Covid-19 News

Quote from Fm1

We have been told by everyone from President Biden on down, to the CDC Director Walenski that “breakthrough infections are rare” – they are not – that this has become a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” – it is not – and most disturbingly and illogically (talking to you Mr. Krugman), that the reason we are not all having dinner parties right now is that the unvaccinated have let the rest of us responsible people down

Well just some comments. Breakthrough infections would be rare if the overall infection rate was small - but the idea that vaccinated people cannot be infected with delta is weird and I agree the US messaging has seemed very out of touch.

It is however a pandemic of the unvaccinated. What distinguishes COVID from Flu? The fact that it is much more dangerous. With vaccination, COVID becomes about as dangerous as a bad starin of Flu - admittedly with some added nasties like long COVID. The US has its problem with hospitals clogging up mostly because so many of the at-risk people in some States have believed political and anti-vax lies and end up in hospital.

MUSC Reports on CDC’s ‘Overcoming COVD-19’ Observational Study Indicating Rare but Severe Pediatric Risks in Children & Young Adults

MUSC Reports on CDC’s ‘Overcoming COVD-19’ Observational Study Indicating Rare but Severe Pediatric Risks in Children & Young Adults

The” Overcoming COVID-19” study sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included dozens of prominent academic medical

trialsitenews.com

The” Overcoming COVID-19” study sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included dozens of prominent academic medical centers in a study to track and characterize the development of complications in children and young adults as a result of exposure to COVID-19, including Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). The study team set up real-time surveillance, reporting, and prospective enrollment of study subjects and associated respiratory and blood samples. The goal: better understand the risk factors and outcomes associated with COVID-19 critical illness in the pediatric population and clarify complications found in younger populations thought to be associated with COVID-19. Finally, the study was designed to identify these complications’ predictive markers while characterizing the development and maintenance of adaptive immunity. TrialSite shares some of the key results below. While only a small percentage of COVID-19 cases involving children or young adults end up severe, it does happen. While overall rare, in a small percentage of cases, severe COVID-19 leads to significant problems. Among this group experiencing severe problems, 22% experienced neurologic involvement. The majority of these were temporary, but tragically, a small (rare) cohort experienced long-term crises and some reported deaths.

The study involved 61 hospitals across the United States, including a prominent role of Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) ’s Shawn Jenkins Children’s Hospital. Recently, MUSC’s News Center reported on the study findings. Authored by Ryan Barr, the findings indicate that children and adolescents risk developing severe neurological complications from the novel coronavirus leading to hospitalization.

Elizabeth Mack, MD, chief of pediatric critical care medicine at MUSC, served as principal investigator, representing the prominent South Carolina-based trial site. MUSC News Center shared that the study team discovered that 22% of the children and adolescents hospitalized with acute COVID-19 developed neurological symptoms such as altered awareness, seizures, and difficulty walking or crawling. The study findings were published recently in American Medical Association (JAMA) Neurology.

Rare Occurrences but Spiking with Delta

TrialSite emphasizes that overall hospitalization rates for children and adolescents exposed to COVID-19 are rare but have increased with the emergence of the more highly transmissible and more virally charged variant—Delta.

A prominent CDC-led study indicates a peaking of adolescent hospitalization of 2.1 per 100,000 by early January, a decline to 0.6 by mid-March, ascending to 1.3 by April. About a third of hospitalized adolescents progressed to more severe situations involving mechanical ventilation, for example. No associated deaths occurred with this particular study cohort.

MUSC Supported Study—More Severe Reports

MUSCH News Center reported a majority of the youth to adolescent symptoms were temporary, but some children face longer, more severe troubles. For example, out of the 1,695 patients nationwide, 43 (2.5%) experienced more dangerous neurological disorders such as brain damage or stroke, while 11 children in this rare hospitalized cohort died (.006%). Seventeen of the rare hospitalized cohort (1%) survived with continuing neurological problems.

Study Funding

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Trial Sites

The following website shows the participating trial sites.

About MUSC Shawn Jenkins Children’s Hospital

MUSC’s Shawn Jenkins Children’s Hospital is a nationally ranked, freestanding acute care women’s and children’s hospital in Charleston, South Carolina. It is affiliated with the Medical University of South Carolina. The hospital features all private rooms that consist of 250 pediatric beds and 29 beds for women. The hospital provides comprehensive pediatric specialties and subspecialties to infants, children, teens, and young adults aged 0–21 throughout the Carolinas. The hospital also sometimes treats adults that require pediatric care. The hospital has a rooftop helipad and is an ACS verified level I pediatric trauma center, the only one in South Carolina. The hospital features a regional pediatric intensive-care unit, and an American Academy of Pediatrics verified level IV neonatal intensive care unit.

Lead Research/Investigator

At MUSC, the study was led by Dr. Elizabeth Mack.

Call to Action: TrialSite is committed to tracking studies that investigate severe COVID-19 involving children.

Neurologic Involvement in Children and Adolescents Hospitalized in the United States for COVID-19 or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

Neurologic Involvement in Children and Adolescents With COVID-19 or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

This study evaluates the range and severity of neurologic involvement among children and adolescents associated with COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

Quote from THHuxleynew

FM1 - you are getting as bad as W. it don't suit you.

If you think I am in any way dishonest posting here you are an idiot.

THHuxleynew

I think you have that backwords. You first said this to Fm1 :

"If you don't see that, after reading the above posts, you could try to explain why. Otherwise I'll view you as posting dishonest rhetoric that you know is false when you back them"

He then replied with "Dishonest rhetoric? FU!!!!!". He was not accusing you of being dishonest. He was reacting to being accused by you.

I wish he had chosen his words better, but no one likes being told that so it is understandable. That is why I did not edit. Maybe you did not mean it that way? You are usually very diplomatic about this stuff, and it surprised me when I read it.

Quote from Fm1

MUSC Reports on CDC’s ‘Overcoming COVD-19’ Observational Study Indicating Rare but Severe Pediatric Risks in Children & Young Adults

Loosing a child is always hard. But the overall picture is not different from flu or vaccination that both may produce the same results. The paper also shows a social effect with far more hispanic & black people involved. This most likely leads to situations - small living rooms - where children get a high initial dose.

USA is a dangerous place for people with few money...

Our friends down under seem to have gone stark raving mad to me. All over a few cases, and almost no deaths:

All the changes that just came into force across NSW

www.9news.com.au

But after reading comments on many of the articles, the government's harsh, and frequent lockdown policies appear to be largely supported by the people as a necessary evil. There is some dissent yes, but those voices are quickly shouted down. I could be wrong, but that is my impression.

Quote from Shane D.

"If you don't see that, after reading the above posts, you could try to explain why. Otherwise I'll view you as posting dishonest rhetoric that you know is false when you back them"

He then replied with "Dishonest rhetoric? FU!!!!!". He was not accusing you of being dishonest. He was reacting to being accused by you.

Thanks Shane. FM1, my apologies for what you understood.

I was quite carefully making my accusation of dishonesty conditional (on you being undeniably dishonest in the future). Not saying you are dishonest now.

Cos I don't understand you endorsing those painfully false posts W keeps on making. I was restricting this to the one specific dishonesty (using UP as evidence that ivermectin works) which has been so clearly refuted. Obviously everyone comes to their own conclusions and I would not accuse anyone of dishonesty just because I disagreed with them.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I was restricting this to the one specific dishonesty (using UP as evidence that ivermectin works) which has been so clearly refuted.

You are a FUD'er. Please keep your fake news for yourself.

Show us an other country on this planet with 10-20 daily CoV-19 cases, <= 2 death and > 200 mio inhabitants...

Your logic is not even children level. Do you talk with your dog?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Cos I don't understand you endorsing those painfully false posts W keeps on making

Wytten has started providing references more frequently. There are still so many unsettled issues on this, I just do not think a heavy-handed moderating approach is appropriate.

That said, I would have to admit that your tribe has done very well making the case for vaccines 12 and older -for those not already infected. It persuaded me, and as a result I tried to get 2 of my friends to get the shot. One told me to "shove it", but that is another story.

You would not have been able to hone, and refine your arguments had Wytten, RB, Mark, and FM not challenged you and Jed every step of the way. That is the magic of open, and uncensored debate.

Plus, Wytten has a theory for LENR that will hopefully save the planet, and you don't. So there!

Quote from Shane D.

It persuaded me, and as a result I tried to get 2 of my friends to get the shot.

It is no doubt that people at risk age >75 or >= 2 comorbidities do better with a vaccination (moderna please). Especially in the USA with a world record high death rate due to multiple issues.

I would never recommend anybody younger <45 and healthy to risk an experimental gen therapy. I could never live with the potential harm I did cause.

In March/April 20 I did face an even worse situation with a remote friend being already down for 5 days and the strong feeling that I'm responsible for his live. At that time we did not yet have definitive answers what drugs can help for best fighting CoV-19 and we made some wise decisions before we could bring in a doctor that had experience from his own illness. The complication was that he had to many comorbidity and a wrong drug selection could do more harm than good.

E.g. we finally decided not to give HCQ.

The overall severe damage rate from vaccines is > 0.025%. This is not low and damage often lasts live long. If you are 75 this is may be 10 years but if you are 15 its your whole real live.

Just the tip,of the iceberg https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-deaths/

Israel: So far > 50 deaths among group 20..29 from vaccines.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I would never recommend anybody younger <45 and healthy to risk an experimental gen therapy. I could never live with the potential harm I did cause

What changed it for me was the Delta variant. The vaccines do clearly minimize the severity. Looking back 5 years from now, will it be judged as the right decision to embrace the vaccine? Who knows, but I will deal with it if I made a mistake.

My 37 year old son got Bells Palsey from the vaccine (he thinks), which resolved itself before getting his appointment with a Neurologist. I thought he was crazy to have gotten the shot after he was first dignosed, but now, after Delta, I am glad he did.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Loosing a child is always hard. But the overall picture is not different from flu or vaccination that both may produce the same results. The paper also shows a social effect with far more hispanic & black people involved. This most likely leads to situations - small living rooms - where children get a high initial dose.

USA is a dangerous place for people with few money...

Not again...

The overall picture is very different from vaccination. This was 28 children permanently brain damaged or dead. Out of 1695 children hospitalised March - December 2020 (original + also some alpha).

The risk of hospitalisation for children 12-17 is:

As of May 10, 2021, there were 1,606,199 SARS-CoV-2 infections reported among adolescents 12-17 years of age in the United States.¹

During April 2021, children 12-17 years comprised 9% of total SARS-CoV-2 infections reported in the United States¹.

Hospitalization:

COVID-19 Associated Hospitalization Network (COVID-NET), a population-based surveillance system, reports a cumulative hospitalization rate among adolescents aged 12-17 years of 53.1 per 100,000 population as of May 1, 2021, indicating over 13,000 SARS-CoV-2 associated hospitalizations for this age group.²

13,000 / 1,606,199 ~ 8 : 1000. (1%).

Therefore the rate of brain damage or death to children from (original / alpha) COVID is 1% * 1.6% = 160 per 1,000,000 cases.

If we suppose 50% of infections in children will never be detected and not become cases we have a ball park risk of brain damage or death of 80 per million. (Death alone 30 per million).

Here is a more scholarly analysis from the UK (less politics) published as a preprint detailing 12-16 year old vaccine pros and cons (not yet allowed in UK).

Vaccinating adolescents in England: a risk-benefit analysis

The UK JCVI committee recently announced that vaccines would not be offered to all 12-17 year olds, as the potential risks were not outweighed by the benefits.…

osf.io

I like it because it explicitly makes a risk / benefit calculation - which many people do not. And it points out that COVID risks scale with COVID infection rate.

We should assume it to be near 100% with delta.

Here are the figures:

We have explicitly not factored vaccine uptake into our analysis because we only considered direct

risks and benefits to children either with or without vaccination. Thus the risk/benefit calculation

among those vaccinated is not changed by considering vaccine uptake. Were we considering

additional secondary impacts on transmission, vaccine uptake would be a crucial parameter.

We find that in England, if the late July 2021 rates of infection among 12 -17 year olds (1000 per

100,000 per week) continue over 16 weeks, this would lead to 5,100 hospitalisations, 330 admissions

to ICU (with 280 adolescents requiring ventilation), and 40 deaths. Vaccination is estimated to avert

4,590 COVID - 19 hospitalisations, 300 ICU admissions, 250 needing ventilation, and 36 deaths, with

the disbenefit of 160 cases of vaccine - associated myocarditis/pericarditis (see Figure 2A). Even if we

assume all cases of vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis required hospitalisation, vaccination

would still avert 4,430 hospitalisations. For long COVID, vaccination would avert 31,000 (assuming 8%

incidence) or 16,000 (assuming 4% incidence) cases in 12-17 year olds.

The population these figures use is 4,000,000.

COVID:

For a 16% total infection rate over these 4 weeks we have 40 deaths from COVID, 5100 hospitalisations

For a 100% infection rate that scales to 225 deaths, 31875 hospitalisations

Vaccination averts 90% of these deaths

For comparison with the above we have 225 deaths per million infected. I prefer this figure to the much less accurate 30 per million US figure. But we should note that delta death rate may be a bit higher.

Vaccination:

For this same population, we expect 160 cases of vaccine-induced myocarditis/pericarditis. Even if all are hospitalised, that is 30 times smaller than COVID for 16% infection.

No deaths figures because we do not yet have any child deaths from myocarditis/pericarditis induced by vaccine.

The scales are weighted (given 16% chance your 12-17 child gets infected) 10X in favour of the vaccine - and that is for hospitalisation. Note it is only 10X because the vaccine does not prevent all COVID deaths. For vaccinated children the COVID risk is still larger than the vaccine risk.

W will produce some false figure for the deaths caused by COVID vaccines. If anyone here finds that even 10% convincing I will happily examine his figures and show why they are anti-vax lies.

(thus far, he has posted figures which conflate all deaths over a time interval close to vaccination with vaccine-caused deaths)

COVID: 10 dead (and from US ratio of damage to death - another 20 permanently brain damaged) children per 1,000,000

Vaccine: 0 dead - 40 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis per million. If you suppose 10% of these cases leaves permanent damage (high - almost all appear to recover completely and within a few days) that is 4 damage compared with 30 dead or damaged from COVID.

If you go up to 100% COVID infection the equation looks even more weighted in favour of vaccine, because we have 225 deaths and (presumably from US figures) another 300 or so permanently brain damaged.

Caveat - the UK figures, though published, might be a bit flaky. But the equation is so heavily weighted in favour of vaccination, if you want your children to live, that it is understandable that doctors in the UK are annoyed at over-cautious regulators who are waiting for more definite information before allowing vaccination. A lot of children will die while they wait.

THH

Quote from Shane D.

What changed it for me was the Delta variant. The vaccines do clearly minimize the severity. Looking back 5 years from now, will it be judged as the right decision to embrace the vaccine? Who knows, but I will deal with it if I made a mistake.

My 37 year old son got Bells Palsey from the vaccine (he thinks), which resolved itself before getting his appointment with a Neurologist. I thought he was crazy to have gotten the shot after he was first dignosed, but now, after Delta, I am glad he did.

Bells Palsey is an incredibly rare side effect of vaccination, and the background rate (just getting it spontaneously) is higher. Whereas, if he had heard of that as a possibility, imagining this would be more likely. I don't mean to be dismissive - we all are hypochondriac and if we hear of a possibility of a serious disease tend to self-diagnose that we have it. And given vaccines exercise the immune system there can be all sorts of transient symptoms.

It is still true that risks for children from COVID are low - but they are real, and risks from vaccine are lower.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I would never recommend anybody younger <45 and healthy to risk an experimental gen therapy. I could never live with the potential harm I did cause.

I'm glad that you are not a doctor so your recommendations carry little weight. From the figures, if people followed you, a significant number would therefore die., and many more suffer long COVID.

We can continue with figures if you like - by all means post your claimed vaccine risks - but I need more than a dark web set of numbers. i need to know from which dataset they come, how they are derived. I'm sure you can do that.

I'll just point out pre-emptively that you will need to consider the background risk of death (from any given cause) when evaluating whether deaths are caused by vaccines.

If using real world comparisons you will have to compensate for the fact that all children at higher than normal risk due to illness will be preferentially vaccinated, so you cannot directly compare whole population vaccinated deaths with unvaccinated deaths - the vaccinated group starts off with nearly all of the childhood illnesses - and specifically all the immunocompromised children.

The Leaked CDC SARS-CoV-2 Delta Strain Presentation; Key Takeaways

The Leaked CDC SARS-CoV-2 Delta Strain Presentation; Key Takeaways

By: Robert W Malone, MD, MS July 29, 2021, a confidential internal presentation from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) inadvertently

trialsitenews.com

By: Robert W Malone, MD, MS

July 29, 2021, a confidential internal presentation from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) inadvertently made its way to the public via the Washington Post. The deck showcased data and thinking concerning the infectivity of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and public health policy that may run against the popular grain. After the Washington Post published a brief article which buried the lead by focusing on CDC communication challenges, the data and implications of the presentation and data have been largely overlooked.

Although we have heard much from the mainstream media about how the Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant is filling up hospitals including pediatric intensive care wards and driving a new wave of preventable deaths, and how we now have a “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” driven by misinformation promulgated by a “Dirty Dozen” who spread vaccine “misinformation”, information leaked to the Washington Post has revealed that much of the truth about Delta has been hidden or otherwise misrepresented to the public by the CDC. What was leaked runs contrary to the dominant narrative pushed by the Biden administration and the press. This leaked information was superficially covered and then quickly vanished from public awareness.

In terms of the general public, perhaps this is for the best? After all, why focus on inconvenient truths when there is so little that the public can do to mitigate the impact on their daily lives? However, TrialSite is not designed to provide information to a general audience, but rather to those involved in medical product development and the clinical research community, or those that have possess an innate drive to learn more about research. Analysis of inconvenient COVID-19 medical truths are important for our readership, because they impact on clinical trial design, data analysis, decision making, and all strategic and tactical aspects of medical product development planning.

In support of our unique readership, TrialSite is providing a brief overview and analysis of key slides in the leaked presentation. The goal is to help identify internal information which the CDC has sought to avoid disclosing to the general public, but which is critical for our readers and the industry in which they work. To follow along, please see the power point presentation available here.

In side #2 of the presentation, the recommended public health messaging challenges and recommendations for wording to be used when communicating with the press and public are highlighted. Review of the following slides #3 to #5 illustrates the CDC focus on COVID-19 clinical outcomes rather than breakthrough infection and transmissibility, and indicates an inflection point in April 2021 beyond which both hospitalization and death endpoints for vaccinated begun to climb.

Of interest in slide #4 is the slope of the rise in deaths in the vaccinated is greater than that of the rise in hospitalization. A similar paradox is also seen in the more recent UK datasets concerning Delta infections in vaccinated individuals, and this has been a persistent finding in those data. This trend should be closely monitored, and if persistent and statistically significant, raises concerns that this may indicate signs of antibody dependent enhancement. Given the recent information concerning poor durability of the genetic vaccines (Moderna, Pfizer, J&J), sub analysis of these data based on time post completion of vaccination would be useful (eg, <6 months post, >= 6 months post vax). Such an approach might help clarify the contribution of waning immunity to this effect.

Slides #6 through #13 focus on currently available vaccine effectiveness (VE) data. VE calculations provided primarily focus on death and disease, show reduced effectiveness compared to earlier projections, and predominantly cover a blended time frame in which contributions from Beta predominates and Delta infection is minimal or non-existent. In contrast, recent reports from Israel (from Delta) indicate Pfizer vaccine effectiveness of less than 40% in preventing breakthrough infections.

The CDC information, analyses and interpretations concerning the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 are included in slides #14 through #22. These include a number of surprising findings as well as some rather odd internal contradictions. Slide #15 is pivotal and establishes broad context for how CDC assesses the public health threat posed by Delta. From this slide we learn that the CDC believes that Delta infection poses approximately the same risk for death from disease as posed by the original ancestral strain, but is as infectious as “chicken pox” (varicella-zoster virus), which has a baseline reproductive coefficient (Ro) of approximately 8- about 2.5 times the Ro of the ancestral strain. Furthermore, as summarized in slides #16 and 17, the viral load observed during Delta infection (breakthrough or primary infection) is significantly higher than observed with the ancestral strain. Delta titers are at least as high in previously vaccinated as in unvaccinated. Slide #19 summarizes data then available concerning reduced vaccine effectiveness for the Delta strain relative to the ancestral Alpha strain, although more recent data from Israel indicate that Pfizer vaccine effectiveness against Delta infection is under 40%.

Among the most surprising and alarming aspects of the entire presentation are the epidemiologic risk management modeling findings presented Slides #20 and #21. This pair of slides are complicated and difficult to understand for those who have not previously encountered these types of analyses, which may explain why the Washington Post did not discuss the information and conclusions.

These represent statistical modeling projections for the potential impact of different intervention options (vaccination and mask use) based on assumptions concerning the reproductive coefficient of the virus, the effectiveness of mask or vaccine use, the extent of vaccine acceptance in the population (uptake), and the fraction of the population which has been previously exposed/recovered/naturally immune due to prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The NPIs mentioned in the title refers to non-pharmaceutical interventions (ergo masks, social distancing, etc.). The starting point for understanding these projections is to understand the underlying assumptions of the modeling performed; 1) Vaccination is presumed to 75-80% effective in preventing infection (but the most recent data indicate that approximately half that value is a more reasonable assumption). This is a measure of the “leakiness” of the vaccines, which here is assumed to be 20-25%, but is more likely to be about 60%. 2) The Ro is presumed to be 5 for these models (Ro = 2.5 for Alpha), but in Slide #15 we learned that the Delta Ro is 8. 3) “Natural Immunity” from prior infection/recovery is presumed to be either 5 or 35% of the population. 4) The baseline “incidence” of new cases of infection is presumed to be 50 cases/100,000 population/week. 5) The benefits of mask use in preventing infection of those wearing a mask is presumed to be 20-30%, whereas the benefits for blocking virus transmission from infected persons is presumed to be 40-60% effective. The vertical axis projects the probability that the 50 new cases/100,000/week increases based on the modeled interventions (vaccine uptake, mask use).

The horizontal axis projects the fraction of the overall population which has been fully vaccinated (eg. 0.6 = 60% vaccine uptake). Based on the “red box” designation, CDC appears to presume that 5% of the overall population currently has “natural protection” from prior infection and recovery. The darker brown curve represents the probability range of viral spread (increase) if no mask use (vaccine intervention alone). The mustard-colored curve reflects the modeled effect of just masking the unvaccinated. The purple curve indicates the modeled effect of masking on both vaccinated and unvaccinated. These mask effectiveness ranges are the reason why the curve plots are so broad, rather than just being a single line. Based on the flawed assumptions used (those flaws being that Ro is actually 8, not 5, and vaccine effectiveness is more like 40%), these projections indicate that at approximately 60% vaccine uptake (also a bit optimistic at this point), in the absence of mask use the Delta variant has an approximately 100% probability of spreading at greater than 50 cases/100,000/week. If only the unvaccinated were to wear masks, the probability of seeing further spread ranges from 40 to 100%.

If both vaccinated and unvaccinated practice optimal mask use, the probability of further Delta viral spread ranges from 0 to 90%. From this analysis (Slide # 22), the CDC concludes that “Given higher transmissibility and current vaccine coverage, universal masking is essential to reduce transmission of the Delta variant” (below 50 cases/100,000/week). Based on these projections, it appears that if the more realistic variables of Ro =8, 40% vaccine effectiveness, and suboptimal mask use are employed, it is unlikely that the eventual spread of the Delta variant through the general population can be controlled even with considerably higher uptake of these leaky vaccines and perfect mask compliance.

Slide #22 pretty much sums up the bleak situation. Called “Summary” the CDC summarizes the following; 1) Delta is highly contagious and likely more severe (the latter point is contradicted by slide #15 as well as more recent data). 2) “Breakthrough” infection cases are just as likely to infect others as infections of those not previously vaccinated. 3) Vaccination appears to still prevent more severe disease from Delta compared to those who are unvaccinated (however both slide #4 and UK data show a paradoxical increase in death in vaccine breakthrough cases relative to severe disease). 4) Vaccination alone cannot stop the spread of Delta. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (mask use) will also be needed (but the data indicate that even full mask compliance will only slow the spread).

How to Transcend this Crisis?

Of course the answer would depend on one’s point of view. The following actions should be considered:

· Provide personal risk assessment tools

Provide clear and complete data on vaccination risks

· Offer vaccination to high risk individuals

· COVID is complex, with different stages. Allow physicians to practice evidence -based medicine guided by laboratory tests

· Use sequence-independent, stage appropriate medicines (Ivermectin, Famotidine/Celecoxib, Fluvoxamine, Apixaban, Vitamin D, etc.). Aggressive and early treatment is critical.

Emphasize treating patients as soon as they develop the disease (outpatient)

· Stop censoring and blocking repurposed drug development

· Think precision evidence-based medicine guided by laboratory test values

Finally, in contrast to the message and information management strategy which CDC proposes in slide #23, the following messaging strategy is suggested:

· Public health campaigns should be positive, ethical, truthful & empathic.

· People should feel empowered when making health choices.

· In both actions and words It’s important to steer clear of fear, coercion, and questionable ethics…for the present, but arguably mostly for the future.

· Obey federal law concerning bioethics (common rule) and be transparent about risks as well as benefits. Do not circumvent time tested processes and ethics.

· Trust, educate, and respect citizens right to choose

· Public health messaging should avoid authoritarian demands, information censorship, and psychological manipulation via big media and big tech.

We refer to sources here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-guidance/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/18/cdc-data-delay-delta-variant/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/

Quote from THHuxleynew

Vaccine: 0 dead - 40 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis per million.

You spread FUD again. Israel = best data shows 50 dead children from vaccines so far. (USA > 300!) Nobody is talking of myocarditis. This - myocarditis - just leads with no doubt to a live long damage of the heart (scarves!)

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'll just point out pre-emptively that you will need to consider the background risk of death

Do not FUD. Read the site I linked before you post!

OUR GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE COVID PANDEMIC BY GOVERNMENTS OF THE NATIONS OF THE UK

OUR GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE COVID PANDEMIC BY GOVERNMENTS OF THE NATIONS OF THE UK

Mr Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Ms Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland Mr Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales Mr Paul Givan, First Minister

trialsitenews.com

Mr Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Ms Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland

Mr Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales

Mr Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland

Mr Sajid Javid, Health Secretary

Dr Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer

Dr Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Follow the TSN COVID-19 Channel

Other Signatories

Dr Fiona Martindale MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Ian Comaish BM BCh Affiliations: FRCOphth, Consultant Ophthalmologist

Dr Eashwarran Kohilathas BMBS, GP trainee

Dr Kulvinder Manik MBChB, MRCGP, MA(Cantab), LLM, Gray’s Inn, General Practitioner

Dr David Morris MBChB MRCP(Uk) BSEM, General Practitioner

Dr Michael Bell MBChB (1978 Edin) MRCGP (1989), General Medical Practitioner (Retired)

Dr Jessica Robinson BSc.(Hons.) MB. BS. MRCPsych. MFHom, Qualified Doctor, Psychiatrist.

Dr Laura Marshall-Andrews MB MRCPCH DROG MRCGP , General Practitioner

Dr Rohaan Seth MBChB(hons), BSc(hons), MRCGP(2012), General practitioner

Dr Greta Mushet MBChB MRCPsych, Retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy

Dr Carl Simpson MB ChB, MSc, MD, MFPH, FRCGP, FRACGP General Practitioner and Medical Director

Dr S Ferdinando MBBS FRCPsych MSc, Consultant Psychiatrist

Dr Elizabeth Evans MA(Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired doctor

DR Charles Forsyth MBBS, BSEM Independent Medical Practitioner

Dr David T H Williams MB BS BDS FFHom (doctor, holding medical qualification)

Dr Jayne Donegan MMBBS DRCOG DFFP DCH MRCGP MFHom, General Practitioner (Retd)

DR Jon Rogers MBChB MRCGP, GP (Retd)

Dr Clare Jones MB ChB, General Practitioner

Dr Christopher Wood MBBS MRCPsych Psychiatrist (Retd)

Dr Sue De Lacy MBBS MRCGP MFHOM AFMCP UK Integrative health medical practitioner

DR Franziska Meuschel MD ND PhD Affiliations: IDF, BSEM, Doctor (holding medical qualification)

DR Julia Wilkens MD FCROG, Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Dr Helen Heaton BM BS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Christopher Boitz MBChB BSc (Hons), General Practitioner

Dr Clare Craig BM BCh FRCPath, Consultant Pathologist

Dr Sebastien Viatte MD, PhD Physician, Immunologist, Genetic Epidemiologist

Mr Jonathan Hobson BM BCh FRCS, Consultant ENT Surgeon

Dr Peter Campbell MB BS, BOA, FRCSEd, BSLM, Orthopaedic Consultant & Lifestyle Medicine Physician

Dr Ashvy Bhardwaj MBBS MRCGP Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr Sam White MBChB MRCGP Affiliations: RCGP, ILADS, IFM, ANP, Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr Gabriella Day MBBS MRCP, DCh, MRCGP, MFHom, General Practitioner

Dr Amanda Herbert MB BS FRCPath, Retired Consultant Pathologist

Dr Haleema Sheikh MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Elizabeth Corcoran MBBS MRCPsych

Dr Frank Medford MB ChB Consultant Psychiatrist (locum)

Dr Emma Brierly MB BS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Sarah Taylor MB BCh MRCPsych Consultant Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist

Dr Art O’Malley BA, MB, BCh, DCH, MRCGP, MRCPsych, FRCPsych Psychiatric consultant and GP AND Trauma specialist

Dr Nichola Ling MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician

Dr Theresa Lawrie MBBCh, PhD Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr Karen Malone BM(Hons) MRCGP ASLM/BSLM Dip Affiliations: BSLM General Practitioner

Dr Andrew Ling RCOA Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr Christina Peers MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH GP trained, Consultant in Contraception and Reproductive Health

Dr Pascal Mensah General Practitioner, Member of the British society of Immunology

Dr Charlie Sayer MBBS FRCR Consultant Radiologist

Dr Amir ASHGARI MD, FARCgp, General Practitioner

Dr Mary Walsh MB BCh, General Practitioner

Dr Gerard Hall MBBS FRCP, Consultant Physician

Dr David Jackson BSc MB BCh MRCP FRCR, Consultant Radiologist

Dr Jessica Engler MBChB, BSc (hons), GP Trainee

Dr Suhail Hussain MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, DFFP, PG Dip diabetes, General Practitioner

Dr Polly Keeling MB ChB, Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr Anastasia Maria Loupis MD, Emergency Medicine Doctor

Dr Sam David MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr Jolanta Sliwowska MD, Associate Specialist Anaesthetist

Dr Tony Pearson FRCGP, General Practitioner (Retd)

Dr Stephen Hunter FRCPsych. MMM Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. Past MD, NHS Wales.

Dr Danielle Fisch BA, MD, CCFP (Certification in the College of Family Physicians)

Dr Elisabeth Clewing Retired General Practitioner

Dr Malcolm Kendrick MbCHB MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Ricky Allen MB BS DRCOG MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner

Dr Arunkumar Patel MBBS, MRCPH (UK) Retired Public Health Consultant

Dr Dean Patterson MB ChB, FRCP, Consultant Physician

Dr Nyjon Eccles BSC, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, Integrated Medicine physician

Dr Sheila Richards MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Anna Forbes MBBS BSEM, Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr david crossley MB, BS (1988), FRCA((1993) FFICM(2012), MRCPath(ME), Consultant in anaesthesia and critical care

Dr Liesel Holler MD, Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr Alistair Holdcroft MBChB DOccMed DAvMed DRCOG, GP and Occupational Medicine

Dr Tehmton Sepai MBChB MFHom MLCOM, Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr Peter Chan BM, MRCS (2006), MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Stefanie Williams Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Dr Robert Powell General Practitioner

Dr Holly Young MBChB, MRCP, BSc, PgCert Med Leadership, Consultant in Palliative Medicine

Dr Gabrielle Budd MBChB and BMedSci(Hons) (Otago), PhD, Doctor (holding medical qualification)

Mrs Diane Bartley RGN GPN Dip diabetes,Dip minor illness,Dip asthma,Dip CHD,Dip family planning, Registered Nurse

Mr John Collis Nurse practitioner (retd)

Mrs Debbie Brotherston RCN, Nurse or Midwife

Ms Elspeth Hill RSCN, RGN, NMC, Nurse or Midwife

Mrs Jo Brimmell NMC, RCN, Nurse or Midwife

Mrs Rosemary Wood RGN, Nurse (retd)

Mr Jake Stanworth Registered Mental Health Nurse (RMN)

Ms Margret Watson NMC, Community Mental Health Nurse

Mrs Nicola Campbell Former Registered General Nurse

Mr Andy Reynolds Charge nurse A&E

Mrs Leanne Wakters Ex nurse over 20 years experience

Miss Ruth Oram Senior Staff Nurse

Ms Dee norwood Nurse or Midwife (NHS)

Miss Anna Phillips Registered paediatric nurse

Mrs Valerie Palmer State Registered Nurse, Community Nurse

Mrs Gayle Gerry BSc (Hons). RN. General practice nurse

Miss Marianna Henley Registered nurse

Mrs Patricia Chedgzoy Regustered nurse

Ms Wendy Armstrong Practice nurse

Mrs Jill Catling State Registered Nurse (retd)

Ms Rhoda Roberts Registered Mental Nurse, Registered Specialist Practitioner in Community Mental Health Nursing, BSc Nursing in the Community

Ms Patricia Penfold Registered nurse (retd)

Mrs Constance Woodall Registered nurse (retd)

Ms Susan Tapper Registered nurse

Mrs Paula Matthews Registered nurse

Ms Julie O’Neil Registered nurse

Miss Nadia Jejna Registered nurse

Mrs Sarah Knights Registered nurse

Ms Susan McAleney Registered nurse

Miss Susan Forbes Former Mental Health Nurse

Mrs Jacqui Ruby Registered nurse

Mrs Mandy Gardiner School nurse support worker

Mrs Jill Mcdonald Registered Nurse and Cardiac Exercise Instructor

Mrs Karen Moore Registered nurse

Ms Kathryn Weymouth Registered midwife

Mrs Patricia Cragg Registered nurse (retd)

Ms Samantha Simpson Registered nurse

Mrs Kate Blake Registered nurse (retd)

Mrs Moira Pratt Registered nurse

Miss Louise Naylor Registered Adult Nurse

Mrs Marie Hartley Registered community nurse

Mr Jon-Paul Mitchell Registered Mental Health Nurse

Mrs Gillian Dawson Registered Nurse (Neonatal)

Mrs Alma Pierce Registered Nurse

Mrs Catherine Jones Paramedic

Dr Teresa Wilson Paramedic

Mr Bhupesh Maisuria Paramedic

Miss Pauline Kiely Paramedic

Quote from Fm1

Of interest in slide #4 is the slope of the rise in deaths in the vaccinated is greater than that of the rise in hospitalization. A similar paradox is also seen in the more recent UK datasets concerning Delta infections in vaccinated individuals, and this has been a persistent finding in those data. This trend should be closely monitored, and if persistent and statistically significant, raises concerns that this may indicate signs of antibody dependent enhancement.

This I already said (posted!) more than 4 weeks ago based on early Israel data that did show a 10% hospitalization risk for PCR+ vaccinated where it is 2% for unvaccinated.

The CDC study has been on google quite while (> 3 weeks now). I mailed it to my brother yesterday....

CDC 29July2021.pdf

Download date 30.July 2021!

Do you have a newer version?

Quote from Shane D.

That is the magic of open, and uncensored debate.

Perhaps variant zeta will win.. .

or the 13th pfizer jab

regardless of the active/reactive activity on this thread

might take awhile

the Taliban were quicker

in the end this thread will extinguish for the glory of LENR

Quote from Wyttenbach

You spread FUD again. Israel = best data shows 50 dead children from vaccines so far.

No link => no evidence

Quote from Wyttenbach

This I already said (posted!) more than 4 weeks ago based on early Israel data that did show a 10% hospitalization risk for PCR+ vaccinated where it is 2% for unvaccinated.

Yes you said that, and I pointed out your error. Post the source again, I'll point out the error again.