Viruses | Madison Area Lyme Support Group

Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

More CDC Shenanigans; Changes COVID Testing & Violates Federal Law to Inflate Cases – Investigation Petitions Sent To All U.S. Attorneys & DOJ

https://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2021/04/29/cdc-rewrites-covid-testing-measures-for-postvaccine-breakthrough-infections

CDC Rewrites COVID Testing Measures for Post-Vaccine Breakthrough Infections

Summary by Cindy Olmstead, April 29, 2021

In a move to investigate COVID-19 breakthrough infections among persons vaccinated against the virus, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has announced new and revised testing measures just for vaccinated individuals.

Previously, the CDC had recommended something called a PCR threshold of 40, meaning that the test would be considered positive even if it took 40 testing cycles to find a tiny shed of virus. During the height of the pandemic, critics said that threshold was too high, as it was marking people positive when they actually had only genetic fragments or leftovers from an infection that posed no risk of contagion.

The New York Times likened those tests as “akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.”

Criticisms aside, the high threshold testing procedure stayed in place — until now.

With more and more breakthrough cases being reported, the CDC quietly changed its PCR threshold for testing breakthrough infections to 28 or less.

This means that far fewer cases will be identified as positive than were they to stay at the 40 threshold.

“The entire epidemic would have looked very different if [28] had been used [for a regular infection],” Alex Berensen tweeted.

On its website, the CDC noted that it also would not test every breakthrough case, but instead would “focus on identifying and investigating only vaccine breakthrough infections that result in hospitalization or death” — a move that will also lower the total case counts among vaccinated individuals.

SOURCES:

CDC Vaccine Breakthrough Testing Measures

Alex Berensen April 29, 2021

CDC Breakthrough Case Investigations April 16, 2021

The New York Times August 29, 2020

_______________________

**Comment**

Regarding the PCR testing the whole house of cards is built upon, please see the following quote from its creator:

IMG-20210506-WA0003

This informative article also points out the complete hypocrisy when it comes to counting COVID deaths vs vaccine-related deaths. The CDC accepts ALL suspected cases and records them as COVID deaths, even false positives cases and cases with serious underlying health conditions. The corrupt CDC also conveniently stopped counting seasonal flu and funneled those numbers to increase COVID deaths as well.

Yet when a completely healthy person with no underlying condition dies within hours and days following the experimental, fast-tracked, dangerous COVID injections that don’t even fit the criteria of being vaccines, the CDC completely denies any connection.

The CDC has a long and sordid history of denying anything that doesn’t fit its accepted narrative, including the very real Lyme/MSIDS epidemic.

Anyone else smell a skunk?

__________________

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/02/cdc-violated-law-to-inflate-covid-cases-and-fatalities

CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Dr. Henry Ealy and his team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020, quickly realizing the agency was vastly exaggerating fatalities
Over-reporting of fatalities was enabledby a March 2020 change in how cause of death is reported on death certificates. Rather than listing COVID-19 as a contributing cause in cases where people died from other underlying conditions, it was to be listed as the primary cause
As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19. Had the long-standing, original guidelines for death reporting been used, there would have only been 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19
The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed
We don’t yet know who was responsible for altering the reporting rules in violation of federal law. To identify the culprits, formal grand jury investigation petitions have been sent to all U.S. attorneys and the U.S. Department of Justice,requesting a thorough, independent and transparent investigation; a direct public effort to gather signatures also commenced on the one-year anniversary of the CDC reporting change

Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts

This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.

In this interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,¹ reviews how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.

He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM. After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program.

He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S., when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bioanxiety management.

As he points out, he’s an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper² in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.

Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies

The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:

“What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea. We couldn’t validate any of the data coming out of China. There was just no independent way to do it. What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.

That was the main thing coming out of that data. So, we were expecting the same kind of trends here … I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.

What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying. It was concerning, because the variance was growing with each day. We have an old saying: ‘Garbage in equals garbage out.’ And that was the concern, because we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.

Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data. That’s where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.

What was incredibly concerning about this was that it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment. That became increasingly problematic. We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.”

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.

Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.

“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.

“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’ The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’ That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”

Who’s Responsible?

Who has the authority to do this? The answer is “no one.” A federal agency has the ability to propose a data change, at which time it would be registered in the Federal Register. At that point, federal oversight by the Office of Management and Budget kicks in, and the proposed change is opened up for public comment.

Since they did not register the proposed change, there was no oversight and no possibility for the public to comment on the change. Basically, what happened is that these changes were simply implemented without following any of the prescribed rules. “They acted unilaterally, and that’s not how [it] is supposed to work,” Henele says.

As to who took it upon themselves to alter the reporting rules, we don’t know. To identify the culprits, Henele and his team have sent out formal grand jury investigation petitions to every U.S. attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting a thorough, independent and transparent investigation.

“We did it at both state and federal levels. We have sent physical copies to every U.S. attorney and their aides. We sent out over 247 mailings in October [2020],” Henele explains. “We sent out an additional 20 to 30 to various people at the Department of Justice …

They would have the ability to call a grand jury, and that grand jury would have the ability to subpoena all those records to determine who were at fault … All we need is one U.S. attorney. All we need is one person at the Department of Justice to take up the cause.”

Dramatic Implications

The consequences of that change in the definition of the cause of death where COVID-19 is involved have been dramatic. For the full implications, I recommend reading through Henele’s peer-reviewed paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”³

“We’ve accumulated about 10,000 hours of collective team research into this [paper]. It’s been reviewed by nine attorneys and a judge for accuracy. It’s gone through the peer-review process before being published. We feel it’s tight.

On page 20 of the paper, we have a big graphic showing what the estimated actual fatality count should have been as of August 23, 2020. What was reported on August 23 was 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19 …

Had we used the 2003 guidelines, our estimates are that we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19. That’s a significant difference. That’s a difference on the scale of as much as 96%. The range that we calculated was 88.9% to 96% inflation.“

Indeed, this matches up with an admission by the CDC in late August 2020, at which time they admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.⁴

“For absolute 100% accuracy, we’d have to do something like what we were just alerted to by a whistleblower in Florida, where they’ve actually gone in and reexamined every single death certificate and the medical records with them. What they found was that roughly 80% of the fatalities were wrongfully classified as COVID-19 fatalities,” Henele says.

Science Foundations Have Been Violated

Mainstream media have justified pandemic measures “based on the science,” yet the very foundation of science has been violated. The ramifications are enormous, from the destruction of local economies and skyrocketing suicide rates to people being forced to die alone, their family members being barred from being at their bedside during their last moments.

“I lost my mother in in 2002,” Henele says. “The grace of it all was that we were able to get her out of the hospital and fulfill her last request, which was to pass away in her bed with family around her. I grieve for every single person who’s lost someone [during this pandemic] who was not able to be there.

Americans should not have to die alone because we’re worried about some virus that they’re telling us is a problem, when the data, even the data that we know to be inflated and fraudulent, still doesn’t suggest the virility that they want us to believe.”

COVID-19 Timeline

In their paper, Henele and his team detail a timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal laws that impact data handling. Here’s a summary:

In 1946, certain administrative procedures were implemented. The Administrative Procedures Act requires federal agents and agencies to follow certain rules to get things done. These rules are to ensure transparency in government.

“If you’re a federal agency, you have an obligation to the people of this country to make sure that the data you’re publishing is not only accurate, but that it is transparent,”Henele explains.

In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act was written into law. In 1995, the Act was amended, designating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the oversight body for all federal agencies’ data.

In October 2002, the Information Quality Act was implemented, which doubles down even further on the accuracy and integrity and data gathering. This act requires federal agencies to meet explicit criteria in order for their data to be published and analyzed.

In 2005, the Virology Journal published research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine has strong antiviral effects against SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) primate cells. This finding was hailed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Henele notes. In other words, 15 years ago, Fauci admitted that hydroxychloroquine works against coronaviruses. This is public record.

As reported in “The Lancet Gets Lanced With Hydroxychloroquine Fraud” and “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created,” the myth that this drug was useless at best and dangerous at worst was purposely created using falsified research and trials in which the drug was given in toxic doses.

This fraudulent research was then used to discourage and in some cases block the use of hydroxychloroquine worldwide. As noted by Henele, “It’s not science. We’re in this very weird faith-based model of science, which isn’t science at that point.”

In 2014, Fauci authorized $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2019, WIV received another $3.7 million. In both instances, this funding was for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted Event 201, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and a few other financial partners. November 17, 2019, China recorded the first known case of COVID-19.

“Now, they could be completely unrelated,” Henele says, “but for us, it’s a very incredible coincidence that you run a simulation a month before a pandemic breaks out. It’s a little tough for me to digest as just a coincidence.”

January 29, 2020, the White House installed a coronavirus task force, which included Fauci and then-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, as well as Derek Kan, then-deputy director of the OMB.

“I found this to be a little interesting,” Henele says. “Why would you need an OMB person on a coronavirus task force?”

March 9, 2020, the CDC alerted Americans over 60 with preexisting conditions that they might be in for a long lockdown out of safety concerns.

March 24, the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and comorbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.

“We have, legitimately on record, people who’ve died in a motorcycle accident listed as a COVID-19 death. These are not fictitious things that we’ve made up. Rhode Island had over 80% of their fatalities at one point in either assisted living centers or hospice care. Why are we testing people in hospice care and life care? That’s another interesting question,” Henele says.

April 14, 2020, the CDC adopted a position paper from a nonprofit, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which identifies every single methodology for how to report a probable COVID-19 case, a confirmed COVID-19 case, an epidemiologically-linked or contact-traced COVID case.

“What’s so incredible about this is the standard of proof for a probable case is literally one cough. That’s all a physician needs, [according to] this document, to validate that that person is a probable COVID case,” Henele says.

“And it gets worse. On Page 6 of that document, Section 7B, it explicitly states that they are not going to define a methodology to ensure that the same person cannot be counted multiple times. So, what we end up with is a revolving door.

Now, in terms of new cases, the same person can be counted over and over and over again, without being tested, without having any symptoms. All they need to do is be within 6 feet of someone [who has been deemed positive for SARS-CoV-2] and then a contact tracer can say, ‘OK, well, that person is [also] positive.’

When we looked at data from last week, roughly 27% of the people who were said to be positive actually had a positive test. That means 73% were just told ‘Yeah, we think you got it.’ And that’s good enough, because we’re in this faith-based model of science, instead of a verifiable framework for science, which we’re supposed to be based on.

That person then cannot go back to work until they show a negative test. Well, let’s say they get tested 13 times. Guess what happens? That’s 13 new cases, when it really should only be one.

So, there are major flaws, and the issue that I think a lot of scientists like myself … have with this document and its adoption is that there was no oversight, and there was no public comment period to question some of the obvious flaws in what they were defining as data collection — let alone to ask a very simple question: ‘You’re the CDC, you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of this.

Why do you need to outsource rules and criteria for data collection to a nonprofit entity?’ That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Transparency Rules Have Been Grossly Violated

So, what exactly is the connection between the Paperwork Reduction Act and the COVID-19 fatality data? Why is it so important?

“Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act is really about establishing oversight,” Henele explains. “It established the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is under the executive branch. It established them as the key agency for oversight of all data in the entire federal government.

So, when you start seeing IHME [Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation] out of the University of Washington — which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $384 million in two installments — when you see their data being used at federal levels, you go and look at the Federal Register and you say, ‘OK, where is the 30 to 60 days that we were supposed to have to comment on the use of that data?’

Public comment is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. That’s what it’s all about. What we saw instead was just, ‘Hey, this is what the IHME is putting out there. We’re going to go with it.’ Well, you can’t do that if you’re a federal agency … IHME is … technically an independent organization, but they don’t have any governmental designation.

They’re not a 501(c)(3), they’re not a 501(c)(4), they’re not a 501(c)(6). They’re just this amorphous nongovernmental organization within our country, and it’s kind of concerning. We’re doing more research on that, but it’s very, very concerning because they don’t have anybody to account to.“

Test-Based Strategy Has Been an Egregious Fraud

In addition to the manipulation of fatality statistics, the statistics of “cases” were also manipulated. Traditionally, a “case” is a patient who is symptomatic; someone who is actually ill. When it comes to COVID-19, however, a “case” suddenly became anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test, or worse, assumed positive based on proximity to someone who tested positive.

I’ve detailed this fraud in many previous articles over the past year, including “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga.” “Cases” were also counted multiple times, as explained above. Henele expounds on this issue, noting:

“The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything. What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19]. But what they didn’t do for the PCR testing was they didn’t identify the agreed upon number of cycles across all states across all labs that are testing.

What most people don’t know is that the closer you get to zero in terms of cycle times, the more likely that the result is going to be negative. The closer you get to 60, the more likely that it’s going to be positive.

Well, we’ve never seen a document coming out of the FDA, coming out of the CDC, coming out of any of the state health departments, that says, ‘We need all labs to be at this specific cycle [threshold]. And if a person is not deemed positive with that number of cycles, then they are not positive.’ So, there’s just flaw after flaw after flaw.”

Data Manipulation Created COVID-19 Pandemic

Most labs used cycle thresholds above 40 — as recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization — which exponentially increased the likelihood of a positive test, even among completely healthy and noninfectious individuals. The only justification for all of this is that it was done to perpetuate the narrative that we were in a raging pandemic, which was then used to justify the unprecedented destruction of personal freedom and the economy.

“The thing I have to give the folks that have been involved in this credit for is the incredible number of sleights of hands,” Henele says. “It’s a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here.

And when that happens, it leads to something that is very dangerous scientifically, and very dangerous for public health policy, which is control of data — the ability to manipulate data … and if you can control the data, you get to control the narrative …

If we’re not going to have an absolute, transparent and verifiable data collection process that is based upon accuracy and integrity of that data, then you can turn that [pandemic emergency] dial up and down at your whim. My hope is that the objective scientist within all of us understands that this is bigger than politics. This is beyond it. This is a severely broken system that we have to fix, and we better do it.”

As discussed in many other articles, it appears the COVID-19 pandemic has in fact been a preplanned justification for the implementation of a global technocrat-led control system, which includes a brand-new financial system to replace the central bank-manufactured fiat economy that is now at the end of its functional life. Fiat currency is manufactured through the creation of debt with interest attached, and the whole world is now so laden with debt it can never be repaid.

If people understood how the central banks of the world have pulled the wool over our eyes, we would simply demand an end to the central banks. Currency ought to be created and managed nationally.

The central banks, of course, do not want this reality to become common knowledge, because then they will no longer be able to manipulate all the countries of the world, so they need the economic breakdown to appear natural. For that, they need a global catastrophe, such as a major war, or a fearsome pandemic necessitating the shutdown of economies.

Through this willful manipulation of case- and fatality statistics, the CDC has been complicit in willful misconduct by generating needless fear that has then been used against you to rob you of your personal freedoms and liberties and help usher in this massive transfer of wealth and global tyranny. As noted by Henele:

“People are going to be complicit in their own slavery. People are complicit in putting digital shackles around themselves and really restricting their civil liberties.”

Hopefully, people will begin to understand how pandemic statistics have been, and still are, manipulated to control the narrative and generate unjustified fear for no other reason than to get you to comply with tyrannical measures designed to enslave you, not just temporarily but permanently.

More Information

To understand how we got to this point, please consider reading Henele’s paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.” As noted by Henele:

“I’m looking forward to the day when we look back on this, and go, ‘Oh, we almost fell for one, but we woke up in time and we figured this out. And now we have a good balance of technology, but technology that doesn’t have the right to censor us, technology that doesn’t have the right to control us; we have figured out that having too much control in the hands of too few is not a good recipe for us as a species on this planet.’

We know it doesn’t pass the smell test, so it’s important to get informed and educated and it’s papers like this — and this isn’t the only one out there — that have done the homework. If we’re going to trust someone, it’s important to me that we trust people who’ve done the homework and have no vested interest in the outcome.

My team is a team of volunteers. We all do this in our spare time.We’re not making any money. We’re not going to seek to make any money off of this. We’re doing this because we believe in this country. We love this country and we love the people of this country. When I see people suffering, I have to help. I got to get in and help.

So, if you are an American that wants to help, we are setting up resources for you to be able to get engaged and help us push this forward, maybe grease some of these wheels of justice, so we can get an independent grand jury investigation.”

For additional information, or if you want to help, you can email Henele and his team at COVIDResearchTeam@protonmail.com. You can also use your voice and actions to support an investigation into the CDC’s actions.

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action

Add your signature to this petition to help mount public pressure to convene a formal grand jury to investigate allegations of willful misconduct by federal agencies during COVID-19 through Stand For Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization that Henele and his team have collaborated with
Send a predrafted, customizable letter through Stand For Health Freedom urging key members of Congress to thoroughly investigate alleged violations of federal law by the CDC that compromised COVID-19 data

__________________________

**Comment**

Excellent, excellent paper which delineates the scam. And, it is a scam.

Notice how the CDC uses testing for COVID in an opposite manner as for Lyme/MSIDS. With tick-borne illness they have rigged testing which purposely took out the most specific band for Lyme, and force patients to meet an incredibly high, yet completely arbitrary testing standard which nearly nobody meets – despite having every symptom in the book!

Similarly with COVID-19, they’ve used these tests to control the narrative, educating doctors that patients must get a positive test to be infected with Lyme/MSIDS and if they don’t – well, they just aren’t infected. Worse yet, many doctors tell patients they have a “false” positive when they do manage to miraculously test positive!

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario we’ve been in for over 40 years, which continues unabated.

And then there’s the issue that most patients are infected with far more than Lyme disease. This fact isn’t even on the radar of most doctors and testing for these infections is as bad if not worse than Lyme disease.

For more on Lyme testing:

There has been a concerted effort against direct testing:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/12/13/suppression-of-microscopy-for-lyme-diagnostics-professor-laane/
There is a current lawsuit due to this suppression: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/05/15/news-release-on-57-1-million-lyme-disease-lawsuit-filed-against-cdc/
This article also reveals how Lida Mattman’s Gold Standard Culture Method has disappeared thanks to this concerted suppression: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/04/02/transmission-of-lyme-disease-lida-mattman-phd/
There is NO foolproof diagnostic device or test for Lyme/MSIDS, but there IS a validated questionnaire that doctors should be utilizing: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/09/05/empirical-validation-of-the-horowitz-questionnaire-for-suspected-lyme-disease/

The simple reason for this is our public health ‘authorities’ have patents on tests, vaccines, and treatment guidelines. The same is true for COVID-19 as well.

They also want everyone to take their controversial Lyme (and COVID) injections which would only work if Lyme disease does not cause chronic illness – hence the continual denial of persistent infection.

THE CDC IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED AT ALL and should be disbanded.

We need to stop working with these agencies and raising money for their flawed, biased science that continues to abuse and neglect sick patients.

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy, and Safety

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/covid-vaccines-necessity-efficacy-and-safety

Due to baseless censorship by Medium, go here: https://doctors4covidethics.org/covid-vaccine-necessity-efficacy-and-safety/ This group comprises of hundreds of doctors and experts from around the globe, who are far more qualified than figure-heads or magazines who blindly follow an accepted narrative.

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

By Doctors for COVID Ethics

April 30, 2021

Abstract:

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

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

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

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

1. The vaccines are unnecessary

Multiple lines of research indicate that immunocompetent people display “robust” and lasting cellular (T cell) immunity to SARS-CoV viruses [1], including SARS-CoV-2 and its variants [2]. T cell protection stems not only from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 itself, but from cross-reactive immunity following previous exposure to common cold and SARS coronaviruses [1,3–10]. Such immunity was detectable after infections up to 17 years prior [1,3]. Therefore, immunocompetent people do not need vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.
Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognises multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein. Thus, immunocompetent people are better protected against SARS-CoV-2 and any variants that may arise by their own immunity than by the current crop of vaccines.
The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection [11], and by extension “asymptomatic transmission.” However, “asymptomatic transmission” is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates [12–15]. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers. A comprehensive study of 9,899,828 people in China found that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for COVID-19 never infected others [16]. In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control [17,18] to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies; they present assumptions and estimates rather than evidence. Preventing asymptomatic infection is not a viable rationale for promoting vaccination of the general population.
In most countries, most people now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2 [19]. Depending on their degree of previously acquired cross-immunity, they will have had no symptoms, mild and uncharacteristic symptoms, or more severe symptoms, possibly including anosmia (loss of sense of smell) or other somewhat characteristic signs of the COVID-19 disease. Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.
Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally [20–22]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. COVID-19 is also typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.
In those susceptible to severe infection, Covid-19 is a treatable illness. A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalisation and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively [23–27]. These drugs include many tried and true antiinflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D. Industry and government decisions to sideline such proven treatments through selective research support [24], regulatory bias, and even outright sanctions against doctors daring to use such treatments on their own initiative, have been out of step with existing laws, standard medical practice, and research; the legal requirement to consider real world evidence has fallen by the wayside [28]. The systematic denial and denigration of these effective therapies has underpinned the spurious justification for the emergency use authorisation of the vaccines, which requires that “no standard acceptable treatment is available” [29]. Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.

2. The vaccines lack efficacy

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

3. The vaccines are dangerous

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

Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates [36–38]. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes [39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients [41]. Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19 — The vaccines are not safe.

4. The vaccines are experimental by definition.

They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361 [42] and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorisation [29]. With respect to safety data from Phase 1 and 2 trials, in spite of initially large sample sizes the journal Vaccine reports that, “the vaccination strategy chosen for further development may have only been given to as few as 12 participants” [32]. With such extremely small sample sizes, the journal notes that, “larger Phase 3 studies conducted over longer periods of time will be necessary” to establish safety. The risks that remain to be evaluated in Phase 3 trials into 2023, with entire populations as subjects, include not only thrombosis and bleeding abnormalities, but other autoimmune responses, allergic reactions, unknown tropisms (tissue destinations) of lipid nanoparticles [35], antibody-dependent enhancement [43–46] and the impact of rushed, questionably executed, poorly regulated [47] and reportedly inconsistent manufacturing methods, conferring risks of potentially harmful impurities such as uncontrolled DNA residues [48]. The vaccines are not safe, either for recipients or for those who administer them or authorise their use.

5. Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector. These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.

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

4. Ethics and legal points to consider

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

References

Le Bert, N.; Tan, A.T.; Kunasegaran, K.; Tham, C.Y.L.; Hafezi, M.; Chia, A.; Chng, M.H.Y.; Lin, M.; Tan, N.; Linster, M.; Chia, W.N.; Chen, M.I.; Wang, L.; Ooi, E.E.; Kalimuddin, S.; Tambyah, P.A.; Low, J.G.; Tan, Y. and Bertoletti, A. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457–462
Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Methot, N.; Zhang, Y.; Dan, J.M.; Goodwin, B.; Rubiro, P.; Sutherland, A.; da Silva Antunes, R.; Frazier, A. and al., e. (2021) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. bioRxiv -:x-x
Anonymous, (2020) Scientists uncover SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in recovered COVID-19 and SARS patients.
Beasley, D. (2020) Scientists focus on how immune system T cells fight coronavirus in absence of antibodies.
Bozkus, C.C. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells without antibodies. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20:463
Grifoni, A.; Weiskopf, D.; Ramirez, S.I.; Mateus, J.; Dan, J.M.; Moderbacher, C.R.; Rawlings, S.A.; Sutherland, A.; Premkumar, L.; Jadi, R.S. and al., e. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489–1501.e15
Mateus, J.; Grifoni, A.; Tarke, A.; Sidney, J.; Ramirez, S.I.; Dan, J.M.; Burger, Z.C.; Rawlings, S.A.; Smith, D.M.; Phillips, E. and al., e. (2020) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans. Science 370:89–94
McCurry-Schmidt, M. (2020) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2.
Palmer, S.; Cunniffe, N. and Donnelly, R. (2021) COVID-19 hospitalization rates rise exponentially with age, inversely proportional to thymic T-cell production. J. R. Soc. Interface 18:20200982
Sekine, T.; Perez-Potti, A.; Rivera-Ballesteros, O.; Strålin, K.; Gorin, J.; Olsson, A.; Llewellyn-Lacey, S.; Kamal, H.; Bogdanovic, G.; Muschiol, S. and al., e. (2020) Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19. Cell 183:158–168.e14
Drake, J. (2021) Now We Know: Covid-19 Vaccines Prevent Asymptomatic Infection, Too.
Bossuyt, P.M. (2020) Testing COVID-19 tests faces methodological challenges. Journal of clinical epidemiology 126:172–176
Jefferson, T.; Spencer, E.; Brassey, J. and Heneghan, C. (2020) Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. ciaa1764:x-x
Borger, P.; Malhotra, R.K.; Yeadon, M.; Craig, C.; McKernan, K.; Steger, K.; McSheehy, P.; Angelova, L.; Franchi, F.; Binder, T.; Ullrich, H.; Ohashi, M.; Scoglio, S.; Doesburg-van Kleffens, M.; Gilbert, D.; Klement, R.J.; Schrüfer, R.; Pieksma, B.W.; Bonte, J.; Dalle Carbonare, B.H.; Corbett, K.P. and Kämmer, U. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
Mandavilli, A. (2020) Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
Cao, S.; Gan, Y.; Wang, C.; Bachmann, M.; Wei, S.; Gong, J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, T.; Li, L.; Lu, K.; Jiang, H.; Gong, Y.; Xu, H.; Shen, X.; Tian, Q.; Lv, C.; Song, F.; Yin, X. and Lu, Z. (2020) Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat. Commun. 11:5917
Moghadas, S.M.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Sah, P.; Pandey, A.; Shoukat, A.; Singer, B.H. and Galvani, A.P. (2020) The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117:17513–17515
Johansson, M.A.; Quandelacy, T.M.; Kada, S.; Prasad, P.V.; Steele, M.; Brooks, J.T.; Slayton, R.B.; Biggerstaff, M. and Butler, J.C. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms. JAMA network open 4:e2035057
Yeadon, M. (2020). What SAGE got wrong. Lockdown Skeptics.
Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2020) Global perspective of COVID‐19 epidemiology for a full‐cycle pandemic. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 50:x-x
Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2021) Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID‐19: An overview of systematic evaluations. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. -:x-x
CDC, (2020) Science Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Orient, J.; McCullough, P. and Vliet, E. (2020) A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.
McCullough, P.A.; Alexander, P.E.; Armstrong, R.; Arvinte, C.; Bain, A.F.; Bartlett, R.P.; Berkowitz, R.L.; Berry, A.C.; Borody, T.J.; Brewer, J.H.; Brufsky, A.M.; Clarke, T.; Derwand, R.; Eck, A.; Eck, J.; Eisner, R.A.; Fareed, G.C.; Farella, A.; Fonseca, S.N.S.; Geyer, C.E.; Gonnering, R.S.; Graves, K.E.; Gross, K.B.V.; Hazan, S.; Held, K.S.; Hight, H.T.; Immanuel, S.; Jacobs, M.M.; Ladapo, J.A.; Lee, L.H.; Littell, J.; Lozano, I.; Mangat, H.S.; Marble, B.; McKinnon, J.E.; Merritt, L.D.; Orient, J.M.; Oskoui, R.; Pompan, D.C.; Procter, B.C.; Prodromos, C.; Rajter, J.C.; Rajter, J.; Ram, C.V.S.; Rios, S.S.; Risch, H.A.; Robb, M.J.A.; Rutherford, M.; Scholz, M.; Singleton, M.M.; Tumlin, J.A.; Tyson, B.M.; Urso, R.G.; Victory, K.; Vliet, E.L.; Wax, C.M.; Wolkoff, A.G.; Wooll, V. and Zelenko, V. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 21:517–530
Procter, {.B.C.; {APRN}, {.C.R.{.; {PA}-C, {.V.P.; {PA}-C, {.E.S.; {PA}-C, {.C.H. and McCullough, {.{.P.A. (2021) Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International journal of innovative research in medical science 6:219–221
McCullough, P.A.; Kelly, R.J.; Ruocco, G.; Lerma, E.; Tumlin, J.; Wheelan, K.R.; Katz, N.; Lepor, N.E.; Vijay, K.; Carter, H.; Singh, B.; McCullough, S.P.; Bhambi, B.K.; Palazzuoli, A.; De Ferrari, G.M.; Milligan, G.P.; Safder, T.; Tecson, K.M.; Wang, D.D.; McKinnon, J.E.; O’Neill, W.W.; Zervos, M. and Risch, H.A. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16–22
Anonymous, (2020) Real-time database and meta analysis of 588 COVID-19 studies.
Hirschhorn, J.S. (2021) COVID scandal: Feds ignored 2016 law requiring use of real world evidence.
Anonymous, (1998) Emergency Use of an Investigational Drug or Biologic: Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators.
Anonymous, (2021) EMA assessment report: Comirnaty.
Anonymous, (2020) FDA briefing document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
Giurgea, L.T. and Memoli, M.J. (2020) Navigating the Quagmire: Comparison and Interpretation of COVID-19 Vaccine Phase 1/2 Clinical Trials. Vaccines 8:746
Bhakdi, S.; Chiesa, M.; Frost, S.; Griesz-Brisson, M.; Haditsch, M.; Hockertz, S.; Johnson, L.; Kämmerer, U.; Palmer, M.; Reiss, K.; Sönnichsen, A.; Wodarg, W. and Yeadon, M. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.
Bhakdi, S. (2021) Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021.
Ulm, J.W. (2020) Rapid response to: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us.
Reimann, N. (2021) Covid Spiking In Over A Dozen States — Most With High Vaccination Rates.
Meredith, S. (2021) Chile has one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Covid is surging there anyway.
Bhuyan, A. (2021) Covid-19: India sees new spike in cases despite vaccine rollout. BMJ 372:n854
Morrissey, K. (2021) Open letter to Dr. Karina Butler.
Anonymous, (2021) Open Letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance: Urgent warning re Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in the elderly and Care Homes.
Furer, V.; Zisman, D.; Kibari, A.; Rimar, D.; Paran, Y. and Elkayam, O. (2021) Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series. Rheumatology -:x-x
Anonymous, (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations.
Tseng, C.; Sbrana, E.; Iwata-Yoshikawa, N.; Newman, P.C.; Garron, T.; Atmar, R.L.; Peters, C.J. and Couch, R.B. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421
Bolles, M.; Deming, D.; Long, K.; Agnihothram, S.; Whitmore, A.; Ferris, M.; Funkhouser, W.; Gralinski, L.; Totura, A.; Heise, M. and Baric, R.S. (2011) A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J. Virol. 85:12201–15
Weingartl, H.; Czub, M.; Czub, S.; Neufeld, J.; Marszal, P.; Gren, J.; Smith, G.; Jones, S.; Proulx, R.; Deschambault, Y.; Grudeski, E.; Andonov, A.; He, R.; Li, Y.; Copps, J.; Grolla, A.; Dick, D.; Berry, J.; Ganske, S.; Manning, L. and Cao, J. (2004) Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J. Virol. 78:12672–6
Czub, M.; Weingartl, H.; Czub, S.; He, R. and Cao, J. (2005) Evaluation of modified vaccinia virus Ankara based recombinant SARS vaccine in ferrets. Vaccine 23:2273–9
Tinari, S. (2021) The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ 372:n627
Anonymous, (2021) Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Krüger.

_______________________

For more on liability see: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/04/28/i-do-not-consent-forms-to-print-give-to-your-employer-and-political-representatives/

Category:

vaccines, Viruses

Miami School Asks Staff NOT to Take COVID Jab; Global Media Assault Follows; Pfizer Trial May Support School’s Concerns

Centner Academy, a private school in Miami, has made international headlines for directing its employees who have not yet received the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, to wait until the end of the school year, as a precautionary step to protect the health of their school community, given both concerning new anecdotal reports that the vaccinated can adversely affect the health of the un-vaccinated, and that that clinical safety and efficacy data for the mRNA vaccines will not be completed until sometime in 2023.

Thus far, mainstream media reporting has focused and railed against the following statement made by Leila Centner, co-founder and CEO of Centner Academy, to her employees (in an internal email later leaked to the press) as being the most controversial and contestable:

“Tens of thousands of women all over the world have recently been reporting adverse reproductive issues simply from being in close proximity with those who have received any one of the COVID-19 injections, e.g., irregular menses, bleeding, miscarriages, post-menopausal hemorrhaging, and amenorrhea (complete loss of menstruation).

No one knows exactly what may be causing these irregularities, but it appears that those who have received the injections may be transmitting something from their bodies to those with whom they come in contact. Until more is known, we must err on the side of caution when it comes to the welfare of our students and the school team.”

You can read Leila’s entire letter and comment which she posted to Instagram here.

Leila Centner’s private communication, now a matter of global public scrutiny, even reaching the White House press secretary for comment on April 27th,¹ came under fire by a number of conventional allopathic physicians, including Dr. Aileen Marty, a physician and infectious disease specialist with Florida International University’s Wertheim College of Medicine, who commented as follows:

“But there’s not one citation, there’s not one physician or scientist whose name is spelled out in there. There’s no references. There’s nothing. There is no scientific evidence provided. Rumor is the only thing that’s there, and if you look at the reality, there’s zero, zero science behind those allegations.” “If they believe it, and they then share this big lie, it has a horrific impact on our entire community,” she said.

While these comments by Dr. Marty, and now hundreds of other mainstream media reports have attempted to dismiss Leila Centner’s statements as a ‘source of misinformation, without basis in science,’ we believe they have significant merit, and are at the least worth exploring further.

Fact #1: Vaccines Make Some Sick; Sick People Are More Likely to Compromise the Health of Others

Whereas the mainstream media and government health authorities have been dogmatically pushing the unequivocal narrative that the Covid-19 (and all) vaccines are “safe and effective” a priori, it is undeniable that the Covid-19 vaccines are presently only approved for distribution to the public under an Emergency Use Authorization, in lieu of proper clinical safety and efficacy trial data being available, and which are not estimated to be completed until April 2023 for the Pfizer vaccine.²

This makes Covid-19 vaccines, by definition, experimental, as Leila Centner has repeatedly offered as an explanation for her precautionary stance as to their unintended, adverse effects they may have to the health and well-being of her school staff, faculty, children and larger community.

Human medical experimentation, as defined by the Nuremberg code of medical ethics (1947), must not only be voluntary, but the participant needs to be fully informed of both the risks and benefits, in order to be able to give their full legal consent. Also, if the medical experimenter has reason to believe an intervention may cause harm, disability, or death he or she must suspend the experiment immediately.

In the case of the experimental mRNA Covid-19 vaccine rollouts, government data reveals the Covid-19 vaccines are having profound, adverse health effects on a subpopulation of recipients, as documented in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which as of April 28th, 2021, lists a total of 85,926 reports of the vaccinated experiencing adverse effects, ranging from death to hundreds of other symptoms and life-threatening conditions. Moreover, VAERS is known to be highly ineffective in capturing the true extent of the actual number of vaccine adverse events, due to its highly passive, post-marketing surveillance methodology. Peer-reviewed research indicates that the rate of report capture is as low as 1% for thrombocytopenic purpura (low blood platelet related bleeding disorder) following the MMR vaccine and hypotonichyporesponsive (bluish skin; reduced consciousness) episodes following the DTP vaccine.³

The implication is that the actual scale of adverse effects within the vaccinated, which include immune dysregulation and suppression, may be several orders of magnitude higher than the already alarming scale of events reported through the conservative numbers offered by VAERS — which are almost universally ignored by the very same media attempting to discredit, defame, and make an example out of the Centner Academy.

Given that those who are experiencing immune dysfunction as a result of being vaccinated are more likely to express virus reactivation, such as a cluster of cases recently reported for vaccine-induced Herpes Zoster, or may also experience a disrupted microbiome leading the the overgrowth of opportunistic bacteria, fungi, virusess, i.e. so-called “pathogens,” the health risks to those around them may also increase significantly. It should be noted that this phenomenon of vaccine-induced adverse health effects is not solely associated with the Covid-19 or mRNA vaccines.

Greenmedinfo.com has a database of over 1300 studies indicating over 150 potential adverse health effects from vaccines presently in the CDC vaccine schedule. Therefore any vaccine could, in theory, weaken or disrupt the immune system of a vaccine recipient, increasing the likelihood that they may transmit infection or disease-provoking aspects of either their microbiome or cell contents (mediated via extracellular vesicles) to those around them, which will be explained in greater detail in section #3.

Fact #2: The Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial Study Design Warns Against Proximity (Shared Air Inhalation or Skin Contact) Between Vaccine Participants and the Unvaccinated As A Possible Vectors of Harm

Titled, “A Phase 1/2/3 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals,” the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA vaccine study protocol document explicitly identifies in section 8.3.5. the need for monitoring what it calls “Exposure During Pregnancy or Breastfeeding, and Occupational Exposure.” A concern they take seriously enough that they require any incident to be reported within 24 hours to the Pfizer Safety system.

According to the document an EDP [environmental exposure during pregnancy] occurs if, for example: “a male vaccine recipient exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

Exposure to the study intervention is defined as “inhalation or skin contact,” indicating that physical proximity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is recognized by the Pfizer study protocol to be a cause for concern for transmission of potential side effects of the vaccine.

The document also gives the following example of an EDP scenario: “A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.” Clearly, in this case Pfizer is acknowledging that something as simple as a healthcare provider or family member who has been exposed to an mRNA vaccine recipient through “inhalation or skin contact” (i.e. physical proximity) could generate an adverse event and/or affect the study outcomes.

Another example provided in section 8.3.5.2 titled, “Exposure During Breastfeeding,” gives the following example of what constitutes such an exposure:

“ An example of environmental exposure during breastfeeding is a female family member or healthcare provider who reports that she is breastfeeding after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.”

Finally, in section 8.3.5.3., an “Occupational Exposure” occurs,

“when a person receives unplanned direct contact with the study intervention, which may or may not lead to the occurrence of an AE. Such persons may include healthcare providers, family members, and other roles that are involved in the trial participant’s care.”

Clearly, the Pfizer mRNA vaccine protocol design reveals that concerns for how the vaccinated may adversely affect the health, and even reproductive outcomes, of the unvaccinated simply by being within physical proximity, are being taken extremely seriously by the manufacturer of the vaccine itself. In light of this, Leila Centner’s expressed concerns quoted at the beginning of this article are, in fact, backed by the most authoritative document we have on the experimental vaccine, and the nature of the human experiments being conducted on their behalf. So far, there has been no acknoweldgment or reporting on this fact by the global mainstream media, the vaccine manufacturers, nor government health authorities. It will be up to the reader to share this article, and get the word out.

Fact #3: There is a Plausible Epigenetic Molecular Mechanism in Biology Whereby the Vaccinated May Affect the Health Status of the Unvaccinated

The third major substantiating factor behind identifying the potential harm the vaccinated may have on the unvaccinated concerns the discovery of so-called horizontal information transfer within biological systems mediated by extracellular vesicles (EVs), which include a virus-like phenomenon known as microvessicle shedding and/or exosome-mediated transfer of nucleic acids. This falls within the category of epigenetics, which the apologists and shills for the mRNA vaccines’ purported safety and efficacy conveniently ignore in order to make their claim that was debunked in 1970 with the discovery of the enzyme reverse transcriptase. Reverse transcriptase is able to transcribe RNA to DNA, essentially destroying the fundamental dogma of molecular biology, namely, the undirectional flow of information from the cell nucleus to mRNA to protein can not be reversed. This dogma is still being used half-a-century later to make the false claim that the only health risk a genetically modified vaccine has worth discussing is the possibility that it may affect the structure or function of nuclear, protein-coding genes. We’ve even seen, through the discovery of exosomes, that the Weismann barrier has been penetrated, and somatic cells can communicate heritable information to the germline cells in what amounts to real-time, essentially devalidating the risk models presently used by vaccine manufacturers and regulators which do not account for the power epigenetic processes have to amplify the unintended adverse effects of genetically modified technologies and interventions.

While mRNA vaccines are designed using genetically modified processes not dependent on live cell substrates, thereby precluding conventional problems with shedding associated with first generation vaccines like the MMR, it is possible that they do, in fact, contribute to microvessicle shedding,⁴ which represents an even greater, more persistent threat than live-cell vaccine shedding when it comes to the persistent biological impact the vaccinated can have on the un-vaccinated. Microvessicles, which range in size between 0.1–1.0 μm are a type of extracellular vesicle (EVs), that are secreted by many different cell types within the body, both in times of health and disease, and are known to reflect the antigenic content of the cell of origin.⁵ They have stunningly similar characteristics to viruses.⁶ For instance, like SARS-COV-2, microvessicles have a lipid bilayer formed from the budding off from host cell membranes, and they can incorporate and reproduce aspects of a vaccinated or infected cells’ immunogenicity, such as including functional mRNA, viral proteins, and other nucleic acids capable of profoundly altering the structure and function of the cells to which they are transmitted. For instance, it is theoretically feasible that a vaccine recipient’s cells expressing COVID-19 spike protein as a result of transfection with mRNA from a Covid-19 vaccine may secrete microvesicles containing components “originally alien to the cell, such as proteins and nucleic acids that are transiently or constitutively expressed via plasmid or viral vector. “⁷ These microvessicles, like viruses, and other extracellular vessicles known as exosomes, can be transmitted to other individuals (inter-individual transmission) through both normal or diseased physiological processes.⁸ Extracellular exosomes have even been found to transfer nucleic acids cross kingdoms (plant > animal, fungal > bacterial), affecting the phenotypal expression of the target species. Therefore, it is plausible that microvessicles can transmit mRNA from a recently vaccinated individual to those within close proximity, and therefore could, in fact, “shed” mRNA and related biomolecules induced from the mRNA vaccination process to non-vaccinated individuals, inducing symptoms similar to those experienced by the vaccinated. Indeed, microvessicles may have a profound affect on the immune status of those who both produce them, and are exposed to them. A recent study concluded that research “strongly suggests that MVs may function as strong regulator of both innate and adaptive immune systems.”⁹ Microvessicles and exosomes have also been researched and developed as vaccine candidates, further indicating that they are already being looked at by the scientific community as potential vectors of immunogenicity and carriers of viral-like and disease-modulating if not also disease-promoting bio-information.

Given the plausible mechanism through which a COVID-19 vaccine recipient’s body produces vaccine antigen (e.g. spike protein), and can package and transmit these antigens through viral-like microvessicles (and perhaps also exosomes) to others, Leila Centner’s statement “it appears that those who have received the injections may be transmitting something from their bodies to those with whom they come in contact,” has a plausible mechanism of action. Especially considering the afforementioned fact that Pfizer’s study protocol itself acknowledges that an unknown factor or mechanism may cause the unvaccinated to be adversely affected by the vaccinated.

Either way, Leila Centner’s decision was made in the spirit of the precautionary principle, and her call for further investigation and information on the vaccines before proceeding with what amounts to a reckless human medical experimentation should not be identified as “fringe,” “irrational,” nor “crazy.” To the contrary, the medical establishment and would-be government regulators should themselves be raising the red flag over the tens of thousands of adverse effects that have already been reported to the government VAERS database.

We live in a time and age where protecting our children from coerced and increasingly mandatory medical interventions that carry the risk of death and disability, is perhaps the most important advocacy of our lives. It takes great courage, conviction, and love to stand up and make a decision that is in the best interest of your community, and not your bottom line or public relations image. The Centner Academy’s prioritization of the precautionary principle, and Leila Center’s call for more research into the exploding number of adverse events that the mainstream media either ignores or actively covers up, is extremely honorable and worth everyone who follows our work and advocacy getting behind in support.

Please support the Centner Academy through the following actions:

Share this artcile with friends and family, in order to support our health freedom advocate, Leila Center, who is undergoing unprecedented media attack.
Do you have an experience to report of an adverse effect from the Covid-19 vaccines, or being exposed to someone who had it?
Support Instagram Leila Centner (send her some love). Comment here at Leila’s instagram account.
Learn more about the incredibly positive philosophy of the Centner Academy, focusing on happiness as the centerpiece of a child’s success, and cultivating leaders with HEART.

Also, please join us at www.StandforHealthFreedom.com, as we build a grassroots army of millions who believe in informed consent, parental rights, human and medical rights, for everyone.

References

¹https://miami.cbslocal.com/2021/04/27/white-house-position-centner-academy-covid-vaccine/

²https://fullfact.org/health/covid-19-vaccines/

³https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615747/pdf/amjph00450-0108.pdf

⁴https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5680703/

⁵https://www.nature.com/articles/2404132

⁶https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3233125/

⁷https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3764926/

⁸https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816030/

⁹https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02723/full

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine,Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

______________________

For more:

True to form, I woke up to this today. It’s become quite obvious there are hired spin-doctors who do nothing more than counter information that is inconvenient for them.

If you read it in full, they completely ignore the fact Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial Study Design Warns against proximity (Shared Air Inhalation or Skin Contact) between vaccine participants and the unvaccinated as a possible vectors of harm.

Oop!s – that just doesn’t fit the accepted narrative so it must be avoided at all costs. Instead, the article zeros in on “vaccine shedding” which doctors have already stated may not be the issue, but that somehow “vaccinated” people are transmitting something to the unvaccinated. People are experiencing this and doctors are seeing it with their own eyes.

But similarly to Lyme/MSIDS, patient and doctor experience in reality just doesn’t matter to these people. They will deny, deny, deny what is right in front of their faces. We have experienced this for over 40 years in Lyme-land.

Words and definitions matter, and the spin-doctors are busy at work to suppress/deny/malign anything that detracts from these experimental, fast-tracked injections that do not have historical data behind them, except for previous animal studies in which EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL DIED of ADE.

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/21/warning-3150-injuries-in-1st-week-of-covid-vaccines-among-american-healthcare-workers-pregnant-women-included/
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/urgent-5-doctors-agree-that-covid-19-injections-are-bioweapons-and-discuss-what-to-do-about-it/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/04/28/i-do-not-consent-forms-to-print-give-to-your-employer-and-political-representatives/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/04/27/covid-19-rna-based-vaccines-the-risk-of-prion-disease/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/01/25/covid-vaccine-genetic-reprogramming-without-informed-consent-ronavax-roulette-all-about-the-adjuvants/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/01/06/moderna-admits-covid-vaccines-inject-an-operating-system-into-your-body/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/04/14/why-i-wont-take-the-johnson-johnson-vaccine-a-scientists-perspective/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/01/29/pfizer-admits-injection-doesnt-prevent-covid-cardiothoracic-surgeon-warns-of-immunological-dangers/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/01/26/the-weaponization-of-medicine-straight-talk-on-covid/ Dr. Merrit is quick to point out COVID-19 has a 99.991% recovery rate by doing nothing, and that there are successful treatments (in spite of all the propaganda and attempts to falsify the medical literature and attempts to dismiss anything they don’t agree with). A vaccine isn’t needed or warranted.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Doctor Defends ’80 Clinical Studies’ Showing Ivermectin ‘89% Effective’ At Preventing COVID

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-defends-80-clinical-studies-showing-ivermectin-89-effective-at-preventing-covid

Doctor defends ‘80 clinical studies’ showing ivermectin ‘89% effective’ at preventing COVID

‘People are trying to scare us from taking ivermectin,’ Dr. Benigno Agbayani declared. ‘It’s one of the safest drugs in the world.’

Dr. Benigno Agbayani

By Michael Haynes

QUEZON, Philippines, April 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A doctor from the Philippines strongly defended the use of ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19, pointing to “80 clinical studies” which support his arguments, and alluding to “bias” and conflicts of interest, which have led medical bodies to be reluctant about promoting the drug.

Appearing on Philippine television channel ABS–CBN, Dr. Benigno Agbayani answered a range of questions about the efficacy and safety of the drug, as well as the peculiar reticence to recommend it for treating COVID-19.

Agbayani, the president of Concerned Doctors and Citizens of the Philippines, revealed that since last year, he had spent over five hours a day studying scientific literature on all things pertaining to COVID-19, including the non-effectiveness of lockdowns. “I think I’ve read more than anyone on COVID-19,” he stated. (See link for article)

______________________

**Comment**

Agbayani has successfully used ivermectin in over 300 of his own patients.

Important excerpts:

“As much as anecdotal [pieces of evidence] are good, and we have many, I really prefer that we stick to the science,” he said. “People are trying to scare us from taking ivermectin. It’s one of the safest drugs in the world.”

Mentioning a study from September 2020, Agbayani stated that ivermectin had been shown to actually block “the receptor sites of the virus onto our cells, therefore blocking it from ever getting to the cell.”

“You have over 26, as of today, randomized control trials showing effectiveness, even as high as 89% for prevention, and as high as 80% for treatment. So I think regardless of what the other groups are doing, you have so much science behind it, I do not see why we have to be so concerned.”

He alluded to the peculiar antagonism which has been levied against ivermectin, noting how scepticism regarding studies promoting ivermectin is not mirrored with other drugs: “[T]he same thing can be said of every drug that we tried. Even people who are taking remdesevir, they also try other drugs, and yet you don’t question that.”

The article points out that medical bodies are still resistant to the use of ivermectin with with Big Tech even weighing in and deleting videos which defends the drug. Thanks to the efforts of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) upgraded their recommendation for the “miraculous” drug ivermectin, making it an option for use in treating COVID-19 within the United States, but only since January.

Agbayani states there is a clear bias and that ‘authorities’ do not want to look at certain studies:

“There is some kind of bias going on that we’d like to question. This is the time in our history when we should look at conflicts of interest.” Dr. Benigno Agbayani

The vaccine company Merck even issued a statement advising against the use of ivermectin for COVID, despite having developed it some 30 years prior. This was an “excellent example of conflict of interest,” stated Agbayani.

Evidently Merck is coming out with a NEW drug for COVID-19 – which means they will not make money off of it if ivermectin is the drug of choice.

Regarding safety, Agbayani states it has a 25-year safety record and that you could take ten times the NIH daily recommended amount and it would not yield side effects.

The article thankfully mentions Dr. Pierre Kory’s address to the Senate, which was censored by Youtube, defending ivermectin as well as the following quote:

“It literally destroys the virus in most people within 48 hours,” agreed fellow panelist Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, whose peer-reviewed study found 60% fewer deaths among patients given the drug.

Research done last year in Australia showed that a SINGLE dose could kill COVID-19 in a petri dish within 48 hours, and that after just 24 hours there was significant reduction of the virus.

I’ve written about our experience using ivermectin for COVID-19 here. (Scroll to comment section) I must state our experience mirrors the research presented within this article that that we both felt significant relief within 24 hours and miraculous relief within 48 hours. I freely admit that both IV C and blood ozone are also effective against viruses – which I also used. My husband; however, only used blood ozone and ivermectin and had the same results as I.

The censorship of effective, lifesaving treatments should be a crime. If it wasn’t for the efforts by many doctors and health practitioners defending ivermectin, and other effective treatments, they would have been completely bypassed for lucrative yet ineffective drugs like Remdesivir, which many of our public ‘authorities’ have a vested interest in, and obtain monies from its sale. They had hoped to regain lost profits from this drug which also failed in the past.

Also, government-funded research on another effective treatment had to be retracted due to a fraudulent research. And the misinformation continues to flow.

Until these conflicts of interest are addressed, we will never be told the truth.

Category:

Treatment, Viruses

120 Doctors Ask JAMA to Retract Misleading Columbian Study Downplaying Efficacy of Ivermectin

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-120-doctors-ask-jama-to-retract-misleading-colombian-study-downplaying-efficacy-of-ivermectin

Horowitz: 120 doctors ask JAMA to retract misleading Colombian study downplaying efficacy of ivermectin

OP-ED

Why is there such an agenda to discredit cheap, repurposed drugs?

DANIEL HOROWITZ

April 16, 2021

We knew this would happen. The health establishment didn’t use fabricated data from a study authored by a science fiction writer and porn star (later retracted), as they did with hydroxychloroquine, but it was almost as bad.

No, they didn’t find any harm from ivermectin, but after every study showing the amazing efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 at every stage of the disease, the media breathlessly promoted a Colombian study supposedly showing no statistically meaningful benefit among those COVID-19 patients who were treated with it.

Last month, a group of Colombian researchers published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluding that, contrary to the findings of every other study, ivermectin showed no signs of bettering outcomes in COVID-19 patients in Cali, Colombia.

“Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms,” concluded the authors. “The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”

(See link for article)

______________________

**Comment**

Once again the spin-doctors are hard at work discrediting a powerful, cheap drug that works on COVID.

The article points out:

After ignoring dozens of other studies on ivermectin for months, the New York Times got hold of this study the day it was published and penned an article titled, “Popular Drug Does Not Alleviate Mild Covid-19 Symptoms, Study Finds.”

Horowitz points out the study was flawed from the beginning and its results do not support the authors’ conclusions.

Thankfully, honest doctors are screaming bloody-murder and have written a letter to JAMA:

The study’s flaws span subject population, design, execution and controls. The small sample size (n = 400) had a median age of 37 and a BMI of 26, making them extremely low risk for COVID-19 hard endpoints. Faced with this low-relevance study group, the study authors improperly changed primary endpoint midway, moving the main endpoint to full symptom resolution by day 21. This self-reported subjective endpoint, obtained through telephone survey, is not credible for avoiding nondifferential nullward bias of the results.

The authors incorrectly administered ivermectin on an empty stomach, reducing drug bioavailability in lung tissue, the critical drug target, by a factor of roughly 2.5. Additionally, ivermectin is readily available over-the-counter in Colombia, where sales have been ubiquitous (1.6 doses per COVID-19 case) in Cali during the study period.[2] Lack of serum testing in the study prevented identification of subjects who may have used the drug at intervals longer than the study lookback.

Thus, you literally had a placebo control group where they didn’t ensure they were not taking ivermectin! On top of this, the department of health in the state of Valle del Cauca – where this study took place – began distributing ivermectin to COVID patients right when the study period began.

Also, just from June to July of last year when the study period began, over-the-counter sales of ivermectin in the Cali region quintupled.

The doctors protesting this study originally sent this letter to JAMA to be published, but after JAMA declined, the authors posted it as an open letter on their own landing page.

Horowitz also points out they violated participant consent rules by not telling the study participants they were receiving ivermectin.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which is the lead group in the United States promoting ivermectin as the staple of COVID early therapeutic treatment, wrote a paper calling into question the protocols of the study, noting that a labeling error substituted 38 ivermectin doses as part of the placebo group.

They also accuse the authors of a conflict of interest for receiving grants from “Sanofi Pasteur, a vaccine manufacturer; Janssen, a J&J vaccine partner; and GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Gilead, which manufacture COVID-19 drugs.”

Oops.

Meanwhile, Gilead is raking in the dough through its sale of Remdesivir (over $3K per treatment) despite ZERO evidence of efficacy. It’s still being used as the only major treatment, while the FDA is now going after anyone who mentions things like vitamin C, zinc, and other natural remedies.

And never, ever forget the atrocious, fraudulent, government funded study on HCQ which was finally retracted, and the fact the AAPS sued the FDA for “irrational” interference of Access to life-saving Hydroxychloroquine.”

All research needs independent scrutiny. I’m eternally grateful for the doctors and researchers who do this work on their own dime. Without this exposure, the world would blindly accept fraudulent studies. It’s also up to us to educate others on this diabolical take-over of science and the need to question ALL OF IT.

We are living in 1984.

Category:

Treatment, Viruses

Madison Area Lyme Support Group

Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

More CDC Shenanigans; Changes COVID Testing & Violates Federal Law to Inflate Cases – Investigation Petitions Sent To All U.S. Attorneys & DOJ

CDC Rewrites COVID Testing Measures for Post-Vaccine Breakthrough Infections

The New York Times likened those tests as “akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.”

Criticisms aside, the high threshold testing procedure stayed in place — until now.

This means that far fewer cases will be identified as positive than were they to stay at the 40 threshold.

“The entire epidemic would have looked very different if [28] had been used [for a regular infection],” Alex Berensen tweeted.

Regarding the PCR testing the whole house of cards is built upon, please see the following quote from its creator:

CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.

Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Who’s Responsible?

Dramatic Implications

Science Foundations Have Been Violated

COVID-19 Timeline

Transparency Rules Have Been Grossly Violated

Test-Based Strategy Has Been an Egregious Fraud

Data Manipulation Created COVID-19 Pandemic

If people understood how the central banks of the world have pulled the wool over our eyes, we would simply demand an end to the central banks. Currency ought to be created and managed nationally.

More Information

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario we’ve been in for over 40 years, which continues unabated.

There has been a concerted effort against direct testing:

The simple reason for this is our public health ‘authorities’ have patents on tests, vaccines, and treatment guidelines. The same is true for COVID-19 as well.

They also want everyone to take their controversial Lyme (and COVID) injections which would only work if Lyme disease does not cause chronic illness – hence the continual denial of persistent infection.

THE CDC IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED AT ALL and should be disbanded.

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy, and Safety

COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

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

1. The vaccines are unnecessary

2. The vaccines lack efficacy

3. The vaccines are dangerous

4. The vaccines are experimental by definition.

4. Ethics and legal points to consider

Miami School Asks Staff NOT to Take COVID Jab; Global Media Assault Follows; Pfizer Trial May Support School’s Concerns

Miami School Asks Staff Not to Take COVID Jab; Global Media Assault Follows; Pfizer Trial May Support School’s Concern

Fact #1: Vaccines Make Some Sick; Sick People Are More Likely to Compromise the Health of Others

Fact #2: The Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial Study Design Warns Against Proximity (Shared Air Inhalation or Skin Contact) Between Vaccine Participants and the Unvaccinated As A Possible Vectors of Harm

Fact #3: There is a Plausible Epigenetic Molecular Mechanism in Biology Whereby the Vaccinated May Affect the Health Status of the Unvaccinated

Please support the Centner Academy through the following actions:

References

Words and definitions matter, and the spin-doctors are busy at work to suppress/deny/malign anything that detracts from these experimental, fast-tracked injections that do not have historical data behind them, except for previous animal studies in which EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL DIED of ADE.

Doctor Defends ’80 Clinical Studies’ Showing Ivermectin ‘89% Effective’ At Preventing COVID

Doctor defends ‘80 clinical studies’ showing ivermectin ‘89% effective’ at preventing COVID

‘People are trying to scare us from taking ivermectin,’ Dr. Benigno Agbayani declared. ‘It’s one of the safest drugs in the world.’

Agbayani has successfully used ivermectin in over 300 of his own patients.

Evidently Merck is coming out with a NEW drug for COVID-19 – which means they will not make money off of it if ivermectin is the drug of choice.

Regarding safety, Agbayani states it has a 25-year safety record and that you could take ten times the NIH daily recommended amount and it would not yield side effects.

Also, government-funded research on another effective treatment had to be retracted due to a fraudulent research. And the misinformation continues to flow.

Until these conflicts of interest are addressed, we will never be told the truth.

120 Doctors Ask JAMA to Retract Misleading Columbian Study Downplaying Efficacy of Ivermectin

Horowitz: 120 doctors ask JAMA to retract misleading Colombian study downplaying efficacy of ivermectin

Why is there such an agenda to discredit cheap, repurposed drugs?

Horowitz points out the study was flawed from the beginning and its results do not support the authors’ conclusions.

Thankfully, honest doctors are screaming bloody-murder and have written a letter to JAMA:

The doctors protesting this study originally sent this letter to JAMA to be published, but after JAMA declined, the authors posted it as an open letter on their own landing page.

They also accuse the authors of a conflict of interest for receiving grants from “Sanofi Pasteur, a vaccine manufacturer; Janssen, a J&J vaccine partner; and GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Gilead, which manufacture COVID-19 drugs.”

We are living in 1984.

Search

Archives

Lyme Non-Profits

Lyme Resources

Online Support Groups

Visitors

Top Posts & Pages

Categories