Category SARS-COV-2

Apr 21 2022

Biden Administration Will Appeal Federal Court Ruling and Attempt to Reinstitute Federal Mask Mandate


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 20, 2022 | Sundance 

Ideological leftism is contingent upon appeasing the most insane elements of the extreme left.

As a consequence, the Biden political CDC has announced they need the Biden political DOJ to try and get the federal mask mandate put back into place.

CDC Announcement: “To protect CDC’s public health authority beyond the ongoing assessment announced last week, CDC has asked DOJ to proceed with an appeal in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Biden, et al. It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health.” (LINK)

According to NBC News, “the Justice Department said that it has filed a notice of appeal “in light of today’s assessment by the CDC” in a statement late Wednesday afternoon.” (LINK)

The Covidians who define themselves by their adherence to the dictates of the U.S. government, are happy.  However, in an election year where the overwhelming majority of the American people have had enough of this political science, this decision fuels an angry rebuke.

Apr 20 2022

Judge Rules CDC Mask Mandate Unconstitutional


Armstrong Economics Blog/Disease Re-Posted Apr 20, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has determined that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) violated the law by forcing travelers to wear masks — there is no longer a mask mandate for US travel. The ruling first went into effect in February 2021, and despite declining cases, the health agency and Biden Administration refused to lift the mandate. And the CDC continually pushed back its deadline without providing a clear reason. The judge determined “the mandate exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority, improperly invoked the food cause exception to notice and comment rulemaking, and failed to adequately explain decisions.”

Furthermore, the CDC overstepped bounds by placing a mandate on personal behavior rather than “cleaning measure,” which is under their authority. It was not until this pandemic that the CDC was granted dictatorship powers over our lives. Mizelle also pointed out that although the CDC requires masks for travel, they do not have a mandate in place for anywhere else in America. The “science” does not add up.

Since the ruling, nearly all airlines have dropped mask requirements. Amtrack said that masks are no longer required on trains. Uber, Lyft, and rideshare programs have dropped the mandate. The TSA is no longer enforcing mask mandates at airports – a touch of normalcy is in the air.

However, Biden could still fight the ruling. With his bottom-of-the-barrel approval rating, it would be political suicide. Secretary Psaki last said she is “disappointed” with the ruling (i.e., loss of control) and that the Biden Administration is still urging everyone to normalize covering their faces with fabric for no valid reason.

Apr 17 2022

Rule One, Economic Security Is National Security


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 16, 2022 | Sundance

…Rule two, there is no bigger rule than the first rule.

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”

~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Never has that Machiavelli quote been more apropos than when considering the MAGA movement and the rise of Donald Trump.

Thankfully, we are now in an era when the largest coalition of American voters have awakened to the reality that, to quote the former president: “Economic Security is National Security.”

As we live through the economic mess of a Biden administration hell bent on eroding the middle class of the United States, there are numerous pundits contemplating 2024 Republican presidential candidates other than Donald Trump; consider this group the lukewarm defenders Machiavelli noted.

At the same time the leftist coalition, writ large, are apoplectic about the base of the Republican Party now belonging to Donald Trump.  This group consists of those affluent Wall Street agents and politicians set on retaining the profits derived from decades of institutional objectives.

Institutional Democrats hate Trump, and institutional Republicans are lukewarm, at best, in defending Trump.  Both wings of the DC UniParty fear Trump.  Extreme efforts at control are a reaction to fear.  In this outline, I rise to explain why Donald Trump is the only option for the America First MAGA coalition; and I make my case not on supposition, but on empirical reference points that most should understand.

Everything, is about the economics of it.

If you accept that at its essential core elements the phrase “economic security is national security” is true – meaning the lives of the American citizen, person, worker, individual or family are best when their economic position is secure – then any potential leader for our nation must be able to initiate policies that directly touch the economics of a person’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  As a result, economic security and economic policy must be the fulcrum of their platform.

Now, look around and ask yourself this question: “What separated Donald J. Trump from the remaining field of 17 GOP candidates in 2016?”   An honest top-line answer would be immigration (border control), and his views on American economic policy.   In essence, what set Donald Trump apart from all other candidates was his view on the U.S. economy, and that was the driving factor behind ‘Make America Great Again’, MAGA.

Now, look around.  Look at every other potential candidate for political office. Is there another person in the field of your political view who comes from the starting point that economic security is national security?

Put aside all other issues and shiny things that may change from moment to moment as the political winds swirl and settle, and ask yourself that question.  Who can deliver MAGA, if not the central person who lives, eats, sleeps and thinks about U.S. economic security from every angle at every second of every hour of every day.  That’s Donald J. Trump.

Trump knows the extremely consequential sequence of BIG things that lead to a structurally strong American economic foundation.

We don’t have to guess at whether Trump can deliver on that policy sequence, we have reference points.

♦ Donald Trump knew that independent U.S. energy policy was a condition for a strong U.S. economy. He also knew there would be negative consequences to allies and partners if the U.S. energy policy was independent.  Trump knew that OPEC nations in general would be negatively impacted, and he knew that Saudi Arabia specifically would be weakened geopolitically.   That is why the very first foreign trip by Donald Trump was to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that make up the majority of OPEC.

Look at what President Trump did on that trip.  First, he assured Saudi Arabia that the United States would stand with the Gulf Cooperation Council and Mid-East nations as it pertained to their security.  Trump knew making the largest energy consuming nation independent from foreign oil would be adverse to the economic stability of the Mid-East, and as an outcome, could open a door to destabilization from extremist or ideological groups therein.

Take away top-line economic revenue from Saudi et al, and the leaders of those oil economies have a more difficult time remaining stable and controlling unrest and extremism.  Generations of Arab citizens know nothing other than the trickle down benefits of oil exports.  President Trump knew this, and he approached our need for energy independence by first assuring the Arab states of his commitment to their stability and safety.

President Trump delivered to those states a list of approved arms and defense agreements during that trip.  In essence, what he was doing was putting the promise of security into actual delivery of tools to retain that security.  Actions speak louder than words.  President Trump also promised to work diligently on peace in the region; a real substantive and genuine peace that would provide security in the big picture.

Over the course of the next few years, Trump delivered on that set of promises with the Abraham Accords.   Yes, economic security as national security applies to our allies as well as ourselves.  Again, actions speak louder than words.

With the U.S. energy independence program in place, President Trump then moved in sequence to the next big thing.

♦ Donald Trump moved to face the challenge of China.   A major shift in U.S. policy that is likely considered the biggest geopolitical shift in the last 75 years.  Trump strategically began with Trade Authority 302 national security Steel and Aluminum tariffs at 25% and 10% not only toward China but targeted globally.

The entire multinational system was stunned at the bold step with tariffs.   But remember, before Trump went to Saudi Arabia, he held a meeting with Chairman Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago.  The global trade world was shocked by the tariff announcement, but I’ll bet you a doughnut Chairman Xi was not.

That February 2017 meeting, only one month after his inauguration, was President Trump graciously informing Chairman Xi, in the polite manner that respectful business people do, that a new era in the U.S-China relationship was about to begin.  New trade agreements, new terms and conditions were to be expected in the future.  The tariff announcement hit Wall Street hard, but not Beijing – who knew it was likely.

U.S. financial pundits proclaimed the sky was surely falling.  These tariffs would cause prices to skyrocket, the global order of all things around trade was under attack by Trump.  They waxed and shouted about supply chains being complicated and intertwined amid the modern manufacturing era that was too complex for President Trump to understand with such a heavy handed tariff hammer.   Remember all of that?  Remember how cars were going to cost thousands more, and beer kegs would forever be lost because the orange man had just triggered steel and aluminum tariffs?

Did any of that happen?  No. Of course it didn’t. Actually, the opposite was true and no one could even fathom it.  Communist China first responded by subsidizing all of their industries targeted by the tariffs with free energy and raw materials, etc.  China triggered an immediate reaction to lower their own prices to offset tariffs.  Beijing did not want the heavy industries and factories to start back up again in the U.S, so they reacted with measures to negate the tariff impact.

China’s economy started to feel the pressure and panda was not happy.  Eventually, as the tariffs expanded beyond Steel and Aluminum to other specific segments and categories, China devalued their currency to lower costs even further for U.S. importers.  The net result was something no one could have imagined.  With lower prices, and increased dollar strength, we began importing all Chinese products at cheaper rates than before the tariffs were triggered.  Yes, we began importing deflation.  No one saw that coming…. but Trump did.

While all that initial U.S-China trade shock was taking place, Donald Trump took his next foreign trip to… wait for it…. Southeast Asia.

Just like in the example of the trip to Saudi Arabia, economically-minded Trump told partners and leaders in the export producing countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and ASEAN nations to prepare for additional business and new trade agreements with the U.S., as factories inside China might start to decouple.   Look at how they responded, they did exactly what Trump said would be in their best interests.

To seriously gather the focus of this SE Asia group, President Trump started direct talks with North Korea and Chairman Kim Jong-un for peace and regional stability.  It’s easy to forget just how stunning this was at the time, but generations of people in Asia were jaw-agape at the U.S. President confronting China, engaging with North Korea, and opening his arms to new trade deals with ASEAN partners.

On the world stage of geopolitics and global trade, any one of these moves would be a monumental legacy initiative all by itself.  But together, simultaneously, you can see how the entire continent physically stopped midstride and stood staring at this, this man, this American President, who was just about to step across the Demilitarized Zone in North Korea and shake hands with Chairman Kim…. and, wait for it…. they are smiling.

√ Energy security triggered and friends in Mid-East supported.

√ Mid-East peace initiatives triggered.

√ A return of heavy industry and manufacturing security triggered.

√ A confrontation of Chinese economic influence triggered.

√ Stability between South Korea and North Korea, triggered.

√ New trade deals and economic partnerships with Japan and South Korea, triggered.

And then, as if that was not enough… just as multinational investment groups started realizing they needed to change their outlooks and drop the decades long view of the U.S. as a “service driven economy”… just as they realized they needed to start investing domestically inside the United States for their own growth and financial security… as if all that wasn’t enough… President Trump kicks off an entirely new trade deal and renegotiated standard for all North American trade via NAFTA.

We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can put together a program to ensure Economic Security is National Security.  We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can deliver on economic policy.  We don’t have guess if Trump’s policy platform, proposals and initiatives would be successful.  We have the experience of it.  We have the results of it.  We have felt the success of it.

We also don’t need to guess at who is the best candidate to lead Making America Great Again, we already know who that is.

There is no other 2024 Presidential Candidate, who I am aware of, who could possibly achieve what Donald John Trump has achieved, or who could even fathom contemplating how to achieve a quarter of what President Trump achieved.

Do not tell me Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a better option. DeSantis is an unknown commodity, a blank slate, when it comes to big picture economic outlooks. DeSantis doesn’t have an economic agenda inside his administration from which to contemplate or analyze his economic views.

Governor Ron DeSantis has a lot of really good skills and policies on the domestic front unique to his position in Florida; however, it is not a slight toward him to point out he has never expressed any larger economic proposal that would give any confidence in a national economic policy.

Look at the sum total of it, and there’s so much more that could be outlined to what Donald Trump achieved and could yet still achieve, it’s not even a close question.

And that my friends is exactly why Donald Trump is under relentless attack from both wings of the UniParty in DC.  Additionally, it is clear the Wall Street Republicans are trying to position Ron DeSantis as an alternative to another Trump term.  Look carefully at the current advocates for DeSantis, Nikki Haley and/or Kristi Noem, and you will note every one of those early voices are attached to favorable Wall Street politics and multinational corporate advocacy.

Look at what Donald J. Trump was able to achieve while he was under constant political attack.  Just imagine what Trump 2.0 would deliver.

They, the leftist Democrats and Wall Street Republicans, are yet again absolutely petrified of that.

Apr 14 2022

CDC Announces 15 Day Extension to Federal Transportation Mask Mandate


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 13, 2022 | Sundance

The CDC announced today {SEE HERE} they are extending the federal emergency order requiring masks on planes, trains and public transportation for a period of 15 days, ending May 3rd.

The mask mandate was set to expire April 18. However, the Biden administration will keep the requirement in place for another 15 days under the justification of a rise in COVID-19 cases driven by the new BA.2 sublineage of the Omicron variant.

(Press Release) – […] The CDC Mask Order remains in effect while CDC assesses the potential impact of the rise of cases on severe disease, including hospitalizations and deaths, and healthcare system capacity. TSA will extend the security directive and emergency amendment for 15 days, through May 3, 2022. (link)

There are contradicting claims on the benefits and/or futility of wearing masks to avoid spreading the COVID-19 virus.  Several scientific studies have found no significant benefit; however, the theatrics of mask wearing is now a litmus test for global virtue.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has recently announced a new indoor mask mandate for their extended metropolitan area.  Fauci soundbite below.

Apr 13 2022

Dr. Jackie Stone Put it All on the Line to Treat the Ill During the Pandemic: Zimbabwe Throws Criminal Charges at Her


Posted originally on TrialSite New by StaffApril 12, 2022

TrialSite chronicled the efforts of Dr. Jackie Stone in Zimbabwe during the worst stages of the pandemic. Born in Zimbabwe, Dr. Stone has been fascinated by research since a young age, and her commitment to caring for people during the pandemic has been legendary. While her off-label ivermectin-based combination regimen was identified with the saving of many lives in this southern African country, the medical establishment isn’t too keen on thinking outside of the box, even during the worst pandemic in a century. Dr. Stone now faces a court trial with criminal charges for merely treating COVID-19 patients with an early outpatient treatment protocol based on a combination of off-label treatments that includes ivermectin. This, even though Dr. Stone treated many in the Zimbabwe government and military successfully. In fact, for a while, the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) authorized access on an emergency basis for research—which amounted to care in this low-and middle-income country. The regulatory agency did a turnaround with ivermectin due to the results in the clinic of Dr. Jackie Stone.

Articles about Dr. Stone and Zimbabwe can be found at TrialSite. A fighter to the end originally of English and Norwegian descent, curious, and tough, yet elegant and empathetic, she grew up in the bush in this part of Africa, as her father was involved with geology and mining. Dr. Stone’s ethos, integrity, and commitment to doing good should have led her to awards from groups such as the World Health Organization.

Together Trial Mainstream Media Interpretations Could Put Low-Cost Regimen at Risk in MICs

Stone recently got together remotely with TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor to discuss her concern with the Together Trial. While mainstream media have pounced on the findings, at least a dozen physicians and scientists are findings various issues with the data. 

Ed Mills, the principal investigator, did the right thing investing his time as well as raising money to study repurposed drugs. While the Together trial’s primary endpoint failed to show efficacy for ivermectin, even Mills went on the record in a private email declaring ivermectin proponents should be upbeat about some of the data generated in the study. But Mills’ data was taken by mainstream media and used as a weapon to attack the use of the drug worldwide. This isn’t Dr. Mills’ fault–again he took the time to investigate the drug as well as other important repurposed drugs.

But Stone’s concern centers on the needs of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) for low-cost, available regimens for early care. Stone told TrialSite, “in poor and up-and-coming countries we don’t always have the luxury of waiting around for gold standard evidence. Rather, in the case of the pandemic, we need to move fast, and we did, leading to the saving of many thousands of lives.”

She continued, “My concern now is that papers such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal pounce on data, often misinterpreting quotes from the PI can lead to a cutting off of life-saving approaches in LMICs such as my country.”

“Dr. Stone’s commitment to LMICs cannot be denied based on a clear track record of success. With COVID-19 came politics around the use of off-label drugs such as ivermectin, and unfortunately, Dr. Stone is caught in the middle of a political battle, but she is one of the most resilient individuals I have ever come across,” reports TrialSite’s O’Connor.

What about Together?

Dozens of scientists and doctors now pour through data of the Together Trial. Recently, Dr. David Wiseman, affiliated with TrialSite, shared a dozen bullet points of concern associated with Together, including inputs from Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and others that TrialSite poses as questions.

Together Trial Questions: Ivermectin

#Question/Concern Issues for Discussion with Together Trial
1.Did the ivermectin arm of Together run later than the placebo arm, a time when a more virulent strain was present in that part of Brazil?
2.Why wouldn’t the protocol call for screening for ivermectin use—after all the drug was used in many parts of Brazil.  Were those participating already using the drug? It would be hard to prove now.
3.The critics fret about the lack of reported boosts in gastrointestinal side effects in the ivermectin arm leading to what they believe is a fundamental problem with the study—either A) placebo group was on ivermectin or B) those taking ivermectin were not administered real study drug
4.Were these placebo pills produced to look identical to the study drug?  As the drug is commonly used, this would have unblinded the study.
5.Together used ivermectin alone yet the early care community uses the drug in combination with other economical safe drugs such as antibiotics, steroids, as well as nutraceuticals such as vitamin D, C, and zinc. The study of ivermectin alone doesn’t mean much to frontline doctors.
6.Together started up to 8 days post symptom onset, but frontline ivermectin proponents declare the drug should be given immediately upon symptomatic infection. The P.1 variant also saw a faster progression to severe illness only compounding the problem.
7.In the Together study, they used a dose of (0.4 mg per kilo per day) which many critics called inadequate for ill patents–was the study underdosed?
8.Given ivermectin proponents suggest using the drug till symptoms are resolved, why did the Together protocol only call for use for 3 days?
9.Why did the protocol call for administration of the drug on an empty stomach when proponents declare the drug works best when associated with consumption of fatty food?
10.Why is so much basic data missing from the study results such as Recruitment Period, Recruitment Locations, Recruitment and allocation order per sit, Description of how the molecules and placebo were produced or compounded to look identical (otherwise loss of blinding); why is there missing age data for 98 patients?  Other gaps in data or anomalies are present for those interested
11.Some basic math shows that the numbers listed in the trial paper for the different arms and outcomes in the trial do not add up to the totals and percentages that they give – either a gross mathematical error or fraud. To see many of the strange mathematical discrepancies which invalidate the trial conclusions, go to investigative journalist Phil Harper’s article: Moreover Wiseman declares And the alteration of the death count in the trial data raises serious questions:

Seeking more information about Dr. Stone?

For all of those interested in Dr. Stone’s story check out the many articles published in TrialSite along with this important letter authored by Dr. Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Professor of Mathematics Undergraduate Program Coordinator at The University of Texas — Rio Grande Valley School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences in Edinburg, Texas.

Call to Action: TrialSite suggests a fund to support Dr. Stone in her legal battle if needed.

Apr 12 2022

Danish Study Suggests mRNA-based Vaccines Associated with Greater Overall Mortality


Posted originally on TrialSite News by Staff on April 11, 2022

Recently scientists from Denmark led an important study suggesting that mRNA-based vaccines such as the ones made by Pfizer or Moderna may not be as safe as adenovirus-based vaccines such as Johnson and Johnson, AstraZeneca/Oxford or the one produced by China’s CanSino Biologics. Led by Peter Aaby, a trained physician and anthropologist that runs a health and demographic surveillance system site in West Africa as part of the Bandim Health Project and Dr. Mihai Netea a well-known award winning Romanian/Dutch scientists and Danish colleagues from Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN) at University of Southern Denmark, the group scrutinized possible “non-specific effects” (NSEs) of the COVID-19 vaccines probing into overall mortality such as not only COVID-19 deaths but also accidental deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. The team discovered that out of 74,193 participants in mRNA clinical trials and 61 deaths, that based on relative risk there was no real difference between the vaccine and placebo group. While in the adenovirus-based studies with 122,164 participants and 46 deaths the vaccine had nearly half the level of deaths as compared to the controls group.

The study team decided to take a step back and look at the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data from a different point of view. They did this because “there is now ample evidence that vaccines can have broad heterologous effects on the immune system.” Such effects can either A) greater protection or B) increased susceptibility to unrelated infections or even other non-infectious autoimmune diseases. The authors report that emerging study data reveals that “vaccines may have completely unexpected effects on overall mortality, different from what could be anticipated based on the protection against the vaccine-targeted disease.”

The study results await peer review thus the data shouldn’t be considered evidence. But the novel approach and consequent findings represent an important potential contribution to our scientific knowledge of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Overall Mortality wasn’t Studied

Taking a different perspective, Dr. Aaby and team share that the current batch of COVID-19 vaccines were not tested to evaluate their effects on overall mortality. That would have been difficult given the short follow-up in the studies as subjects participating in the control groups received the vaccine after 3-6 months based on the emergency use authorization situation.

Surprisingly, although all would assume that the COVID-19 vaccines would reduce overall mortality in the pandemic this assumption hasn’t been formally vetted in studies. 

The authors utilized the final study reports available from the COVID-19 vaccine trials investigating the impact of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines on overall mortality, including the previously mentioned other categories such as cardiovascular-related deaths.

The Findings

The table below highlights these study findings:

 ParticipantsDeathsRelative Risk
mRNA74,19361 (mRNA 31; placebo; 30)1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71)
Adenovirus122,16446 (vaccine: 16; controls:30)0.37 (0.19-0.70)

Aaby and team report that the adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11 (0.02-0.87)) and non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38 (0.17-0.88)).

Of note, mRNA-based vaccines differ markedly from adenovirus vaccines regarding impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046). The placebo-controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to clear effects on COVID-19 infections. Importantly the data derived from this study suggest an important need for randomized controlled trials of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality.

Brief Discussion

Of course, many experts may summarily dismiss such findings as not relevant. After all the COVID-19 studies were designed to determine if the vaccines were effective in protecting against death from SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Yet the authors point out that “non-specific effects, and their immunological basis, have been established for several other vaccines.”  For example, the authors point to randomized controlled trials showing that BCG vaccine against tuberculosis (TB) lessens neonatal mortality, yet this was because the vaccine protects against deaths from sepsis and respiratory infections.

They point out that “immunological studies have shown that such effects are indeed biologically plausible; BCG positively affects the innate immune system leading to enhanced resistance towards a broad range of pathogens. Furthermore, the BCG vaccine has been associated with decreased systemic inflammation.”

Conclusion

The authors conclude that if their findings are in fact validated by randomized controlled studies then the adenovirus-based vaccines may prove beneficial to their “protective heterologous effects…on non-COVID-19 mortality” as well as their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection.  Could these vaccines represent an advantage in vulnerable populations susceptible to cardiovascular mortality.  Key is a better understanding of the heterologous effects between the different vaccine types.

Study Funding

Dr. Allen Schapira funded the work on non-specific effects of vaccines while some of the previous work was funded by the Danish Council for Development Research, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark; Novo Nordisk Foundation and European Union.   

Lead Research/Investigator

Peter Aaby, DMSc, Bandim Health Project, INDEPTH Network; Bandim Health Institute – OPEN, Institute of Clinical Research

Christine Stabell Benn, University of Southern Denmark – Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN); Bandim Health Project, INDEPTH Network

Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer, Statens Serums Institut – Bandim Health Project

Sebastian Nielsen, University of Southern Denmark – Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN)

Mihai G. Netea, Radboud University Nijmegen – Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI); Radboud University Nijmegen – Department of Internal Medicine

Related

Dutch Case Report—Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Reactivates Hepatitis C Leading to Death of 82-Year-Old Woman

Dutch Case Report—Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Reactivates Hepatitis C Leading to Death of 82-Year-Old Woman

Moderna Shares TeenCOVE study Results: Initial Data Reveals mRNA-based Vaccine Safe & Effective for Adolescents 12 yrs. & Up

Moderna Shares TeenCOVE study Results: Initial Data Reveals mRNA-based Vaccine Safe & Effective for Adolescents 12 yrs. & Up

Study: mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Pose ‘Rare but Serious’ Threat

Study: mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Pose ‘Rare but Serious’ Threat

UK Health Security Agency Reports Mixed Vaccine Effectiveness Stats—Troubling Signals

Explore Further

First Look at Newly Released Pfizer Docs, Part 2: The ‘not necessary’ safety studies

Write for us – we are expanding our list of external authors

Australia Planning to Vaccinate Children Newborn to Age 4 While Heavily Vaxxed Population Faces Largest COVID-19 Case, Death, & Hospitalization Surges

Large Israeli Study Demonstrates Failing Durability of BNT162b2 Yet More Marketability at Least in the Short Run

Apr 12 2022

People Are Starving Under Shanghai’s Lockdown


Armstrong Economics Blog/China Re-Posted Apr 12, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

https://rumble.com/embed/vxsuhy/?pub=4#?secret=itO87zCXYf

People are starving in Shanghai. The screams heard in the disturbing video above are due to more than mere frustration. China placed millions under a strict lockdown that was initially supposed to last for five days. As cases allegedly spread, China extended the lockdown indefinitely under their zero-COVID tolerance policy.

Those who prepared for a five-day lockdown are now rationing what food and water they have left. The tap water is not necessarily safe for consumption, and people have begun to boil water if they have the means to do so. According to my sources, people living within communities rally together to buy bulk food orders when possible for a premium. China is offering a closed-loop system for some workers, who must live at their job site for the remainder of the lockdown. Therefore, workers are in short supply, and demand is extremely high. Hungry citizens typically log on to food delivery apps early in the morning and usually only have a few minutes to place their bulk orders. The food they receive is carefully rationed as the next meal is not guaranteed.

The barter system always emerges in times of disaster. People are trading with one another where possible, although they are forbidden from actually leaving their residences. No one is permitted to visit relatives or check on the elderly or disabled. Worse, people are unable to access medical care or prescription drugs. The government continues to provide rationed food, but its rollout has been so ineffective that most simply do not have access to food.

China will allow its people to die from dehydration and starvation to protect them from a virus with a negligible death rate. This is how revolutions begin.

Apr 12 2022

Philadelphia Returns to Mandatory Indoor Mask Mandate Starting April 18


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 11, 2022 | Sundance

Anthony Fauci gave a warning yesterday that this was going to be the future for all of the United States.

Just in time for the Pennsylvania primary election (May 17th), Philadelphia returns to a mandatory mask mandate.  According to Philadelphia officials, effective April 18th masks “will be required in all indoor public spaces, including schools and childcare settings, businesses, restaurants, and government buildings.”

(ABC Philadelphia) – Philadelphia has become the first major U.S. city to reinstate its indoor mask mandate, following an increase in COVID-19 infections, in recent weeks.

Beginning April 18, masks will be required in all indoor public spaces, including schools, child care settings, businesses, restaurants and government buildings.

“I sincerely wish we didn’t have to do this again. I wish this pandemic was over just as much as any of you, but I am very worried about our vulnerable neighbors and loved ones. My hope that our actions today will slow the spread of COVID and help us avoid seeing our ERs, once again, gets so crowded, that people can’t get timely care when they need it,” Health Commissioner Cheryl Bettigole said during a press conference on Monday. (read more)

Many people have noted a set of common characteristics behind most mask wearers.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, represents a high density concentration of those characteristics.

.

Apr 11 2022

German Parliament Blocks Over-60 Vaccine Mandate


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted Apr 11, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s attempt to mandate vaccinations for everyone over 60 was blocked by Parliament in a 378-296 vote. The bill would have forced all Germans over the age of 60 to receive three vaccinations before October 1, 2022.

The Social Democrats (SPD), Free Democrats (FDP), and Greens were all pushing this bill forward and will likely continue to fight for a mandate. If Parliament did not vote in favor of the people, this would have opened the floodgates to endless vaccination mandates for the entire population. Under the failed bill, unvaccinated Germans would have been required to attend a doctor consultation to discuss (coerce) them into getting the vaccine.

Health Minister Karl Lauterbach also recently reversed his stance on self-quarantine restrictions. Lauterbach initially said that the 10-day isolation rule would end on May 1. “I have withdrawn the proposal because the completely wrong impression would have arisen that either the pandemic is over or the virus has become significantly more harmless than was assumed in the past,” he stated. In other words, he does not want the people to feel safe as that would diminish the need for big government and Big Pharma.

They want to force injections on the people without erasing existing restrictions because they know the vaccine is ineffective. Parliament’s ruling comes as a silver lining, but the fight for medical freedom is far from over.

Apr 10 2022

Neil Oliver, the COVID Schemes Cost Billions, but the Aftermath Costs Are Worse Than Money


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 9, 2022 | Sundance

Neil Oliver takes a look at the economics of COVID and how government intervention and spending has crushed the working class.  However, it is not the financial aspects that carry the worst debt in the aftermath, there is a human cost that can never be repaid or recreated.  WATCH:

{TRANSCRIPT} –  “There are debts that can be repaid and debts that can’t. During the time of Covid, vast piles of money were conjured into being by the government, borrowed as if by magic from the distant future. Unimaginable quantities of that funny money were wasted – spent on PPE that didn’t work or that wasn’t needed and is now yet more plastic heaped into landfills or otherwise littering the landscape and seascape. Millions went on the Nightingale hospitals that were never used. Around 37 billion pounds – ten percent of a total of 370 billion pounds set aside for Bounce Back Loans and the Eat Out to Help Out scheme – were lost to fraudsters. £37 billion pounds.”

“Lost to fraud and gone for good. Whatever the final figure for the theft, that money has simply been written off as irrecoverable. Taxpayers will foot the bill for it all eventually of course – along with paying back the rest of the trillions sprayed around with abandon by a government of headless chickens.

Furlough schemes paid billions more to employers so they could pay and thereby retain staff sent home to months of lockdowns during which the economy ground to a halt. All that debt has to be repaid too, by taxpayers. Hundreds of thousands of people, at least – many of them self-employed, did not qualify for any help at all while simultaneously being barred from going to work to try and earn livings for themselves and their families. To add insult to injury, those who received nothing, many who thereby lost everything – who had their noses pressed up against the outside of a window showing a financial feast to which they were not even invited – still have to put their hands in empty pockets to pay for help enjoyed by others but denied to them.

Those debts – including sums squandered, sums exploited by friends of those in power – will eventually have to be repaid, you might reasonably assume, one way or another, even if the sums concerned are so eye-wateringly huge those accounts will be glowing red for decades. It’s only money, you might say. You might say that if you’ve never gone without.

But then there are the other debts. Other debts that can’t be repaid and will never be repaid. Many and determined were the voices that warned and kept warning month after month that society was being undone by lockdown and the masking of faces.

The isolation and, perhaps worst of all, the incessant fear deliberately whipped up by government nudge units and pushed day after day until too many souls didn’t know which way was up, and still don’t. All of it was deliberately inflicted upon millions of people, some of them the most vulnerable – the poor, the elderly, children.

There were warnings of inevitable damage to mental health, to physical health – and so it has come to pass. The NHS has acknowledged what it has described as a “second pandemic” of depression, anxiety, psychosis and eating disorders.

So overwhelmed are specialists they are “bouncing back” many of those in need of help to the GPs who referred them – even those most at risk from suicide, self-harm and starvation. Doctors have warned people will simply die of conditions that must only be left untreated.

And then there are the children, and yet more debts that cannot be repaid. An Ofsted report says face masks and lockdowns have left a generation of our youngest children struggling to crawl, walk, talk, dress themselves, make friends – even to go to the toilet unaided.

Children that are two years old now spent their whole lives in a locked down, masked up world. Many of those of the poorest families spent weeks and months in homes with no outside spaces, stuck in rooms watching screens of one sort or another. The same report revealed children were mimicking the voices of cartoon characters after long hours spent watching and listening to nothing else.

The authors noted, in the simplest terms, that youngsters had missed out on: “stories, singing and having conversations.”

Babies born and raised in masked worlds are: “struggling to respond to facial expressions … particularly anxious and not used to seeing different faces.”

Stories, singing, playing, talking, seeing faces, after being fed and held in loving arms, these are among the most fundamental necessities of childhood. Tens of thousands of years ago our ancestors knew it mattered to tell their children stories, to sing them songs, so that all that had been learned by the ancestors would not be forgotten and the tribe would remain closely bound by the sharing of it all.

That some stories and songs have come down to us from a time beyond the reach of memory is testament to how much they were deemed to matter. Behaviour that was possible and essential around campfires in worlds separated from our own by ice ages, was thrown away by ours. What is lost or denied at the beginning of a life, is not necessarily obtained or regained later.

That an Ofsted report should find such basic life experience knowingly denied to millions of our youngest is appalling, unforgivable and shaming. This is nothing less than neglect – wholesale neglect by society of the most precious and vulnerable resource we have. All of it was avoidable and should have been avoided.

The decision to lock down and to enforce mask wearing was, I say, utterly wrong. And yet, this week, when questioned by this channel, prime minister Boris Johnson said he would not rule out applying lockdowns again in the future.

Obviously, to vow never to lock down again would be a tacit admission by him that they were the wrong move all along – and no modern, self-preserving PM would ever be so honest – but there we are … the lockdowns that did so much needless damage, caused so much unforgivable harm, remain on the table.

There will inevitably be those that say children are resilient – and so they are, thank goodness. But just because children are resilient doesn’t mean we should stress test them to destruction. And make no mistake – some of the ground lost already will never be recovered by many. Our debt to them will remain always unpaid.

Children now are growing up in a world very different to the one most of us remember. To take but one example: online, on social media, are images, videos and posts all pushing the same message – that changing your gender is the cure for all manner of problems.

Crowdfunders raise money to help children bypass the NHS and obtain puberty blocking drugs from private sources, and to pay for private operations to remove breasts, or to construct them, or to reshape genitals, or to remove internal anatomy including the womb. No one can honestly claim to know the long-term consequences of taking such steps.

This is another epidemic.

Between 2014 and 2015 there were around 700 referrals each year to the Gender Identity Service at London’s Tavistock clinic. That number rose to around 2,600 each year between 2019 and 2020.

That more and more children are unhappy, at the existential level, and reporting feeling uncomfortable with the sexual identity they were born with, is undeniable and poses all manner of questions in urgent need of answers. It is almost as though Gender Dysphoria had mutated to become as airborne as Covid ever was.

There is also, anyway, a growing preoccupation with the sexuality of children – all children. In Scotland and Wales, government surveys ask children as young as 13 about their “sex lives”, enquiring about what age they were when they first had sex, how long it has been since they last had sex.

Those are not even the most intrusive or intimate of the questions in those surveys. If I had been asked questions like those, by relative strangers, when I was 13, my explicit instructions from my parents were to run for home.

The incessant, relentless push to spend more and more time talking to children about sex and gender means I personally find it hard not to conclude that we are, as a society, being increasingly familiarised with the thought of sexually active children. Why would that be? To what end? For whose benefit? Certainly not necessarily the benefit of children who are, anyway, below the legal age of consent.

Life is short. Childhood is shorter still and, judging by what schools and other manifestations of officialdom want to talk to them about, have them think about, getting shorter every day.

Psychologists have known for years that children must be socialised by the age of four. If they have not become by then children able to take up their place in society – through mixing and playing with their peers and being supervised by responsible adults, whose faces they can see, whose mouths they can watch forming words, and all the rest of it – then at the most fundamental level they never will.

More and more it feels like the needs of children are being set aside and overlooked – sacrificed to ensure the wellbeing, comfort or objectives of their elders. Childhood itself is under attack, sullied by earlier and earlier confrontation with, and initiation into, the ways of adults.

During the time of Covid, the needs of children were put last. Education compromised or abandoned altogether. Play reduced to an afterthought, contact with family and friends forbidden. We could argue all day about the threat posed to children by the vaccines. Undeniable harm however has been done by two years of the mass psychosis of their elders.

More has been taken from children than might ever be measured. That debt will never be repaid.” (LINK)

.