Covid-19

Deaths And ‘Cases’ Of Delta Variant In ‘Vaccinated’ And Unvaccinated – A Complicated Picture

There’s been a lot of talk on social media regarding the 17th technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom. According to the UK government’s own figures on the Delta (formerly known as the ‘Indian’) variant, up to 21st June, these were the data for cases, hospitalisations and deaths attributable to said VOC:

Summary of the information:

/ There were a total of 53,822 ‘cases’ (positive tests) in unvaccinated individuals, virtually all of them in the under 50s.

/ There were 13,715 ‘cases’ in those >21 days post vax dose 1, just over two thirds of them in under 50s age bracket.

/ There were 7235 ‘cases’ in those fully ‘vaccinated’, roughly divided equally between those over 50 and those under 50.

/ All of the deaths in the double vaccinated were in those over 50; none occurred in the under 50s. 50 fatalities out of 3546.

/ 6 deaths occurred in those under 50 in the unvaccinated group. 6 fatalities out of 52846.

/ 38 deaths occurred in those over 50 in the unvaccinated; 38 deaths out of 976.

/ For the fully vaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate is 50/3546=1.41% in the over 50s.

/ For the unvaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate is 38/976=3.89% in the over 50s.

/ In the unvaccinated, the ‘case’ fatality rate for those under 50 was 6/52846=0.011%

/ No data is available for the ‘case’ fatality rate in those under 50 who are fully vaccinated.

So, from this, if we are to take the government’s figures at face value – and I’m still not sure how they are identifying Delta cases re. ‘genotyping’ as opposed to ‘sequencing’, or the relative proportions of those two methods which make up the total – we get a somewhat confusing picture. It would appear that in the fully vaxxed over 50s, the chance of dying if you’re infected with the delta variant is about a third of the chance of dying if you are unvaxxed. But the vast majority of delta ‘cases’ are in the unvaxxed under 50s (52,846), yet only 6 of those people died. Only 976 ‘cases’ occurred in the unvaxxed over 50s – which may reflect the relative lack of over 50s who have not been jabbed. Conversely, 3546 ‘cases’ occurred in the fully jabbed over 50s, which may reflect just how many fully jabbed over 50s there are. The take home message appears to be: if you are over 50, it might be worth getting jabbed to reduce your risk of dying from Covid, but if you’re under 50, the chance of dying even if you’re infected with the delta variant is very small.

The risk calculation above of course does not take into account the risk of dying or being seriously injured as a consequence of getting jabbed, which is significant for all age groups, as we have seen. So even though, if you are over 50, you might theoretically have lowered your risk of death from Covid by getting jabbed, you will also have raised your risk of death (by what is looking like to be a comparable amount) by getting jabbed, plus there are also unforeseen future risks. If you’re under 50, the jab is probably more of a risk to life and health than Covid, especially if you’re under 30, in which case you’d have to be nuts to get jabbed – or bullied mercilessly into it (which is happening).

Study Concludes: Vaccines Are Killing About As Many People as they are Saving and Causing Many More Serious Injuries

Here’s the study, published today.

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits. Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects. Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination, we have to accept one inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

Where do they get that figure of 3 deaths prevented for every death caused? I think it may actually be a typo because their own figures, even quoted in the abstract, don’t lead to that conclusion. Using the point estimate of 16,000 NNTV to prevent one death, this is roughly six lives saved per 100,000 vaccinated, meaning that four die and sixteen are seriously injured to prevent six deaths. That’s a ratio of 3 lives saved for every two killed by the vaccines. The text confirms this:

Thus, we need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

It’s not good is it, especially when you include the 16 people out of every 100k with life-changing injuries, especially when you consider that the long term risks of these ‘vaccines’ must also be added in and they are not likely to be insignificant. Yet the absolute scumbags in government are still pushing the jabs for all they are worth, convincing healthy people that they need to get them if they want to travel abroad. This is what that weasel Schapps posted on Twitter today (with apologies to all weasel-kind):

Our government is telling people to risk their lives for no net clinical benefit and to significantly risk serious, life-changing injuries, in order to be able to travel freely, which is their God-given right, a basic human right which was never the government’s lawful perogative to remove. I cannot convey my dismay and disgust at that without lapsing into a string of expletives, so I’ll leave it there.

The study outlines the clinical reasons behind these deaths and adverse reactions which are now becoming generally accepted (except by megalomaniac, psychopathic, murderous, power-mad politicians of course).

A recent experimental study showed that the SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26].

As the authors point out, the risk-benefit ratio of adults getting ‘vaccinated’ might be even worse because of underreporting of adverse side effects and no way should kids be jabbed.

Finally, we note that from experience with reporting side effects from other drugs, only a small fraction of side effects is reported to adverse events databases [27,28]. The median underreporting can be as high as 95% [29].Given this fact and the high number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

In conclusion:

The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts?

Can you actually envisage a time when you will hear sober facts coming from the mouths of Hancock and Johnson and the ‘vaccine minister’ Zahawi? I can’t. It’s been relentless lies and disinformation so far. They are committed to jabbing literally every person in the UK with these verifiable toxins and they are determined to make social outcasts (or worse) of those people who refuse them.

Snow Models, Ice Models and Climate Models Generate ‘Data’ According to Scientists

Arctic Sea-Ice

This is what Professor Johan Rockstrom posted on Twitter 2 days ago:

Here is Rockstrom’s profile. As you can see he’s an earth science bigwig on ‘global sustainability’ and ‘planetary boundaries’ and he’s also Director of the Potsdam Institute, so he’s definitely an ‘expert’ who we should take very seriously. When he says that the Arctic sea ice ‘tipping element’ is fast approaching a ‘tipping point’ of no return, we should put our fingers to our lips and tremble with trepidation whilst whispering ‘Oh my God’, over and over, in barely audible, abject, stupefied terror.

Here’s what that Graun article says:

Arctic sea ice thinning twice as fast as thought, study finds

Less ice means more global heating, a vicious cycle that also leaves the region open to new oil extraction

Sea ice across much of the Arctic is thinning twice as fast as previously thought, researchers have found.

Arctic ice is melting as the climate crisis drives up temperatures, resulting in a vicious circle in which more dark water is exposed to the sun’s heat, leading to even more heating of the planet.

OMG, ‘climate crisis, vicious circle, even more heating’. We’re all going to DIE!

So what’s the evidence, where’s the data for this imminent irreversible planetary catastrophe? Well, it’s models, innit:

Calculating the thickness of sea ice from satellite radar data is difficult because the amount of snow cover on top varies significantly. Until now, the snow data used came from measurements by Soviet expeditions on ice floes between 1954 and 1991. But the climate crisis has drastically changed the Arctic, meaning this information is out of date.

The new research used novel computer models to produce detailed snow cover estimates from 2002 to 2018. The models tracked temperature, snowfall and ice floe movement to assess the accumulation of snow. Using this data to calculate sea ice thickness showed it is thinning twice as fast as previously estimated in the seas around the central Arctic, which make up the bulk of the polar region.

Robbie Mallett of University College London (it’s gone right down hill since I left, I can tell you), who led the study, says:

The Soviet-era data was hard won, Mallett said. “They sent these brave guys out and they sat on these drifting stations and floated around the Arctic, sometimes for years at a time, measuring the snow depth.” But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified the lack of more recent data as a key knowledge gap in 2019.

Yep, those hardy Russians actually went out and collected real data from the real world. They got off their arses and endured arduous conditions for long periods in order to physically measure sea ice thickness. This is what used to exclusively be called ‘data’. But now ‘data’ can be obtained by sitting on your lazy backside in a nice warm room in front of a computer screen, using ‘models’. Weather models, climate models, snow models, ice models, you name it, they’ve got models for everything these days and they generate ‘data’. You can probably even download them as an app on your iPhone, so you can now do what those brave, intrepid Russians did even whilst sipping your soy latte in some cafe in Islington. It’s great. Way back in 2019, even the IPCC admitted that there was a lack of real data on sea ice thickness. Now, 2 years into the post normal, post empiricist, post colonial, post Enlightenment, computer generated era of ‘Science’ (which governments religiously ‘follow’ to produce allegedly ‘evidence-based policy’ on stuff as diverse as public health in a pandemic, bad weather and sea level rise), we have new data which ‘evidences’ an imminent tipping point in Arctic sea-ice decline due to the fast approaching anthropogenic fossil fuel carbon-based Thermageddon.

Here are a few quotes from the actual UL paper:

To investigate the impact of variability and trends in snow cover on regional sea ice thickness we use the results of SnowModel-LG (Liston et al.2020aStroeve et al.2020). SnowModel-LG is a Lagrangian model for snow accumulation over sea ice; the model is capable of assimilating meteorological data from different atmospheric reanalyses (see below) and combines them with sea ice motion vectors to generate pan-Arctic snow-depth and density distributions.

SnowModel-LG exhibits more significant interannual variability than mW99 in its output because it reflects year-to-year variations in weather and sea ice dynamics.

SnowModel-LG creates a snow distribution based on reanalysis data, and the accuracy of these snow data is unlikely to exceed the accuracy of the input. There is significant spread in the representation of the actual distribution of relevant meteorological parameters by atmospheric reanalyses (Boisvert et al.2018Barrett et al.2020). The results of SnowModel-LG therefore depend on the reanalysis data set used.

So basically, their new model which relies upon meteorological reanalysis data (more models) shows that interannual variability in weather conditions in the Arctic is much greater than thought and this results, curiously, in the regional trend in sea ice thickness decline being also larger than previously estimated in some areas.

4.3 New and faster thickness declines in the marginal seas

As well as exhibiting higher interannual variability than mW99, SnowModel-LG values decline over time in most regions due to decreasing SWE values year over year. Here we examine the aggregate contribution of a more variable but declining time series in determining the magnitude and significance of trends in .

We first assess regions where was already in statistically significant decline when calculated with mW99. This is the case for all months in the Laptev and Kara seas and 4 of 7 months in the Chukchi and Barents sea. The rate of decline in these regions grew significantly when calculated with SnowModel-LG data (Fig. 10; green panels). Relative to the decline rate calculated with mW99, this represents average increases of 62 % in the Laptev sea, 81 % in the Kara Sea and 102 % in the Barents Sea. The largest increase in an already statistically significant decline was in the Chukchi Sea in April, where the decline rate increased by a factor of 2.1. When analysed as an aggregated area and with mW99, the total marginal seas area exhibits a statistically significant negative trend in November, December, January and April. The East Siberian Sea is the only region to have a month of decline when calculated with mW99 but not with SnowModel-LG.

We also analyse these regional declines as a percentage of the regional mean sea ice thickness in the observational period (2002–2018; Fig. 11). We observe the average growth-season thinning to increase from 21 % per decade to 42 % per decade in the Barents Sea, 39 % to 56 % per decade in the Kara Sea, and 24 % to 40 % per decade in the Laptev Sea when using SnowModel-LG instead of mW99. Five of the 7 growth-season months in the Chukchi Sea exhibit a decline with SnowModel-LG of (on average) 44 % per decade. This is much more than that of the 4 significant months observable with mW99 (25 % per decade). We find the marginal seas (when considered as a contiguous, aggregated group) to be losing 30 % of its mean thickness per decade in the 6 statistically significant months when SIT is calculated using SnowModel-LG (as opposed to mW99).

So it’s the marginal seas, more than the central Arctic region which, according to this study, are declining even faster in sea ice thickness than previously estimated. So let’s take a look at the map of sea-ice thickness for this year, May 2021 and compare it with 10 years ago, May 2011

Can you spot the significant decline in sea-ice thickness? Here is what marine biologist Susan Crockford says about this year’s sea-ice thickness:

Surprising sea ice thickness across the Arctic is good news for polar bears

This year near the end of May the distribution of thickest sea ice (3.5-5m/11.5-16.4 ft – or more) is a bit surprising, given that the WMO has suggested we may be only five years away from a “dangerous tipping point” in global temperatures. There is the usual and expected band of thick ice in the Arctic Ocean across northern Greenland and Canada’s most northern islands but there are also some patches in the peripheral seas (especially north of Svalbard, southeast Greenland, Foxe Basin, Hudson Strait, Chukchi Sea, Laptev Sea). This is plenty of sea ice for polar bear hunting at this time of year (mating season is pretty much over) and that thick ice will provide summer habitat for bears that choose to stay on the ice during the low-ice season: not even close to an emergency for polar bears.

Thick ice along the coasts of the Chukchi and Laptev Seas in Russia seems to be reasonably common, see closeup of the 2021 chart below:

Note that the Chukchi Sea and Laptev Sea both have thick ice this year. These two were singled out by the study above as showing the fastest declines in sea-ice thickness; indeed the Chuckchi provides the Graun headline ‘Arctic ice thinning twice as fast as thought’. Perhaps it is just interannual variability and these regions will show a marked decline next year, placing polar bears once again at risk of extinction. Alarmists can but hope.

Matt Ridley in the Telegraph

Matt also takes aim at the epidemiological and climate modelers, who are so fond of their worst case scenarios, in the Telegraph. He says:

The Government’s reliance on Sage experts’ computer modelling to predict what would happen with or without various interventions has proved about as useful as the ancient Roman habit of consulting trained experts in “haruspicy” – interpreting the entrails of chickens.

Again and again, worst-case scenarios are presented with absurd precision, sometimes deliberately to frighten us into compliance. The notorious press conference last October that told us 4,000 people a day might die was based on a model that was already well out of date.

Pessimism bias in modelling has two roots. The first is that worst-case scenarios are more likely to catch the attention of ministers and broadcasters: academics are as competitive as anybody in seeking such attention. The second is that modellers have little to lose by being pessimistic, but being too optimistic risks can ruin their reputations. Ask Michael Fish, the weather forecaster who in 1987 reassured viewers that hurricanes hardly ever happen.

Then he identifies the tendency I have criticised here, namely the false assumption that the output of models can be treated as ‘data’:

As Steve Baker MP has been arguing for months, the modellers must face formal challenge. It is not just in the case of Covid that haruspicy is determining policy. There is a growing tendency to speak about the outcomes of models in language that implies they generate evidence, rather than forecasts. This is especially a problem in the field of climate science. As the novelist Michael Crichton put it in 2003: “No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world: increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality.”

Examine the forecasts underpinning government agencies’ plans for climate change and you will find they often rely on a notorious model called RCP8.5, which was always intended as extreme and unrealistic. Among a stack of bonkers assumptions, it projects that the world will get half its energy from coal in 2100, burning 10 times as much as today, even using it to make fuel for aircraft and vehicles. In this and every other respect, RCP8.5 is already badly wrong, but it has infected policy-makers like a virus, a fact you generally have to dig out of the footnotes of government documents.

I was pointing out the parallels between climate and Covid modelling in April last year:

“They got it wrong the second time because they relied upon an epidemiological model (adapted from an old ‘flu model) which predicted 510,000 deaths from a virus which we knew virtually nothing about.

Climate change modellers never get it wrong, simply because even when their models don’t agree with reality, this is either because the observations are wrong, or because they still ‘do a reasonable job’ of modelling past and present climate change (especially when inconvenient ‘blips’ are ironed out by retrospective adjustments to the data), but principally because the subject of their claimed modelling expertise lies many years off in the future – climate change to be expected in 2050 or 2100, when the real impacts will begin to be felt. Imperial’s and IMHE’s worst case scenarios look way off, just weeks after they were proposed and after governments acted on the modeller’s advice. Their assumptions are being rapidly challenged by new data and research. Nothing similar happens in climate change land. Their worst case scenario (RCP8.5), though comprehensively debunked, still lives on and is still being defended by Met Office scientists on the basis that ‘carbon feedbacks (however unlikely) cannot be ruled out’.

Ice models and climate models combined are data points

At least, they are according to Dr Tamsin Edwards of King’s College London, writing in the Graun:

Sea levels are going to rise, no matter what. This is certain. But new
research I helped produce shows how much we could limit the damage: sea level rise from the melting of ice could be halved this century if we meet the Paris agreement target of keeping global warming to 1.5C.

The aim of our research was to provide a coherent picture of the future of the world’s land ice using hundreds of simulations. 

Connecting parts of the world: the world’s land ice is made up of global glaciers in 19 regions, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets at each pole. Our methods allow us to use exactly the same predictions of global warming for each. This may sound obvious, but is actually unusual, perhaps unique at this scale. Each part of the world is simulated separately, by different groups of people, using different climate models to provide the warming levels. We realigned all these predictions to make them consistent.

Connecting the data: at its heart, this study is a join-the-dots picture. Our 38 groups of modellers created nearly 900 simulations of glaciers and ice sheets. Each one is a data point about its contribution to future sea level rise. Here, we connected the points with lines, using a statistical method called “emulation”. Imagine clusters of stars in the sky: drawing the constellations allow us to visualise the full picture more easily – not just a few points of light, but each detail of Orion’s torso, limbs, belt and bow.

Not only are model outputs ‘data’; they are also stars in the firmament! Tamsin and the other eighty four authors of this study are also very fond of focusing on worst case scenarios:

So, for those most at risk, we made a second set of predictions in a pessimistic storyline where Antarctica is particularly sensitive to climate change. We found the losses from the ice sheet could be five times larger than the main predictions, which would imply a 5% chance of the land ice contribution to sea level exceeding 56cm in 2100 – even if we limit warming to 1.5C. Such a storyline would mean far more severe increases in flooding.

How did they generate this particular set of ‘data points’? This is explained in the actual paper:

Given the wide range and cancellations of responses across models and parameters, we
present alternative ‘pessimistic but physically plausible’ Antarctica projections for risk-averse
stakeholders, by combining a set of assumptions that lead to high sea level contributions.
These are: the four ice sheet models most sensitive to basal melting; the four climate models
that lead to highest Antarctic sea level contributions, and the one used to drive most of the ice
shelf collapse simulations; the high basal melt (Pine Island Glacier) distribution; and with ice
shelf collapse ‘on’ (i.e. combining robustness tests 6 and 7 and sensitivity tests 6 and 10). This
storyline would come about if the high basal melt sensitivities currently observed at Pine
Island Glacier soon become widespread around the continent; the ice sheet responds to these
with extensive retreat and rapid ice flow; and atmospheric warming is sufficient to
disintegrate ice shelves, but does not substantially increase snowfall. The risk-averse
projections are more than five times the main estimates: median 21 cm (95th percentile range
7 to 43 cm) under the NDCs (Fig. 3j), and essentially the same under SSP5-85 (Table 1;
regions shown in Extended Data Figure 4: test 11), with the 95th percentiles emerging above
the main projections after 2040 (Fig. 3d). This is very similar to projections under an
extreme scenario of widespread ice shelf collapses for RCP8.5 (median 21 cm; 95th percentile
range 9 to 39 cm).

I’m sorry Tamsin, but model output is not data and your worst case scenario of glacier melt and resultant sea level rise is not physically or socio-economically ‘plausible’. Climate scientists and epidemiological modelers do not live in the same world as the rest of us, but they insist that we make plans and real sacrifices to prepare for the nightmarish world which they do inhabit, if only on a part time basis.

“We have never seen anything like this”: Mass Vaccinated Israel Experiences a Surge of Winter Viral Infections in Midsummer.

This comes straight from the Annals of ‘Screw With Nature and Nature Will Screw With You’. Israel is one of the most Covid ‘vaccinated’ countries in the world, with 58% of the populace now fully jabbed, including kids as young as 16. They’ve paid a high price for that ‘privilege’ though. First, deaths spiked soon after ‘vaccination’. Then the government introduced medical Apartheid by instigating the Green passport scheme, which has recently been abandoned as unworkable, probably because not enough people were getting jabbed. Then recently, they’ve discovered that jabbing youngsters (who don’t need to be ‘vaccinated’ against Covid) has resulted in a significant increase in myocarditis (inflammation of heart muscle), a serious condition which can be life threatening. Now they’ve got even more problems – the emergence of winter respiratory viruses in midsummer.

The corona crisis might be over, but all over Israel adults and children are getting sick with viral infections in a phenomenon that is unprecedented for this time of the year, according to several medical professionals.“We have never seen anything like this,” said Dr. Tal Brosh, head of Infectious Disease Unit at the Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital. “We’ve been monitoring viral infections in the hospital, which of course is just the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in the community, as for each hospitalized patient, there are many more out there. Since the spring, we have been seeing an increasing number of respiratory diseases, and since May there has been a surge in RSV cases.”RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, usually appears in the winter together with the influenza, and is especially serious for very young children and older, vulnerable adults.

“We usually see it disappearing in the summer, but if we consider the numbers now, it looks like winter in previous years,” said Brosh. “During the winter 2020-2021, we did not see one individual case of RSV.” RSV is not the only virus that is widely circulating – other diseases that are currently infecting a growing number of people are a type of adenovirus, the human metapneumovirus (HMPV), and the rhinovirus. All of them are associated with respiratory symptoms and other symptoms similar to those of a severe cold. At the same time, influenza has not hit the country since the winter previous to the pandemic.

So, they ended the alleged ‘Covid crisis’ only to end up with a series of other crises, medical and political. They ‘killed’ the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, which mainly affected the ill and the very old, and ended up with an unprecedented summer epidemic of RSV and other viruses which not only affect the old but also the very young, who were never at risk of Covid. God only knows what the winter holds, when ‘flu will most likely come roaring back (if it ever went away). Of course, the ‘experts’ are playing it down and saying it’s because of the ending of lockdowns and mask wearing, but I suspect that is far too simplistic an explanation. If masks and lockdowns failed to kill Covid (and there is no evidence that they have contained the spread of SARS-CoV-2, virtually everywhere they’ve been tried), then it’s highly unlikely that they had any significant impact on other respiratory viruses.

Snir noted that after the year of the pandemic, it is not surprising that these diseases are reappearing.

“We did not see them during the winter because we were wearing masks and because of the lockdowns, but they are normal viruses,” she said.

So what’s causing this re-emergence of winter respiratory viruses? We know that the ‘vaccines’ can trigger the re-emergence of latent viruses, especially Herpes Zoster. So perhaps normally seasonally dormant viruses have been re-activated by the mass vaccination campaign? It’s a possibility, as outlined here:

Unfortunately, as virus circulation decreases, the age of primary infection increases, and since age is directly associated with pathogenicity, vaccinating children would likely lead to lower infection rates but higher case fatality rates.22 Additionally, depending on the relative durations of immunity induced by vaccines and infection, and the rate of viral antigenic change, vaccinating children might increase the frequency of large seasonal epidemics, leading to overall increases in virus induced morbidity and mortality.5

Finally, mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce greater antibody responses than natural infection but may elicit CD8 T cell responses that are less broadly protective against future variants.23,24 Further studies on the differences between vaccine and infection induced immunity should be done to explore and quantify these trade-offs.

Whatever the actual reasons for the current outbreaks of respiratory viruses in Israel may be, it looks highly likely that the decision to mass vaccinate the entire population with experimental, gene-based ‘vaccines’ is going to turn out to be unwise at the least, catastrophic at worst. The UK is not far behind Israel, so expect a similar phenomenon here, with people suffering colds and other respiratory ailments during the height of summer, which no doubt our lying government will identify as the beginning of a third ‘deadly wave’ of Covid.

“It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required”

These are the words of Dr Tess Lawrie (MBBCh, PhD), Director, Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and EbMC Squared CiC, in a letter to Dr June Raine, Chief Executive of the MHRA, the same MHRA which has recently authorised the use of the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ in children aged 12-15. It is almost inconceivable that they would do this, given the number and seriousness of the adverse reactions to the ‘vaccines’ being recorded on their own ‘early warning’ database, especially when children of that age are at statistically zero risk of serious Covid disease. But we live in strange times, so strange in fact, so deeply disturbing that our government is threatening not to end lockdown restrictions completely on June 21st because they haven’t coerced enough younger people to get injected with the blood toxin they are calling a ‘vaccine’.

Here are a few relevant passages from that letter:

The Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out in the UK on the 8th of December 2020. As of the 6th May 2021 nearly 39 million people have received their first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, and 24 million both doses. Sufficient data have now accumulated to get a good overview of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). I would, therefore, like to draw your attention to the high number of covid-19 vaccine-attributed deaths and ADRs that have been reported via the Yellow Card system between the 4th January 2021 and the 26th May 2021. In total, 1,253 deaths and 888,196 ADRs (256,224 individual reports) were reported during this period.

To facilitate a better clinical understanding of the nature of the adverse events occurring, primarily to inform doctors at the frontline, we have searched the Yellow Card reports using pathology-specific key words to group the data according to the following five broad, clinically relevant categories:

A. Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic ADRs

B. Immune System ADRs

C. ‘Pain’ ADRs

D. Neurological ADRs

E. ADRs involving loss of Sight, Hearing, Speech or Smell

F. Pregnancy ADRs

A. Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic Adverse Drug Reactions

We used the following SEARCH TERMS to identify bleeding, clotting and ischaemic ADRs: bleed, haemo*, thrombo*, emboli*, coag*, death, ischaem*, infarct*, angina, stroke, cerebrovascular, CVA.

We included the term ‘death’ in this search group, as this term accounted for many reported fatalities (438) without specific details. Given the large number of fatalities without a specific cause of death, we considered that ADRs reported in this way, in particular as ‘sudden death’, would be most likely to occur from haemorrhagic, thrombo-embolic or ischaemic events. Given the seriousness of this ADR, we considered it justifiable to do this pending a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to clarify the cause of death in these 438 people.

Using these search terms, 13,766 bleeding, clotting and ischaemic ADRs were identified – 856 of which were fatal. Government reports have highlighted the occurrence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, apparently accounting for 24 fatalities and 226 ADRs up to the 26th May 2021.However, our analysis indicates that thromboembolic ADRs have been reported in almost every vein and artery, including large vessels like the aorta, and in every organ including other parts of the brain, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, ovaries and liver, with life-threatening and life-changing consequences. The most common Yellow Card categories affected by these sorts of ADRs were the nervous system (152 fatalities, mainly from brain bleeds and clots), respiratory (with 103 fatalities, mainly from pulmonary thromboembolism) and cardiac categories (81 fatalities).

So, you see, it’s not just “extremely rare” cerebral venous sinus thromboses which are the problem here. Blood clots are forming in blood vessels throughout the body and in virtually every organ. This suggests that the vaccine and/or its spike protein product is getting into the vascular system and being distributed widely. This was not supposed to happen! To get an idea of just how massive a problem this may be, Dr Reiner Fuellmich, the German lawyer currently pursuing Covid human rights violations class action lawsuits, cites a German clinical study which measured D-dimer levels in volunteers before and after ‘vaccination’. Regardless of any adverse reactions, D-dimer levels were elevated post vaccination in almost half of volunteers, proving that clot formation was taking place. If that sample is representative of the vaccinated population as a whole, then it is truly shocking. Remember, each time you are jabbed, these toxins circulate around the blood system and the psychopaths in charge are proposing 3rd and even 4th booster jabs this winter.

Thrombo-embolic events aren’t the only problem:

B. Immune System Adverse Drug Reactions (Infection, Inflammation,Autoimmune, Allergic)

We used the following SEARCH TERMS to identify immune system ADRs: INFECTION (category), IMMUNE DISORDERS (category), -itis; immun, multiple sclerosis, lupus, myasthenia, pernicious, diabetes, Addison, Crohn’s, Coeliac, Graves, alopecia, amyloidosis, antiphospholipid, angioedema, Behcet’s, pemphigoid, psoriasis, aplasia, sarcoidosis, scleroderma, thrombocytopenia, vitiligo, Miller Fisher, Guillain-Barre; allerg*, urticaria, rash, eczema, asthma.

To the 26th May, a total of 54,870 ADRs and 171 fatalities fell into this category, which comprised the second most common cause of post-vaccination fatalities after ‘Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic ADRs’. However, only 4 associated fatalities were reported under the Yellow card ‘IMMUNE DISORDERS’ category, with the majority (141 fatalities associated with 19,474 ADRs) reported under the ‘INFECTIONS’ category. Among 1,187 people for whom post-vaccination COVID infection was reported, there were 72 fatalities (6% of reported COVID infection ADRs).

Many ‘INFECTION’ category ADRs indicated the occurrence of re-activation of latent viruses, including Herpes Zoster or shingles (1,827 ADRs), Herpes Simplex (943 ADRs, 1 fatal), and Rabies (1 fatal ADR) infections. This is strongly suggestive of vaccine-induced immune-compromise.Bell’s palsy, also associated with latent virus reactivation, is reported in the Neurological ADRs section of this report (D). Also suggestive of vaccine-induced immunocompromise was the high number of immune-mediated conditions reported, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome (280 ADRs, 6 deaths), Crohn’s and non-infective colitis (231 ADRs, 2 deaths) and Multiple Sclerosis (113 ADRs).

Allergic responses to the vaccines comprised 25,270 reported ADRs, with 4 fatalities occurring among 1,001 people experiencing anaphylactic reactions. 

Additionally, we have the following classes of adverse reactions which also give cause for concern:

C. ‘Pain’ Adverse Drug Reactions

D. Neurological Adverse Drug Reactions

E. Adverse Drug Reactions involving loss of sight, hearing, speech or smell

F. Pregnancy Adverse Drug Reactions

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, we also have the unforeseen potential long term adverse reactions. We know for sure now that the drug companies have screwed up by not anticipating very serious immediate adverse reactions, so it’s more than plausible that they have failed to anticipate long term serious adverse reactions too.

According to the recent paper by Seneff and Nigh (1), potential acute and long-term pathologies include:

• Pathogenic priming, multisystem inflammatory disease and autoimmunity

• Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis

• Antibody dependent enhancement

• Activation of latent viral infections

• Neurodegeneration and prion diseases

• Emergence of novel variants of SARSCoV2

• Integration of the spike protein gene into the human DNA

The author calls for an immediate halt to the vaccine rollout:

The nature and variety of ADRs reported to the Yellow Card System are consistent with the potential pathologies described in this paper and supported by other recent scientific papers on vaccine-induced harms, which are mediated through the vaccine spike protein product (2,3). It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression,autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).

This is perhaps the most damning sentence in the entire letter:

The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans.

Why? Well, aside from the obvious, it comes within a week of when, far from withdrawing the emergency use authorisation for these ‘vaccines’ generally, the MHRA has in fact extended their use to children who were not even included in the original trials, on the basis of a ridiculously underpowered recent clinical trial in the States. Seriously WTAF is going on?

UPDATE: Watch this video. Just watch it – before YouTube delete it. I cannot stress how important it is to view this video. It is your duty as a human being.

https://newtube.app/user/PhilStone/p01lQ7L?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=fbe3476ad2f7ce0a4bd0fce10834b9dea6a7046c-1623771117-0-AXO4hUMwVvnapjfo0ZClBWSlb09cDq0HjI2z0CYhPGXc_W5Ov7ZsAVQhfY6WRFCxM13NS5jYamTIistagoUHUr2VlI6jRUXYq9-tcUoks9znltBw1y68hWk71hNDkyHKc0MRVnPh6Hq-yLOUrtyv7-4PUvBWjsmHaIkjOQTFi6gQd09nTmTSECI9tYHL3VlkRfGDqScii0gdnl3SEkCLlWtgh3BYspbmlSi-bFSPW5AGi3wdOweOXGiWdhMG_YMais7wnNcJVKI1ibagsyPRBImBH8KG8e4I0AaGGH5BI0VAEZFl45cIaaIZpk69bqQbxIYb3L5M6rSls1IvdivQ1Kdl3Y844Rifw0IRTAKepDJT4mrwae6Rl3Cxg5kE87xU0oX81nEDaLvnXc4uoeFTvNWeRy-QFKOXnULg3u2mftjfNd6W1FEMnlBBcsrwfRqFdZlgFvCjHK860ns96_aBUg-V07sArS1xiVXfDwS_lWsU

Here is the entire video:

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world,-in-three-easy:0?r=FuWwFotRbicqY9GHyWBqDdTNNHpaTgC9

The UK Government’s Own Data Botherers Signal That The Covid Herd Immunity Threshold Has Been Surpassed

When herd immunity has been reached or surpassed, this means that a contagious disease-causing virus is effectively endemic and can no longer spread epidemically unless it mutates sufficiently so as to evade natural or vaccine-induced defences. The Office for National Statistics has just tweeted this:

This means that in England, Wales & NI, the sero-positive rate for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is now an astoundingly high 80%. This exceeds even the unscientific and absurdly high herd immunity threshold previously cited by SAGE ‘experts’ of 60-70% assuming that the entire population is equally susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, which it most definitely is not. In immunological terms, the population is heterogeneous which means that the effective herd immunity threshold for Covid is probably much lower, around 40%. This lower threshold was probably achieved by the end of December last year, largely via natural infections, just as the vaccinations were getting going. So all that’s happened since is that sero-positivity has doubled due to ‘vaccinating’ millions of people who didn’t need to be ‘vaccinated’ and we have now exceeded even government scientists’ own implausibly high community immunity threshold. Also, summer has finally arrived, putting a natural lid on the spread of the virus.

So, in essence, there is absolutely no excuse for not fully dispensing with restrictions and fully opening up the country on June 21st – something which the government could have safely done months ago. But they’re trying desperately to claim that the new, scary, more transmissible Delta variant (aka the ‘Indian’ variant) is spreading rapidly among the younger generation who haven’t been jabbed and therefore opening up must be delayed until more of those people get jabbed. Basically, they’re lying about the supposed health risk of a new variant and they’re threatening to delay returning our stolen civil liberties in order to blackmail younger people into getting jabbed. The fact is, if the sero-positive rate is 80%, many young people will already be immune to SARS-CoV-2, many of those via natural infection, which will confer robust immunity against all variants, because all variants so far differ only very slightly from the original Wuhan strain and infection-acquired immunity is broad spectrum. In fact the concern is that if too many youngsters get jabbed with a narrow spectrum immunity-inducing ‘vaccine’ then this may override their broad spectrum T-cell mediated natural immune response, making them more susceptible to being infected with new variants.

It definitely is time for the government to end all restrictions on commerce, hospitality, entertainment, travel and personal liberty, to stop ‘vaccinating’ people unnecessarily, to not even think about ‘vaccinating’ kids and to let us get on with our lives free of state control and fear-mongering propaganda. But they probably won’t. They have grown to love lockdowns and the control which they can exert over us all by falsely claiming a state of emergency exists as a result of a ‘deadly pandemic’. They can’t or won’t let go and the MHRA has scandalously just authorised the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ for use in 12-15 year olds so they will want to keep the fear going and the ’emergency’ on simmer all over summer so they can justify jabbing your kids with an experimental gene-based ‘vaccine’ whose long term consequences are unknown and whose short term consequences mean that the risk to children of getting jabbed outweighs considerably any alleged benefit.

Revealed: Why the Oxford AstraZeneca Jab is Even More Dangerous than the mRNA ‘Vaccines’

People are dying and suffering from serious illness, including strokes, brain haemorrhages, blood clotting, blindness, heart attacks, neurological/nervous disorders, etc. soon after getting jabbed with any of the ‘vaccines’ currently available in the UK – Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford/AstraZeneca. This is a fact. 44 year old BBC presenter Lisa Shaw has just died from a blood clot, having been injected with AZ’s viral vector ‘vaccine’ – as part of a scandalously coerced mass vaccination program, in violation of the Nuremberg Code, fully supported by and sold to a gullible, fearful public by her own employer. The AZ jab definitely appears to be – at present – the worst offender as far as serious adverse reactions are concerned.

Our government, the media, the NHS and the MHRA tell us that this carnage means the AZ jab is ‘safe and rigorously tested’. 182,751 people, including 806 dead people, might disagree. Let us also be aware that many adverse reactions are not being reported, and indeed there is evidence to suggest that doctors and medical staff are deliberately not reporting adverse reactions to the jabs in those people they coerced to get jabbed. The VAERS database in the US for instance, is cited as recording only 1-10% of all adverse drug reactions.

Considering that many of the victims of this mass stabbing exercise by the state are people who are at minimal risk from Covid, considering that many of them will have already had robust and durable natural immunity to Covid anyway, via past infection, this is a massive scandal and evidence of an ongoing crime against humanity.

We now have emerging research which might explain why the adenovirus vectored Oxford AZ DNA jab is even more dangerous than the mRNA Pfizer and Moderna jabs. It has to do with the genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus itself and the way in which it gets its ‘payload’ of SARS-Cov-2 spike encoding DNA into our cells.

During the last months many countries have started the immunization of millions of people by using
vector-based vaccines. Unfortunately, severe side effects became overt during these vaccination
campaigns: cerebral venous sinus thromboses (CVST), absolutely rare under normal life conditions, were
found as a severe side effect that occured 4-14 days after first vaccinations. Besides CVST, Splanchnic
Vein Thrombosis (SVT) was also observed. This type of adverse event has not been observed in the
clinical studies of AstraZeneca, and therefore led immediately to a halt in vaccinations in several
european countries. These events were mostly associated with thrombocytopenia, and thus, similar to the
well-known Heparin-induced thrombo cytopenia (HIT). Meanwhile, scientists have proposed a mechanism
to explain this vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia. However, they do not provide a satisfactory
explanation for the late thromboembolic events. Here, we present data that may explain these severe side
effects which have been attributed to adenoviral vaccines.

What is the fundamental difference between mRNA and vector-based vaccines? The mRNA vaccines are
delivered by a lipid nanoparticle containing the appropriate mRNA molecule – coding for the spike protein
of SARS-CoV-2 – to muscle cells surrounding the injection site. Cells that have successfully taken up these
nanoparticles will release their cargo mRNA into the cytosol, where it will be translated into Spike protein
in the rough endoplasmatic reticulum (ER). Subsequently, the translated and folded Spike proteins will be
post-translationally modified in the ER and Golgi apparatus and transported to the outer membrane – as
membrane-anchored proteins. This way, the immune system is able to recognize the viral antigen, which
in turn triggers the initial events for all subsequent immunological processes to produce specific B- and T effector cells.
What happens to the same Spike gene when delivered via an adenoviral system? The adenovirus life
cycle includes the infection of cells, uncoating of the virus in the cytosol, entry of the adenoviral DNA into
the nucleus, and subsequently gene transcription by the host transcription machinery (6). All adenoviral
systems follow exactly these steps (Ad5, Ad26 and chimp Ad). Thus, the SARS-CoV-2 Spike gene will be
transcribed inside of the nucleus and subsequently exported as mRNA out of the nucleus. Arriving in the
cytosol, the mRNA will again be translated into the Spike protein (see above).
And exactly here lies the problem: the viral piece of DNA – deriving from an RNA virus – is not optimized to
be transcribed inside of the nucleus. Solely this 3,822 nucleotide long open reading frame, coding for a
primary product of 1274 amino acid long Spike protein, contains 6 predicted splice donor and 5 predicted
acceptor sites. This problem becomes even more severe when using codon-optimized Spike reading
frames (depending on the company: up to 13 splice donor and 11 acceptor sites; see Fig. 1A). Thus, it
could well be that the Spike open reading frame of SARS-CoV-2 is potentially disrupted by arbitrary splice
events when transcribed inside the nucleus. Most, if not all, of these undesirable splice events would
produce shorter protein variants, disrupting the Spike protein upstream of the C-terminally located
membrane anchor, and thus, leading to soluble Spike protein variants.

In simple translation, what the authors are saying here is that because the AZ and other ‘vaccines’ deliver a piece of DNA (not mRNA) directly into the cell nucleus via the adenovirus vector, then there is the possibility that errors will occur when that DNA is transcribed back into RNA inside the nucleus. Thus, when the RNA is expelled from the nucleus into the surrounding cell material and starts instructing the cell machinery to manufacture the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, those spike proteins produced might be ‘missing bits’; they will be shorter versions of the actual spike protein which, as result, will be able to migrate into the blood vessels where they will bind to platelets and cause serious health issues, namely haemorrhaging and clotting, which is exactly what we are seeing with AZ adverse reactions.

It’s not just the AZ ‘vaccine’:

The authors give the mRNA ‘vaccines’ a free pass on safety because they say that this production of soluble spike proteins just can’t happen with mRNA delivered into the cell cytosol:

Here, we present first molecular evidence that vector-based vaccines encoding the Spike protein exhibit a
problem that is completely absent in mRNA-based vaccines. This is due to the fact that during the
vaccination step, the adenoviral DNA enters the nucleus and use the host machinery to transcribe its
(trans)genes inside the nucleus. However, RNA viruses have evolved in the absence of any post transcriptional modifcation systems that are usually enabled to process the primary RNA transcripts of
nuclear encoded genes.

They even say the AZ ‘vaccine’ can be ‘re-optimized’:

Based on our findings, we strongly suggest that the Spike open reading frames – wildtype or codonoptimized in vector-based vaccines has to be re-optimized to avoid unintended splice reactions and to increase the safety of these pharmaceutical products. Vice versa, all mRNA-based vaccines should represent safe products, because the delivered mRNA will only be translated into surface antigen, without having any possibility to participate in nuclear splice events.

Unfortunately, spike proteins ‘leaking’ into the blood system can and do happen with other type ‘vaccines’ also, so it’s not a problem unique to AstraZeneca. The mRNA ‘vaccines’, though apparently less dangerous than the Oxford AZ viral vector vaccine, still have a whole host of serious side effects including thrombotic events like clots, strokes, heart attacks, haemorrhages, many linked to thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count). Something which the manufacturers said couldn’t happen, has happened: spike proteins have been detected circulating in the blood of several volunteers who were administered the Moderna ‘vaccine’. Supposedly, they are at such minute concentrations that they cannot cause damage, but then this underpowered study looked at just a handful of healthy volunteers who were not suffering serious adverse side effects. The point is, the ‘experts’ have no explanation as to why they are there at all.

SARS-CoV-2 proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. 11 of 13 participants showed detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein as early as day one after first vaccine injection.

Nonetheless, evidence of systemic detection of spike and S1 protein production from the mRNA-1273 vaccine is significant and has not yet been described in any vaccine study, likely due to limitations in assay sensitivity and timing assessment. The clinical relevance of this finding is unknown and should be further explored.

It’s not just soluble SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins

The Daily Fail would have us believe that the problem with the AZ ‘vaccine’, which is just ‘very rare’ brain haemorrhages, has now been identified and can be fixed. Not really a big deal according to them.

Germans scientists say they have figured out why the Covid vaccines from  AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are linked to rare blood clots

In a new pre-print, the team says the problem is with the adenovirus vector, a common cold virus used to get the body to induce an immune response

They claim the vaccine is sent into the cell nucleus instead of surrounding fluid, where parts of it break off and create mutated versions of themselves 

The mutated versions then enter the body and trigger the rare blood clots

Scientists say they can genetically adapt the vaccine to prevent the virus’s spike proteins, which it uses to enter cells, from splitting apart

That’s all OK then. What they don’t tell you, probably because they didn’t read the study carefully, assuming they even read it at all, is that this newly identified faulty transcription of DNA to RNA, resulting in the production of truncated, soluble spike proteins, is not the only problem with the viral vector ‘vaccines’. The other major problem is the genetically modified adenovirus vector itself. It too can bind to platelets and cause thrombocytopenia. The issue has been known about for at least 15 years, so there’s no excuse for the manufacturers to claim that such an adverse effect was unforeseen – it wasn’t. Here for instance:

Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is currently unknown.

And here:

Thrombocytopenia is a major adverse effect of high dose systemic administration of adenoviral (Ad) gene therapy vectors. While a previous report did not find platelet activation by Ad [1], recent studies have shown that Ad may activate platelets [2] and binds in vivo to murine thrombocytes resulting in hepatic sequestration [3]. Ad-induced thrombocytopenia has been shown to be dose-dependent, saturable and reversible [4], compatible with a ligand-receptor mechanism. Recently, binding of Ad to platelet was indirectly suggested following interference of platelet adhesion to fibronectin after incubation with Ad [2]. In this study we developed a direct flow cytometry assay to quantitatively analyze Ad attachment to human platelets in vitro and to characterize their interaction.

What this clearly tells us is that there are two major problems with the AZ viral vector vaccine, giving rise to very similar serious thrombotic adverse reactions associated with a low blood platelet count and those two problems arise separately as a result of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins migrating into the blood, plus the adenovirus itself binding to blood platelets. The authors of this new study do actually point this out, but then they appear to ignore it, along with the media reporting on the paper.

Therefore, we propose a pathological disease mechanism that is depicted in Fig. 1D. On one hand, the
recently described VITT mechanism
is based on the artificial activation of PF4 by adenoviral proteins or
DNA molecules, which can similarly to heparin, act as a poly-anion to mediate PF4 activation. In patients
that exhibit a high load of auto-antibodies against PF4, this may cause the observed thrombocytopenia
(Fig. 1D, left side). The other side of the pathological disease mechanism is depicted as well (Fig. 1D, right
side). Based on our splicing data, membrane-anchored and soluble Spike protein variants are produced
after the vaccination procedure. When the immune system now starts the production of anti-Spike
antibodies (days 4–16), these antibodies will recognize the membrane-anchored as well as soluble Spike
proteins.

VITT is Vaccine Induced Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia and is a known adverse effect of adenovirus gene therapy vectors, not just ‘vaccines’. Drug companies have known about the dangers for years. Here is the handy diagram provided by the authors of the new study, which distinguishes between the two:

In summary, the AZ ‘vaccine’ is dangerous; (a) as a result of a known side effect of the administration of adenovirus vectors, (b) as a result of an unforeseen faulty transcription of DNA into RNA, resulting in the production of soluble spike proteins, which are binding to blood platelets. The mRNA vaccines appear not to be so dangerous, but they certainly don’t have a free pass on safety, as implied wrongly by the authors of the new study on AZ adverse reactions.

Salk Institute: SARS-CoV-2 Spike Proteins Cause Damage To Blood Vessels But the Same Spike Proteins Coded By the Vaccines Are Safe!

We already knew that the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins were implicated in serious damage to blood vessels in severe cases of Covid disease in the immune-compromised. Here (Sept 2020) for instance:

Critically ill patients diagnosed with COVID-19 may develop a pro-thrombotic state that places them at a dramatically increased lethal risk.

We demonstrated that COVID-19 patients present with increased mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet hyperactivity, which correlated with a decrease in overall platelet count. Detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the blood stream was associated with platelet hyperactivity in critically ill patients. Platelets expressed ACE2, a host cell receptor for SARS-CoV-2, and TMPRSS2, a serine protease for Spike protein priming. SARS-CoV-2 and its Spike protein directly enhanced platelet activation such as platelet aggregation, PAC-1 binding, CD62P expression, α granule secretion, dense granule release, platelet spreading, and clot retraction in vitro, and thereby Spike protein enhanced thrombosis formation in wild-type mice transfused with hACE2 transgenic platelets, but this was not observed in animals transfused with wild-type platelets in vivo.

Our findings uncovered a novel function of SARS-CoV-2 on platelet activation via binding of Spike to ACE2. SARS-CoV-2-induced platelet activation may participate in thrombus formation and inflammatory responses in COVID-19 patients.

Or here (Jan 2021):

It was found that the treatment of cultured primary human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (SMCs) or human pulmonary artery endothelial cells with the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit is sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the viral components [21]. Furthermore, our analysis of the postmortem lung tissues of patients who died of COVID-19 has determined that these patients exhibited pulmonary vascular wall thickening, a hallmark of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) [21]. Based on these results, we proposed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (without the rest of the viral components) triggers cell signaling events that may promote pulmonary vascular remodeling and PAH as well as possibly other cardiovascular complications [21,22].

The Salk Institute have recently published another study which comes to much the same conclusions. They seem to think they might be the first to discover the mechanism whereby the spike causes endothelial damage:

The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.

“A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.”

While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.

Just looking at the other two studies cited above (which are by no means exhaustive) I think Salk’s claim to originality is somewhat dubious. But what is even more dubious is their claim (minus any proper scientific evidence) that the spike protein of the virus itself can cause serious cardiovascular symptoms independent of the virus in those infected with SARS-CoV-2 but that, for some mysterious reason, the very same spike proteins generated by the body’s cells after vaccination are ‘safe’ and do not cause such symptoms! Hence they say:

LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.

Excuse me? The scientific justification for this claim appears to come from this brief and somewhat confusing statement from the authors themselves:

. . . . . . our data reveals that S protein alone can damage endothelium, manifested by impaired mitochondrial function and eNOS activity but increased glycolysis. It appears that S protein in ECs increases redox stress which may lead to AMPK deactivation, MDM2 upregulation, and ultimately ACE2 destabilization.4 Although these findings need to be confirmed with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the future study, it seems paradoxical that ACE2 reduction by S protein would decrease the virus infectivity, thereby protecting endothelium. However, a dysregulated renin-angiotensin system due to ACE2 reduction may exacerbate endothelial dysfunction, leading to endotheliitis. Collectively, our results suggest that the S protein-exerted EC damage overrides the decreased virus infectivity. This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.

Does that mealy-mouthed scientific explanation make sense? It doesn’t to me. I’m not an expert admittedly but I can sense there is something amiss here. Especially considering the fact that other scientists have also questioned the wisdom of injecting young, healthy people with a ‘vaccine’ which induces their body cells to manufacture the very spike protein which, in severe cases of Covid – which young, healthy people are at very minimal risk from – causes life-threatening cardiovascular disease. Hence, the authors of the PubMed study cited above say:

Vaccines that introduce the spike protein into our body to elicit virus-neutralizing antibodies are currently being developed. In this article, we note that human host cells sensitively respond to the spike protein to elicit cell signaling. Thus, it is important to be aware that the spike protein produced by the new COVID-19 vaccines may also affect the host cells. We should monitor the long-term consequences of these vaccines carefully, especially when they are administered to otherwise healthy individuals.

But, you know, vaccine passport, idiot selfish refuseniks and all that. They’ve simply got to jab every single person on the planet, including your kids, because ‘nobody’s safe until we’re all safe’, right? With the huge and growing number of documented cardiovascular adverse reactions to the ‘vaccines’ (heart attack, stroke, eye damage, haemorrhaging, blood clots, ‘extremely rare’ cerebral haemorrhaging, heavy periods in women) I think it is a near certainty that the spike proteins raised by the ‘vaccines’ do not behave differently at all from the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself and the only difference is that the ‘vaccine’ spike proteins are causing severe cardiovascular disease in people who would not be at significant risk of severe cardiovascular symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection, because their innate immune system would prevent the virus from ever progressing to the point where it was able to enter the blood stream and effectively poison the blood with toxic spikes.

UPDATE

It gets murkier. Robin Monotti on Telegram made a Youtube video about this Salk study which they promply deleted, calling it ‘medical misinformation’. What a surprise! However, what did surprise me is that Salk did not originally claim the ‘vaccine’ spike proteins were safe in their initial press release and they actually changed the wording in the article after Robin had released his video. No conspiracy there then.

Note that since I released this video Salk added the words “safely encoded” in their article in their also newly added description of the vaccine spike protein. VAERS numbers indicate this theoretical description does not correspond to the full and complete reality of the situation. Original Salk text was this: “Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that they also play a key role in the disease itself”

The video is available here on Brandnewtube:

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/salk-institute-warning-robin-monotti-graziadei_DuK7KkpWhib6N4E.html

And on Bitchute:

They really, really, really want you to get jabbed with these ‘vaccines’.

Great Britain is Now Just a Heartbeat Away from 1930s Germany

I warned that this is where blind compliance with government diktats would take us. We are almost there. The government and the media are actively encouraging the condemnation, the demonisation of those people who, for whatever reason, have decided not to avail themselves of the ‘offer’ of being jabbed with an experimental ‘vaccine’ licensed for emergency use only with now demonstrable serious side effects. If a brainwashed public, still in the grip of fear deliberately generated by SAGE and amplified by the media and the government, take this message seriously, then hell is coming, riding a pale horse. The unvaxxed are going to be outrageously discriminated against at best, violently assaulted and forcibly removed from society at the very worst. The Pandora’s Box is almost open.

The unvaccinated are about to become the ‘unclean Jews’ in 21st Century Britain unless people wake up now to the hideous coercive devices being employed by this government and a complicit media.

Banned Paper – ‘COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety’

Seeing as how censorship is now rife on social media and academic platforms, it is incumbent upon us humble sceptical bloggers to reproduce material authored by respected critics of the official narrative, which is being censored. So here it is, originally published by medium.com, who then banned it. Here is the link to the archived version. Here is the link to the version republished by UK Column.

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

Doctors for Covid Ethics

Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.

In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

  • Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.1 
  • Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
  • Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.

The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.

1. The vaccines are unnecessary

  1. Multiple lines of research indicate that immunocompetent people display “robust” and lasting cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV viruses [1], including SARS-CoV-2 and its variants [2]. T cell protection stems not only from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself, but from cross-reactive immunity following previous exposure to common cold coronaviruses [1,310]. Such immunity was detectable after infections up to 17 years prior [1,3]. Therefore, immunocompetent people do not need vaccination against SARS-Cov-2.
  2. Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognises multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein. Thus, immunocompetent people are better protected against SARS-CoV-2 and any variants that may arise by their own immunity than by the current crop of vaccines.
  3. The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection [11], and by extension “asymptomatic transmission.” However, “asymptomatic transmission” is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates [1215]. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers. A comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others [16]. In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control [17,18] to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies; they present assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. Preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting vaccination of the general population.
  4. In most countries, most people will now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2 [19]. Depending on their degree of previously acquired cross-immunity, they will have had no symptoms, mild and uncharacteristic symptoms, or more severe symptoms, possibly including anosmia (loss of sense of smell) or other somewhat characteristic signs of the COVID-19 disease. Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.
  5. Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally [2022]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. It is typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.
  6. In those susceptible to severe infection, Covid-19 is a treatable illness. A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively [2327]. These drugs include many tried and true antiinflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D. Industry and government decisions to sideline such proven treatments through selective research support [24], regulatory bias, and even outright sanctions against doctors daring to use such treatments on their own initiative have been out of step with existing laws, standard medical practice, and research; the legal requirement to consider real world evidence has fallen by the wayside [28]. The systematic denial and denigration of these effective therapies has underpinned the spurious justification for the emergency use authorisation of the vaccines, which requires that “no standard acceptable treatment is available” [29]. Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.

2. The vaccines lack efficacy

  1. At a mechanistic level, the concept of immunity to COVID-19 via antibody induction, as per COVID-19 vaccination, is medical nonsense. Airborne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 enter the body via the airways and lungs, where antibody concentrations are too low to prevent infection. Vaccine-induced antibodies primarily circulate in the bloodstream, while concentrations on the mucous membranes of lungs and airways is low. Given that COVID-19 primarily spreads and causes disease by infecting these mucous membranes, vaccines miss the immunological mark. The documents submitted by the vaccine manufacturers to the various regulatory bodies contain no evidence that vaccination prevents airway infection, which would be crucial for breaking the chain of transmission. Thus, vaccines are immunologically inappropriate for COVID-19.
  2. Medium to long-term vaccine efficacy is unknown. Phase 3, medium term, 24-month trials will not be complete until 2023: There is no medium-term or long term longitudinal data regarding vaccine efficacy.
  3. Short term data has not established prevention of severe disease. The European Medicines Agency has noted of the Comirnaty (Pfizer mRNA) vaccine that severe COVID-19 cases “were rare in the study, and statistically certain conclusion cannot be drawn” from it [30]. Similarly, the Pfizer document submitted to the FDA [31] concludes that efficacy against mortality could not be demonstrated. Thus, the vaccines have not been shown to prevent death or severe disease even in the short term.
  4. The correlates of protection against COVID-19 are unknown. Researchers have not yet established how to measure protection against Covid-19. As a result, efficacy studies are stabbing around in the dark. After completion of Phase 1 and 2 studies, for instance, a paper in the journal Vaccine noted that “without understanding the correlates of protection, it is impossible to currently address questions regarding vaccine-associated protection, risk of COVID-19 reinfection, herd immunity, and the possibility of elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the human population” [32]. Thus, Vaccine efficacy cannot be evaluated because we have not yet established how to measure it.

3. The vaccines are dangerous

  1. Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe.
  2. Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are “rare”, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and haematoma-like “rashes” over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities. Moreover, vaccine-induced diffuse micro-thromboses in the lungs can mimic pneumonia and may be misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the “tip of a huge iceberg” [34]: The vaccines are not safe.
  3. Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years [35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk.

Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates [3638]. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes [39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients [41]. Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19—the vaccines are not safe.

  1. The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361 [42] and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorisation [29]. With respect to safety data from Phase 1 and 2 trials, in spite of initially large sample sizes, the journal Vaccine reports that “the vaccination strategy chosen for further development may have only been given to as few as 12 participants” [32]. With such extremely small sample sizes, the journal notes that “larger Phase 3 studies conducted over longer periods of time will be necessary” to establish safety. The risks that remain to be evaluated in Phase 3 trials into 2023, with entire populations as subjects, include not only thrombosis and bleeding abnormalities, but other autoimmune responses, allergic reactions, unknown tropisms (tissue destinations) of lipid nanoparticles [35], antibody-dependent enhancement [4346] and the impact of rushed, questionably executed, poorly regulated [47] and reportedly inconsistent manufacturing methods, conferring risks of potentially harmful impurities such as uncontrolled DNA residues [48]. The vaccines are not safe, either for recipients or for those who use them or authorise their use.
  2. Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector. These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.

In contrast, in the mRNA vaccines, there is no protein antigen for the antibodies to recognize. Thus, regardless of the existing degree of immunity, the vaccine mRNA is going to reach its target—the body cells. These will then express the spike protein and subsequently suffer the full onslaught of the immune system. With the mRNA vaccines, the risk of severe adverse events is virtually guaranteed to increase with every successive injection. In the long term, they are therefore even more dangerous than the vector vaccines. Their apparent preferment over the latter is concerning in the highest degree; these vaccines are not safe.

4. Ethics and legal points to consider

  1. Conflicts of interest abound in the scientific literature and within organisations that recommend and promote vaccines, while demonising alternate strategies (reliance on natural immunity and early treatment). Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to protect themselves by evaluating the sources of their information for conflicts of interest extremely closely.
  2. Authorities, doctors and medical personnel need to be similarly careful not to ignore the credible and independent literature on vaccine necessity, safety and efficacy, given the foreseeable mass deaths and harms that must be expected unless the vaccination campaign is stopped.
  3. Vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from legal liability for adverse events for a reason. When vaccine deaths and harms occur, liability will fall to those responsible for the vaccines’ authorisation, administration and/or coercion via vaccine passports, none of which can be justified on a sober, evidence-based risk-benefit analysis.
  4. All political, regulatory and medical actors involved in COVID-19 vaccination should familiarise themselves with the Nuremberg code and other legal provisions in order to protect themselves.

References

  1. Le Bert, N. et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457-462
  2. Tarke, A. et al. (2021) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. bioRxiv -:x-x
  3. Anonymous, (2020) Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients.
  4. Beasley, D. (2020) Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies.
  5. Bozkus, C.C. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells without antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20:463
  6. Grifoni, A. et al. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489-1501.e15
  7. Mateus, J. et al. (2020) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. Science 370:89-94
  8. McCurry-Schmidt, M. (2020) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2.
  9. Palmer, S. et al. (2021) COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise exponentially with age, inversely proportional to thymic T-cell production. J. R. Soc. Interface 18:20200982
  10. Sekine, T. et al. (2020) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19. Cell 183:158-168.e14
  11. Drake, J. (2021) Now We Know: Covid-19 Vaccines Prevent Asymptomatic Infection, Too.
  12. Bossuyt, P.M. (2020) Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges. Journal of clinical epidemiology 126:172-176
  13. Jefferson, T. et al. (2020) Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa1764:x-x
  14. Borger, P. et al. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
  15. Mandavilli, A. (2020) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
  16. Cao, S. et al. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917
  17. Moghadas, S.M. et al. (2020) The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117:17513-17515
  18. Johansson, M.A. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA network open 4:e2035057
  19. Yeadon, M. (2020) What SAGE got wrong.
  20. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50:x-x
  21. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. -:x-x
  22. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Infection fatality rate of Covid-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation.
  23. Orient, J. et al. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.
  24. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517-530
  25. Procter, B.C. et al. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219-221
  26. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16-22
  27. Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies.
  28. Hirschhorn, J.S. (2021) COVID scandal: Feds ignored 2016 law requiring use of real world evidence.
  29. Anonymous, (1998) Emergency Use of an Investigational Drug or Biologic: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators.
  30. Anonymous, (2021) EMA assessment report: Comirnaty.
  31. Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
  32. Giurgea, L.T. and Memoli, M.J. (2020) Navigating the Quagmire: Comparison and Interpretation of COVID-19 Vaccine Phase 1/2 Clinical Trials. Vaccines 8:746
  33. Bhakdi, S. et al. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.
  34. Bhakdi, S. (2021) Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021.
  35. Ulm, J.W. (2020) Rapid response to: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us.
  36. Reimann, N. (2021) Covid Spiking In Over A Dozen States—Most With High Vaccination Rates.
  37. Meredith, S. (2021) Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Covid is surging there anyway.
  38. Bhuyan, A. (2021) Covid-19: India sees new spike in cases despite vaccine rollout. BMJ 372:n854
  39. Morrissey, K. (2021) Open letter to Dr. Karina Butler.
  40. Anonymous, (2021) Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance: Urgent warning re Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in the elderly and Care Homes.
  41. Furer, V. et al. (2021) Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology -:x-x
  42. Anonymous, (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations.
  43. Tseng, C. et al. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421
  44. Bolles, M. et al. (2011) A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J. Virol. 85:12201-15
  45. Weingartl, H. et al. (2004) Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 78:12672-6
  46. Czub, M. et al. (2005) Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets. Vaccine 23:2273-9
  47. Tinari, S. (2021) The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ 372:n627
  48. Anonymous, (2021) Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger.