Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

Wisconsinites: Action Needed for AB 316 – Prohibit Discrimination Based on Vaccination Status

Dear Wisconsin NVIC Advocacy Team Members,

You have the opportunity to support a good bill, AB 316,  which would prohibit governmental entities in Wisconsin from discriminating against individuals based on their COVID-19 vaccination status or whether they have proof of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. AB 316 is on the Senate Calendar for Tuesday, March 8th, 2022. 

ACTION NEEDED:

1) Contact your Wisconsin State Senator and ask him or her to vote in favor of AB 316! Please see talking points below. If you do not know who your Wisconsin state senator is, login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org. Click on “Who Represents Me” on the home page or “My State” on the STATE TEAMS tab. Your personal state legislators are listed on the bottom of the page. You can click on your legislators’ names to get phone numbers, emails, and even links to their social media to connect to them. You can also find your state senator at this link: https://maps.legis.wisconsin.gov/

2) Please share this email with family and friends, or you can tell them to go to http://NVICAdvocacy.org and click on the alert for Wisconsin AB 316.

3) Login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal OFTEN to check for updates.  http://NVICAdvocacy.org. We review bills and make updates daily. Bills can change many times over the legislative process and your timely visits, calls, and emails directed at the correct legislators are critical to this process.

TALKING POINTS (Please personalize to share how this bill affects you and your family):

  • AB 316 would prohibit discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status by the state and other governmental entities in Wisconsin.
  • Any form of discrimination against individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 is essentially a form of coercion to try and get them vaccinated by implementing barriers to navigate life.
  • It is unreasonable to penalize perfectly healthy individuals who simply have not received a particular vaccine.
  • This bill would prohibit government-sponsored COVID-19 vaccine discrimination, allowing residents of Wisconsin to freely participate with their state and local governments.
  • It would also ensure that the residents of Wisconsin are allowed to access needed state and local government facilities and services without fear of discrimination based on their COVID-19 vaccination status.
  • State and local governments are taxpayer-funded and exist to serve the public. Since there is no vaccine requirement for paying taxes, there should be no chance of a vaccine requirement for accessing or using government facilities and services, or as a prerequisite for any other type of interaction with the government.
  • Passing this bill would also clarify that there is no state requirement or expectation of private persons and entities in Wisconsin to mandate COVID-19 vaccines or to require proof of vaccination.
  • Even individuals who are vaccinated against COVID-19 can still spread and catch it. COVID-19 vaccine requirements or mandates reduce the focus from health to mere vaccine status.
  • Our American system of government was founded upon protecting the rights of individuals. This protection entails prohibiting the intrusion upon these rights from other individuals and entities, including the government itself.

Sincerely,

NVIC Advocacy Team
National Vaccine Information Center
http://NVIC.org and http://NVICAdvocacy.org
https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Members/ContactUs.aspx

Make A Difference, support NVIC. NVIC is a certified 501(c)3 Charity.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials.  We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register  at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC. 

For a rousing pro-medical freedom, anti-segregation speech by a civil rights attorney who flatly states “vaccine” mandates are illegal and a form of medical rape:  https://rumble.com/vs33yz-tricia-lindsay.html

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Former WHO Consultant Exposes Ivermectin Takedown

Again, Lyme/MSIDS patients need to understand that when corrupt public health authorities and governmental agencies censor and ban what they consider ‘misinformation,’ patients will be negatively impacted as dissenting opinions will not be allowed.  This has happened for 40 years in Lymeland and now is being seen in COVID. The following information is an important lesson that is imperative to know or we will find ourselves without any help whatsoever from medicine.  As it is, we must find Lyme literate doctors (LLMDs) who defy the accepted narrative that Lyme is hard to catch, and easy to treat and that uses abysmal testing that misses nearly everyone, leaving thousands upon thousands to suffer in silence.  Please share this info widely so people are educated on what is happening.

https://thehighwire.com/videos/former-w-h-o-consultant-exposes-takedown-of-ivermectin/  Video Here (Approx 55 Min)

FORMER W.H.O. CONSULTANT EXPOSES TAKEDOWN OF IVERMECTIN

Del sits down for a one-on-one with the former W.H.O. consultant & research scientist, Tess Lawrie MD, PhD, who was a critical part of the Ivermectin trials over a year ago with overwhelmingly positive conclusions. See data and recorded personal zoom calls that reveal how a key review was attacked from within, keeping the safe, life-saving drug out of the hands of millions of dying Covid patients for more than a year.
This is a mind-blowing expose on how Ivermectin was covered up. There have been too many scenarios, just like this one, where a well-meaning doctor or scientist appears to be doing the right thing, trying to show the truth about the efficacy (or non-efficacy) of a drug, until suddenly, they start acting very strangely, they are no longer being ethical, and won’t admit why.  Money and coercion are typically at the root of these scenarios, and sadly, this is just one more case where – what do you know – as it turns out, The Gates Foundation seems to have been one of the major factors in this cover-up.  Source  (I highly recommend utilizing this sourcelink as there is a plethora of information within it including interviews and data.)
For more:

Category:

Activism, Treatment, vaccines, Viruses

Poison Control Centers Warn About Toxic Chemical in At-Home Virus Test Kits, Children at Higher Risk & FDA Warns of False Results

https://www.theepochtimes.com/facts-matter-feb-28-poison-control-centers-warn-about-toxic-chemical-in-at-home-virus-test-kits-children-at-higher-  Video Here

Poison Control Centers Warn About Toxic Chemical in At-Home Virus Test Kits, Children At Higher Risk

Facts Matter

Feb. 28, 2022

Roman Balmakov

The National Poison Control Center, in a new official statement, is warning Americans of a toxic chemical that was found to be present in at-home COVID-19 test kits—specifically, in the test kits being sent out by the U.S. government to households across America. (See link for article)

____________________

Highlights:

  • The test kits are made in China.
  • The toxic ingredient is sodium azide, which is used as a preservative, propellant in automobile airbags, herbicides, and in pest control agents.
  • Sodium azide, when swallowed can cause low blood pressure, dizziness, headache, and heart palpitations, but in more severe cases, seizures, loss of consciousness, and DEATH may occur.  It is considered a very potent POISON.
  • If it is put on skin it can cause irritation or chemical burns. It can cause nostril irritation.
  • Numerous test kits contain this chemical: BinaxNow, BD Veritor, Flowflex, and Celltrion DiaTrust.
  • Doctors across the country are seeing exposure to this toxic chemical.
  • Several poison centers throughout the United States have reported sodium azide exposures from the COVID-19 test kits. Goertemoeller estimated there have been 200-plus reported cases from the 55 poison centers nationwide. (Full article.)
  • If you suspect someone has been exposed, call the poison center at 800-222-1222.

I would like to point out the utter hypocrisy by comparing the SIX reports to the poison control center in the ivermectin deworming hoax, compared to the downplay of 200 reports due to COVID tests.

____________________

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fda-warns-of-possible-false-results-from-some-covid-19-tests

FDA Warns of Possible False Results From Some COVID-19 Tests

By Jack Phillips
March 2, 2022 Updated: March 2, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday said that three rapid COVID-19 tests should not be used because of the potential for producing false results.

The FDA told people to stop using:

  • Celltrion DiaTrust COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test
  • SD Biosensor Inc. STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Home Test
  • Flowflex SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test (Self-Testing)

Summary:

  • all three tests are nasal swab tests
  • they are not authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA
  • these tests have been recalled
  • Some poison control centers warned people not to improperly use at-home COVID-19 tests because they contain sodium azide, a potentially toxic substance. Some local poison control centers and hospitals have warned about an uptick in phone calls about exposures to the chemical.

Category:

Activism, Testing, Viruses

‘Truly Frightening:’ Feds Give Tech Companies Until May 2 to ‘Turn Over COVID-19 Misinformation’

Lyme/MSIDS patients need to understand that when the government attacks free speech and dissenting medical opinions, it’s just a matter of time before the ‘eye or Mordor’ swings to any subject that they deem ‘misinformation,’ including but not limited to Lyme/MSIDS, vaccines, autism, MS, and more.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/feds-tech-companies-turn-over-covid-19-misinformation/

‘Truly Frightening:’ Feds Give Tech Companies Until May 2 to ‘Turn Over COVID-19 Misinformation’

Two U.S. Senators this week introduced a bill that could criminalize First Amendment rights, while the U.S. Surgeon General formally demanded tech companies turn over data on organizations and individuals who post “COVID-19 misinformation” on social media platforms.
Two news stories this week reveal how the federal government plans to treat COVID “misinformation” as a crime.

Two news stories this week reveal how the federal government plans to treat COVID “misinformation” as a crime, and what role tech companies will play in rounding up the “criminal.”

This is truly frightening.

Two U.S. Senators this week introduced a bill to provide tech companies cover via legislation that could make it possible for Congress to “legalize” censorship and criminalize First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.

Here’s a press release describing the bill:

“U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), both members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on Wednesday introduced legislation to counter the threat that misinformation and disinformation pose to public health as evidenced by the widespread false narratives throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The Promoting Public Health Information Act would support efforts across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with outside stakeholders to communicate effectively during a public health emergency and address health misinformation.”

Here is what Murphy had to say about the bill:

“Throughout this pandemic, the impact of misinformation has been devastating. Rumors and conspiracy theories about the efficacy of masking or the safety of vaccines still run rampant on social media and have caused thousands of deaths that could have been prevented.

“This legislation will help us get smart about how to tackle misinformation and effectively promote science-based health information, especially as we continue fighting COVID-19 and prepare for future public health emergencies.”

In other words, the feds are asking detailed information about the demographics “exposed to misinformation,” allowing them to determine who’s reading what, and to obtain their names.

Next, in the last paragraph of this New York Times article, “The surgeon general calls on Big Tech to turn over Covid-19 misinformation data,” we learn that the federal government wants citizens to start “sharing” information on “misinformation:”

“‘We’re asking anyone with relevant insights — from original research and data sets to personal stories that speak to the role of misinformation in public health — to share them with us,’ Dr. [Vivek] Murthy said.”

Isn’t that sweet?

This is how they dress up the Stasi in 21st-century euphemism to encourage ratting out your friends and neighbors: “Please share with the feds. They care what you think.”

Sure they do.

According to the Times:

“President Biden’s surgeon general on Thursday formally requested major tech platforms submit information about the scale of COVID-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems.

“The request for information from the surgeon general’s office demanded tech platforms send data and analysis on the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation on their sites, starting with common examples of vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The notice asks the companies to submit ‘exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of COVID-19 misinformation,’ as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to, or affected by, the misinformation.

“The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also demanded information from the platforms about the major sources of Covid-19 misinformation, including those that engaged in the sale of unproven Covid-19 products, services and treatments.

“‘Technology companies now have the opportunity to be open and transparent with the American people about the misinformation on their platforms,’” Murthy said in an emailed statement. He added: “‘This is about protecting the nation’s health.’”

“Companies have until May 2 to submit the data. Denying requests for information does not carry a penalty, but the notice is the first formal request from the Biden administration of the tech companies to submit COVID-19 misinformation data, according to the surgeon general’s office.

“Six months ago, Murthy used his first formal advisory to the U.S. to deliver a broadside against tech and social media companies, which he accused of not doing enough to stop the spread of dangerous health misinformation — especially about COVID-19. He called the misinformation “an urgent threat to public health.”

“The request for information is part of President Biden’s National COVID-⁠19 Preparedness Plan, which the White House detailed on Wednesday and which is a road map for a new stage of the pandemic where COVID-19 causes ‘minimal disruption,’ according to the White House.

Biden first revealed details of the plan during his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

“In addition to demanding misinformation data from the tech platforms, the surgeon general called on healthcare providers and the public to submit information about how COVID-19 misinformation has negatively influenced patients and communities.

“‘We’re asking anyone with relevant insights — from original research and data sets to personal stories that speak to the role of misinformation in public health — to share them with us,’” Murthy said.”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

The Chronic Lyme Debate Part 3

https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u

The Chronic Lyme Debate Part 3

Carl Tuttle

Hudson, NH, United States

Mar 5, 2022 — 

Ongoing email sent to the TBDWG regarding the Klempner antibiotic trials…

Thanks goes out to Denise Longman who recalled the following article written by Lorraine Johnson.

———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “Dennis.Dixon1@nih.hhs.gov” <Dennis.Dixon1@nih.hhs.gov>, “SSood@nshs.edu” <SSood@nshs.edu>
Cc:  “tickbornedisease@hhs.gov” <tickbornedisease@hhs.gov>
(All members of the TBDWG)
Date: 03/04/2022 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: The Chronic Lyme Debate

To: The Tick-Borne Disease Working Group,

Well worth the time to review Lorraine Johnson’s article below…

Message to the Federal Representatives and Dr. Sunil K. Sood; stop sabotaging the good intentions of the TBDWG! – Carl Tuttle

Aug 29, 2012

LYMEPOLICYWONK: New Study Reveals Fatal Flaws in NIH Klempner Trial Statistical Analysis. Is this Error Human, Incompetence or Worse?

https://www.lymedisease.org/lymepolicywonk-new-study-reveals-fatal-flaws-in-nih-klempner-trial-statistical-analysis-is-this-error-human-incompetence-or-worse

A new study by Allison DeLong, Barbara Blossom, Dr. Elizabeth Maloney, and Dr. Steven Phillips entitled “Antibiotic Retreatment of Lyme disease in Patients with Persistent Symptoms: A Biostatistical Review of Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Clinical Trials” examined the quality of the studies, statistical analysis and conclusions reached by the four NIH-funded clinical trials for persistent Lyme disease. For this blog, I am going to focus on one of them, the Klempner trial. It is the trial most commonly cited by the Infectious Diseases Society of America to support the IDSA guidelines recommendation that patients who remain ill after treatment should not be retreated. The trial involved both a seropositive arm (patients who tested positive for Lyme disease) and a seronegative arm (patients who tested negative for Lyme disease).

So what was the fatal error in the Klempner study?

Researchers who design clinical trials define when a treatment is considered a success. Does the treatment work or not?  How much does a patient have to improve before you can say the treatment helped? Do they have to return to perfect health?  Clinical trials usually require that patients improve, but not that they return to perfect health.  DeLong found that the Klempner trial set the level for determining treatment success excessively high. For instance, in the seronegative arm of the trial, treatment success required that patients not simply return to the norm for the general population, but instead surpass the norm by essentially one full standard deviation.  That type of success is unheard of in clinical trials.

More specifically, the Klempner study used too high a level to determine success on something called the SF-36 scale. It used a measure that was not clinically meaningful.  Let’s look at this in context.  While other chronic diseases set the bar for improvement on the SF-36 between 2 to 5, the Klempner trial set the bar at roughly 7 and 9 in the seropositive arm and between 9 and 13 in the seronegative arm. This amount of improvement is far higher than the amount of improvement that could reasonably be expected among the chronically ill.

If the Klempner trial had used a clinically meaningful measure of success, say between 2 and 5, it would have had to have used much, much larger sample sizes, which it did not have.  For instance setting the clinically meaningful measure of success at 2 would have required a sample of 400 or more per treatment arm. The sample sizes in Klempner were only 78 (seropositive) and 51 (seronegative)—a sample size which would not yield statistically significant results. When researchers select an excessively large treatment effect required for success, as was done here, the size of the sample required is reduced.  The trade-off, however, is that the results are not clinically meaningful.

Many researchers say that small sample size trials are unethical because they can literally steer scientists down the wrong path.  That’s what the Klempner study did.  It was a waste of money, a waste of time, and it has led research down the wrong path for the last 10 years.

Was it a matter of researcher incompetence?  DeLong and colleagues point out that studies on the level of improvement that is clinically meaningful for other chronic diseases had not been done at the time the Klempner trial was conducted. So the Klempner researchers did not know that they were using an excessively large treatment effect at the time they conducted the study.  Does that take the researchers off the hook?  Not really.  First of all, once the studies on the way to measure success in chronic disease had been conducted, the Klempner team could have acknowledged a possible error.

Second, the Klempner team could have avoided “overstating” its findings and highlighted the potential for error.  The ethical implications of exaggeration in science are understood by other scientific societies.  For example, the code of conduct for the American Chemical Society states: “Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and accuracy, without unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or premature statements.”

Instead, the Klempner study concluded flatly that retreatment was ineffective.  The NIH press release headline read: “Chronic Lyme Disease Symptoms Not Helped by Intensive Antibiotic Treatment.”  It further concluded that “ it is unlikely that a longer course of treatment or different antibiotic combination would result in greater improvement than what we found in these studies.” This conclusion was clearly beyond the scope of the study since it did not test other antibiotics or other durations of antibiotic therapy.

In short, rather than acknowledging the potential weaknesses of its findings and encouraging further research, the Klempner study overstated its conclusions and firmly shut the door on future science.  Dr. Klempner himself then sat on the 2006 IDSA Lyme disease guidelines panel, which used his study to deny seriously ill patients any access to care. Research of fellow panel members on a guideline panel may be less likely to be critically challenged, and the IDSA guidelines are riddled with references from the panel members.

This guideline recommendation has caused untold suffering by patients, who are essentially told to simply live with the symptoms of chronic Lyme, which can cause disability equivalent to that of congestive heart failure. For example, 25% of over 4,000 patients who responded to a survey by LymeDisease.org have been on disability at some point in their illness.  If a guidelines panel is going to preclude further care of patients this ill, they should be absolutely certain that further treatment will not be beneficial.  And, they should err on the side of treatment. Denying patients access to care when treatment options are available results in unnecessary suffering.

All of this brings us back to what Congressman Smith referred to as the “lost decade” of research in Lyme disease.  He was referring to the delay in publishing the Embers research trial which found persistent infection in monkeys after treatment using the Klempner protocol.  The lack of scientific rigor in the Klempner trial coupled with the delay in publication of the Embers trial has caused the Lyme community enormous harm.  Both studies were NIH funded, and, again we are left to wonder why the NIH and Dr. Phil Baker, who headed up Lyme research for the NIH, failed to properly oversee and follow-up on this research.  Why aren’t they setting the record straight now that they have the information?

It brings to mind a comment that Dr. Stephen Barthold made at the congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Smith:

There is overwhelming evidence in a variety of animal species as well as humans that B. burgdorferi persists without treatment, but the crucial question is does it survive following treatment, and if so, do surviving spirochetes cause “chronic” Lyme Disease or PLDS? These questions cannot be answered by speculative and expensive human clinical trials motivated by firmly held dogmatism.

Hear! Hear!

References:

Delong, A. K., B. Blossom, et al. (2012). “Antibiotic retreatment of Lyme disease in patients with persistent symptoms: A biostatistical review of randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials.” Contemp Clin Trials.

Klempner, M., L. Hu, et al. (2001). “Two controlled trials of antibiotic treatment in patients with persistent symptoms and a history of Lyme disease.” N Engl J Med 345(2): 85-92.

Embers, M. E., S. W. Barthold, et al. (2012). “Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection.” PLoS ONE 7(1): e29914.

My previous blog postings regarding the Embers monkey trials and their importance for Lyme patients can be found here.

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, formerly CALDA. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

__________________

**Comment**

Hopefully by now it’s become abundantly clear that this, right here, is the MO of our corrupt public health ‘authorities’ and the researchers who obtain grants from the government. The conflicts of interest are rife and continue on unabated. These people design studies for a predetermined outcome and then make it public policy.  If they have done this for 40 years in Lyme-land, they can do it for anything, and are.

This website has been posting on the corruption with COVID from the beginning, including the suppressed and banned treatments, suppression of free speech, and shoddy, fraudulent research that is being used to push a narrative in public health policy.

  • For instance, epidemiologist Kurt Wittkowsky stated back in March of 2020 that lockdowns did not “flatten the curve,” but in fact sharpened the curve of COVID infections.
  • A top WHO official stated, ‘Stop using lockdowns’ to control COVID; they are “terrible, ghastly, global catastrophe.’
  • France’s former vaccine policy chief stated that COVID policy is “completely stupid” & “unethical.”
  • A pathologist stated, “Believe nothing you’ve been told. It’s all been a pack of lies, from start to finish – pure propaganda.” 
  • A well known doctor has shredded the CDC by announcing it “abandoned science.”
  • A PhD, and editor in Chief at Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law states that it’s time to reboot public health, and for a CDC/NIAID/FDA walk-away movement.
  • Creator of mRNA technology states that everything being done is illegal and goes against the Nuremberg code and the Belmont Report.

Had these experts been listened to, businesses & schools would have remained open, the economy wouldn’t have suffered like it did, lives could have been saved that were lost due to isolation, depression, and fear, and we wouldn’t be dealing with a pandemic of children needing speech therapy due to mask wearing.

History does repeat itself.  It is imperative we learn from these ghastly mistakes.

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Viruses