CDC Twisted the Definition of Vaccine

CDC Twisted the Definition of Vaccine

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Joel S. Hirschhorn CDC once was

trialsitenews.com

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

Joel S. Hirschhorn

CDC once was a federal agency that nearly everyone respected. That no longer is the case. Now there are many reasons why CDC should be widely disrespected. Its latest debacle is how it changed the definition of vaccine.

Why would the government’s key public health agency change the definition of what a vaccine is in the midst of a pandemic? After millions of Americans have taken the shot? And millions more are being beaten into taking it for the first time and others to get booster shots.

Here is the key point. Long after it became widely recognized by medical experts and informed citizens that COVID vaccines clearly did not fit the official CDC vaccine definition; CDC thought the answer was not to fix what was deficient with the COVID vaccines or stop their use by most people. Their response was to change the vaccine definition to fit the so-called vaccines.

This was done so that vaccine mandates could keep getting pushed by the government. Of course, the COVID “vaccines” should be referred to as gene therapy products, even better than calling them experimental vaccines.

To see how corrupt this action by CDC was, it is necessary to examine the details of the vaccine definition debacle.

Prior to September 1, 2021 here is how CDC defined vaccine:

A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

This definition had been used for years and it makes sense. No expert or sensible citizen would find fault with it. But did it honestly apply to the COVID vaccines?

Then this is what CDC concocted:

A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Here is what CDC also said:

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Think about that last sentence: You can be exposed to COVID without being infected; but we know that is not true for fully vaccinated people who still get infected.

This is the key language in the original definition:

“stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

How rational to invoke the purpose of a vaccine to stimulate an immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease that protects the recipient from that disease. Exactly what everyone for years thought was the correct way to think about a vaccine. People want permanent protection from the COVID infection disease.

But now CDC has taken out the language referring to getting immunity for a specific disease and getting protection from that disease.

Now, COVID vaccines do not have to directly produce immunity. No, now they only have to stimulate the body’s immune system.

You don’t get immunity because COVID vaccines do not directly produce immunity. They do not directly kill the COVID virus. Vaccinated people can still have high viral loads and also transmit the virus to others. While some individuals may get some health benefits from COVID shots, they do not necessarily protect the entire population. This is why mandates to get everyone the shots really do not make sense from a public health perspective, that Alexander has well substantiated.

Apparently, the only logical way to understand what CDC has done is to accept the truth belatedly seen by CDC that COVID vaccines do not, in fact, produce effective immunity for COVID infection and do not provide effective protection, once vaccinated, from that infection.

Much of the public surely does not yet know what CDC has acknowledged for the COVID vaccines. Odds are that everyone who depends on mainstream media for good information about the pandemic has not been informed about what CDC has done and its implications.

The new vaccine definition, if publicly known, would reduce public confidence in current COVID vaccines. You don’t have to be a medical expert to see how the new definition has been created to accommodate COVID shots.

In fact, these definition changes reflect what is now known about the limitations of the COVID vaccines.

Fully vaccinated people can still get COVID disease, referred to as breakthrough infections that, contrary to what the government says, can be very serious, often requiring hospitalization and sometimes causing death, as was the case for Colin Powell. Such serious effects have been well discussed by Kampf. Other times, breakthrough infections greatly disrupt lives, as recently described by Madrigal, a strong proponent of COVID shots.

Moreover, the COVID vaccines are now widely known from considerable clinical evidence to lose their effectiveness typically in about six months. And even worse, they do not provide hardly any protection against variants like the delta variant. Same disease but from a different virus in terms of its complex genetic makeup. So, befitting the new CDC definition the COVID shots really do not have long lasting effective immunity to the specific COVID infection caused by all variants.

Elsewhere on the CDC website is a glossary of many terms; here is what is especially relevant to the debate about COVID vaccines:

Attenuated vaccine: A vaccine in which a live microbe is weakened (attenuated) through chemical or physical processes in order to produce an immune response without causing the severe effects of the disease. Attenuated vaccines currently licensed in the United States include measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, rotavirus, yellow fever, smallpox, and some formulations of influenza, and typhoid vaccines.

Most people would read this and find that it fits with what they think of as vaccines that have been routinely taken by most people, especially children. Clearly, COVID vaccines do not fit this definition. But seeing this established view of vaccines helps explain why so many people resist and reject the COVID shots. They are so fundamentally different than long accepted and used vaccines.

The following glossary definition is especially relevant:

Active immunity: The production of antibodies against a specific disease by the immune system. Active immunity can be acquired in two ways, either by contracting the disease or through vaccination. Active immunity is usually permanent, meaning an individual is protected from the disease for the duration of their lives.

This CDC definition of active immunity recognizes that you can get it by contracting the disease versus through vaccination. In other words, it recognizes what today is commonly called natural immunity achieved by once being infected by the COVID virus. And that such immunity is likely permanent and better than vaccine immunity, as recent clinical studies substantiate. But it also infers that active immunity obtained through vaccination is also permanent, which clearly is not the case for COVID shots, as evidenced by breakthrough infections.

To sum up, a close look at what CDC has done lately reinforces the thinking of millions of people who have reservations and concerns about getting COVID genetic therapy shots that pose myriad adverse impacts and sometimes death. There is a rational basis for thinking that the limited benefits of those shots do not adequately offset their risks. This is true for the vast majority of healthy people, especially children, who have extremely low risk from COVID infection for serious illness, hospitalization or death.

How interesting it would be, in the context of informed consent, if people were shown the original and new vaccine definitions as a means to stimulate productive discussion with medical providers of COVID shots.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles, podcasts and radio shows 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

Norfolk doctor files lawsuit against Sentara on ban of Ivermectin use to treat COVID-19

Norfolk doctor files lawsuit against Sentara on ban of Ivermectin use to treat COVID-19

NORFOLK, Va. - A Norfolk doctor has filed a lawsuit against Sentara Norfolk General Hospital this week.

This is the latest update in the News 3 investigation: “Norfolk doctor leading charge for controversial COVID-19 treatment.”

In this lawsuit, Dr. Paul Marik, the director of the hospital's critical care unit, says Sentara's ban of its use to treat patients with ivermectin is deadly and against the law.

"I think it's criminal. It's immoral, and it's illegal," Marik said. "Can you understand the toll that that takes that I have young patients - young patients in the 30s and 40s, who I had to watch die - while the hospital prevented me from giving them the treatment I thought was in their best interest?"

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug, widely used to treat worms in horses and cows, that has been at the center of controversy over COVID-19 care.

In the 80-page document, Marik said Sentara issued a directive to doctors last month banning the use of including ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients unless they were part of a clinical trial.

"It was a memo sent throughout the healthcare system that was really directed personally at me to prevent me from prescribing these medications that I, as the treating physician, wanted to use," he said.

He also made a claim in the lawsuit that said Sentara's policy may have led to the deaths of four of his patients who were never given the opportunity to learn of or be treated with potentially life-saving medicines.

"It's the physician who determines what's the best treatment for the patient, not nameless bureaucrats sitting in an office," Marik said. "I had to stand by idly watching [my patients] die because I was not allowed to do what I'm meant to do."

While News 3 could not confirm those claims, the FDA, CDC, and U.S. Surgeon General warn against ivermectin's use for COVID patients. They said there isn't enough data to support how it works against the virus.

Dr. David Boulware is an infectious disease expert guiding a major study about ivermectin funded by the National Institutes of Health. He said, "If ivermectin is highly effective, then everyone should be using it. And the same time if it's really proven not to be effective, and not have any benefit, that people should not be using it and they should really move on to something else."

Marik’s of use of ivermectin was the subject of News 3 anchor Jessica Larché’s investigation in September. On Thursday, he told News 3 reporter Erin Miller that he has never prescribed ivermectin to Sentara patients or non-Sentara patients.

Marik and his international group of doctors point to a list of smaller studies that suggest the drug is safe and effective at treating COVID-19.

Other doctors say there needs to be more data for there to be bigger clinical trials.

There are some big trials underway right now, but early data has not shown promise for ivermectin.

Here’s a list of local hospitals and their stance on treating COVID patients with ivermectin:

Riverside Regional - Allowed

Patient First - Allowed

Bob Secours - Suggests not to use

CHKD - Not allowed

Sentara - Not allowed

Chesapeake Regional declined to comment.

Sentara Healthcare sent a statement to News 3 on Thursday about the lawsuit:

"Sentara Healthcare is consistently ranked among the top hospitals in the nation for quality and patient safety, and follows evidence-based protocols to treat COVID-19 as recommended by trusted agencies including the CDC, NIH and FDA. All of these agencies currently do not recommend the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 due to a lack of evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. Sentara generates treatment guidelines by engaging multi-disciplinary groups of clinicians to review literature, care standards and provide expert advice. In most situations, physicians are able to deviate from guidelines to individualize care for patients. However, in some scenarios, treatments that may potentially harm patients or that are widely considered to be outside the standard of care may be limited.

To that end, COVID-19 treatment guidelines at Sentara have been consistently communicated to all medical staff throughout the pandemic using usual channels. The most recent guidelines generated by the multi-disciplinary group of clinicians did include, but were not limited to, guidance on the use of ivermectin. All members of the medical staff receive the same guidelines.

Of note, on Tuesday, November 9, prior to when we were informed about Dr. Marik’s lawsuit, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine’s (JICM) editorial board retracted a recent article that Dr. Marik co-authored on the MATH+ protocol, in which ivermectin is used. Sentara Healthcare felt obligated to reach out to JICM with our concerns about Sentara Norfolk General Hospital data that the authors used to make conclusions, and provide accurate data to the Journal. After thorough review by JICM’s editorial board, the article was retracted. The Journal followed their retraction guidelines and procedures.

Sentara Healthcare is currently studying this lawsuit and offers no further comment on it at this time."

Investigations

www.wtkr.com

People testing negative for Covid-19 despite exposure may have ‘immune memory’

Study says some individuals clear virus rapidly due to a strong immune response from existing T-cells, meaning tests record negative result

People testing negative for Covid-19 despite exposure may have ‘immune memory’ | Coronavirus | The Guardian

We all know that person who, despite their entire household catching Covid-19, has never tested positive for the disease. Now scientists have found an explanation, showing that a proportion of people experience “abortive infection” in which the virus enters the body but is cleared by the immune system’s T-cells at the earliest stage meaning that PCR and antibody tests record a negative result.

About 15% of healthcare workers who were tracked during the first wave of the pandemic in London, England, appeared to fit this scenario.

The discovery could pave the way for a new generation of vaccines targeting the T-cell response, which could produce much longer lasting immunity, scientists said.

Leo Swadling, an immunologist at University College London and lead author of the paper, said: “Everyone has anecdotal evidence of people being exposed but not succumbing to infection. What we didn’t know is whether these individuals really did manage to completely avoid the virus or whether they naturally cleared the virus before it was detectable by routine tests.”

The latest study intensively monitored healthcare workers for signs of infection and immune responses during the first wave of the pandemic. Despite a high risk of exposure 58 participants did not test positive for Covid-19 at any point. However, blood samples taken from these people showed they had an increase in T-cells that reacted against Covid-19, compared with samples taken before the pandemic took hold and compared with people who had not been exposed to the virus at all. They also had increases in another blood marker of viral infection.

The work suggests that a subset of people already had memory T-cells from previous infections from other seasonal coronaviruses causing common colds, which protected them from Covid-19.

These immune cells “sniff out” proteins in the replication machinery – a region of Covid-19 shared with seasonal coronaviruses – and in some people this response was quick and potent enough for the infection to be cleared at the earliest stage. “These pre-existing T-cells are poised ready to recognise SARS-CoV-2,” said Swadling.

The study adds to the known spectrum of possibilities after exposure to Covid-19, ranging from escaping infection entirely to severe disease.

Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading, said: “This study identifies [a new] intermediate outcome – enough virus exposure to activate part of your immune system but not enough to experience symptoms, detect significant levels of virus or mount an antibody response.”

The finding is particularly significant because the T-cell arm of the immune response tends to confer longer lasting immunity, typically of years rather than months, compared with antibodies. Nearly all existing Covid-19 vaccines focus on priming antibodies against the vital spike protein that helps SARS-CoV-2 enter cells. These neutralising antibodies give excellent protection against severe illness. However, the immunity wanes over time and a potential weakness of spike-based vaccines is that this region of the virus is known to mutate.

By contrast, the T-cell response does not tend to fade as quickly and the internal replication machinery that it targets is highly conserved across coronaviruses, meaning a vaccine that also targeted this region would probably protect against new strains – and possibly even against entirely new pathogens.

“Insights from this study could be critical in design of a different type of vaccine,” said Edwards. “A vaccine that primes T-cell immunity against different viral protein targets that are shared between many different coronaviruses would complement our spike vaccines that induce neutralising antibodies. Because these are components within the virus, antibodies are less effective – instead, T-cells come into play

Join us for a live webinar with Dr Joel Hirschhorn as he and Erin discuss the mounting breakthrough infections we are seeing and the OpEd article he wrote on the subject: https://trialsitenews.com/brea…tions-are-killing-people/

Get your questions answered directly by Dr Hirschhorn during this live interactive event. Registration is required.

Welcome! You are invited to join a webinar: Meet the Author - Dr Joel Hirschhorn. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the webinar.

Join us for a live webinar with Dr Joel Hirschhorn as he and Erin discuss the mounting breakthrough infections we are seeing and the OpEd article he wrote on…

us06web.zoom.us

LL-37 fights SARS-CoV-2: The Vitamin D-Inducible Peptide LL-37 Inhibits Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to its Cellular Receptor Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 In Vitro

LL-37 fights SARS-CoV-2: The Vitamin D-Inducible Peptide LL-37 Inhibits Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to its Cellular Receptor Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 In Vitro | Request PDF

Request PDF | LL-37 fights SARS-CoV-2: The Vitamin D-Inducible Peptide LL-37 Inhibits Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to its Cellular Receptor Angiotensin…

www.researchgate.net

DOI:10.1101/2020.12.02.408153

Abstract

Objective Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen accountable for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Viral entry via binding of the receptor binding domain (RBD) located within the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein to its target receptor angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 is a key step in cell infection. The efficient transition of the virus is linked to a unique protein called open reading frame (ORF) 8. As SARS-CoV-2 infections can develop into life-threatening lower respiratory syndromes, effective therapy options are urgently needed. Several publications propose vitamin D treatment, although its mode of action against COVID-19 is not fully elucidated. It is speculated that vitamin D’s beneficial effects are mediated by up-regulating LL-37, a well-known antimicrobial peptide with antiviral effects. Methods Recombinantly expressed SARS-CoV-2 S protein, the extended S1 subunit (S1e), the S2 subunit (S2), the receptor binding domain (RBD), and ORF8 were used for surface plasmon resonance (SPR) studies to investigate LL-37’s ability to bind to SARS-CoV-2 proteins and to localize its binding site within the S protein. Binding competition studies were conducted to confirm an inhibitory action of LL-37 on the attachment of SARS-CoV-2 S protein to its entry receptor ACE2. Results We could show that LL-37 binds to SARS-CoV-2 S protein (LL-37/S Strep K D = 410 nM, LL-37/S His K D = 410 nM) with the same affinity, as SARS-CoV-2 binds to hACE2 (hACE2/S Strep K D = 370 nM, hACE2/S His K D = 370 nM). The binding is not restricted to the RBD of the S protein, but rather distributed along the entire length of the protein. Interaction between LL-37 and ORF8 was detected with a K D of 290 nM. Further, inhibition of the binding of S Strep (IC 50 = 740 nM), S1e (IC 50 = 170 nM), and RBD (IC 50 = 130 nM) to hACE2 by LL-37 was demonstrated. Conclusions We have revealed a biochemical link between vitamin D, LL-37, and COVID-19 severity. SPR analysis demonstrated that LL-37 binds to SARS-CoV-2 S protein and inhibits binding to its receptor hACE2, and most likely viral entry into the cell. This study supports the prophylactic use of vitamin D to induce LL-37 that protects from SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the therapeutic administration of vitamin D for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Further, our results provide evidence that the direct use of LL-37 by inhalation and systemic application may reduce the severity of COVID-19.

Quote from JedRothwell

Why HCQ and Ivermectin were removed from India’s Covid-19 treatment protocol

You are a silly old guy just reposting big pharma marketing FUD. 90% if India is free of CoV-19 without vaccination just by using the "ziverdo kit" for prophylaxis and treatment! Please google it!

All big journals are run by the FM/R/B mafia, that's why you can't trust anymore NYT,Guradian, Spiegel, FAZ, Le Monde, Washington post,.... Also Lancet, Cochrane, and most other high rated journals now are down rated to junk level.

Quote from Fm1

stop the administration of the second dose of the mRNA-based vaccine produced by BioNTech so experts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) there can review 16 specific cases of myocarditis among younger people.

Pfizer and Moderna produce the same rate of heart inflammation only the with different numbers for myocarditis/pericarditis.

But Pfizer has way more buddies relations to bribe journals,state officials to just blame Moderna.

RNA cancer gene therapy (claimed "CoV-19 vaccines") is mass crippling/ murder among children.

Quote from Fm1

This was done so that vaccine mandates could keep getting pushed by the government. Of course, the COVID “vaccines” should be referred to as gene therapy products, even better than calling them experimental vaccines.

Quote from Fm1

Of note, on Tuesday, November 9, prior to when we were informed about Dr. Marik’s lawsuit, the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine’s (JICM) editorial board retracted a recent article that Dr. Marik co-authored on the MATH+ protocol, in which ivermectin is used. Sentara Healthcare felt obligated to reach out to JICM with our concerns about Sentara Norfolk General Hospital data that the authors used to make conclusions, and provide accurate data to the Journal. After thorough review by JICM’s editorial board, the article was retracted. The Journal followed their retraction guidelines and procedures.

Welcome in Goebbels Dr. Mengele country!

Quote from Fm1

LL-37 fights SARS-CoV-2: The Vitamin D-Inducible Peptide LL-37 Inhibits Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to its Cellular Receptor Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 In Vitro

The original link:: https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.12.02.408153v2.full.pdf

Quote from Alan Smith

The first oral antiviral for treating COVID-19, Merck & Co.’s molnupiravir, received approval from the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on 4 November.

The fascist FM/R/ B buddy network at full action. All studies so far did show no real effect for this drug. Especially no effect in severely ill patients. Approving an other crap drug after Gilead crap Remdesivir is outrageous.

Pfizers drug looks much better and Ivermectin still is by far the best. Ivermectin has 5 blocking mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 where all the others are single vector an thus prone to virus adaption.

Quote from Alan Smith

I just can't wait for Sunday!

Why. It will make no difference...

Kaiser Family Foundation Shows Political Bias in Report on COVID-19 Misinformation

Kaiser Family Foundation Shows Political Bias in Report on COVID-19 Misinformation

In a November 8 press release aimed at identifying sources of COVID-19 misinformation, the Kaiser Family Foundation evidenced a strong prejudice in favor

trialsitenews.com

In a November 8 press release aimed at identifying sources of COVID-19 misinformation, the Kaiser Family Foundation evidenced a strong prejudice in favor of official narratives, without regard to whether “misinformation” is actually false. In a blatant political conclusion, KFF writes that folks who trust, “Network and Local Television, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR,” believe little-to-no false beliefs, while those who listen to conservative outlets like “Fox News Hold Many Misconceptions.” KFF notes that in their analysis of views on “eight false statements” both unvaccinated persons and Republicans are most likely to have incorrect beliefs. We will explain below that many of these “false” views are in fact backed up by evidence.

The views that KFF chose to use as a litmus test include:

1. The COVID-19 death counts for the US are exaggerated

2. Pregnant women should avoid the vaccines

3. Vaccine deaths counts are underreported

4. COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility

5. Ivermectin is safe and effective for COVID-19

6. The vaccines can give you COVID-19

7. The vaccines have a hidden microchip

8. mRNA vaccines can change one’s DNA

Notably, KFF mixes up claims which have ample evidence, such as questionable death counts, with those sounding a bit schizophrenic, such as the hidden microchip belief. As we will show, this conflation of honest criticism with tin-foil-hat theories is itself a form of propaganda, seeking to cast anyone who doubts a mainstream liberal-minded source as effectively mentally ill, a tactic used in the former Soviet Union to deal with wrong-think.

The Death Count

Let’s look at “false view” number one: “The COVID-19 death counts for the US are exaggerated.” This issue was documented in a legal case with ample factual authorities: On March 24, 2020, the CDC issued COVID Alert 2.15, substantially changing how causes of death were to be reported, only for COVID-19. This change ensured that any death of a person who tested positive for COVID-19 would list this disease as the “cause of death.” Before this change, COVID would only have been listed if it was the “actual” cause of death. Prior to this change, if a person died of a car accident and happened to test positive for COVID-19, the cause of death would be the accident and COVID would be a “contributing factor.” CDC’s 2003 Medical Examiner’s and Coroner’s Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting says that in the context of a pre-existing condition, the infectious disease would always be a contributing factor and not “the cause of death.” The March 2020 changes only applied to COVID-19 and not for any other disease, creating a double standard for death recordation. This change skewed data for all deaths after March 24, 2020, “reducing the number of deaths from all other causes, and dramatically increasing the number of deaths attributed to COVID.”

Pregnant Women

Next, should pregnant women avoid COVID-19 vaccination, or is this another “false belief”? Well, for those that immediately and emphatically proclaim yes—remember there isn’t sufficient data to know. So being skeptical is just as biased as being optimistic. Why? Because there is so little data from clinical trials. This challenge is highlighted in a New England Journal of Medicine position authored in part by the CDC v-Safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team.

In that peer-reviewed paper, the authors declare while the few preliminary findings available don’t review any obvious safety signals in fact “longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.”

The important takeaway here is the fact that there isn’t enough data to determine whether the mRNA vaccines are safe long-term for pregnant women.

Ivermectin and More

On the settled point that, at a minimum, a number of top treating and research experts believe that Ivermectin is in fact, a safe and effective medicine for COVID-19, we will ultimately defer to our own TrialSite fact sheet on this topic from August 2021.

By January 2021 the NIH went on record that there wasn’t enough data from the existing ivermectin trials to either recommend for or against the drug for use against COVID-19.

Ivermectin is clearly considered a major prospect for a therapy based on inclusion in the ACTIV-6 study as well as NIH listing as a candidate targeting COVID-19. On the one hand, there is evidence that the drug may work but on the other hand, it’s not considered “proven” from a medical evidentiary perspective. There are hundreds, if not thousands of prominent researchers and physicians worldwide that advocate using off-label—they cannot all be conspiracy cadres and right-wing loons.

The remainder of the eight deadly sins are either just as open to debate as to the above points, or else tending to the truly conspiratorial: no, we at TrialSite do not think researchers should expend energy to look for “hidden microchips” or other esoterica. But on the other hand, we should be concerned when KFF, a key exemplar of US medicine, appears to be pushing a particular agenda that fits with the majority of the official narrative around this pandemic. Further, when they cast an epic Fox News vs. NPR credibility war, they do nothing to improve our national dialogue about COVID

Quote from Fm1

The Death Count

Let’s look at “false view” number one: “The COVID-19 death counts for the US are exaggerated.” This issue was documented in a legal case with ample factual authorities: On March 24, 2020, the CDC issued COVID Alert 2.15, substantially changing how causes of death were to be reported, only for COVID-19. This change ensured that any death of a person who tested positive for COVID-19 would list this disease as the “cause of death.” Before this change, COVID would only have been listed if it was the “actual” cause of death. Prior to this change, if a person died of a car accident and happened to test positive for COVID-19, the cause of death would be the accident and COVID would be a “contributing factor.” CDC’s 2003 Medical Examiner’s and Coroner’s Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting says that in the context of a pre-existing condition, the infectious disease would always be a contributing factor and not “the cause of death.” The March 2020 changes only applied to COVID-19 and not for any other disease, creating a double standard for death recordation. This change skewed data for all deaths after March 24, 2020, “reducing the number of deaths from all other causes, and dramatically increasing the number of deaths attributed to COVID.”

Italy Drastically Reduces Its Official COVID Death Toll Number | Principia Scientific Intl.

The Italian Higher Institute of Health has reduced the country’s official COVID death toll number by over 97 per cent after changing the definition of a…

principia-scientific.com

Italy Drastically Reduces Its Official COVID Death Toll Number

Published on November 6, 2021

The Italian Higher Institute of Health has reduced the country’s official COVID death toll number by over 97 per cent after changing the definition of a fatality to someone who died from COVID rather than with COVID.

Italian newspaper Il Tempo reports that the Institute has revised downward the number of people who have died from COVID rather than with COVID from 130,000 to under 4,000.

“Yes, you read that right. Turns out 97.1 percent of deaths hitherto attributed to Covid were not due directly to Covid,” writes Toby Young.

Of the of the 130,468 deaths registered as official COVID deaths since the start of the pandemic, only 3,783 are directly attributable to the virus alone.

“All the other Italians who lost their lives had from between one and five pre-existing diseases. Of those aged over 67 who died, 7 percent had more than three co-morbidities, and 18 percent at least two,” writes Young.

“According to the Institute, 65.8 percent of Italians who died after being infected with Covid were ill with arterial hypertension (high blood pressure), 23.5 percent had dementia, 29.3 percent had diabetes, and 24.8 percent atrial fibrillation. Add to that, 17.4 percent had lung problems, 16.3 percent had had cancer in the last five years and 15.7 percent suffered from previous heart failures.”

The Institute’s new definition of a COVID death means that COVID has killed fewer people in Italy than (whisper it) the average bout of seasonal flu.

If a similar change were made by other national governments, the official COVID death toll would be cut by a margin of greater than 90 per cent.

Don’t expect many others to follow suit though, given that governments have invested so much of their authority in hyping the the threat posed by the virus.

For example, behavioral psychologists in the UK worked with the state to deliberately “exaggerate” the threat of COVID via “unethical” and “totalitarian” methods of propaganda in order to terrify the public into mass compliance.

And it worked.

A survey conducted after the first lockdown found that the average Brit thought 100 times more people had died from COVID than the official death toll.

Now we come to understand that the official killed ‘by COVID’ and not ‘with COVID’ figure is less than one tenth what is officially reported as the total COVID death toll.

Despite the change, Italy may yet take the decision to make the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory, although how such a scheme would be imposed remains unspecified.

Quote from Shane D.

A survey conducted after the first lockdown found that the average Brit thought 100 times more people had died from COVID than the official death toll.

Now we come to understand that the official killed ‘by COVID’ and not ‘with COVID’ figure is less than one tenth what is officially reported as the total COVID death toll.

This reminds me of a Gallop poll that showed what Americans believed was the risk of hospitalization from Covid. 41 percent of Democrats (and 22 percent of Republicans) believed the risk of Covid hospitalization for the unvaccinated was at least 50 percent. (!)

U.S. Adults' Estimates of COVID-19 Hospitalization Risk

Americans' estimates of both the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 and the efficacy of the vaccine for the disease vary widely by their political…

news.gallup.com

How strange, I wonder how that could have happened ....

Quote from Mark U

This reminds me of a Gallop poll that showed what Americans believed was the risk of hospitalization from Covid. 41 percent of Democrats (and 22 percent of Republicans) believed the risk of Covid hospitalization for the unvaccinated was at least 50 percent.

The article I posted above had this very interesting link, which I think relates to the public misconceptions about risks. I think we missed this when it came out this May:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/

Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists

Members of Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour express regret about ‘unethical’ methods

Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.

Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.”

Mr Morgan spoke to author Laura Dodsworth, who has spent a year investigating the Government’s tactics for her book A State of Fear, published on Monday.Ministers have faced repeated accusations that they ramped up the threat from the pandemic to justify lockdowns and coerce the public into abiding by them – a claim that will be examined by the forthcoming public inquiry into the pandemic response.

>Now we come to understand that the official killed ‘by COVID’ and not ‘with COVID’ figure is less than one tenth what is officially reported as the total COVID death toll.

It has always been known (at least in the UK and to people paying attention and having a cricket brain) that the "COVID deaths" figure is not people who died directly and exclusively from COVID. However, the "COVID deaths" and "excess deaths" figures were roughly of the same amplitude giving (me) some feeling that they are roughly right. Eventually all these "excess deaths" will anyway cancel out with a period(s) of "less deaths" that has already started.

This is kinda not the point though, is it? As most deaths are of older people, of course they have other conditions. What *matters* is how much their lives were shortened due to COVID. What are the statistics on that?

Quote from Alan Smith

I just can't wait for Sunday!

I do not understand this!

The thread was already moved once to a "more hidden" menu.

The Covid thread has mushroomed to 909 pages of posts in just over a year! Surpassing even the "great Rossi hoax" with 700+ pages in 5+ years.

The two most read and posted topics by magnitude are this one (Covid) and Rossi. Moving them to a different menu will not stop anything. Jed states he will quit reading the thread, but we all know that is not true and he will start posting his overt political BS bias again at some point.

If someone does not like this thread, simply do not read it! I do not understand the "cant wait to move it"?

So again, I do not understand. If the owner of the site does not want to be derailed from LENR, then the only way is to totally remove Rossi and Covid. Moving them to another menu is not going to reduce the posts nor cause LENR posts to increase. The 900 pages of posts show it is what readers are most active in. The 700 pages of Rossi drama shows that it is the second most popular and commented subject on the site.

It is not the "menu placement" of the threads, it is the subject matter (or lack of discussable subject matter in the LENR threads) that drives the posts, not the menu placement.

So I am puzzled. Is the real motive to try to bury the subject matter down the menu tree so that new visitors will not see Rossi and Covid as fast and make the site "look" more credible...... BUT..... at the same time keep the website hits / visits up coming by continuing to host the two most popular thread subjects?

Seems to me there must be a connection! If the only concern was LENR, then Rossi and Covid would be completely dropped or at least archived with no new posts allowed. Yet being probably 90% of total hits on the site, one does not want to lose that now do they?

Quote from Nar

This is kinda not the point though, is it? As most deaths are of older people, of course they have other conditions. What *matters* is how much their lives were shortened due to COVID.

Currently we expect that 5x more people die from lock down induced effects that directly from CoV-19. But also here in most cases a delayed cancer surgery would only shift the day of death...

Lets say openly. This pandemic was planed, not for 2019 more likely for Trumps second term. All the playbooks have been ready only the vaccines were late. So the only chance for a takeover of world wide information power was selling fear. Fear did allow to sell cancer chemo drugs as vaccines. So we are now left over with >2 billion cancer treated people.

What people have to learn: The 5th power is gone. No more Woodward's. All classic news channels are controlled by FM/R/B and please let teh (Sorry, can't do that..SD) as these own some important journals.

I hope people no completely switch to alternative news channels. I canceled all my journals more than 5 years ago. Why should we pay for fake news? Fake stories, Mafia opinion?

Just the sports channel did survive!

(In the USA even Sesam street was altered by the vaccine mafia....)

>Currently we expect that 5x more people die from lock down induced effects that directly from CoV-19.

I don't know who "we" are, and I don't think you have any comprehensive statistics for either. How about we say that openly?

I can recommend the "Lovecraft Investigations" podcasts to you, start with the case of Charles Dextor Ward. They are all real!!

Quote from Nar

I don't know who "we" are, and I don't think you have any comprehensive statistics for either. How about we say that openly?

You can see it live:: https://www.statista.com/stati…ths-in-england-and-wales/

Compare excess mortality and CoV-19 deaths.