Back-breaking work begins after succeeding in hunt
By Mark Blazis
Correspondent
Tufts University Infectious disease authority Dr. Sam Telford Collects a vial of engorged moose ticks from a local white-tailed deer.Photo/Mark Blazis
Any time you shoot a deer that’s heavier than you are is worthy of celebration. So I was ecstatic when I dropped a big buck with my arrow last Monday evening. Few events are more exciting than finally getting a deer you’ve worked hard for. But once he’s down, the reality of potentially backbreaking work just begins. (See link for article)
_____________________
**Comment**
Excerpt:
Besides the ubiquitous moose ticks — also called winter ticks — there were many lice, louse flies and only male deer ticks, which are of no value to Sam’s research. “The female deer ticks must have already engorged and dropped off,” Sam concluded disappointingly.
This article mentions a very practical tip: spraying the area under dead bucks with permethrin or other acaricide right away to kill any females that drop off that could lay 2,000-3,000 eggs infesting your yard.
Hanging deer in the backyard can unintentionally spread ticks and disease.
Laying the ground with an insecticide-sprayed tarp is the answer to this.
Telford states that moose ticks in Northern New England suck the blood of 1st year moose enough to cause over half of them to die every winter. He states they don’t prefer human blood but the native Americans had an expression for them that translates, “bite like fire,” so they evidently DO bite humans!
Moose ticks also typically spend their entire life on one host.
The article states there were abundant, wingless louse flies or keds – which unfortunately Telford did not collect. The female releases her young on the forest floor where they attach to bedded deer, which they feed on almost exclusively. Again, the article states they don’t care for humans but they CAN carry bacteria and their potential disease threat remains unclear.
Yet, the following articles show THEY DO TRANSMIT TO HUMANS:
Besides, Bb and Anaplasma,Bartonella has also been found in Norwegian Deer Flies: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/10/02/bartonella-found-in-deer-flies-deer-moose/Bartonella, a huge player in Lyme/MSIDS, was found in 85% pools of adult wingless deer ked (n = 59).Two Bartonella lineages were identified based on phylogenetic analysis of the gltA gene and ITS region sequences.
It’s truly unfortunate that transmission studies remain in infancy. The one all the researchers refer to has an inch of dust on it.
Bartonella and Brucella: Cousins in the Bacteria Kingdom
Bartonella and Brucella species are cousins in the taxonomy that describes the relationships between all life, and developed out of a common ancestor. The extent of similar DNA sequences in their genomes suggests their division occurred relatively recently. They are both intracellular pathogens (live inside certain kinds of cells in their hosts) that manipulate the host cell and immune response in similar ways. Consequently, they both have a wide variety of possible presentations, from mild to severe illness to chronic infections that may exist with or without symptoms.
These overlapping characteristics, along with their similar-sounding names, often make it difficult to keep them separate when patients and providers are researching zoonotic pathogens.
Zoonotic Pathogens
Both bacteria are considered zoonotic, or transmissible between animals and people. Although there are preferred host species that they likely evolved with, Bartonella and Brucella species can be found in a variety of animals. Only one species out of both genera seems to prefer humans, Bartonella bacilliformis, and even that preference is an assumption because an animal reservoir has not been determined.
This ability to survive in hosts that are not preferred means that these bacteria are able maintain their populations in animals (known as a “reservoir”) and cause illness in people when transmission occurs. A major distinction between these relatives is that Bartonella species typically require a vector to gain access to a new host, whereas Brucella species do not.
Bartonella henselae, the causative agent of cat scratch disease, is primarily associated with cats. Although there is case report evidence of direct transmission from cat bites, current research suggests that transmission is more likely where fleas and ticks are prevalent. Viable bacteria can be found in flea feces for up to 8 days following excretion.
Brucella canis is primarily associated with dogs. These bacteria can be transmitted to humans through direct mucosal contact with infected bodily fluids. The highest concentration of viable bacteria is found in vaginal discharge, semen, and placenta, but studies show that urine, feces, saliva, and blood are all potentially infective as well.Brucella canis, along with other Brucella species, can also become airborne and infect people via inhalation of live bacteria.
Scientific History
Both bacteria genera have been rediscovered several times in history, identified by their symptoms. Between the early 1900s and the 1980s, scientists gradually realized that the same bacterial families were causing various diseases. It wasn’t until 2006 that scientists finally settled on the division of species in Brucella, and new species of Bartonella are still being identified today.
The disease caused by infection with Brucella species is called brucellosis and infection with Bartonella species is called bartonellosis. Both species can cause cyclic fever, arthritis and neurological symptoms as well as endocarditis (swelling around the heart).
Surveys of fever around the world turn up Brucella along with the other usual suspects, including Bartonella. Even when the expectation is that most fever comes from a similar outbreak of disease such as Dengue virus, these additional pathogens are found.
Brucellosis and bartonellosis are both occupational risks for animal care workers. Before milk pasteurization was common, brucellosis was a household risk from milk products. In the United States, brucellosis is the most common infection acquired by laboratory workers. In China, there have been recent large infections among animal researchers, as well as a large community exposure when a production facility without adequate sanitary procedures spewed the bacteria into the air.
Source: Shutterstock
The fact that Brucella can be acquired by breathing it in makes it more of a target as a bioweapon than Bartonella. Consequently, there has been more funding available for a vaccine.
Conclusion
Comparing these pathogens can help identify genetic differences that lead to significant differences in the host response. For example, Bartonella shares a change to its flagella (whip tail) with H. pylori (a pathogen discovered in 1982 that causes certain gastric diseases) but not with Brucella. This change helps it evade identification by the host immune system. By studying these differences, it is possible both to learn more about how these species function and also to identify potential diagnostics or treatments.
Because of its impact on agriculture and agricultural products and its potential as a bioweapon, Brucella has received some research funding that isn’t available to Bartonella researchers. Nonetheless, Bartonella researchers can benefit from Brucella research findings.
Consequently, scientific developments around Brucella are important to anyone with an interest in Bartonella.
References
Ben-Tekaya, H. et al. (2013). Bartonella and Brucella – Weapons and strategies for stealth attack. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 3(8), a010231. 10.1101/cshperspect.a010231 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721268/
Saenz, H. L. et al. (2007). Genomic analysis of Bartonella identifies type IV secretion systems as host adaptability factors. Nature Genetics, 39(12), 1469-1476. 10.1038/ng.2007.38 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18037886/
Ali, M. A. et al. (2020). Etiologic agents of fever of unknown origin among patients attending Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar. Journal of Community Health, 45(5), 1073-1080. 10.1007/s10900-020-00832 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32399732
Moreno, E. (2020). The one hundred year journey of the genus Brucella (Mayer and Shaw 1920) [online ahead of print]. FEMS Microbiology Review, fuaa045. 10.1093/femsre/fuaa045 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33016322/
For more:https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/06/06/review-of-psi-joint-infections-in-pediatrics-all-with-negative-blood-cultures-bartonella-brucella-among-others/ An retrospective review of a specific type of joint infections in the pediatric population that showed Brucella and Bartonella. I also show in the comment section that transmission occurs through animal contact (birth) or animal products, inhalation of infected particles, STD, breastfeeding, bone marrow transplants, blood products, and yes, ticks. Pathogens are found in macrophages which are transported to lymph nodes, then spread throughout the body. Treatment consists of doxycycline, rifampicin, & gentamicin.
Not only is remdesivir ineffective, it’s toxic and a group of attorneys representing the families of patients who claim their loved ones were injured or killed after being administered Remdesivir for covid are suing hospitals.
Remdesivir Gets FDA Approval, but WHO Says Drug Ineffective for COVID
By Jeremy Loffredo
As far back as April, U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci was touting Gilead’s antiviral remdesivir as “the standard of care for patients with COVID-19.”
Remdesivir is the only antiviral authorized in the U.S. to treat COVID and is also authorized for use in roughly 50 countries. Yet the drug has absolutely no effect on a COVID patient’s chances of survival,according to recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Starting in March 2020, WHO’s Solidarity Trial followed 11,266 adults in 30 countries to study the effects on COVID of four antivirals: remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon. On Oct. 15, WHO reported that remdesivir not only failed to produce any measurable benefit in terms of mortality reduction, but that it also didn’t reduce the need for ventilators, or the length of hospital stays.
After WHO issued its report, remdesivir’s manufacturer, Gilead, was quick to point out that the Solidarity Trial hasn’t been peer reviewed or published in a scholarly journal. In a statement, the company said: “It is unclear if any conclusive findings can be drawn from the study results.”
Gilead also called attention to an earlier trial by the NIAID, which showed remdesivir to reduce the duration of one’s hospital stay from 15 days to 10 days (median). Yet while this study was ongoing, NIAID researchers changed the study’s primary outcome from mortality to recovery length.
Still, citing the “promising results” of this NIAID study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in May issued an emergency use authorization to Gilead for remdesivir.This allowed remdesivir to be distributed throughout the country without formal FDA approval.
Gilead is now marketing remdesivir under the brand name Veklury, which was recently projected to generate $3 billion in sales for the drugmaker in the upcoming year. Numerous governments already pre-ordered the drug in July, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) purchased500,000 treatment courses.
U.S. taxpayers covered some of the research and development costs for Veklury, to the tune of $70.5 million.
On Oct. 1, the FDA revised the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Veklury, withdrawing government responsibility for the drug’s allocation, leaving Gilead responsible for its distribution and U.S. hospitals responsible for its purchase.
But the cost of the drug hasn’t changed in the transition from government allocation to commercial sales. Medicare does not reimburse directly for remdesivir, and one five-day treatment course costs more than $3,000 for U.S. patients with private insurance and more than $2,000 for government purchasers like the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This high price stands in stark contrast to that of another antiviral, hydroxychloroquine, which costs 30 cents a pill. Hydroxychloroquine, FDA-approved since 1955, is far safer than most popular over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol and aspirin. Physicians can prescribe it for any off-label use and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deems the drug safe for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, elderly patients, immunocompromised patients and healthy persons of all ages.
Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, dozens of new studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and its first cousin, chloroquine, against COVID. These studies occurred in China, France, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, New York and Michigan. However, such proof of hydroxychloroquine’s benefit to patients with COVID has posed an existential threat to Gilead sales throughout the COVID outbreak.
Under federal law, new treatments do not qualify for emergency use authorization if an FDA-approved treatment exists for the same disease. If hydroxychloroquine had been shown to be effective in COVID patients, Gilead, along with other companies making therapeutics and vaccines for COVID, could not have been granted EUA. The companies would have had to complete standard safety testing and await FDA approval — meaning less profits, longer runways to market, and an end to the lucrative COVID vaccine gold rush.
As Dr. James Todaro wrote in OmniJournal, “Perhaps no other company has more to gain in the immediate future from hydroxychloroquine’s failure than Gilead.”
In June, French epidemiologist Didier Raoult testified to the French Parliament that after being vocal about the possibility that hydroxychloroquine could reduce mortality for COVID patients, he began to receive death threats from a scientist working for Gilead. Raoult and his team in Marseille have used hydroxychloroquine on more than 4,000 patients, reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8%.
The U.S. government’s preferential treatment of Gilead has been transparent. For the past half a year, U.S. national authorities have championed remdesivir while discrediting the use of hydroxychloroquine as a cheaper alternative.
“Right now, today, the cumulative scientific data that has been put together and done over a number of different studies have shown no efficacy,” Fauci said of hydroxychloroquine in July. “[Remdesivir] does work,” said White House Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator Deborah Birx. “The President has been very clear and given me very clear direction to get that out to every single state.”
In April Fauci said: “The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect.”
When Fauci was asked about a Chinese study published in the Lancet which concluded remdesivir failed to help COVID-19 patients, Fauci criticized it, calling it “underpowered” and “not an adequate study,” despite the fact that the Chinese study was published and peer reviewed, and his NIH study was ongoing, neither published or peer reviewed.
Bill Gates, who has emerged as an unofficial national authority onthe pandemic, has weighed in on several occasions, both dismissing hydroxychloroquine and promoting remdesivir. In August, Gates told Wired Magazine that if he were infected with COVID, he would want to be prescribed remdesivir.
Gates didn’t mention during this interview that his foundation owns more than $1.3 million in Gilead stock and more than $3.2 million in Gilead bonds, according to the drugmaker’s most recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
According to the latest update to the NIH COVID webpage, the Treatment Guidelines Panel still recommends doctors give remdesivir to certain hospitalized patients. Since the beginning of the pandemic, as many as 81%of the people on this panel who declared financial conflicts of interest were taking money from Gilead. So far, the NIH panel hasn’t yet updated its recommendation based on the new data from the WHO.
Watch Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, discuss this topic on RT America:
Jeremy Loffredo is a reporter for Children’s Health Defense.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
The following article also points out an ugly conflict of interest web between Gilead, the manufacturer of Remdesivir and UNITAID which Soros, Gates, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, are large investors – with Drs. Fauci and Birx associated with the Clinton Health Access initiative. And of course, Dr. Fauci has worked with Gilead for a long, long time. Government employees should not be allowed to have financial ties to manufacturing companies and then turn around and make public health policy. https://principia-scientific.org/a-tale-of-2-drugs-deep-state-chose-money-power-over-lives/
Excerpt:
Approximately $70 million in U.S. taxpayer funding began Gilead’s partnership with the U.S. Army, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop remdesivir. Initially for treating Ebola, it failed to show benefit and was shelved. If remdesivir is used to treat COVID-19, Gilead shareholders, not the taxpayers, will profit.
Gilead’s own press release revealed the side effect of acute respiratory failure in 6% of patients in the remdesivir five-day treatment group, and 10.7% of patients in the 10-day treatment group, clearly ominous findings with a drug designed to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID-19.
Dr. Steven Nissen, a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who has conducted dozens of clinical trials, explained to The New York Times:
“The disclosure of trial results in a political setting, before peer review or publication, is very unusual. Scientists will need to see figures on harms associated with the drug in order to assess its benefits. … This is too important to be handled in such a sloppy fashion.”
Going back to 1997, Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Board of Directors at Gilead and after 2001 he held share packages valued at $5-25 Million. Gilead originally developed Tamiflu.George P Shultz, US Secretary of State also was on the board. He sold stocks at a value of more than $7 million. CA governor’s Pete Wilson’s wife also sat on the board.
“‘I don’t know of any biotech company that’s’ so politically well-connected [as Gilead],‘ Andrew McDonald, of the analyst firm Think Equity Partners, told Fortune.” (Source: “Virus Mania, How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion Dollar Profits At Our Expense”)
A new COVID vaccine court, which includes compensation for covered “countermeasures” for COVID-19, such as a vaccine, has been established by the federal government
Not only will pharmaceutical companies developing and marketing COVID-19 vaccines be shielded from what should be their liability in the civil court system, but federal compensation will likely be difficult to obtain, as it is in the existing vaccine court created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
The establishment of a preemptive COVID vaccine court could be a sign that the government foresees many lawsuits related to this fast-tracked vaccine in the near future
The expansion of a federal vaccine court to include makers of experimental COVID-19 vaccines allows the irresponsible sale and marketing of vaccines that have been poorly tested and formulated because the manufacturers have no liability and “nothing to lose”
Buried in the March 17, 2020, Federal Register — the daily journal of the U.S. government — in a document titled, “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19,”1is language that establishes a new COVID-19 vaccine court — similar to the federal vaccine court that already exists for injuries and deaths caused by federally recommended vaccines for children and pregnant women.
The U.S. vaccine industry operates under a liability shield unlike any other in existence. In most cases, if a product injures or kills a person, its manufacturer can be held accountable in a civil court of law. With FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines, however, this is not the case.
In the U.S., there is a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that Congress created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”
The newly established COVID-19 vaccine court appears largely the same, except instead of focusing on injuries or deaths related to the recommended vaccines for children and pregnant women, it will be centered on those stemming from a new COVID-19 vaccine.
Just for Those Injured or Killed by a COVID ‘Countermeasure’
Journalist Jon Rappoport highlighted the section in the document, which reveals the establishment of the new COVID vaccine court, which includes compensation for covered “countermeasures” for COVID-19, such as a vaccine:2,3
“Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program … Section 319F-4 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to eligible individuals who sustain a serious physical injury or die as a direct result of the administration or use of a Covered [COVID] Countermeasure [e.g., a vaccine].
Compensation under the CICP for an injury directly caused by a Covered Countermeasure is based on the requirements set forth in this Declaration, the administrative rules for the Program, and the statute. To show direct causation between a Covered Countermeasure and a serious physical injury, the statute requires ‘compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.’”
At face value, it sounds reasonable to establish a way for those who are injured by what will inevitably be a fast-tracked experimental vaccine to be compensated. However, not only will the vaccine makers be shielded from what should be their liability, but compensation will likely be difficult to obtain, as it is in the existing vaccine court. Rappoport wrote:4
“A quick piece of important history. In the mid-1980s, vaccine manufacturers were facing a blizzard of law suits from parents of vaccine-injured children. The very nervous manufacturers told the government they were going to get out of the vaccine business. The financial hit was going to be too deep.
The government said WAIT. Meetings were held. A plan was devised. A law was passed exempting the manufacturers from financial liability. Instead, for any of the recommended childhood vaccines, parents had to go to a government court to file a claim for compensation, after their children had been injured or killed by a vaccine.
And the government made this court a VERY tough place to win compensation.That’s the precise model for this new COVID vaccine court. And it’s based on the same unstated confession that existed in the 1980s: there are MANY vaccine injuries.”
Is the Government Expecting Significant Vaccine Injuries?
Is the establishment of a preemptive COVID vaccine court a sign that the federal government foresees many lawsuits related to this fast-tracked vaccine in the near future? Rappoport thinks so. “Bottom line,” he says, “the government expects many COVID vaccine injuries. That’s what they aren’t saying. They’re just preparing. With a new vaccine court. To handle injury and death of children and adults. That should not give you a warm secure feeling. Quite the opposite.”5
You may also be interested in “Operation Warp Speed,”6 which is a partnership among U.S. health organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense (DoD) and others. Its goal is to produce and deliver 300 million doses of “safe and effective vaccines” with the initial doses being rolled out by January 2021.
Operation Warp Speed is part of a broader strategy aimed at accelerating the development, manufacture and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, which collectively are known as countermeasures (the same countermeasures referred to in the Federal Register document).7
So far, as part of Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has supplied
$456 million in funds for Johnson & Johnson’s candidate vaccine
up to $483 million for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine
up to $1.2 billion available for AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine8
Severe Adverse Events Already Seen With Moderna’s Vaccine
Moderna partnered with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci to create its vaccine. In February 2020, its stock price increased 78.1% when it announced that its messenger RNA vaccine was ready for clinical trials.9“The company’s CEO has become a new billionaire overnight,” wrote Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
It began human trials of its experimental mRNA vaccine in March 2020, and its stock soared again in May, hitting $29 billion, even though the company currently doesn’t sell any products,10 when it released early results from its Phase 1 study of 45 healthy volunteers between the ages of 18 and 55 — the first released from a study involving human volunteers.
Moderna’s press release11 stated that 25 participants who received two doses of its low or medium dose vaccine had levels of binding antibodies — the type that are used by the immune system to fight the virus but do not prevent viral infections — at levels approximating or exceeding those found in the blood of patients who recovered from COVID-19.12
Data for the more significant neutralizing antibodies, which stop viruses from entering cells, was reported for only eight people, with Moderna stating that levels in each of these initial participants met or exceeded antibody levels seen in recovered COVID-19 patients.
Four study subjects experienced a “Grade 3” adverse event, which is described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as “severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; limiting self-care” such as “bathing, dressing and undressing, feeding self, using the toilet, taking medications.”13
During Phase 2 trials, 600 people will receive the vaccine, while the expanded Phase 3 trial began July 27, 202014 — an unprecedented move in terms of typical vaccine development timelines. Signs of trouble continue to mount, including reports that Moderna has no legal rights to a key patent for its vaccine delivery system, and that company executives have been dumping their stocks.
AstraZeneca Halted Vaccine Trials Due to Side Effects
As part of Operation Warp Speed, AstraZeneca agreed to make available at least 300 million doses of their experimental COVID-19 vaccine for the U.S., according to HHS, “with the first doses delivered as early as October 2020.”15 A large-scale Phase 3 clinical trial began on August 31, 2020, but was temporarily halted September 8 after “a suspected serious and unexpected adverse reaction” in a British participant.16
The participant reportedly suffered from transverse myelitis, which is inflammation of the spinal cord, and related neurological symptoms.17 Transverse myelitis has previously been linked to vaccination.18 By September 15, 2020, AstraZeneca had resumed clinical trials of its COVID-19 vaccine in the U.K.,19 but trials remained on hold in the U.S. as of October 1, where the FDA is investigating the patient’s “unexplained illness.”20
Results from AstraZeneca’s Phase 1 and 2 studies also revealed side effects, including fatigue, headache, malaise, chills and fever, in a significant number of participants:21
“Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported systemic reactions. Fatigue was reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [COVID-19 vaccine] group by 340 (70%) participants without paracetamol and 40 (71%) with paracetamol and in the MenACWY [meningococcal conjugate vaccine, which acted as a control] group by 227 (48%) participants without paracetamol and 26 (46%) with paracetamol, whereas headaches were reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group by 331 (68%) participants without paracetamol and 34 (61%) with paracetamol and in the MenACWY group by 195 (41%) participants without paracetamol and 21 (37%) participants with paracetamol.
Other systemic adverse reactions were common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group: muscle ache (294 [60%] participants without paracetamol and 27 [48%] with paracetamol), malaise (296 [61%] and 27 [48%]), chills (272 [56%] and 15 [27%]); and feeling feverish (250 [51%] and 20 [36%]).
In the of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, 87 (18%) participants without paracetamol and nine (16%) participants with paracetamol reported a temperature of at least 38°C, and eight (2%) patients without paracetamol had a temperature of at least 39°C.”
The fact that the COVID-19 vaccine was tested against another vaccine instead of a true placebois also in and of itself problematic, as trying to measure safety of a vaccine against the safety profile of another vaccine that can also cause side effects can yield skewed results.
Vaccine Makers Have Nothing to Lose
The expansion of federal vaccine court to include makers of experimental COVID-19 vaccines allows the irresponsible sale and marketing of vaccines that have been poorly tested and formulated because the manufacturers have no liability and “nothing to lose.” Ruud Dobber, a senior AstraZeneca member, even told Reuters that fast-tracking a COVID-19 vaccine to market necessitates that makers be shielded from liability:22
“This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects. In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest.”
As noted, it’s via the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in the U.S. in 2005, that the U.S. has established the new COVID vaccine court, to secure freedom from liability for manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines. Children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the existing federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
However, this program was gutted by Congressional amendments and by the HHS and Department of Justice under rule making authority within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.
If and when a COVID-19 vaccine is rolled out, even with all the potential pitfalls remaining — for instance, the vaccines are relying on novel mRNA technology that has never been used in vaccines before23 — be aware that the vaccine makers have nothing to lose by marketing their experimental shots, even if they cause serious injury and death. As Rappoport’s tongue-in-cheek statement suggests:24
“‘We know — and don’t ask us how — that millions of you are going to get headaches. To prevent that, we’re going to hit all of you on the head with a very heavy sledgehammer. If, ahem, a few of you happen to sustain an injury or die, we have a court where your relatives can try to get money out of us. By the way, in this court, we’ll do everything we can to deny you money. Good luck.’
Yes, the government knows exactly what’s coming when they approve a COVID vaccine. And now, so do you.”
CARLISLE, Ky. (WKYT) – Lakyn Reid has always spent a lot of time in the woods, hiking, hunting and just enjoying nature. Now, though, she’s hesitant to go out.
“My life drastically changed,” she said. “Forever.”
(See link for article and new video)
______________________
**Comment**
I’m far more worried about tick-borne illnesses than COVID-19.
I highly doubt this woman is alone. With the hyper-attention being given to COVID-19, doctors are even less likely to think about TBI’s.
“We’re having patients that are tested several times for COVID, and then later on finding that it was Lyme Disease,” Vicki Petsy, president of the Kentucky Lyme Disease Association told WKYT’s Garrett Wymer. “And this is happening too much.”
My prediction: this will continue to happen.
Also important to note is the CDC’s statement that RMSF and Ehrlichiosis are the most common tick-borne illnesses in Kentucky and that Lyme used to be less common but is increasing, but then illogically state cases are ‘rare.’
It took Reid two weeks before getting a correct diagnosis. This is actually pretty good considering many patients go YEARS without knowing they are infected with things that can kill them out right.
Tufts University Infectious disease authority Dr. Sam Telford Collects a vial of engorged moose ticks from a local white-tailed deer.Photo/Mark Blazis
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 