Tuesday, November 30, 2021

People frequently ask me about detoxing from COVID vaccines or COVID. World Council for Health has taken a stab at this.

15 years ago I did a deep dive into detox for a Congressional testimony on treating Gulf War Syndrome and found there was almost no literature on it.  Detoxing from lead seemed impossible--you never get the IQ points back. There was less literature on detox from other substances. So while there is little scientific proof that anything "works," a lot of people want to try something.

Saunas, NAC, Vitamin C are general detox suggestions (and maybe other antioxidants could be added) and should be safe.  Ivermectin does help people with long COVID.

The World Council for Health has posted a website with tentative suggestions.  I hope they know more than I do.  It is a great organization, founded by Tess Lawrie, MD, PhD (or the South African equivlent of MD, which I cannot recall now.). Here is their detox page:


And the Kentucky AG got an injunction too!


This one stops the mandate for federal contractors in 3 states.  All these cases will continue to be litigated, I imagine, and presumably be appealed by the Biden administration if the states prevail, but so many injunctions issued all at once --with clear wording that the mandates are unconstitutional-- is a very strong signal to the DOJ that winning these won't be a slam dunk.

Healthcare worker mandate shot down nationwide.



Federal Judge Grants Montana’s Request For Injunction On CMS Vaccine Mandate

Louisiana federal judge blocks nationwide COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers

Greg Hilburn
Lafayette Daily Advertiser

My challenge to my Medical Licensing Board: Put up or Shut up.

Published today in The Defender:

In a letter to the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine, Dr. Meryl Nass, a practicing physician in Maine, asked the Board of Licensure to define what it means by “misinformation” and “disinformation.”  

The Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine this month issued a position statement in which it said: “Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.” In the letter below, Dr. Meryl Nass, a practicing physician in Maine and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory board, asked the board to define what it means by “misinformation” and “disinformation,” and to clarify what statutory authority the board has to discipline physicians on the basis of undefined transgressions. The letter, which includes the Nov. 16 testimony Nass gave to the New Hampshire state legislature, has been edited slightly for clarity.

November 22, 2021 

To the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine: 

I am a physician, licensed in Maine for the past 24 years. I am concerned about the use of the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” and the new threat to physicians’ licenses issued by the board today for undefined behaviors.

I require clarification regarding the board’s definition of misinformation and disinformation and would like to know what statutory authority the board has to discipline physicians on the basis of undefined transgressions.

Please tell me what law or regulation authorizes such threats for speech outside the clinic.

I thought I would provide the board with some information I provide to the public to see if the board intends to term documented facts as misinformation, intends to censor these facts and whether those who provide these facts to the public will be at risk of disciplinary action.

Here is my invited testimony to the New Hampshire legislature (Education Committee) on Nov. 16, 2021. Am I at risk for telling these truths? Please let me know.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “[The vaccine] doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you from passing it on.”

[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said: “The vaccines no longer prevent transmission.”

In a high-quality study of all VA beneficiaries just published in Science, by September, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was only 13% effective against infection, the Pfizer 43% and the Moderna 58%.

In a new University of California study of more than 500 vaxxed and unvaxxed people who tested positive for COVID, the amounts of virus in saliva were the same. They could transmit the infection to others, equally.

The UK’s top vaccine expert, Sir Andrew Pollard, said in August, regarding COVID vaccines: “Herd immunity is not a possibility. We need to focus on how do we prevent dying or going to hospital.”

Please understand this: Since we cannot achieve herd immunity with our vaccines, the inevitable result is that practically everyone will eventually get the disease.

Vaccines cannot achieve safe schools and workplaces, because the vaccinated can still transmit, even when asymptomatic.

While public health leaders are hoping frequent boosters will kick the can down the road, there is no reason to think boosters will prevent transmission, when the initial series didn’t.

Instead, it is crucial that we immediately focus on preventing severe disease and death — and early treatment can do this. It saves hospitalizations and lives. This is great news.

Why doesn’t everyone know it?

Because, had the benefit of existing drugs been acknowledged, there could have been no Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) issued for vaccines, remdesivir or monoclonal antibodies — all of which are multibillion-dollar, patented products.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the product.”

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were approved, adequate and available — and cheap. Thus they had to be suppressed.

Many drugs and supplements have efficacy against COVID. I created a handout of treatments for you. Please do not allow therapies for COVID to be restricted. Don’t allow doctors and pharmacists to be persecuted for providing these critical medications.

Few people are aware that in a Senate hearing on May 11, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Peter Marks of the FDA and CDC Director Walensky, what percentage of the employees in their agencies were vaccinated.

None provided a number. Fauci and Marks guessed that a bit over half were vaccinated.

What did thousands of scientists in the National Institutes of Health, FDA and CDC know that you didn’t know?  This:

      • They knew about sky-high rates of myocarditis in young men, which had been discussed in the Israeli media in April but was not disclosed in the U.S. until June.
      • They knew that deaths after vaccination were extremely high — much higher than reported for any other vaccine, ever. The CDC says that VAERS (its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received more than 9,000 reports of U.S. deaths related to COVID vaccines, but claims they are rare. RARE? Record-setting deaths have also been reported in the UK and Europe after COVID vaccinations.
      • There have been more deaths reported to VAERS for COVID vaccines in 10 months than were reported for every vaccine used in the U.S .over 30 years.

Let me repeat that. If you add together every report of a vaccine-associated death that has ever been reported to VAERS for 30 years, for all vaccines, the total is less than the deaths reported for COVID vaccines.

As of Nov. 19, more than half (56%) of the deaths reported to VAERS after COVID vaccines occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated. And although the CDC has not investigated them all, the agency still claims, ”A review of available clinical information … has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.”

But CDC officials haven’t linked the deaths to anything else, either.

Let me talk about kids. The CDC estimates that 147 million Americans have already had COVID — and that at least half of our kids are already immune.

Yet the FDA and CDC have not seen fit to allow Americans to use any available test — not PCR, not antibody, not T cell nor any combination of tests to prove immunity — even though the FDA accepts antibody tests as evidence of immunity in COVID vaccine clinical trials.

Why the double standard? It seems the reason to deny natural immunity is to force everyone to be vaccinated, whether they need it or not.

If the vaccines were safe, this policy would be less egregious. But they aren’t safe. The younger you are, the greater is the risk of myocarditis. Reported myocarditis rates in 12- to 17-year-old males after vaccination are 100 times higher than for men over 65.

One study showed that teenage boys are 3 to 6 times as likely to be hospitalized for a post-vaccine case of myocarditis as for a case of COVID.

Myocarditis is a serious side effect, which can cause sudden arrhythmic death. After three months, 25% of kids with myocarditis have still not recovered. No one knows how common this side effect will be in the 5- to 11-year-olds since it was not reported in Pfizer’s trial, which lasted an average of only 17 days after full vaccination for half the child subjects.

Dr. Eric Rubin, the New England Journal editor, said at FDA’s 5- to 11-year-old vaccine advisory meeting: “We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.”

The FDA knows our children are the guinea pigs, and now you do too.

Did you know that in Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco children as young as 12 are being vaccinated without parental consent or notice? JAMA Pediatrics in July published an article calling for states to amend the law to allow children to consent for themselves.

Will New Hampshire support this attack on parental authority?

All pediatric COVID vaccines are used under EUAs. These remove manufacturer liability from the vaccines, unless willful misconduct can be proved.

Under the Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, a finding of willful misconduct requires the manufacturer knew there was a problem with their vaccines, but sold them anyway.

The unforeseen consequence of the PREP Act is that it gives manufacturers a huge incentive to perform the most minimal testing of their products — because if they did not know there was a problem, they cannot be sued for misconduct.

Why are we allowing experimental products that have been inadequately tested, are dangerous in older children and were produced by a manufacturer who can’t be sued to be injected into our children?

But these facts have been obscured by a smokescreen of fatuous “safe and effective” claims made by financially conflicted organizations.

Did they tell you that if your child is injured, you are unlikely to collect a penny? Did they tell you that the compensation program for EUA injuries has not compensated a single COVID drug or vaccine injury — despite a one-year statute of limitations?

Under U.S. law, you have the right to refuse EUAs. And you must be informed of all that is known and unknown about risks and benefits.

But neither of these two requirements are being followed.

Since the pandemic, the rule of law has been tossed aside. I urge you to learn about the law governing the use of EUA products, so I have provided you the relevant section of U.S. Code.

Let me conclude by saying that given the loose regulatory milieu we are in, COVID vaccines will probably be licensed for everyone soon. That imprimatur will not brush away their serious problems.

Please prevent mandates of these extremely questionable products.

Sincerely yours,

Sincerely yours, Meryl Nass, MD


UK brings forward boosters to three months after second dose/ Daily Telegraph

So, a mild variant that was discovered in 4 vaccinated diplomats is being repurposed to slam old style mRNA vaccines, that didn't work the first time, into everyone down to teens in a 3 monthly schedule.  That makes good sense.  Bur only for the vaccine companies.

Has anyone to checked to see whether the manufacturers have subbed out the creation of variants?

The UK will roll out boosters to millions of people early as it shortens the window to three months after the second dose.

The move comes as countries scramble to contain the mild Omicron strain of the coronavirus, which has been designated a “variant of concern” by the World Health Organisation.

In an effort to keep ahead of the variant, the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has given the green light to offering boosters to everyone over 18, shortening the window, and offering a second dose to children aged 12 to 15.

Previously boosters were only offered to people aged over 40 not in priority groups. Teens were only receiving one dose of the vaccine, due to concerns over heart inflammation.

The change in advice means an extra 13 million over-18s in the UK will become eligible for a booster before the end of the year.

Deputy chief medical officer Professor Jonathan Van-Tam described the Omicron variant as the “new kid on the block”.

“It’s always been the case that, at some point, we have always said it – we are going to get a variant that gives us heightened concern,” he told a Downing Street briefing.

“We are at that moment with Omicron, it is the new kid on the block for now and I think it’s true to say that scientists around the world, not just in the UK, agree that this one is of increased concern.”

He conceded that in South Africa, where the new variant was first identified, there was “definitely an elevated growth rate associated with the Omicron variant, (but) that is not the same as saying there is definitely an increase in transmissibility compared to the previous Delta variant”.

Prof Van-Tam said the current uncertainties around Omicron were transmissibility, severity of disease and vaccine effectiveness.

But he stressed he did “not want people to panic at this stage” and that the current picture was “not all doom and gloom”.

“If vaccine effectiveness is reduced – as seems pretty likely, to some extent – the biggest effects are likely to be in preventing infections and, hopefully, there will be smaller effects in preventing severe disease. There are far more things we don’t know yet than things we do know.”

A woman receives her booster jab in London. Picture: Leon Neal/Getty Images
A woman receives her booster jab in London. Picture: Leon Neal/Getty Images

JCVI chairman Professor Wi Shen Lim said a booster dose “will help to increase our level of protection against the Omicron variant”.

“This is an important way for us to reduce the impact of this variant on our lives, especially in the coming months,” he said. “If you are eligible for a booster, please take up the offer and keep yourself protected as we head into winter.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson had earlier flagged that a booster dose would be required for the UK’s vaccine pass, as more countries change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include third doses.

Dr June Raine, the chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory products Agency, assured the public that “your safety is always our highest priority”.

She said the regulator had “continued to proactively monitor the safety” of the vaccines and that the regulator’s position remained that they “have an overwhelmingly positive benefit-risk balance”.

“We confirmed in September that available vaccines can be used as safe and effective booster doses,” she said.

“Since the access to boosters was extended to people aged 40 and over, we have identified no new safety concerns. Our careful review of the data found that the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate. So when you’re called for your booster dose, you can come forward confident that the benefits of the vaccine by preventing serious Covid-19 outweigh any risks.”

Dr Raine added that a “robust regulatory review” of the safety of the vaccine for people aged 12 to 15 similarly “raised no new safety issues”.

“So our message for people aged 12 to 15 is that it‘s safe to have a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine,” she said. “It will ensure you’re further protected from Covid-19.”

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Picture: Leon Neal/AFP
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Picture: Leon Neal/AFP

Dr Raine said that at this point, “we do not have evidence at the moment that the vaccines being used do not work against the Omicron strain, but we’re making this issue a priority”.

“We’re in discussion with vaccine manufacturers and the World Health Organisation on potential modifications that may be needed for the current vaccines to be maximally effective against the new variant if required,” she said.

Pfizer has said that if it is discovered the new variant is resistant to its current vaccine, it can have an updated version manufactured and distributed within 100 days.

In total, 43 million people in the UK will now be eligible for boosters. So far 17.5 million Britons have received them.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid said the National Health Service “will be calling people forward at most appropriate time” for their booster, with priority still to be given to the older age groups and the most vulnerable.

The UK currently has 11 confirmed cases of the Omicron variant – six in Scotland and five in England – but more than 75 “probable” cases have been flagged along with more than 150 possible others, The Sun reports.

It comes after Mr Johnson announced new restrictions over the weekend, including face masks in shops and on public transport, and tightened border controls.

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday updated its booster guidance, saying every US adult now “should” get an extra shot due to the Omicron variant.

The CDC had previously said while all adults were eligible, only those aged 50 and older, and those aged 18 and over in long-term care, should make it a priority.

“Today, CDC is strengthening its recommendation on booster doses for individuals who are 18 years and older,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement.

“The recent emergence of the Omicron variant further emphasizes the importance of vaccination, boosters, and prevention efforts needed to protect against Covid-19,” she said.

In Australia, Health Minister Greg Hunt has asked the government’s vaccine advisory body ATAGI for updated guidance around boosters in the face of the new variant.

“If they recommend a change to bring it forward, then we’ll do that,” Mr Hunt said on Monday.

“We have the supplies. We have the distribution network.”


Monday, November 29, 2021

UK Health Secretary: Boosters for all adults, every 3 months

How long before the stream of refugees is composed of Anglos escaping to Africa? 


Judge isues injunction against the CMS healthcare worker vaccine mandate

Another huge win (finally).  First the OSHA mandate was halted, and now the Medicare/Medicaid mandate, which was imposed on all healthcare entities that did business with Medicare or Medicaid, has also been halted.

Ten states were parties to a lawsuit, led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt,  requesting injunctive relief from the healthcare worker Covid vaccine mandate.  And today an injunction was granted.  It applies only to the ten states that were party to the lawsuit.

I have read the NYT, WaPo and several other accounts of this decision, but none so far have elaborated on how this is likely to affect the rest of the country.  I will say that the judge's conclusions were very strong that the mandate did not pass muster in many different ways.  I need a lawyer to tell us if these cases are likely to go to the Supreme Court, and what the next steps will be.

I expect that by tomorrow the legal scholars will have weighed in with detailed interpretations.  I will be watching for these.

Onward Into Darkness/ James Howard Kunstler

I really liked the article below because author JH Kunstler lays out the details of so many overtly corrupt actions carried out by those charged, at the highest levels, for for carrying out the law, and safeguarding the rule of law.  

We are not simply plagued by a virus and crazy responses to that virus.  We are plagued by something much bigger, whoe dimensions we are only beginning to understand. The story that is unfolding is truly incredible and unbelievable:  unconstitutional vaccine mandates that not only invade our bodies, but were designed to create economic and social chaos as industries (such as healthcare, firefighting and trucking) crumbled from unsustainable losses of employees.  

If vaccine mandates were really about health, and not about fomenting chaos, the federal government would allow people to demonstrate their immunity and waive the vaccine requirement for them.  If the mandates were truly about protecting patients, those already immune, who are much less likely to spread COVID than vaccinated breakthrough cases, would be the most desirable employees.

The CDC said in October that 147 million Americans have had COVID.  That is 44% of the entire US population.  People who have been working in healthcare facilites for the last two years and been repeatedly exposed, are almost all already immune.  Vaccinating them needlessly not only puts them at risk of more side effects than if they were COVID-naive, but it also risks damaging the broad immunity they obtained from the whole virus, and not just from the spike.  It simply makes no scientific sense, no medical sense, either for them or for patients.

Because this is therefore not about health, and because we are descending into a society led and ruled by criminals, as Kunstler points out, we need to be very aware of what is happening around us and to us.  Read between the lines.  Choose accurate sources as best you can.  Point out the discrepancies to your friends.

People ask me about monoclonal antibodies daily.  This treatment works.  But we must ask, why would the government go to extraordinary means to suppress oral hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which work, while providing us, for free, a several thousand dollar substance that is injected, and also works?  

Whitney Webb interviewed me Saturday and I concluded by saying that while our societal structures are in the process of disintegrating, we still do have some honest judges and the rule of law is still on the books.  Let us try very hard, while there is still time, to turn things around using whatever legal mechanisms we still have.  Lawyers, we desperately need you, before the walls have entirely tumbled down.  If you want to make a difference and work to save the vestiges of democracy, this is probably your last chance!

And we should, of course, use any other methods we can:  like walkouts, demonstrations, general strikes, the leaking of critical documents.  It is so important to link the government's rampant printing of money, the resulting inflation we are now seeing, the buying up of our resources by the Gateses and other billionaires, to the creation and coverup of gain-of-function pathogens by the federal partners of the billionaires, the vaccine and patented drug industry (whose ads control the media), the censorship of speech and the censorship of lifesaving drugs.

Why do governments demand the right to inject us at will?  And isn't the fact they insist upon it enough reason to say no?

Tripping over the doorsill into “Joe Biden’s” dark winter, what do you see out in the gathering gloom? That old Shining City on a Hill is looking more like Detroit in a sleet-storm, with dumpster fires sputtering here and there in the broken streets. The darkness descending is something more ominous than any ordinary night. In the shadows, an insectile legion seems to be stealing away with what remains of your country.

Was it reassuring to see Dr. Anthony Fauci declare on MSNBC: “What we’re starting to see now is an uptick in hospitalizations among people who have been fully vaccinated but not boosted”? And the moral of that story? Get more of the same thing that’s not working — and if you don’t volunteer to get it, maybe we can find a way to force you.

How does this lying prick get to remain as America’s chief public health officer? Has he not done enough damage? In case you can’t put it together, that “uptick” is happening because Dr. Fauci’s vaccines undermine immune systems, making the vaxxed more susceptible to disease, and not just the illness called Covid-19, but to disease generally, including cancer, and to all kinds of mischief and mayhem around the organs as well. Now, in the gathering darkness of winter, we’ll see how far this “uptick” goes and whether public opinion will flip over the dastardly trick that’s been played on it.

Everything your government tells you these days is a lie — the old epigram goes — including “and” and “the”. The chief victim of that inexhaustible deceit is America’s rule-of-law. Case in point, the shenanigans in the DC District federal court last week in the action known as Page v. Comey et al. (basically the whole FBI and DOJ). This is Carter Page’s lawsuit over the phony FISA court warrants sworn against him in the attempt to use the “three-hop rule” to surveil everybody in the 2016 Trump campaign, and defame Mr. Page in the process.

A judge named Rudolph (“Rudy”) Contreras, who happens to be the current Presiding Judge of the FISA court, also happens to be the DC District’s Chair of the Calendar and Case Management Committee, meaning he gets to pick which DC District judge will sit for Page v. Comey. Rudy picked Judge James Boasberg. Judge Boasberg sat on the very FISA court that approved the RussiaGate warrants. He also presided over the trial of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, convicted of altering documents to conceal Carter Page’s prior service to the CIA. Say, what…? Boasberg is supposed to adjudicate matters around the very proceedings he was involved in?

Rudy Contreras was the judge who accepted General Michael Flynn’s 2017 guilty plea (for speaking with the Russian Ambassador in his capacity as designated National Security Advisor to the President-elect) after Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe threatened criminal referrals against General Flynn’s son on a confabulated FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) rap. Rudy Contreras also happened to be a boon companion of FBI officer Peter Strzok, who headed the phony-baloney Crossfire-Hurricane counter-intel operation, based on the Hillary Clinton-sponsored Steele Dossier. Judge Contreras coordinated FISA court filings with Mr. Strzok — making him party to a seditious conspiracy to disable the chief executive, a matter currently being reviewed by Special Counsel John Durham.

Notice how all these people are still in office, and still involved in nefarious cases they played roles in. Anyway, Judge Contreras’s appointment of Boasberg sent up such an odium that he had to rescind it, replacing him with DC District Judge Timothy Kelly, who recused himself hours later, with the case then booted again to DC District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee. The lingering question: where is Chief Justice John Roberts in this farce?  Justice Roberts is supposed to be the ultimate supervisor of the federal court system, and especially these parts of it: the DC District and the FISC. Does he really want it to look this bad? Like a poor imitation of the Soviet Russian courts in the 1930s?

Attorney General Merrick Garland apparently wants to go full Soviet at his end of the justice system. Earlier this month, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the DOJ would not use counter-terrorism statutes to target disgruntled parents in school board meetings as domestic terrorists. Then a DOJ whistleblower produced internal department emails showing that the DOJ and the FBI did exactly that. Where’s the contempt citation against AG Garland?

Next was the FBI’s invasion of Project Veritas chief James O’Keefe’s home in a case involving “Joe Biden’s” daughter Ashley Biden’s personal diary, which Project Veritas was alleged to be holding, and which supposedly contained some entries about sketchy father-and-daughter showers together. Bad optics for a floundering president already suspected of being a bit free with his touch, shall we say, around the little ones (not to mention the florid pornographic exploits self-documented by son Hunter).

Instead of defending Mr. O’Keefe’s first amendment rights, the legacy news media piled on him as “not a real journalist.” More to the point, though, within hours of the FBI confiscating Mr. O’Keefe’s cell phones and other devices, Mr. O’Keefe’s private communications with his attorneys turned up in the hands of The New York Times, which published some of the material. Of course, James O’Keefe is in the middle of a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. And wasn’t it a fortuitous coincidence that the newspaper came into possession of their adversary’s privileged information? The thing is (of course), that the info could have only been provided to The Times by one possible source: the FBI, investigative arm of the DOJ. Days later, Judge Analisa Torres from the Southern District of New York ordered the FBI to stop extracting data from the phones — as if they hadn’t already downloaded every last shred and made a zillion copies. Where is the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz? Where is the DOJ’s ethics office? Why has the leaker not been outed and arraigned?

Why? Because we are ever deeper into the age of Anything Goes and Nothing Matters. Every institution in American life is failing. The people are finally starting to see how this works at the same time that they see how the vaccines work. It did not have to be, but we allowed it to get this far, and now so many things are broken that there is barely any honorable and effective authority left. As the long night falls over the land, we survey the terrain and see fiery eruptions on the horizon. Is that the flashing of chaos in the distance? In the darkness it’s hard to tell how close it may be.


Saturday, November 27, 2021

Trusted News Initiative--all you need to know in 4 minutes


and this is an article on TNI to read by Elizabeth Woodworth


World Bank President explains that Pfizer can't sell its vaccine to countries that won't waive liability

Just in case you thought there really was some Comirnaty in the US and Pfizer was really going to stand by its product, and sell it while it was subject to ordinary product liability claims, watch this less than 1 minute video.

In it, the head of the World Bank explains that Pfizer is unwilling to sell its vaccine to any country unless it is given a waiver of liability.

Let me again point out that the mass use of EUA products presents a "perfect storm."  Manufacturers are incentivized not to test, not to collect data, and to claim that their products are safe and effective.  It is only if they KNOW there is a problem that they could potentially be sued.  And when millions of people get the vaccine at the same time, they are vaccinated before the evidence becomes available.

So the manufacturers just don't know.  Their clinical trials are specially designed not to collect the information that might tarnish the product. FDA colludes with allowing this biased collection and very short-term trials, and colludes in ending the control group asap.

Except of course the mfrs know.  Because if they really thought they had a good product, they would sell it without the waiver of liability.


Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Missouri Circuit Court Judicial Opinion: Unelected health officials are unconstitutionally making laws,

The Brownstone Institute wrote today about this decision of November 22, which is music to my ears.  I have been ruminating on how a CDC-sponsored package of legislation (which began as the "Model Emergency Health Powers Act" in 1999 or 2000, crafted by public health law professor Lawrence O Gostin) became the framework for a takeover of democratic government and a march to totalitarianism.  At least one judge in one little circuit doesn't think this can fly.  Let's hope this is where things start to turn around.

Here are quotes from the decision:

Plaintiffs produced ample evidence that health agency directors throughout Missouri have used the power granted to them by 19 CSR 20-20.040 to exercise unbridled and unfettered personal authority to in effect, legislate... 

DHSS regulations that permit an agency health director to create and enforce orders and take other discretionary “control measures,” which are predominantly set forth in 19 CSR 20-20.040(2) (G)-(1) and (6), are unconstitutional and are therefore invalid…

Plaintiffs presented evidence that these orders issued by health agency directors go into effect without public comment, and become effective once posted on the internet. These bureaucratic edicts are for an indefinite duration until they are removed or edited based on the opinion of the bureaucrat who wrote them…

...DHSS regulations that allow one person to make and enforce laws, and close things down with no standards other than a completely unappealable and unchallengeable “opinion” regarding public health protection...

Missouri’s local health authorities have grown accustomed to issuing edicts and coercing compliance. It is far past time for this unconstitutional conduct to stop...


Your FDA at work: killing the demented at $56,000/year. Part of the Great Reset or the Build Back Better and Younger program?

You probably recall that nearly a year ago an FDA advisory committee voted almost unanimously not to license the new drug Aduhelm for Alzheimer's dementia.  Then FDA, with Janet Woodcock at its helm, gave the drug a license anyway.

The data showed the drug was not helpful and probably harmful.  Three members of the committee quit loudly and independently, when FDA's decision became known.  Their actions, and the publicity over this decision, are probably what sunk Janet Woodcock's promotion to Commissioner of FDA; she has been acting Commissioner since the start of the Biden administration, and faces a required termination in that position next month.  Otherwise she would probably have been a perfect pick:  an MD, a female, and a completely unscrupulous bureaucratic player who was willing to do anything she was instructed to do, even if it gave the agency a tarred reputation.

Now a bit more information has become available, and microscopic bleeding occurred in 19% of those on the drug.  It looks like a disaster.  Another remdesivir?

Brain Inflammation Seen in Four of 10 Alzheimer's Aducanumab Patients

— Details about edema, hemorrhage ARIA published

The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing/ Lancet Regional Health letter

Below is a letter compiling recent published evidence of the vaccines' failures from multiple countries.

High COVID-19 vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in populations by reducing the number of possible sources for transmission and thereby to reduce the burden of COVID-19 disease. Recent data, however, indicate that the epidemiological relevance of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing. In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated). 12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases. Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type[.

In Germany, the rate of symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated (“breakthrough infections”) is reported weekly since 21. July 2021 and was 16.9% at that time among patients of 60 years and older [

Figure 1) providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission. A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100.160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89.821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7%), 3.395 among the unvaccinated (3.4%)[

One week before, the COVID-19 case rate per 100.000 was higher among the subgroup of the vaccinated compared to the subgroup of the unvaccinated in all age groups of 30 years or more. In Israel a nosocomial outbreak was reported involving 16 healthcare workers, 23 exposed patients and two family members. The source was a fully vaccinated COVID-19 patient. The vaccination rate was 96.2% among all exposed individuals (151 healthcare workers and 97 patients). Fourteen fully vaccinated patients became severely ill or died, the two unvaccinated patients developed mild disease [4]

Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.
Figure 1
Figure 1Vaccination rates and proportions of fully vaccinated people among symptomatic COVID-19 cases (≥ 60 years) in Germany between 21. July and 27. October 2021 based on the weekly reports from the Robert Koch-Institute