data also give valuable information about people who aren’t experiencing any issues – something missing from the doctors’ reports. A third arm of vaccine surveillance sweeps across hospitals.

With such a fine-meshed and widely cast net, it’s inevitable that events that have nothing to do with the vaccine will be captured. Indeed the database reads like a laundry list of every malady known to woman or man, including one report of foaming at the mouth, another of hair loss and a third of painful erections. Just what you’d expect if you care to ask about the health of more than 10.9 million people (as of 22 August) who have received their first dose. Vaccination against COVID certainly doesn’t make other ailments disappear.

And people will still die in the period after getting vaccinated. Some deaths clearly have nothing to do with the vaccine, for instance those occurring in late-stage cancer patients, or those with severe heart disease.

But then there are grey areas.

So how do you decide what is related to the vaccine and what is sad coincidence?

Also from Aussie Biochemist turned journalist Elisabeth Finkel:

A letter to my vaccine-hesitant friends

A few weeks ago, I discovered that some of my friends – you know who you are – weren’t planning to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

cosmosmagazine.com

A few weeks ago, I discovered that some of my friends – you know who you are – weren’t planning to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Some of you said you lacked trust in the evidence provided for the safety of vaccines. On the other hand, you were confident about alternative therapies, mostly Ivermectin.

I’ll admit to having had my own vaccine hesitancy back in January, when the vaccines first came out. But with 5.7 billion people (and counting) providing data on the vaccines, I feel now there’s a very sound basis on which to evaluate benefit versus risk. And my conclusion is clearly on the side of benefit.

Still, you raised issues that were worthy of exploration. Given that the shingle above my door reads “science communicator”, I told you I’d do some research and get back to you.

Journalism holds that it’s better to show than tell. So this is a kind of “journey inside Ella Finkel” to show why I think the way I do.

I do hope this journey will take you to the same place I’ve arrived. It’s not often that I’ve felt that communicating science is a matter of life and death. I feel it is the case now.

----------------------------------

Another thing that’s flummoxed many of my friends is the individual scientists and doctors who make contrarian claims. For instance: that the COVID-19 virus is not that harmful, that vaccines and masks are, and that Ivermectin is the cure.

Bear in mind, people with letters after their name do get things wrong. Peter Duesberg, a virologist from the University of California, Berkeley claimed for years that the HIV virus was not the cause of AIDS. The many millions of people surviving thanks to anti-viral medication would disagree.

In covering science stories for many decades now, I’ve learnt not to follow people but the data.

interesting vid

Evidence for a Legal Case against Those Who Spread Misinformation and Enforce COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Evidence for a Legal Case against Those Who Spread Misinformation and Enforce COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion

trialsitenews.com

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion Editorial

October 13, 2021

In a previous editorial, I posed the question: Should We Criminalize Public Health Authorities, Politicians, & Employers Who Spread Misinformation about Vaccine Mandates? The editorial touched a nerve, and positive feedback was immediate from people looking for a way to resist the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. In the present editorial, I provide evidence for a legal case against those who spread misinformation and enforce COVID-19 vaccine mandates that mislead and harm employees and the public. The evidence will show that the approximate 95% vaccine efficacy claimed for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is misleading and does not reveal the whole truth about vaccine efficacy. Furthermore, based on false statements of vaccine efficacy, the evidence shows that claims of vaccine effectiveness in preventing severe infections, hospitalizations, and deaths are also false, as are claims that unvaccinated people present a threat to others and that unvaccinated people are filling the hospitals because they lack vaccination protection.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy is a measure of the vaccine’s ability to reduce infections with at least one mild or moderate symptom in randomized clinical trials conducted under controlled experimental conditions—the gold standard for demonstrating causality. Efficacy should not be confused with observational studies of vaccine effectiveness which lack controlled conditions and are less reliable.

After randomizing trial participants to vaccine and placebo groups, the trial vaccine infection rate is compared to the placebo infection rate. Two methods are used when comparing group infection rates to calculate vaccine efficacy, also known as the relative risk reduction (RRR). Both methods arrive at the same RRR, however, flaws in these methods fail to provide the complete vaccine clinical trial results.

Relative Risk Method

This method calculates the relative risk (RR) of infection by dividing the vaccine infection rate by the placebo infection rate, which is usually expressed as a decimal less than 1. The difference between the RR and 1 is the relative risk reduction or vaccine efficacy. To convert the decimals to percentages, multiply by 100.

The relative risk method only measures proportions between the group infection rates, and is not sensitive to the actual reduction in the number of infected people, known as the absolute risk reduction (ARR). The RR is used by epidemiologists to study the proportion of disease risk in populations, but the RR is not useful for clinical studies where the higher sensitivity of the absolute risk reduction is needed to measure infection rates in individuals, not populations.

The reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction (1/ARR) determines the precise number of people needed to vaccinate (NNV) to reduce one infection. NNV also allows clinicians to compare the vaccine efficacy of different trials.

The following examples illustrate how the relative risk and the relative risk reduction remain at 50% as the ARR with higher sensitivity decreases from 30% to 10%.

30% vaccine infection/60% placebo infection = RR 50% and RRR 50%. ARR 30%.

25% vaccine infection/50% placebo infection = RR 50% and RRR 50%. ARR 25%.

20% vaccine infection/40% placebo infection = RR 50% and RRR 50%. ARR 20%.

15% vaccine infection/30% placebo infection = RR 50% and RRR 50%. ARR 15%.

10% vaccine infection/20% placebo infection = RR 50% and RRR 50%. ARR 10%.

Examples of a constant 20% RR and 80% RRR as the more sensitive ARR decreases from 60% to 4%:

15% vaccine infection/75% placebo infection = RR 20% and RRR 80%. ARR 60%.

10% vaccine infection/50% placebo infection = RR 20% and RRR 80%. ARR 40%.

5% vaccine infection/25% placebo infection = RR 20% and RRR 80%. ARR 20%.

4% vaccine infection/20% placebo infection = RR 20% and RRR 80%. ARR 16%.

3% vaccine infection/15% placebo infection = RR 20% and RRR 80%. ARR 12%.

2% vaccine infection/10% placebo infection = RR 20% and RRR 80%. ARR 8%.

1% vaccine infection/5% placebo infection = RR 20% and RRR 80%. ARR 4%.

Here is the approximate RR, RRR, and ARR for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Note that the RRR is more than 95% higher than the ARR:

0.007% vaccine infection/0.14% placebo infection = RR 5% and RRR 95%. ARR 0.7%.

The exact calculations for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are available at Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials.

A free online calculator is also available that can be used to calculate the RR, RRR, and ARR from two groups in a clinical trial (Vaccine and Placebo groups) where an “event” is defined as an infection.

Risk Reduction Method

This second method to calculate vaccine efficacy measures vaccine protection relative to the group that didn’t receive the vaccine. Reduced infection from the vaccine, or the absolute risk reduction, is measured by subtracting the vaccine infection rate from the placebo infection rate. The ARR is then divided by the placebo infection rate to calculate the relative risk reduction or vaccine efficacy.

The problem with this method is that the placebo group is compared twice: first, in calculating the difference in infection rates between the groups, the ARR, and then again by dividing the ARR by the placebo group. You might recall that dividing a number by a fraction results in a higher number. Dividing the ARR by the placebo infection rate ensures that the vaccine efficacy, the RRR, is always higher than the absolute risk reduction. How much higher?

Sometimes, as seen in the above example of the Pfizer vaccine, the RRR can be as much as 95% higher than the absolute risk reduction. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, insinuated that an analysis of AZT clinical trial data during the AIDS epidemic used a similar risk reduction method to increase the “significance” of trial results. Fauci documentary (25:14).

Now, if you work in a pharmaceutical company research and development department, and your job is to report the outcome of your clinical trial, which number would you prefer to report to increase your sales, a 1% ARR, or a 95% RRR? Take your time in answering; I know this is a hard question. Perhaps this will help: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in their publication, Communicating Risks and Benefits, that both the ARR and RRR should be reported to the public. Obviously, public health authorities didn’t allow that to happen when reporting results of the Pfzier and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trials, nor was the ARR reported when the FDA Advisory Committee granted authorization and approval of the vaccines.

Although an approximate 1% ARR represents 10,000 prevented infections per 1 million vaccinations, there are two problems with this point. First, the public has not been provided with sufficient information to consent to a treatment with a mere 1% ARR. Second, evidence of temporary anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant effects from an ingredient used to stabilize the mRNA in the vaccines, polyethylene glycol (PEG), may account for the ultralow and waning vaccine ARR, and more investigations are needed in this area. Furthermore, after decades of failed attempts, there is still no clinical evidence proving the hypothesis that injecting mRNA into human cells in vivo is able to overcome cell defense mechanisms and successfully translate into ribosomal biogenesis of proteins that stimulate an immune response.

Preventing Severe Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths

Having established that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have ultralow efficacy in preventing infections with at least one mild or moderate symptom in clinical trials, how is it possible that the vaccines can prevent severe infections, hospitalizations, and deaths within the general public? Such claims are based on observational evidence of large numbers of healthy people within the general public who received the mRNA vaccines and who avoided severe infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

But this evidence is not causative, and the evidence is flawed by selection bias. For example, to study clinical trial endpoints of severe infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, participants in a vaccine trial must be selected who are at greater risk for these conditions than healthy people. No such vaccine trials exist, and the claims cannot be substantiated.

Unvaccinated Hospitalizations and Threats to Others

Vaccine hesitancy is more common in people from minorities who have lower socioeconomic status (SES). People from Black and Hispanic minorities also have greater rates of obesity, chronic disease, and poor nutritional status which increase susceptibility to infection. People with lower SES generally have less access to primary healthcare providers and are more dependent on emergency room care. These social determinants, not lack of protection from a vaccine with an approximate 1% ARR, most likely account for higher rates of unvaccinated people in hospitals. Low Socioeconomic Status Mediates Vaccine Hesitancy and COVID-19 Hospitalizations.

Finally, with such low vaccine efficacy, people receiving the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are susceptible to infection, reinfection, and transmission of viruses at the same rate as most unvaccinated people.

Summary of Evidence

A legal case against those who spread misinformation and enforce COVID-19 vaccine mandates on employees and the general public is based on the following points:

Vaccine efficacy measures the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine’s ability to prevent an infection with a mild or moderate symptom in a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard for demonstrating causality, and which should not be confused with observation studies that only imply vaccine effectiveness.

Vaccine efficacy, or the relative risk reduction (RRR), is calculated from clinical trial results by comparing the vaccine infection rate with the placebo infection rate.

The method of calculating the RRR from the relative risk (RR) is a proportional measure used for population studies, but is not sensitive enough for use in a clinical trial to measure individual reductions in infections, known as the absolute risk reduction (ARR).

The reciprocal of the ARR is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV), which is used to compare results of clinical trials.

The absolute risk reductions of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are approximately 1% compared to RRRs of approximately 95%.

Calculating the RRR with the risk reduction method statistically manipulates the ARR to increase the RRR, a method apparently familiar to Dr. Fauci.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that both the RRR and ARR should be communicated to the public, which public health authorities and the FDA Advisory Committee that authorized and approved the vaccines ignored.

An approximate 1% ARR should be reported to the public to provide necessary information before consenting to vaccination.

Polyethylene glycol may account for the vaccine’s temporary anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects, and, after decades of failed attempts, there is still no proof that mRNA injected into cells can overcome cell defenses and stimulate an immune response through translation of protein biogenesis.

No clinical trial evidence exists that the vaccines can prevent severe infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Social determinants of poor health and higher susceptibility to infection accounts for higher hospitalization rates of unvaccinated people with lower socioeconomic status and vaccine hesitancy.

Vaccinated people have no more protection against viral infection than most other unvaccinated people.

Based on this evidence, those who impose COVID-19 vaccine mandates must be held accountable for spreading false information and inflicting harm on employees and the general public.

Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the…

www.mdpi.com

Breakthrough infections might not be as contagious as previously thought

After then we have reports from two clubs 1, 2, stuffed with fully vaccinated persons and checked for vaccination passports, who got all infected during single event as a single man...