The two together seem to work even better.
The "large british study" (link above) is summarized in the NIH Director's blog:
Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated People Less Likely to Cause ‘Long COVID’
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/…kely-to-cause-long-covid/
While accounting for differences in age, sex, and other risk factors, the researchers found that fully vaccinated individuals who developed breakthrough infections were about half (49 percent) as likely as unvaccinated people to report symptoms of Long COVID Syndrome lasting at least four weeks after infection.
It is better than those bad ivermectin comparisons because all one country and they are compensating for the obvious things. You never can, except with a double-blind RCT, compensate for everything. So that data I treat with suspicion. But much less suspicion than any data about infections where personal behaviour can have a big influence. It is true, the antivaxxers prey more successfully on lower socioeconomic classes (though not exclusively on them). That correlates with less good health in many ways. But if they control well for health this is a strong indication.
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.The two together seem to work even better.
At risk of being repetitive, it is weird to talk about covid infection protecting against covid.
Like, being blind protects against blindness.
Maybe someone should tell them that cases have been dropping for 4 straight days. R stands at 1.1 and dropping R is below 1 in the US. Covid is endemic, learn to live with it, it's over!
Covid measures ‘plan C’ has been discussed, senior official tells MPs
Covid measures ‘plan C’ has been discussed, senior official tells MPs | Coronavirus | The Guardian
A “plan C” for tougher coronavirus restrictions has been discussed in official circles, a senior civil servant has confirmed, despite ministers denying that tougher measures are an option this Christmas should the rate of new cases continue to rise.
The indication of planning for potentially harsher restrictions comes as senior scientists and Labour push for the rollout of “plan B”, an existing package of “light-touch” measures including advice to work from home and compulsory face masks in some settings.
Last week the health minster Edward Argar denied that anything of the order of a plan C – which could include restrictions on household mixing at Christmas – was being contemplated by the government.
However, the term was used on Tuesday by Prof Lucy Chappell, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), when MPs asked whether a failure to bring in plan B actions now may mean tighter restrictions are needed later.
“I think it suggests that plan A and plan B and whatever the plan C looks like are mutually exclusive, but they are not,” she told the science and technology select committee on Covid transmission.
Chappell was then questioned on whether a plan C did, in fact, exist.
“It has been proposed … The name has been mentioned. It has not been extensively worked up,” she said, adding that at the DHSC, “at the moment, the focus is on plan B”.
Dr Thomas Waite, the interim deputy chief medical officer at the DHSC, said it was up to the government, not scientific advisers, to decide whether plan B should be introduced. He suggested there was no single measure or threshold that would inform the move, rather a consideration of various factors, including age-stratified case rates, the rate of change in hospital admissions, the impact of waning immunity, and the influence of booster jabs.
The evidence session also included testimony from Prof Sir Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, who suggested that although transmission in the UK was high, focusing on daily figures of Covid hospitalisations and deaths was misleading, noting they included people who needed medical help or had died for another reason.
Pollard also suggested that regular testing in schools was problematic.
“Clearly, the large amount of testing in schools is very disruptive to the system, whether that is the individual child who is then isolating, because they’ve tested positive, but they’re completely well, or it’s because of the concerns that that raises more widely in the school,” he said.
“I think probably we need to move in the pandemic, over this winter, maybe towards the end of the winter, to a completely different system of clinically driven testing,” he said. “In other words, testing people who are unwell rather than having a regular testing of those people who are well.”
Pollard said that while vaccinating people who have yet to have a Covid jab would make a big difference for intensive care, and booster doses may reduce hospital admissions, vaccinations alone would not be enough to remove pressures on the NHS.
“When you look at where the NHS is today, it is incredibly fragile, whether it’s in primary care and secondary care or in social care, and that fragility is only contributed [to] a small amount by Covid,” he said
However, the powerful public figure declared immediately after that acknowledgment, “but the data certainly looks good,” reaffirming Pfizer’s proclamation.
This is outraging nonsense. The vaccine protects at best 40% if you include natural immunity into the calculation.
No antibodies test among children has been done prior to study...
Clever Pfizer cheatings:: This 5% are 4x more children....different group size.....
Exclusions from the evaluable efficacy population occurred for 5.1% of the BNT162b2 group and 2.8% of the placebo group, due to receipt of Dose 2 outside the protocol defined window of 19-42 days after Dose 1 (2.0% in BNT162b2 and 2.4% in placebo) or due to other important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2 (3.1% in BNT162b2 and 0.5% in placebo)
Efficiency::
The observed VE from at least 7 days after Dose 2 for BNT162b2 10 μg administered to children 5 to <12 years of age without prior evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection before or during the vaccination regimen, per protocol case criteria (refer to Section 7) was 90.7%!!
Very bad figure for a vaccine that decays after 4 months....
Covid is endemic, learn to live with it, it's over!
endemic - yes
live with it - yes
it's over - no
The vaccine protects at best 40% if you include natural immunity into the calculation.
You have always inflated natural immunity X2 - and shown not one iota of evidence for why you do that.
THH
Yet Another Pharmacy Blocks Legitimate Physician Rx for Ivermectin
A pharmacy blocks a legitimate RX prescription for ivermectin, declaring that the drug isn’t approved. The customer declared this was a proper prescription from a physician, but the pharmacist told him to leave after the customer told him that they were breaking the law.
TMZ surfaced the video showing the pharmacist denying the customer the ivermectin prescription despite the doctor’s note in hand. The pharmacist declared they would not honor any ivermectin prescription for COVID-19.
TrialSite recently conducted a survey showing that a majority of pharmacies across the nation are all of a sudden out of supply or have ivermectin on “backorder.” Due to a national purge of the drug—supported by mainstream media fewer doctors can practice medicine
Vaccinated Persons with Substance Abuse Disorders Face Far Higher Risks for Breakthrough Infection & Hospitalization
A study in World Psychiatry, published in the Wiley Online Library, reveals an increased risk of breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with what the study calls “substance use disorders (SUDs).” The authors from Case Western Reserve University, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) assert that even though vaccines are highly effective against COVID-19 in the first handful of months after the second dose, vaccinated individuals with substance abuse disorders are more likely to contract COVID-19 and face poorer outcomes because of the infection. The study was conducted in the United States between December 2020 and August 2021, leveraging federated real-world data via the TriNetX database.
The Study
The study used data from the TriNetX analytics platform, which allows access to real-world data associated with 84.5 million patients from 63 health care organizations in the United States. Patients were categorized based on race, socio-economic status, medical conditions, underlying conditions, and substances used (e.g., alcohol, marijuana, opioids, etc.). All the subjects, regardless of the categories, were fully vaccinated.
Subjects of the Study
Patients with substance abuse issues were typically older, predominately male, and African American. They also came from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Among this group, breakthrough infections were higher for patients who smoked either cigarettes or marijuana. Abuse of drugs and alcohol affects immune system function, which likely contributes to higher rates of infection. This study compared the rates of infection among people with substance abuse disorders as compared to those without SUDs.
Study Results
The results of the study demonstrate that the risk of hospitalization and death was much higher for vaccinated people with SUDs. Those with SUDs faced a 22% higher probability for COVID-19 hospitalization as compared with a 1.6% chance for those not struggling with SUD (RR=14.4, 95% CI: 10.19-20.42). The risk of death from breakthrough cases of COVID-19 in vaccinated patients with SUDs was 1.7% as compared to 0.5% of those without SUDs (RR=3.5, 95% CI: 1.74-7.05). Patients who had cannabis use disorder appeared to have a higher risk of breakthrough infections, and patients who received the Pfizer vaccine also appeared to have a higher percentage of breakthrough infections. Interestingly, the study also revealed that breakthrough infection rates rose among both people with SUDs and non-SUDs as the weather got warmer.
The Delta variant was circulating during the time the study was conducted. The higher rate of breakthrough infections among people with SUDs “might in part be due to behaviors that place them in situations of greater infection risk, or to the effects of the drugs, such as respiratory depression with opioid consumption or the adverse impact of cannabis on immune function.”
The authors of this large observational study tracking electronic medical records state that they had several limitations, including possible misdiagnoses from the data received. Another limitation was that the TriNeX database only represents patients treated for substance abuse and not necessarily the general population. The study concluded that even though vaccines work, people with SUDs who are vaccinated do run a higher risk of breakthrough infection.
Study Funding
This study was supported by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant no. UG1DA049435), the US National Institute of Aging (grants nos. R01 AG057557, R01 AG061388, R56 AG062272), and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland (grant no. 1UL1TR002548-01).
Access to the federated TriNetX database
The authors report that the following groups provided access to the TriNetX federated database:
D.C. Kaelber
MetroHealth System
Case Western Reserve University
Lead Research/Investigators
QuanQiu Wang
Pamela B. Davis
Nora D. Volkow
No, it is not a bit flawed. Anyone looking at the data from before 2019 would know it is true, and why it is true. There is a big difference in longevity and heath between blue states and red states. As it happens, blue states also have much higher vaccination rates. So, the two correlate. That part is simple, and irrefutable.
Of course it is gigantically flawed. The CDC is shamelessly and deceptively using a correlation between those who chose to get vaccinated and better health, to push the idea that the vaccine is safe and won't kill you. From the CDC study :
What are the implications for public health practice?
There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
If in reality the vaccines killed, say, 3 percent (edited to clarify : 3 percent *above expected*) of those taking them within 3 months, this signal would not show up in this type of study, not even close. Yet, the CDC is taking this study to push the idea of vaccine safety. It's a deceptive promotion piece for vaccines, pure and simple, and you're apparently fine with that.
Vaccine COVID-19 Mandate Marches & Protests in New York City Grow
Also in places like in Switzerland :
Type of ultraviolet light most effective at killing COVID is also the safest to use around people
Scientists have long known that ultraviolet light can kill pathogens on surfaces and in air and water. UV robots are used to disinfect empty hospital rooms, buses and trains; UV bulbs in HVAC systems eliminate pathogens in building air; and UV lamps kill bugs in drinking water.
Perhaps you have seen UV wands, UV LEDs and UV air purifiers advertised as silver bullets to protect against the coronavirus. While decades of research have looked at the ability of UV light to kill many pathogens, there are no set standards for UV disinfection products with regard to the coronavirus. These products may work to kill SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, but they also may not.
I am an environmental engineer and expert in UV disinfection. In May 2021, my colleagues and I set out to accurately test various UV systems and see which was the most effective at killing off – or inactivating – SARS-CoV-2.
How does UV light kill a virus?
Light is categorized by wavelength – the distance between peaks of a wave of light – and is measured in nanometers. UV wavelengths range from 100 to 400 nanometers – shorter in wavelength than the violet hues in visible light – and are invisible to the human eye. As wavelength shortens, photons of light contain higher amounts of energy.
Different wavelengths of UV light work better than others for inactivating viruses, and this depends on how well the wavelengths are absorbed by the virus’s DNA or RNA. When UV light gets absorbed, the photons of light transfer their energy to and damage the chemical bonds of the genetic material. The virus is then unable to replicate or cause an infection. Researchers have also shown the proteins that viruses use to attach to a host cell and initiate infection – like the spike proteins on a coronavirus – are also vulnerable to UV light.
The dose of light matters too. Light can vary in intensity – bright light is more intense, and there is more energy in it than in dim light. Being exposed to a bright light for a short time can produce the same UV dose as being exposed to a dim light for a longer period. You need to know the right dose that can kill coronavirus particles at each UV wavelength.
Making ultraviolet lights safe for people
Traditional UV systems use wavelengths at or around 254 nanometers. At these wavelengths the light is dangerous to human skin and eyes, even at low doses. Sunlight includes UV light near these wavelengths; anyone who has ever gotten a bad sunburn knows just how dangerous UV light can be.
However, recent research has shown that at certain UV wavelengths – specifically below 230 nanometers – the high-energy photons are absorbed by the top layers of dead skin cells and don’t penetrate into the active skin layers where damage can occur. Similarly, the tear layer around eyes also blocks out these germicidal UV rays.
This means that at wavelengths of UV light below 230 nanometers, people can move around more freely while the air around them is being disinfected in real time.
Testing different wavelengths
My colleagues and I tested five commonly used UV wavelengths to see which work best to inactivate SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, we tested how large a dose is needed to kill 90% to 99.9% of the viral particles present.
We ran these tests in a biosafety level three facility at the University of Arizona that is built to handle lethal pathogens. There we tested numerous lights across the UV spectrum, including UV LEDs that emit light at 270 and 282 nanometers, traditional UV tube lamps at 254 nanometers and a newer technology called an excited dimer, or excimer, UV source at 222 nanometers.
To test each device we spiked a sample of water with millions of SARS-CoV-2 viruses and coated a petri dish with a thin layer of this mixture. We then shined UV light on the petri dish until we achieved a specific dose. Finally we examined the viral particles to see if they could still infect human cells in culture. If the viruses could infect the cells, the dose was not high enough. If the viruses did not cause an infection, the UV source at that dose had successfully killed the pathogen. We carefully repeated this process for a range of UV doses using the five different UV devices.
Testing different wavelengths
My colleagues and I tested five commonly used UV wavelengths to see which work best to inactivate SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, we tested how large a dose is needed to kill 90% to 99.9% of the viral particles present.
We ran these tests in a biosafety level three facility at the University of Arizona that is built to handle lethal pathogens. There we tested numerous lights across the UV spectrum, including UV LEDs that emit light at 270 and 282 nanometers, traditional UV tube lamps at 254 nanometers and a newer technology called an excited dimer, or excimer, UV source at 222 nanometers.
To test each device we spiked a sample of water with millions of SARS-CoV-2 viruses and coated a petri dish with a thin layer of this mixture. We then shined UV light on the petri dish until we achieved a specific dose. Finally we examined the viral particles to see if they could still infect human cells in culture. If the viruses could infect the cells, the dose was not high enough. If the viruses did not cause an infection, the UV source at that dose had successfully killed the pathogen. We carefully repeated this process for a range of UV doses using the five different UV devices.
Better use of existing tech
Many places or organizations – ranging from the U.S. Air Force to the Space Needle in Seattle to Boeing – are already using or investigating ways to use UV light in the 222 nanometer range to protect public health.
I believe that our findings are important because they quantify the exact doses needed to achieve various levels of SARS-CoV-2 control, whether that be killing 90% or 99.9% of viral particles.
Imagine coffee shops, grocery stores, school classrooms, restaurants and concert venues now made safe by this technology. And this is not a solution for just SARS-CoV-2. These technologies could help protect human health in public spaces in future times of crisis, but also during times of relative normalcy, by reducing exposure to everyday viral and bacterial threats.
You have always inflated natural immunity
You always fail to read links that you don't like.... https://apnews.com/article/cor…cc3928a25b2916e5bd1df3f86
Astounding if true!
I've been trying for 18 months to promote the Hope-Simpson theory. It does take a very different look but has been proven many times over the past 40 years. For a better update check out these studies. It's going to blow your mind!
When we do the math, we find that the URF is 41, well in line with the mean and range described in the Baker paper. It means that over 150,000 people have been killed by the vaccine so far (and we show 8 different ways in that paper, only one of which uses VAERS).
The troubling thing is this: nobody at the CDC, FDA, or on any of the outside committees will admit this. When they are asked, “what is the URF for serious events in VAERS for the COVID vaccine” they are unable to respond. Not even Steven A. Anderson of the FDA can answer that. He said he was the top guy for vaccine safety at the FDA. I heard him say that on a zoom call.
He won’t talk. He doesn’t respond to emails, he doesn’t respond to voicemails. His staff doesn’t respond either.
Not only does the CDC and FDA not respond to such large scale carnage, but on an individual basis, at the personal level, they both minimize the harms done and give the injured seeking some kind of help the cold shoulder. You may remember Maddie, the girl in the Pfizer trial who was seriously injured. The family has had to lawyer up and go after Pfizer, the FDA, CDC and NIH for their neglect.
From
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/fda-buries-data-on-seriously-injured
When Stephanie and Patrick de Garay enrolled their 12-year-old child Maddie and her two brothers in Pfizer’s Covid-19 clinical trial, they believed they were doing the right thing.
That decision has turned into a nightmare. Maddie, a previously healthy, energetic, full of life child, was within 24 hours of her second dose reduced to crippling, scream-inducing pain that landed her in the emergency room where she described feeling like someone was “ripping [her] heart out though [her] neck.”
Over the next several months the nightmare continued, during which Maddie was hospitalized several times and suffered numerous systemic injuries, requires a tube through her nose that carries her food and medicine, and a wheelchair for assistance.
Ms. de Garay documented every detail of Maddie’s injury and reported it to the principal investigator for the Pfizer trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital where the vaccine clinical trial was occurring and where Maddie was treated and admitted. They first tried to treat Maddie as “a mental patient,” telling the family it was psychological and in Maddie’s imagination. Then they claimed it was unrelated to the vaccine (copy of recording with hospital below), and when that argument failed, Pfizer listed this traumatic adverse event as “functional abdominal pain” when reporting to the FDA.
Ms. de Garay reported what occurred to the CDC and FDA through VAERS in June 2021 but nobody from these agencies sought additional information or followed-up with the de Garays. Ms. de Garay also reached out to Dr. Nath, a Chief in the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, responded by stating he was “Sorry to hear of your daughter’s illness” and that “We have certainly heard of a lot of cases of neurological complications form [sic] the vaccine and will be glad to share our experience with them.” (Copy of this email is below.) Unfortunately, other than a call arranged by Maddie’s neurologist, there was no follow-up or response from NIH or any other federal health agency. Even after Ms. de Garay did a press event on June 28, 2021 with Senator Ron Johnson, neither Pfizer nor any health agency reached out in any manner to address Maddie’s injury or obtain any additional information.
Excess Deaths During Pandemic Include Vaccine and Collateral Deaths
Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.
Joel S. Hirschhorn
During the pandemic, many deaths have occurred, approaching 2 million. Ponder this: Have large numbers of excess deaths over pre-pandemic years resulted from something other than COVID infections?
There have been increasing articles and studies about excess deaths during the pandemic. Too many of these seem aimed at getting attention rather than being accurate and balanced. The concept of excess deaths is simple: deaths above what was normally observed before the pandemic. But why are more people dying even after accounting for COVID infection deaths? Getting to the correct answer is the goal of this article.
The core issue in seeking the truth is how to evaluate excess deaths during the pandemic and then explain them if they are not caused by COVID infections. If there really are non-infection excess deaths, then the goal is to rise above often bad and uncertain data from government agencies to correctly figure out whether something especially concerning is happening. Perhaps something that governments do not want to acknowledge and deal with, as we shall see.
Classification of deaths
To get to the truth about excess deaths it is important to make a critical distinction by defining two classes of deaths.
Class 1: First, direct pandemic effects are twofold.
Most attention is needed to assess the magnitude of deaths from COVID infection. These include breakthrough cases that are COVID infections despite full vaccination.
The other direct impact is deaths from COVID vaccines.
Class 2: The second class is very different. They are indirect health impacts resulting from actions other than direct medical actions aimed at addressing COVID.
These are the many collateral deaths resulting from severe contagion controls used by federal and state governments, especially lockdowns, stay-at-home mandates, limited hospital and physician access, school closings, job losses, travel restrictions, and widespread impacts on personal and medical freedom.
These many indirect impacts cause large numbers of deaths across the entire population. They are the collateral damage caused by pandemic government authoritarian actions, but not infections nor COVID vaccines. They are done, supposedly, in the name of public health.
The government does not collect comprehensive data on these indirect deaths. Be clear about this category of deaths. They are caused by all the public health systems to address the pandemic.
To be clear, deaths directly associated with COVID infections cover a range of situations. Government agencies report COVID-related deaths. That word “related” is very important because proving causality has proven contentious. Most physicians see causality when deaths occur soon after COVID symptoms or a positive test result.
There are reasons why there are legitimate concerns and criticisms of official COVID death data. It comes down to what criteria are used to declare a death as either caused by COVID or just, in some way, related to the infection.
US federal and state agencies have, for the most part, been very liberal in declaring deaths as COVID ones. This has resulted from both financial incentives, political motivations (maintaining public fear and acceptance of authoritarian government actions, and procedural government guidance.
In the latter category are guidelines from CDC for death certificates issued in March 2020 that replaced a practice used for the previous 17 years. This change allowed physicians, medical examiners, and coroners to place less importance on all kinds of health problems contributing to a death and, if there was any evidence of COVID virus infection from testing (before or after death) or symptoms, to declare a death as a COVID one.
In other words, many people, especially the elderly, could have died with COVID but NOT from COVID. They may have died from their underlying medical problems and weakened immune system more than effects directly associated with COVID infection. Yet their deaths go into the COVID death column.
On the other side, is the view that some people have died from COVID infection but their death has not been officially declared as a COVID death. Most likely these have been people who have died at home without medical attention. It is difficult to believe that the number of deaths in this class could account for a large excess death figure. Why? Because people who die from COVID infection almost always experience severe symptoms as they move from stage one viral replication to stages two and three when vital organs are attacked, especially breathing problems. These typically cause them to seek medical attention, usually hospitalization where so many COVID deaths occur.
Not to be dismissed, is the reality that many COVID deaths have preempted a number of normally occurring deaths, such as from the seasonal flu and many types of accidents in a more mobile population. The latter is subsumed in the COVID death data. They do not explain excess deaths. If anything, they reduce non-infection excess deaths.
Taking all this into consideration means that COVID death totals are most likely to overstate the lethality of COVID. In fact, as I have discussed elsewhere, COVID lethality for the whole population was initially overstated by Fauci to justify extreme government actions and mass vaccination. He started the pandemic by wrongly saying that the China virus was so much more deadly than the seasonal flu. Only the elderly had a high risk of death (and younger people with serious underlying medical problems) that warranted focused government attention, initially by using safe and effective generics, namely ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and later vaccines.
In seeking the truth about excess deaths, it is most important to recognize the countless and not quantitatively reported indirect impacts of the pandemic on health and deaths of very large numbers of people who were not actually at significant risk from COVID infection.
Deaths have resulted, for example, from people not getting normal pre-pandemic health care from treatment to prevention and suffering from extreme mental stress (often pushing addiction and suicide) caused by abnormal living and negative economic conditions. Unlike direct pandemic deaths, there is hardly any useful tabulation of indirect pandemic death impacts by government agencies. In the name of public health government agencies have harmfully impacted the lives of nearly all Americans.
There is a need for caution when seeing numerical excess deaths beyond official COVID deaths, in coming up with explanations that involve controversial causes. The big example is blaming what seems as major excess deaths on COVID vaccines. Especially if the many indirect pandemic causes of death are not addressed, mainly because data are not readily available.
Also, note that breakthrough COVID infections in fully vaccinated people that sometimes cause death are appropriately categorized as direct COVID deaths.
As I have discussed, declining vaccine ineffectiveness (especially for variants) makes the fully vaccinated vulnerable to dying from COVID infection. But it would be wrong to say that these deaths are different than COVID ones. And wrong to place these deaths in a category of vaccine deaths. Moreover, as I have analyzed, breakthrough deaths in the US most likely account for tens of thousands of deaths, much smaller than true excess deaths. Though their numbers are likely to increase in the coming months and years as mass vaccination continues.
To recap, it is important to focus on the many causes of vaccine-induced deaths and collateral deaths that do not result from the viral infection. Make no mistake, there are now widely recognized medical explanations of vaccine-induced deaths, including a broad array of serious blood problems that this author has reviewed. Data on vaccine deaths will be examined below.
Indirect health impacts
A March 2021 study examined how the pandemic caused non-infection health impacts and made it clear that they cannot be ignored.
“The COVID-19 pandemic and global efforts to contain its spread, such as stay-at-home orders and transportation shutdowns, have created new barriers to accessing healthcare, resulting in changes in service delivery and utilization globally.”
“One hundred and seventy studies were included in the final analysis. Nearly half (46.5%) of included studies focused on cardiovascular health outcomes. The main methodologies used were observational analytic and surveys. Data were drawn from individual health facilities, multicentre networks, regional registries, and national health information systems. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries with only 35.4% of studies representing low- and middle-income countries.”
“Healthcare utilization for non-COVID-19 conditions has decreased almost universally, across both high- and lower-income countries. The pandemic’s impact on non-COVID-19 health outcomes, particularly for chronic diseases, may take years to fully manifest and should be a topic of ongoing study.”
A November 2020 article Death by Lockdown “forecasted more than 100,000 excess deaths due to drug overdoses, suicide, alcoholism, homicide, and untreated depression – all a result not of the virus but of policies of mandatory human separation, economic downturn, business, and school closures, closed medical services, and general depression that comes with a loss of freedom and choice.” What was recognized is “that as bad as a virus is, policies that wreck normal social functioning will cause massive and completely unnecessary suffering and death. “
A new article made these wise observations: “Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance, journalism, academic freedom — and, worst of all, science. They misled the public about the origins of the virus and the true risk it posed. Ignoring their own carefully prepared plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with terrible collateral damage. We still have no convincing evidence that the lockdowns saved lives, but lots of evidence that they have already cost lives and will prove deadlier in the long run than the virus itself. A few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness. In April 2020, John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and other colleagues reported that the fatality rate among the infected was considerably lower than the assumptions used to justify lockdowns.”
The TB case has been one of the worst collateral health impacts of the pandemic. This was documented in a detailed story. “Tuberculosis killed roughly 1.5 million people in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, up from 1.4 million in 2019. And researchers say COVID is to blame.” And there is every indication that it has gotten much worse worldwide. “The COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of progress and efforts in the fight against tuberculosis,” said Dr. Tereza Kasaeva, head of WHO’s global TB program. Kasaeva said that COVID lockdowns, limited access to health care, and patients’ concerns about visiting medical clinics made TB far more deadly during the pandemic.”
Justin Hart of Rational Ground said in October 2021 that “It’s estimated that 50% of regular child immunizations were missed in the spring of 2020. You can do some actual math and I feel confident in saying that more children will die from missed vaccines in a year’s time than died of COVID-19.” This is just another example of a collateral impact of the pandemic.
Another study “found that COVID-19 was cited in only 65% of excess deaths in the first weeks of the pandemic (March-April 2020); deaths from non–COVID-19 causes (eg, Alzheimer disease, diabetes, heart disease) increased sharply in 5 states with the most COVID-19 deaths.”
The conclusion is that when examining excess deaths, it is important to recognize indirect deaths resulting from pandemic control actions by governments.
The Economist article
Here are highlights from a discussion of this widely addressed article titled “The pandemic’s true death toll.”
This conclusion was the attention grabber: “Fifteen million more people have died during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to historical norms, according to a recent October report by the Economist. This figure is more than three times the reported COVID-19 deaths, which stands at 4.6 million people.” In other words, about 10 million excess deaths over direct COVID infection deaths.
“And what about people who died of preventable causes during the pandemic because hospitals full of COVID-19 patients could not treat them? If such cases count, they must be offset by deaths that did not occur but would have in normal times, such as those caused by flu or air pollution.” These ideas fall into the class of indirect COVID impacts.
The Economist had to invoke indirect pandemic impacts in addition to vaccine-induced deaths. When speaking of many millions of excess deaths globally, the only rational explanation is the widespread indirect pandemic impacts that have devastated the entire global population. This means that it has not been the virus that has killed most people, but rather government actions. It is quite plausible that for every COVID death two more people have died from the indirect impacts of pandemic management.
Here are the data reported for North America: 675 million COVID infection deaths and 843 million excess deaths (middle uncertainty). That is a very large number of excess deaths that could only be explained by the health impacts of government actions. For the US it was reported that the cumulative COVID-19 infection deaths have reached close to 650,000, and excess deaths are 820,000, presumably indirect deaths. Updating, for the current US 730,000 infection deaths that imply 921,000 indirect collateral deaths.
Important NIH and other results
Here is an important observation from a recent report from the NIH. “Roughly 2.9 million people died in the United States between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Compared with the same period in 2019, there were 477,200 excess deaths, with 74% of them due to COVID-19.” That amounts to 343,584 COVID deaths during the first year of the pandemic; it is consistent with the over 730,000 COVID deaths reported since 2020.
For 2020 when COVID began ravaging the country, compared to pre-pandemic 2019, that leaves 133,616 deaths to be explained. The answer cannot be deaths associated with COVID vaccines for this pre-vaccination period. That is the key point – pre-vaccination, which means that the plausible explanation for the significant excess deaths of 133,616 is the many negative health impacts causing deaths from the expanding government pandemic control actions in 2020. These included many lockdowns, stay-at-home mandates, disruptions in health care, and loss of jobs. In other words, collateral deaths.
In agreement with this statement was the finding in a medical journal article titled “Excess Deaths From COVID-19 and Other Causes in the US, March 1, 2020, to January 2, 2021.” It said deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for 72.4% of US excess deaths, leaving 27.6% explained most likely from collateral deaths.
A June 2021 Scientific American article said 18 percent of excess deaths across the U.S. last year (2020) were not assigned to COVID. Thus, 78% was related to COVID infections. Reported was that Andrew Stokes, Boston University, and his colleagues calculated excess deaths for each of more than 3,100 U.S. counties. To do so, they compared provisional 2020 mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics with predicted death rates based on previous years. The researchers then compared the proportion of excess deaths attributed to COVID on death certificates with those assigned to other causes. Their data showed that 18 percent of excess deaths across the U.S. in 2020 were not assigned to COVID. That infers about 77,000 indirect deaths, reasonably explained by collateral deaths.
A journal article published in April 2021 said this: “Between March 1, 2020, and January 2, 2021, the US experienced 2,801,439 deaths, 22.9% more than expected, representing 522 368 excess deaths… Deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for 72.4% of US excess deaths.” That leaves 27.6% or a little over 144,000 non-COVID infection deaths. Detailed data were given on specific non-COVID deaths, including heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease/dementia, and diabetes.
A September 2021 article titled “Impact of COVID-19 on excess mortality, life expectancy, and years of life lost in the United States” found that for 2020: There were 375,235 excess deaths, with 83% attributable to direct, and 17% attributable to indirect effects of COVID-19. So, about 64,000 deaths were collateral deaths.
Data focused Our World Data website said the following:
“The raw death count gives us a sense of scale: for example, the US suffered roughly 472,000 excess deaths in 2020, compared to 352,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths (75%) during that year.” That leaves 25% or 120,000 collateral deaths.
A new report “Collateral Damage from COVID” said this: “In the first year of the U.S. COVID pandemic (the 52 weeks ended February 27, 2021) there were 665,000 excess deaths (deaths above the normal seasonal death rate) reported by the CDC. The official COVID death toll for that span was 514,000 (77%). Shockingly, this means that non-COVID deaths caused by the pandemic and possibly by our policy choices are likely to total at least this 151,000 difference.” The latter would logically be collateral deaths.
And this is how that 151,000 difference was explained: “Excess deaths due to unnatural causes surged by an estimated 82,000 above the normal levels, from March 2020 through August 2021. Unnatural causes are dominated by homicides, suicides, overdoses, and accidents. And, excess deaths due to the Big Four natural causes (heart and lung disease, cancer, and stroke) soared by over 86,000 over those same 18 months, mostly during 2020. These two categories alone total 168,000 excess deaths.” Clearly, many deaths were caused by government pandemic controls that made lives extremely difficult and stressful.
On this point, the report noted: “The death toll from unnatural causes has risen sharply and is not likely to fall as quickly. Research shows that collateral effects on health, direct and indirect, following unemployment and other economic disruption remain elevated for several years. The same seems likely to be true for overdoses and homicides, due to lingering mental health effects, though perhaps not for accidental deaths.”
In contrast to the above, it was reported in October 2020 that a report by CDC said that overall, an estimated 299,028 excess deaths occurred from late January through October 3, 2020, with 198,081 of them (66 percent) caused by Covid-19. But that left nearly three months in later 2020 unaccounted for when COVID infections probably mounted. So, some 100,947 (or 134,596 for 12 months) excess deaths not related to COVID infection are mostly in agreement with the above figures. These CDC numbers are the least credible.
Thus, despite data variations, most of these reports were fairly consistent in attributing 72 to 83% of US excess deaths over pre-pandemic years to COVID infection deaths, leaving a fairly broad range of about 64,000 to 151,000 excess deaths to non-infection causes. These would be the collateral impacts of pandemic control actions by federal and state governments but are much lower than what The Economist estimated, but these are not systematically measured by the government.
The average of the above reports is 25.3% for non-infection deaths and for these an average of 117,745 such collateral deaths annually, and before vaccine deaths would be a significant fact.
Dr. Joseph Mercola views
Receiving major attention on alternative news sites in October 2021 are the views of Dr. Mercola that will now be summarized. He has been a strong proponent for explaining non-infection deaths on the basis of COVID vaccines.
“The number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019. Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.”
Mercola asked the key question: “Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of it?”
“The death toll from the jabs is estimated to be between 200 and 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called ‘COVID-19 deaths’ may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths.” This range is a high fraction of about 5 million total global COVID infection deaths. In the US 414 million doses have been given; using the above range that yields a range of 82,800 to 207,000 vaccine deaths on top of the 730,000 infection deaths given by CDC.
[To be clear, vaccine-induced deaths are definitely real and significant. The issue is their magnitude. Nor is it fair to argue that vaccine-induced deaths are to some degree hidden within COVID death data. And clearly, it is unreasonable to argue that high COVID deaths after mass vaccination, which has been widely observed, should be counted as vaccine deaths.]
The key question is whether the high level of US vaccine deaths is compatible with what the public is seeing.
Mercola also references the following:
“According to this whistleblower, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths caused by the COVID shots by a conservative factor of five or more. She claims the number of Americans killed by the shots was at least 45,000 as of July 9, 2021. At that time, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths following COVID injection. That number is now 16,310 (as of October 1, 20218). Using an under-reporting factor of five, that gives us an estimated vaccine death toll of 81,550.” That is at the low end of the range calculated above.
Another source is also used by Mercola:
“Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, has come up with even more drastic numbers. In the video ‘Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,’ he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 212,000 Americans have already been killed by the COVID shots.” That is at the high end of the range calculated above.
To recap, Mercola’s reporting provided different sources to support the range of 82,800 to 207,000 for vaccine deaths to date.
Rose and Crawford study
The September 2021 study “Government’s Own Data Reveals that at Least 150,000 Probably DEAD in the U.S. Following COVID-19 Vaccines.” by Jessica Rose and Mathew Crawford is the most detailed and impressive effort to determine vaccine deaths.
This is the summary of its findings: “Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can be used to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines. A simple analysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the current COVID vaccines as of Aug 28, 2021.” This is close to the high end of the range given above.
The study is both long and complex. Here are some highlights.
On the problem of underreporting of vaccine deaths: “In our informal physician surveys we saw a bias to under-report serious adverse events in order to make the vaccines look as safe as possible to the American public since most physicians believe they are hurting society if they do anything to create vaccine hesitancy. Secondly, we’d estimate that at least 95% of physicians have completely bought into the “safe and effective” narrative, and thus any event that they observe they deem as simply anecdotal and don’t bother to report it since it couldn’t have been caused by such a safe vaccine that appeared to do so well in the Phase 3 trials.”
On the search for quantifying underreporting in the CDC VEARS system: “The point of this paper is not to find the exact number of deaths, but merely to find the most credible estimate for deaths. We think that anaphylaxis is an excellent proxy for a serious adverse event that, like a death, should always be reported so we think 41X is the most accurate number.” That means multiplying CDC numbers by 41.
To get estimates of vaccine deaths: “There are three ways to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the vaccine. Using these three methods we can estimate the low and high likely bounds for the number of excess deaths caused by the vaccine:
1. Subtract the average number of background deaths in previous years: estimate is 252,109
2. Use 86% based on the analysis in the Mclachlan study; the estimate is 252,073
3. Use 40% based on the estimate of Dr. Peter Schirmacher one of the world’s top pathologists ; the estimate is 175,865”
This was the explanation for looking at other studies: “In order to validate that our estimates are reasonable (or simply that the evidence was more likely consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine does more harm than good), we looked at four different quantitative methods from very small to very large and summarized their estimates:”
Excess Case Fatality Rate analysis done in Europe: 72,000-180,000
Excess death analysis for 23 nations: 147,960
Small island study: 171,000
Analysis of Norway deaths: 150,000
“In summary, the qualitative and quantitative confirmation techniques we used were all independent of each other and of our main method, yet all were consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccines cause large numbers of serious adverse events and excess deaths and are inconsistent with the null hypothesis that the vaccines have no effect on mortality and have a safety profile comparable to that of other vaccines.”
“We were not able to find a single piece of evidence that supported the FDA and CDC position that all the excess deaths were simply over-reporting of natural cause deaths.”
In wrapping up a very complex analysis this was said:
“In 1976, they halted the H1N1 vaccine after 500 GBS cases and 32 people died. However, there is no stopping mortality condition for these [COVID] vaccines. We are likely at 150,000 deaths and counting and nobody in the mainstream medical establishment, mainstream media, or Congress is raising any concerns. No member of the medical community is calling for any stopping condition nor autopsies. We find this troubling.”
Here is the most important reason for respecting this study. As you can see the final estimate of 150,000 vaccine deaths is lower than other figures in various studies but consistent with the range from Mercola’s reporting. Overall, this figure of 150,000 vaccine deaths is conservative.
Here are more concluding insights that the public should greatly think through, especially when deciding whether or not to get a vaccine shot, initial or booster:
“In short, say our vaccine reduces the risk of dying from COVID by 2X. But it came at a cost, e.g., increasing your risk of dying from a heart attack by 4X. And let’s say both events are equally likely (which they aren’t). Then you’ve made a bad decision… you’re more likely to die if you took the vaccine.
“When you combine (1) the negative efficacy of the vaccine with (2) the negative all-cause mortality benefit, it’s impossible to justify vaccination. Either alone is sufficient to kill the benefit; both of them together makes things even more difficult for recommending vaccination.”
“The bottom line is clear: If you got the vaccine, you were simply more likely to die. The younger you are, the greater the disparity.”
As more Americans succumb to pressure, propaganda and mandates it is very likely that the figure of 150,000 vaccine deaths will become an underestimate of the lethality of COVID vaccines.
Lastly, it is relevant to note what the eminent medical researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits has said. Her medical science credentials are impeccable, including a long stint at the National Cancer Institute. Her views may seem extreme to some people, but they are based on a deep scientific understanding and are consistent with the highly frightening forecasts of other scientists and physicians.
She said: “I just can’t even imagine a recipe for anything other than what I would consider mass murder on a scale where 50 million people will die in America from the vaccine.” Time will tell whether this dire prediction will materialize as more people get the shot. The shot that kills.
Conclusions
It is challenging to reconcile the average of 117,745 excess deaths beyond infection deaths given above with the conservative figure of 150,000 vaccine deaths. Add in the indirect, even higher collateral deaths across society broadly, probably what The Economist found, namely for the current US 730,000 infection deaths and some 921,000 indirect collateral deaths. The latter seems reasonable when you consider that most of the population, several hundred million people, had their lives devastated by government pandemic controls. In other words, a collateral death rate of around .5%.
As to the latter, though taken in the name of public health, most government actions have had no basis in medical science. Considering all the deaths, pandemic management has been a colossal failure. Adding up the infection, vaccine and collateral deaths gets to a total approaching 2 million pandemic deaths. And note that breakthrough infections of the fully vaccinated are escalating, as vaccines lose effectiveness, and are at least 10,000 to 20,000.
Public health officials failed to promote early wide use of generics and foolishly pushed mass vaccination that has not proven effective. The former could have prevented over 600,000 infection deaths.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that public health officials have stubbornly refused to admit their mistakes.
The government has made no attempt to systematically account for the non-infection indirect collateral pandemic deaths. And surely more and more Americans are dying from the onerous pandemic controls – now emphasizing vaccine mandates – that are destroying and disrupting the lives of millions of people. Especially in view of the above estimates for vaccine deaths.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, the author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors
Sweden Publish Health Agency Indefinitely Halts Use of Moderna mRNA-1273 on Young People 30 & Below
Sweden Public Health Agency extended a moratorium indefinitely on the use of the Moderna mRNA-1293 vaccine to anyone age 30 and under. While this extension was to end on December 1, the Swedish government is all but banning the use of the vaccine on younger people due to heightened risk of heart inflammation. Thus, moving forward in the most populated of the Scandinavian countries, the laws of the land deny anyone born after 1990 from receiving this vaccine, and instead, these people are offered the Pfizer vaccine in a move that can only be considered good for Pfizer’s market share. The rest of the Nordic nations have also imposed restrictions on using the shots on young people. Heart inflammation in younger people is a known adverse effect associated with Moderna—young males face higher risks.
TrialSite reported on October 6 Sweden halted the use of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine on people under the age of 30 due to safety concerns. Just a couple of days later TrialSite shared with global audiences that Iceland made the same move, along with the rest of the Scandinavian countries, to either halt or in the case of Norway, discourage the use of the Moderna vaccine in younger people due to the safety risks.
What about the U.S. FDA?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the use of Moderna mRNA-1273 to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older on December 18, 2020. By August 25, 2021, Moderna completed its submission for biologics license application (BLA) with the FDA. On September 16th Canada approved the vaccine. By October 20 the FDA authorized a booster dose of mRNA-1273 under the emergency use authorization category.
Mounting concern of heart inflammation risk, particularly in young males apparently caused the FDA to delay their decision regarding adolescent access to the mRNA-1273 vaccine. According to a Reuters account, the regulatory body acted to investigate the data for risks associated with the rare heart condition. Undoubtedly, the Nordic actions over the past months caught the attention of the American regulators.
According to a recent headline in UK’s Daily Mail, the Public Health Agency of Sweden pointed to unpublished data signals evidencing the risk although they acknowledged ‘The risk of being affected is very small.’ Nonetheless, state health authorities don’t declare such precautions unless they have serious concerns. Pfizer will undoubtedly seize the opportunity
This conclusion was the attention grabber: “Fifteen million more people have died during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to historical norms, according to a recent October report by the Economist. This figure is more than three times the reported COVID-19 deaths, which stands at 4.6 million people.”
Its all about establishing a fascist state. Test how obedient people can become if we take them a freedom.
From today: A medical equipment dealer no longer visits his friends for hair dressing... Sounds familiar? Mafia order! As the hair dresser is not vaccinated...
The Puzzling Pandemic: A Possible Big Picture, An Interview With Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
By Sonia Elijah
Watch: The Puzzling Pandemic: A Possible Big Picture, An Interview With Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, a leading virologist and international vaccine expert. Before taking an R&D role for several well-known vaccine companies, he worked for fifteen years in academia. Dr Geert was also the former senior program officer in vaccine discovery for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the former senior Ebola Program manager for GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.
Dr Geert masterfully explained his concerns over the dangers of a global mass vaccination program; the threat of viral immune escape and the propagation of more infectious viral strains, which he had warned about as early as March 2021, when he penned an open letter to all authorities and scientists calling for its immediate halt. The response he received from sticking his head above the parapet, ranged from stark silence to utter vilification- the same fate shared by other scientists and eminent medical experts, who have warned about the dangers of mass vaccination during a pandemic.
“My problem with mass vaccination is that you can do a lot of harm, if you don’t use the vaccine in the right way.”
The right way, he explained, was the prophylactic (preventative) vaccination approach, which he described as “loading your gun before you’re on the battlefield.” This is where an individual’s immunity is activated, creating full-fledged immunity before they encounter the pathogen.
The wrong way, which has been the pattern followed by almost every country, is “loading your gun, whilst already on the battlefield,” which he warned “is very, very dangerous.”
Since the mass vaccine rollout, Dr Geert explained there are two reasons why we have sub-optimal immunity- “which leaves the door open for the virus to escape,” leading to more virulent strains of the virus.
We have a vaccine with a spike protein that no longer matches the spike protein of the circulating variants.
Immunizing massive percentages of the population who are already exposed to the circulating virus (while they’re already on the battlefield), gives an opportunity for the virus to escape.
“And why do we have these highly infectious strains, propagating so aggressively? It’s due to mass vaccination.”
He went on to explain that we’re no longer in a constant environment where parameters are standardized, like in clinical trials, with only small, selected groups vaccinated, which does not exert immune pressure on the virus. In contrast, now in the background, you have a pandemic with an evolutionary dynamic. You have the mass vaccination of the global population which exerts pressure on the virus, which will select more infectious variants that have a competitive advantage to overcome this immune pressure, leading to vaccine-resistant strains. He went on to say, “highly infectious strains, like the Delta variant, means that the likelihood of somebody being infected is substantially higher than it was 18 months ago.”
Dr Geert made an alarming statement stating, “the virus is finding a favorable breeding ground in people who are vaccinated and that’s how we explain, not the emergence of these more infectious strains, but the propagation of these strains, since the mass vaccination.”
The waning of vaccine efficacy
Dr Geert made an important point that the goal of the vaccine studies was to protect against disease, not infection. It’s a well-known fact that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection. He explained that vaccine efficacy was waning because the more infectious variants are much more difficult for the current vaccines to overcome- particularly when they were produced when only the spike protein from the original wild strain was isolated and before the population was exerting immune pressure on the virus. The vaccine’s diminishing efficacy can help explain why we’re seeing an uptick of Covid cases in heavily vaccinated countries.
The suppression of innate antibodies
Another factor that comes into play with a mass vaccination program, is the suppression of innate antibodies (your body’s own evolutionary defense system) by the vaccinal antibodies. Dr Geert explained, “this is not a problem, provided the vaccinal antibodies work very well, however when the circulating virus becomes resistant to these antibodies, then you have a huge problem- because the vaccinated are having their own innate antibodies suppressed whilst their vaccinal antibodies will no longer neutralize the virus- this is the definition of resistance.”
This could explain why the vaccinated are being infected at an alarming rate around the world.
Looking at the recent data coming from Public Health England, it reveals that in the 40-49 age group, the Covid infection rate is 100% higher in the fully vaccinated (at least 2 doses) than in the unvaccinated.
When I asked Dr Geert to comment on the recent UK data, he explained:
“This is what I always predicted, the ratio of people who get the disease..and get severe disease in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated group, that this would progressively shift at the disadvantage of the vaccinees, due to the fact that vaccine efficacy is waning.”
The booster program
When it comes to the booster program, Dr Geert explained, additional doses of the vaccine will lead to elevated levels of vaccinal antibodies that will further suppress your innate antibodies that protect the individual against all variants. This is because naturally acquired antibodies recognize a more diversified spectrum of variants. In addition, the booster program will put further immune pressure on the virus causing it to become more resistant. Dr Geert has been very concerned with what’s going on in Israel with third doses being administered. “I cannot imagine that what they’re doing in Israel will have a happy ending- or else we’ll have to rewrite immunology.”
Dr Geert raised the point how children who were primarily protected from the virus by their innate immunity or from their acquired immunity (based on prior exposure) are now getting sick because of the more infectious strains and because the vaccines would suppress their own innate immunity. He was adamantly against children being vaccinated as the risks outweigh any benefit they would receive.
With the many complexities of this pandemic, one thing is for certain, which can be summarized best by Dr Geert’s concluding statement: “Nobody can deny that this mass vaccination campaign has been a huge experiment on human beings
Looking at the recent data coming from Public Health England, it reveals that in the 40-49 age group, the Covid infection rate is 100% higher in the fully vaccinated (at least 2 doses) than in the unvaccinated.
This already outdated stuff now its 3x more often without correction for natural (recovered is 25x better than vaccine) protection.
In reality it is an highly alarming 6 x now!!!
