1

Male Fertility is Declining – Studies Show that Environmental Toxins Could Be a Reason

In the U.S., nearly 1 in 8 couples struggle with infertility. Unfortunately, physicians like me who specialize in reproductive medicine are unable to determine the cause of male infertility around 30% to 50% of the time. There is almost nothing more disheartening than telling a couple “I don’t know” or “There’s nothing I can do to help.”

Upon getting this news, couple after couple asks me questions that all follow a similar line of thinking. “What about his work, his cellphone, our laptops, all these plastics? Do you think they could have contributed to this?”

What my patients are really asking me is a big question in male reproductive health: Does environmental toxicity contribute to male infertility?

Male fertility decline

Infertility is defined as a couple’s inability to get pregnant for one year despite regular intercourse. When this is the case, doctors evaluate both partners to determine why.

For men, the cornerstone of the fertility evaluation is a semen analysis, and there are a number of ways to assess sperm. Sperm count – the total number of sperm a man produces – and sperm concentration – number of sperm per milliliter of semen – are common measures, but they aren’t the best predictors of fertility. A more accurate measure looks at the total motile sperm count, which evaluates the fraction of sperm that are able to swim and move.

A wide range of factors – from obesity to hormonal imbalances to genetic diseases – can affect fertility. For many men, there are treatments that can help. But starting in the 1990s, researchers noticed a concerning trend. Even when controlling for many of the known risk factors, male fertility appeared to have been declining for decades.

In 1992, a study found a global 50% decline in sperm counts in men over the previous 60 years. Multiple studies over subsequent years confirmed that initial finding, including a 2017 paper showing a 50% to 60% decline in sperm concentration between 1973 and 2011 in men from around the world.

These studies, though important, focused on sperm concentration or total sperm count. So in 2019, a team of researchers decided to focus on the more powerful total motile sperm count. They found that the proportion of men with a normal total motile sperm count had declined by approximately 10% over the previous 16 years.

The science is consistent: Men today produce fewer sperm than in the past, and the sperm are less healthy. The question, then, is what could be causing this decline in, fertility.

A stack of reddish plastic pipes.
Plasticizers are common endocrine-disrupting compounds, found in many plastics – like PVC pipes – that come in contact with food or water.
Mm Zaletel/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Environmental toxicity and reproduction

Scientists have known for years that, at least in animal models, environmental toxic exposure can alter the hormonal balance and throw off reproduction. Researchers can’t intentionally expose human patients to harmful compounds and measure outcomes, but we can try to assess associations.

As the downward trend in male fertility emerged, I and other researchers began looking more toward chemicals in the environment for answers. This approach doesn’t allow us to definitively establish which chemicals are causing the male fertility decline, but the weight of the evidence is growing.

A lot of this research focuses on endocrine disrupters, molecules that mimic the body’s hormones and throw off the fragile hormonal balance of reproduction. These include substances like phthalates – better known as plasticizers – as well as pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, toxic gases, and other synthetic materials.

Plasticizers are found in most plastics – like water bottles and food containers – and exposure is associated with negative impacts on testosterone and semen health.
Herbicides and pesticides abound in the food supply and some – specifically those with synthetic organic compounds that include phosphorus – are known to negatively affect fertility.

Air pollution surrounds cities, subjecting residents to particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other compounds that likely contribute to abnormal sperm quality. Radiation exposure from laptops, cellphones, and modems has also been associated with declining sperm counts, impaired sperm motility, and abnormal sperm shape. Heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, and arsenic are also present in food, water, and cosmetics and are also known to harm sperm health.

Endocrine-disrupting compounds and the infertility problems they cause are taking a significant toll on human physical and emotional health. And treating these harms is costly.

A silver sign showing the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program
The National Toxicology Program is in charge of regulating the thousands of new chemicals that are introduced every year.
National Institutes of Health

The effects of unregulated chemicals

A lot of chemicals are in use today, and tracking them all is incredibly difficult. Today, more than 80,000 chemicals are registered with the National Toxicology Program. When the program was founded in 1978, 60,000 of those were grandfathered into the program with minimal information, and nearly 2,000 new chemicals are introduced each year. Many scientists believe that the safety testing for health and environmental risks is not strong enough and that the rapid development and introduction of new chemicals challenge the ability of organizations to test long-term risks to human health.

Current U.S. national toxicology regulations follow the principle of innocent until proved guilty and are less comprehensive and restrictive than similar regulations in Europe, for example. The World Health Organization recently identified 800 compounds capable of disrupting hormones, only a small fraction of which have been tested.

A trade group, the American Chemistry Council, says on its website that manufacturers “have the regulatory certainty they need to innovate, grow, create jobs and win in the global marketplace – at the same time that public health and the environment benefit from strong risk-based protections.”

But the reality of the current regulatory system in the U.S. is that chemicals are introduced with minimal testing and taken off the market only when harm is proved. And that can take decades.

Dr. Niels Skakkebaek, the lead researcher on one of the first manuscripts on decreasing sperm counts, called the male fertility decline a “wake-up call to all of us.” My patients have provided a wake–up call for me that increased public awareness and advocacy are important to protect global reproductive health now and in the future. I’m not a toxicologist and can’t identify the cause of the infertility trends I’m seeing, but as a physician, I am concerned that too much of the burden of proof is falling on the human body and the people who become my patients.The Conversation

Ryan P. Smith, Associate Professor of Urology, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.




CDC Says Vaccinated May Be as Likely to Spread COVID as Unvaxxed, as Reports of Serious Injuries After Vaccines Surge

The CDC now says even those people fully vaccinated for COVID are able to get, and spread, the virus. According to internal documents obtained by The Washington Post, the CDC said it’s time to “Acknowledge the war has changed.”

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed total reports of serious injuries following COVID vaccination, across all age groups, spiked by 14,717 — to 63,000 — compared with the previous week.

The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Data released today show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 23, 2021, a total of 518,770 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 11,940 deaths — an increase of 535 over the previous week. There were 63,102 serious injuries reported during the same time period — up 14,717 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” filed in VAERS, 435,007 adverse events, including 5,612 deaths and 34,890 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S.

In the U.S., 340.4 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of July 23. This includes: 137 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 189 million doses of Pfizer and 13 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

Of the 5,612 U.S. deaths reported as of July 23, 14% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 34% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

  • 15,086 total adverse events, including 909 rated as serious and 16 reported deaths — one less than what VAERS showed last week. Two of the nine deaths were suicides.
  • The most recent reported deaths include a 13-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1463061) who died after receiving a Moderna vaccine, a 16-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. ​​1466009) who died after receiving his second dose of Pfizer and a 16-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1475434) who died with an enlarged heart six days after receiving his first Pfizer dose.

Other reports include two 13-year-old boys (VAERS I.D. 1406840  and 1431289) who died two days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine, three 15-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 11879181382906 and 1242573), three 16-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 14206301225942 and 1386841) and three 17-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 11994551388042 and 1420762).

  • 2,223 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds with 99% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 394 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 390 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 72 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

This week’s total U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020 to July 23, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:

Internal CDC document reveals vaccinated, even if not sick, can spread virus

The CDC now says even those people fully vaccinated for COVID are able to get, and spread, the virus.

According to internal documents obtained by The Washington Post, the CDC said it’s time to “Acknowledge the war has changed.”

The document outlined unpublished data showing fully vaccinated people might spread the Delta variant at the same rate as unvaccinated people, CNN reported.

It concludes the delta variant is “highly contagious, likely to be more severe” and that “breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.”

The Washington Post reported:

“‘I think the central issue is that vaccinated people are probably involved to a substantial extent in the transmission of delta,’ Jeffrey Shaman, a Columbia University epidemiologist, wrote in an email after reviewing the CDC slides.

“‘In some sense, vaccination is now about personal protection — protecting oneself against severe disease. Herd immunity is not relevant as we are seeing plenty of evidence of repeat and breakthrough infections.’”

Since January, people who got infected after vaccination make up an increasing portion of hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths among COVID patients, according to the CDC documents. That trend coincides with the spread of the Delta variant.

The Post also reported today on a CDC study revealing three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts COVID outbreak were vaccinated. The report bolsters the hypothesis that vaccinated people can spread the more transmissible variant, and may be a factor in the summer surge of infections.

The data, detailed in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, provided key evidence that convinced agency scientists to reverse recommendations on mask-wearing and advise that vaccinated individuals wear masks in indoor public settings in some circumstances, The Post reported.

Thus far, researchers have focused on viral load — a term for how much of the virus is present in infected peoples’ bodies — which can affect transmissibility and severity. Infections with the Delta variant lead to higher levels of virus in the body, even in breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals, the document said.

If vaccinated people get infected anyway, they have as much virus in their bodies as unvaccinated people — that means they’re as likely to infect someone else as unvaccinated people who get infected, CNN reported.

“The bottom line was that, in contrast to the other variants, vaccinated people, even if they didn’t get sick, got infected and shed virus at similar levels as unvaccinated people who got infected,” Dr. Walter Orenstein, who heads the Emory Vaccine Center and who viewed the documents, told CNN.

The CDC is scheduled to publish more data today.

Biden says federal workers must get vaccinated or submit to regular testing — postal union, others push back

President Biden on Thursday announced all civilian federal employees will be required to show proof of vaccination against COVID or be forced to submit to regular COVID testing, wear masks and socially distance.

Biden also called on state and local governments to use COVID relief funds to give $100 to residents who get vaccinated. In a statement released by the White House, the administration said the new rules were issued because of the Delta COVID variant, and because unvaccinated people present a problem to themselves, their families and co-workers.

“Every federal government employee will be asked to attest to their vaccination status.  Anyone who does not attest or is not vaccinated will be required to mask no matter where they work; test one or two times a week to see if they have a — they have acquired COVID, socially distance and generally will not be allowed to travel for work,” Biden said.

Biden directed his administration to apply similar standards to all federal contractors. “If you want to do business with the federal government, get your workers vaccinated,” he said.

In one early sign the policy may not go as smoothly as planned, the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) said it opposes the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate as a condition for employment, arguing it isn’t the role of the federal government to mandate vaccines or other testing measures.

“Maintaining the health and safety of our members is of paramount importance,” the APWU said in a statement issued Wednesday. “While the APWU leadership continues to encourage postal workers to voluntarily get vaccinated, it is not the role of the federal government to mandate vaccinations for the employees we represent.”

In advance of Biden’s official announcement, Children’s Health Defense on Thursday issued a statement disagreeing with the new policy.

The statement quoted CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr:

“Coerced medical interventions have been abhorrent to advocates of liberty and human dignity in every age. The fact that these vaccines are shoddily testedexperimental, unapproved and so risky their manufacturers can neither obtain insurance coverage nor indemnify users against grave injuries or death should magnify our ethical revulsion.”

FDA urges Moderna, Pfizer to include thousands more children in clinical trials

Pfizer and Moderna will expand their COVID vaccine clinical trial to include thousands more children prior to seeking EUA, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told the vaccine makers the size and scope of their pediatric studies, as initially envisioned, were inadequate to detect rare side effects.

The rare side effects cited by the FDA included myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, inflammation of the lining around the heart, multiple people familiar with the trials told The New York Times.

Expanding the pediatric trials means thousands more children as young as 6 months old may soon be recruited and enrolled in COVID vaccine trials. According to the Times, the FDA asked the companies to include 3,000 children in the 5- to 11-year-old group, the group for whom results were expected first.

Moderna’s shot is authorized for emergency use in people 18 and up, and Pfizer’s vaccine is authorized for children as young as 12. No COVID vaccines have yet received EUA approval for children younger than 12.

America’s Frontline Doctors sue UC over vaccine mandates

With supporting declarations from top medical experts and students, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a civil rights lawsuit in Federal Court against the University of California (UC), targeting the university system’s plan to mandate COVID vaccination for all students regardless of natural immunity.

As The Defender reported July 28, AFLDS, students and even the UC’s own top doctors, are criticizing the rushed mandate as arbitrary, unscientific and medically unnecessary.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in this civil rights case cite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s protection of bodily integrity, as well as two California civil rights statutes (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 51, Cal. Gov. Code sec. 11135) that prohibit discrimination on the basis of medical or genetic status.

Accordingly, AFLDS is requesting an injunction to restrain the UC from utilizing coercion and segregation of naturally-immune and unvaccinated people in violation of Federal and State law.

The primary target of the lawsuit is the UC’s unscientific one-size-fits-all vaccine mandate where the UC rejects scientifically accepted prescreening for natural immunity.

The CDC, NIH pull in millions from licensing deals, including COVID-related technologies

Aggregated data for fiscal year 2020 show the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and CDC collected a combined $63.4 million in royalty revenues under a business model that allows the NIH to grant technology licenses to the private sector.

As The Defender reported earlier this week, with 27 different institutes and centers housed under the NIH umbrella — including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — NIH is the largest biomedical research agency in the world with an annual budget of nearly $42 billion.

Within NIH, the Office of Technology Transfer plays a “strategic role” in supporting patenting and licensing for inventions that emerge from laboratories at the NIH and CDC. In a win-win business model, the NIH routinely grants technology licenses to the private sector for use or commercialization of its inventions, with those licenses then driving billions of dollars in royalties back to the NIH.

In fiscal year 2020 alone — October 2019 through September 2020 — aggregated data for NIH and CDC show the agencies collected $63.4 million in royalty revenues.

Where public health agencies are concerned, COVID appears to be very good for business, with a flurry of unprecedented funding — conveniently mobilized by the pandemic — ushering in profound and likely permanent changes in a public health infrastructure once lamented as weak and fragmented.

As The Defender reported this week, Pfizer now projects $33 billion in COVID vaccine revenues, a sharp increase over earlier projections. The vaccine maker anticipates booster shots, a vaccine designed for the Delta variant and pending authorization of COVID vaccines for children will drive sales even higher next year.

144 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries

According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We have made repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions.

Despite multiple phone and email communications with several people at the CDC, and despite being told that our request was in the system and that someone would respond, we have not yet received answers to any of the questions we submitted. It has been 144 days since we sent our first email to the CDC requesting information.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.




Despite ‘Delta’ Alarmism, US COVID Deaths Are at Lowest Level Since March 2020, Harvard and Stanford Professors Explain

Image Credit: Our World In Data

By Brad Polumbo | Foundation for Economic Education

If you judged the US’s current COVID-19 situation only by the headlines, you’d come away thinking that we’re spiraling back into pandemic disaster. Localities like Los Angeles County and St. Louis have reimposed mask mandates on their citizens, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just revised its “guidance” to say that, actually, fully vaccinated individuals should still wear masks in certain situations. Meanwhile, mainstream media coverage of the rise of the “Delta variant” is soaked in alarmism.

Yet at the same time that all this alarm is mounting, the actual number of COVID-19 deaths is at a nadir. Harvard Medical School Professor Martin Kulldorff pointed this out on Twitter, writing that “In [the] USA, COVID mortality is now the lowest since the start of the pandemic in March 2020.”

He shared this graph from OurWorldInData which clearly shows how COVID deaths per million are at, relatively speaking, extreme lows. Far more people were dying from COVID-19 months ago as we were winding down restrictions than are dying today as some call to reinstate them.

Now, some would cite rising COVID-19 case counts or hospitalizations in certain parts of the country as evidence that the pandemic is indeed once again spiraling out of control. But many COVID-19 cases recorded as positive are either asymptomatic or come with very mild symptoms—especially the cases confirmed among vaccinated individuals—so high case counts are not necessarily proof of a serious problem. Hospitalizations are concerning, yes, but primarily insofar as they lead to high numbers of deaths, which, thankfully, is not the case so far with the Delta variant.

Others would say that deaths are a “lagging indicator” that comes in several weeks after the increased spread of the disease. But the Delta variant has been spreading in the US for months now, and deaths have remained relatively flat, in part due to widespread vaccination.

“It is striking that COVID mortality is at such low levels despite the fact that we are seeing an increase in cases of late,” Stanford Professor of Medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tells FEE. “By immunizing the elderly and many other vulnerable people, we have provided them with excellent protection against severe disease in case they get infected. Also contributing is widespread natural immunity from recovered COVID patients. Though cases may rise, deaths will no longer follow in proportion.  We have effectively defanged the disease with our successful vaccination rollout.”

So, there’s simply no reason to expect the long downward trend in deaths shown in the above graph to suddenly spike upwards. And we can’t make public policy based on worst-case scenarios.

That’s right: despite all the alarmism and clamor for renewed restrictions on our liberty, there’s not really been a resurgence in the state of the COVID-19 crisis itself.

“We should be declaring a great and resounding success,” Bhattacharya told FEE in conclusion. “The COVID emergency is over. We still need to take COVID seriously, and there are still vulnerable people here and abroad left to vaccinate. But we can start to treat it as one disease among many that afflict people rather than an all-consuming threat.”

Of course, proponents of big government and government officials themselves will be the last ones to acknowledge the reality that the most dangerous phase of this pandemic has long since come to an end in the US. Why? Because the rhetoric of “emergency” and “crisis” is the government’s favorite tool to use in expanding and maintaining its power over our lives.

“‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded,” as Nobel-Prize-winning economist Freidrich Hayek put it. “And once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist.”

Examples of this timeless truth abound throughout history up until the present day: from the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II to the now-permanent infringements on our civil liberties after 9/11 to the sweeping expansion of government control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But, whether politicians like it or not, the COVID-19 crisis is largely over. So don’t fall for cynical arguments from power-hungry individuals who want their “emergency” powers to become permanent.

Brad Polumbo
Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.




Jon Rappoport Explains the Sales Campaign to Make People Want the Jab

By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News

Author Jon Rappoport answers questions about COVID-19 and the increasing pressure to take the vaccines. He shows that more unvaccinated people are being diagnosed with COVID because they are more likely to get a test than vaccinated people. Furthermore, the test protocol has been altered to be less sensitive for vaccinated people to guarantee fewer positive results. -GEG

Question: How dangerous is the Delta Variant?

Answer: There is no Delta Variant. Because there is no original SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Question: Why are we hearing that the majority of new cases of COVID-19 are occurring in the unvaccinated?

Answer: “A case” means a positive PCR test. The test doesn’t detect a virus. There is no virus. But since people who test positive are called cases…think it through. People who have been vaccinated are far less likely to get tested than people who haven’t been vaccinated. Therefore, it’s going to look like “most new cases” are occurring in the unvaccinated.

Furthermore, the CDC instituted a change in the way vaccinated people are then tested. The sensitivity of the test has been reduced for them—which means fewer results indicating “infection with the virus.” This is outright manipulation. Unvaccinated people are still tested at higher sensitivity, meaning more of them will seem to be “infected.”

Question: Experts say the vaccine may not prevent infection with the virus, but it will greatly reduce the chance of serious illness or hospitalization. True?

Answer: False. First of all, this is a vaccine to protect against a virus that doesn’t exist. Second, the 3 major clinical trials of the vaccine were only designed to show the vaccine could protect against mild diseases, such as a cough, or chills, and fever.

Question: Across the world, political leaders are threatening or ordering new lockdowns, saying too many people are refusing the vaccine. Is this anything other than a pressure tactic to force people to take the shot?

Answer: It’s exactly a pressure tactic to justify mandating, forcing, shaming, quarantining.

Read The Full Article Here…




Signs of COVID Injection Failure Mount

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • In the U.K., symptomatic COVID-19 cases among “vaccinated” individuals have risen 40% in one week, reaching an average rate of 15,537 new infections a day being detected. Meanwhile, symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the unvaccinated have declined by 22% and are now at a current daily average of 17,588
  • This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are actually becoming more prone to infection
  • Data show countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads
  • 100 fully injected crew members had tested positive onboard the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. The Navy ship has a case rate of 1 in 16 — the highest case rate recorded. This suggests vaccine-induced herd immunity is impossible, as these injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them
  • It is mathematically impossible for COVID shots to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 infection. The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%. Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%. Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact

In recent weeks, a number of signs have emerged indicating the COVID-19 injections cannot put an end to COVID-19 outbreaks. In July 15, 2021, video report above, Dr. John Campbell reviews data coming out of the U.K. On a side note, I do not agree with everything Campbell says in this video, such as promoting mask-wearing, for example. It’s his data review that is of interest here.

As noted in the video, as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population in the U.K. had received one dose of COVID-19 “vaccine” and 67.1% had received two. Yet symptomatic cases among partially and fully “vaccinated” are now suddenly on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.

Meanwhile, the daily average of new symptomatic cases among unvaccinated is 17,588, down 22% from the week before. This suggests the wave among unvaccinated has peaked and that natural herd immunity has set in, while “vaccinated” individuals are becoming more prone to infection.

U.K. hospitals are confirming double-injected patients are part of the patient population being treated for active COVID infection, and two cities have issued public warnings to their residents, letting them know they may end up in the hospital even if they’ve been double-injected against COVID-19.

“There are currently 15 patients in hospital with COVID across the Trust; last month there were none,” The Yorkshire Post reported1 on July 9, 2021. An undisclosed number of them had received two doses of COVID “vaccine.”

“The message I would like to share with you all is that some of their patients are double vaccinated,” Heather McNair, chief nurse at York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals, told the Post.2

“This is a disease that can still affect you and still make you poorly when you are double vaccinated. We have got a ward at the moment full of COVID patients in our hospital and that is not going away anytime soon.”

While the number of hospitalized COVID patients doubled in a single week, the total number was still well below the number reported in January 2021 — a statistic Amanda Bloor, accountable officer for the NHS North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group, takes as proof that the injection program is “having the anticipated impact around reducing the risk of death and reducing serious illness.”

COVID Surges in Countries with Highest Injection Rates

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume lower hospitalization rates in the middle of summer is a sign that the injections are having a positive impact. We also have data3 showing that countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads. This trend “is worrying me quite a bit,” Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, said in a July 16, 2021, Tweet.4

daily new confirmed covid 19 cases per million people
share of people who received at least one dose of covid 19 vaccine

You can view more data in this thread, posted by Corona Realism.5 Cyprus, where more than 51% of residents have received the jab, now has the highest case count in the world. Interestingly, the outbreak on the British Navy ships — which I’ll cover further below — occurred shortly after a stopover in Cyprus.6

cyprus covid cases vs vaccinated population

Bhutan offers an interesting glimpse into the effects of mass COVID “vaccination”. They managed to get 64% of residents injected in just one week, starting March 27, 2021, and almost immediately, there was a rapid uptick in cases.

In the first graph below, you see the extraordinarily rapid injection rate in Bhutan, going from zero to 64% in a matter of days. In the second graph, you can see the effect on cases in the weeks that followed. They went from near-zero cases at the outset of the injection campaign, to a high of more than 400 cases per million in the weeks following.

share of people who received at least one dose vaccine
biweekly confirmed covid 19 cases per million people

Case Counts Lowest in Low-‘Vaxxed’ Nations

On the flipside, we see the lowest number of positive COVID tests congregated in nations that also have the lowest rates of COVID “vaccine” uptake. While it’s not a 100% clear-cut correlation, it is a trend, and we also have to remember that the PCR tests have issues that complicate any attempt at data analysis.

biweekly changed in confirmed covid 19 cases

The main problem is that if you run the PCR test at too high a cycle threshold (CT), you end up with an inordinate number of false positives.7,8,9 The CT refers to the point in the test where a positive result is obtained. A CT of 35 or higher will give you a 97% false-positive rate.10

For maximum accuracy, you’d have to use a CT of 17.11 It’s unclear what all these countries are using, but it’s unlikely they’re using a CT below 20 as a matter of routine. This means most case counts around the world will be falsely elevated.

This is particularly true for unvaccinated individuals in the U.S., as their tests are recommended to be run at a CT of 40, whereas patients that have received a COVID injection will have their COVID tests run at a CT below 28. This makes it appear as though the case rate is higher among the unvaccinated when in reality it’s just an artifact from highly biased testing and few of these falsely positive “cases” are actually sick.

Looking at the hospitalization rate for confirmed COVID-19 in the U.S.,12 we see that the number of people sick enough to require medical attention is nowhere near what it was during the winter months of 2021, and since only 5.9% of American adults had been injected with two doses as of February 21, 2021,13 we can conclude that the injections did not cause this rapid decline in hospitalizations.

new admissions of patients with confirmed covid 19 united states

The best explanation for the decline in both cases and hospitalizations after the rollout of COVID shots is the emergence of natural herd immunity from previous infections.

In a July 12, 2021, STAT News article,14 Robert M. Kaplan, Professor Emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, calculated that by April 2021, the natural immunity rate was above 55% in 10 U.S. states, and in most of those same states, new infections were in rapid decline as early as the end of 2020, at a time when only a tiny fraction of the population had received their shots.

CDC Doesn’t Track All Breakthrough Cases

We must also remember that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are artificially driving down case rates, hospitalization rates and death rates for “vaccinated” Americans by selectively tracking breakthrough cases. They only track and report breakthrough cases where the patient is hospitalized or dies.15 They do not count mild cases, even if they have a positive test result.

A number of media outlets have expressed concerns about this biased tracking and reporting. As noted in Harvard Health,16 the CDC’s strategy prevents us from ascertaining whether one injection is more or less effective than another. It can also hide manufacturing problems and prevent us from determining whether the timing of the second dose might have a bearing on effectiveness, as well as a number of other things.

Business Insider17 pointed out that not tracking all breakthrough cases makes it more difficult to determine how dangerous the Delta variant really is. NPR expresses a similar view, stating that “Critics argue the strategy could miss important information that could leave the U.S. vulnerable, including early signs of new variants that are better at outsmarting the vaccines.”18

Even Complete ‘Vaccine’ Coverage Won’t Stop Infections

July 14, 2021, BBC News reported19 100 fully injected crewmembers had tested positive onboard the British Defense aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. It’s unclear whether any of them actually have symptoms. According to British defense secretary Ben Wallace, mitigation efforts include mask-wearing, social distancing, and a track and trace system. He made no mention of actual treatment for acute infection.

Other warships are also reporting onboard outbreaks, although Wallace did not offer any details about them. The fleet is currently in the Indian Ocean and plans to continue the 28-week deployment, with Japan as their destination. BBC News said the queen and prime minister had been onboard the flagship shortly before it sailed.

This case offers a sobering view into the effectiveness of these gene modifying shots, as the HMS Queen Elizabeth now has a case rate of 1 in 1620 — the highest case rate recorded so far, that I know of. Yet 100% of the crew has been double-injected. This tells you that the vaccine-induced herd immunity narrative is a fairytale. These injections apparently cannot prevent COVID-19 even if 100% of a given population gets them!

Israeli Data Indicate Pfizer ‘Vaccine’ Failure

Data from Israel also offer a dismal view of COVID-19 injections. Israel used Pfizer’s mRNA injection exclusively, so this gives us a good idea of its effectiveness. Overall, it looks like an abysmal failure, as a majority of serious cases and deaths are now occurring among those injected with two doses. The following is a screenshot of graphs posted on Twitter.21

The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green is fully “vaccinated” with two doses. The charts speak for themselves.

new hospitalizations
new severe covid 19 patients
deaths trend

Overall, it doesn’t appear as though COVID-19 gene modification injections have the ability to effectively eliminate COVID-19 outbreaks, and this makes sense, seeing how it’s mathematically impossible for them to do so.

The four available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%.22,23 (Efficacy rates of 67% to 95% all refer to the relative risk reduction.) Meanwhile, the noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio across age groups is a mere 0.26%.24 Since the absolute risk that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a favorable impact.

CDC Tries to Hide COVID Jab Death Toll

They can, however, cause unnecessary deaths among otherwise healthy individuals. Tragically, the CDC is doing everything it can to hide just how great that death toll is. In what appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception, the CDC “rolled back” its July 19, 2021, adverse events reported to statistics from the previous week. I’ll explain. Take note of the specific dates and death totals in each of the following excerpts. The July 13 report reads as follows:25

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

The original July 19 report (saved on Wayback) initially read as follows:26

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Please note, the death toll more than doubled in a single week. That original July 19 report was then changed to this. The date on the report is still July 19:27

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

At a time when accuracy and transparency are of such critical importance for informed consent, it’s beyond shocking to see the CDC engage in this kind of deception. Yet here we are. We’re now living in a world where crucial public health data is being manipulated at every turn. For this reason, looking at larger trends such as those reviewed above may offer a more dependable picture of what the real-world consequences of these shots are.

For all references please use the source link at the top of the article.




AAPS Survey Says Majority of Physicians Decline COVID Jab, Citing ‘Significant Adverse Reaction’

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – AAPS – is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country and has been around since 1943. They are rarely cited by the establishment, however, as their mission is to preserve medical freedom, not take it away.

Unlike organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is funded by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and other notably corrupt pharmaceutical companies, the AAPS is completely funded by membership dues and contributions. So, according to the AAPS, they “answer to and advocate for our physician members and not big corporate donors or government funding sources.”

Last month, the AAPS conducted a survey among physicians which returned some rather controversial findings. According to an internet survey, nearly 60 percent of physicians said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID.

The AAPS points out that this contrasts with the claim by the American Medical Association that 96 percent of practicing physicians are fully vaccinated. The survey sample for the AAPS was 700 physicians while the AMA’s survey sample was only 300.

The AAPS makes sure to note that neither survey “represents a random sample of all American physicians, but the AAPS survey shows that physician support for the mass injection campaign is far from unanimous.”

“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” stated AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. “Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested.”

When giving reasons for declining the vaccine, a whopping 54 percent of respondents said they were aware of patients suffering a “significant adverse reaction.” Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe the risk of shots exceeds the risk of disease,” and 30% said, “I already had COVID.”

Other reasons for declining the shot, according to the survey, included unknown long-term effects, use of aborted fetal tissue, “it’s experimental,” availability of effective early treatment, and reports of deaths and blood clots.

“Causality is not proven. However, many of these episodes might have resulted in a huge product liability or malpractice award if they had occurred after a new drug,” stated Dr. Orient. “Purveyors of these COVID products are protected against lawsuits.”

And she is right. You can actually prove that you or your child were harmed from a vaccine yet the vaccine maker is completely shielded from liability. Even if you are awarded monetary compensation through the NVICP, the taxpayers are put on the line, not the vaccine makers.

What’s more, as TFTP reported in May, over a hundred doctors and nurses who work in the Houston Methodist hospital network filed a lawsuit against the company, arguing that they don’t want to be forced to take the “experimental” vaccine.

A total of 117 plaintiffs are insisting that the hospital is “illegally requiring its employees to be injected with an experimental vaccine.” The hospital is forcing the staff to be “human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit stated.

Unfortunately for the group, their lawsuit was thrown out.

In December, many frontline healthcare workers openly stated that they were wary of the vaccine, citing the experimental nature of the shot.

Then, on Monday, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a motion seeking immediate injunctive relief in the Alabama Federal District Court to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines — Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — for three groups of Americans.

According to a press release, AFLDS is asking to immediately stop the administration of experimental COVID vaccines in anyone 18 and younger, all those who have recovered from COVID and acquired natural immunity, and every other American who has not received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The 67-page motion requests the judge issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C) for the following reasons:

  • There is no emergency, which is a prerequisite to issuing EUA and EUA renewals for COVID vaccines.
  • There is “no serious or life-threatening disease or condition.”
  • Vaccines do not diagnose, treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 or COVID.
  • The known and potential risks of the vaccine outweigh their known and potential benefits.
  • There are adequate, approved, and available alternatives to vaccines.
  • Healthcare professionals and vaccine candidates are not adequately informed.
About the Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Minds.




CDC Panel Signals Support for Booster Shots, as Reports of Injuries, Deaths After COVID Vaccines Near 500,000

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included a total of almost 500,000 reports of injuries and deaths, across all age groups, following COVID vaccines — an increase of 27,761 compared with the previous week.

The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Data released today show that between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 16, 2021, a total of 491,218 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 11,405 deaths — an increase of 414 over the previous week. There were 48,385 serious injuries reported during the same time period — up 7,767 compared with the previous week.

From the 7/16/21 Release of VAERS data.

Excluding “foreign reports” filed in VAERS, there were 425,950 adverse events reported, including 5,467 deaths and 33,748 serious injuries, reported in the U.S.

In the U.S., 336.6 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of July 16. This includes 137 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 187 million doses of Pfizer, and 13 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

Of the 5,467 U.S. deaths reported as of July 16, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 14% occurred within 24 hours and 34% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

  • 14,494 total adverse events, including 871 rated as serious and 17 reported deaths. Two of the nine deaths were suicides.
  • The most recent reported deaths to include a 13-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1463061) who died after receiving a Moderna vaccine, a 16-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. ​​1466009) who died after receiving his second dose of Pfizer, and a 16-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1475434) who died with an enlarged heart six days after receiving his first Pfizer dose.

Other reports include three 13-year-old boys (VAERS I.D. 14068401431289, and 1429457) who died two days after receiving a Pfizer vaccine, three 15-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 11879181382906, and 1242573), three 16-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 14206301225942, and 1386841) and three 17-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 11994551388042 and 1420762).

  • 2,127 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds with 99% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 383 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 379 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 68 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

This week’s total U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 16, 2021, for all age groups combined show:

CDC ‘corrects’ number of reported deaths after COVID vaccines by dumping foreign reports

As The Defender reported July 22, a sudden increase in the number of deaths reported to VAERS following COVID vaccination is not correct and was the result of an “error,” according to the CDC.

The CDC said July 16 that since the mid-December rollout of COVID vaccines in the U.S., VAERS had received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID vaccine — a sharp increase from the 6,079 U.S. deaths reported by the CDC the previous week.

Over the past few weeks, The Defender noticed thousands of “foreign reports” entered into VAERS, mostly associated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. According to the CDC website, when searching VAERS, the “United States, Territories, and Unknown” group includes all of the location values, except for “Foreign” locations.

The “Foreign” group includes reports from any location other than U.S. states/territories included in the drop-down list. The “Unknown” group includes reports where a U.S. state is not identified.

We reached out to the CDC to ask why there were thousands of reports suddenly dumped into VAERS, why the CDC doesn’t publicize the total number of reported deaths — which includes foreign reports — and why there are foreign entities using the U.S. VAERS system. We did not hear back by the set deadline.

The CDC website states:

“VAERS occasionally receives case reports from U.S. manufacturers that were reported to their foreign subsidiaries. Under FDA regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and unexpected (in other words, it does not appear in the product labeling), they are required to submit it to VAERS.”

The Defender will continue to post the latest VAERS numbers weekly but will differentiate between foreign reports and U.S. reports.

CDC advisory group urges vaccine booster for immune-compromised

On June 22, the CDC’s advisory panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — urged federal regulators to move quickly in determining whether people with weakened immune systems should receive a booster dose of COVID vaccine, NBC News reported.

The CDC appears to be looking into ways to work around the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA), to provide additional vaccines for immunocompromised patients.

Doctors say it is increasingly clear many people with compromised immune systems fail to mount an effective immune response against COVID following vaccination.

Studies examining the safety and effectiveness of a booster dose in vulnerable populations are ongoing, and it is unknown whether the low levels of immunity to the vaccine in immune-compromised people can be addressed with an additional dose.

Dr. Sara Oliver, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC, pointed to emerging data that found among immunocompromised patients who had no detectable antibody response after full vaccination, only 33% to 50% developed antibodies to a third dose.

​​There are no plans for the ACIP to hold another meeting, although the panel is currently scheduled to meet in August.

The federal lawsuit seeks halt of COVID vaccines, citing whistleblower testimony

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) on July 19 filed a motion seeking immediate injunctive relief in Alabama Federal District Court to stop the use of EUA COVID vaccines — Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and J&J — for three groups of Americans.

As The Defender reported July 20, according to a press release, AFLDS is asking to immediately stop administration of experimental COVID vaccines in anyone 18 and younger, all those who have recovered from COVID and acquired natural immunity, and every other American who has not received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The authors of the 67-page motion attached a declaration by a whistleblower who alleged deaths occurring within 72 hours of receiving a COVID vaccine are significantly under-reported in VAERS, by a conservative factor of at least five. In a sworn statement under penalty of perjury, the whistleblower alleged the actual number of COVID vaccine-related deaths is closer to 45,000.

AFLDS said the findings were shocking, and informed consent is impossible when safety data are not accurate.

COVID breakthrough cases continue to rise

Reports of COVID breakthrough cases continue to rise. As The Defender reported this week, as of July 12, the CDC had reported 5,492 breakthrough cases resulting in death and hospitalization.

According to data updated July 14 by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), 151 people in Illinois have died from COVID or COVID-related complications after being fully vaccinated. At least 563 fully vaccinated people were hospitalized, IDPH said.

In Massachusetts, public health officials tracked 4,450 breakthrough cases. About 92% of those cases did not result in hospitalization, while 303 people, or 6.8%, were hospitalized, according to Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) data through July 10.

Seventy-nine vaccinated residents in Massachusetts died from COVID, either without being hospitalized or following a hospital stay, DPH said.

Despite being fully vaccinated, more than 656 Alaskans tested positive for COVID between February and June, according to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services.

Of the 656 breakthrough cases, 17 people were hospitalized and two people died with COVID, though health officials noted both had other “substantial comorbidities.”

137 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries

According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We have made repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions.

Despite multiple phone and email communications with several people at the CDC, and despite being told that our request was in the system and that someone would respond, we have not yet received answers to any of the questions we submitted. It has been 137 days since we sent our first email to the CDC requesting information.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.




J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve

Urgent Open Letter For The Information Of:

All Citizens Of The European Union (EU), The European Economic Area (EEA), And Switzerland

All Citizens Of The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland (UK)

All Citizens Of The United States Of America (USA)

To:

The European Medicines Agency (EMA)

The Medicines And Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

The United States Food And Drug Administration (FDA)

The Centers For Disease Control And Prevention (CDC)

From:

Doctors For Covid Ethics (D4CE)

20 July 2021

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

Official sources, namely EudraVigilance (EU, EEA, Switzerland), MHRA (UK), and VAERS (USA), have now recorded more Injuries and Deaths from the ‘Covid’ vaccine roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began.

EU/EEA/Switzerland to 17 July 2021 – 18,928 Covid-19 injection-related deaths and over 1.8 million injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.

UK to 7 July 2021 -1,470 Covid-19 injection-related deaths and over 1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.

USA to 9 July 2021 – 10,991 Covid-19 injection-related deaths and over 2 million injuries, per VAERS database.

TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 31,389 Covid-19 injection-related deaths and almost 5 million injuries reported so far in July 2021.

Nota Bene: It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage of the actual figures. Furthermore, people are dying (and suffering injury) every day from the injections. Bear in mind, the official figures are obviously higher at the time of writing (21 July 2021) than on the cut-off dates shown above i.e. 7 July 2021 (UK), 9 July 2021 (USA), and 17 July 2021 (EU/EEA/Switzerland).

This catastrophic situation has not been reported by the mainstream media, despite the official figures above being publicly available.

The Signal of Harm is now indisputably overwhelming, and, in line with universally accepted ethical standards for clinical trials, Doctors for Covid Ethics demands that the ‘Covid’ vaccine program be halted immediately.

Continuation of the program in the full knowledge of ongoing serious Harm and Death to both adults and children constitutes a Crime Against Humanity/Genocide for which those found to be responsible or complicit will ultimately be held personally liable.

MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE:

Governments worldwide are lying to you the people, to the populations they purportedly serve.  

The figures above demonstrate that the mRNA vaccines are deadly. 

Yours faithfully,

Doctors for Covid Ethics




Why the FDA is Attacking NAC Supplements?

By Alliance for Natural Health

N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) has been on the market as a supplement for decades—why is the FDA attacking it now?

A few weeks ago, we told you about the FDA’s recent actions threatening NAC supplements—products that the FDA has allowed on the market for decades.

The question is, why now, after all these years, is the FDA doing this?

Digging a bit deeper, it seems obvious that the FDA is clearing the market of affordable NAC supplements in an effort to eliminate competition for NAC drugs that could be coming to market in the next few years.

If our suspicions are correct, this would be another outrageous example of the FDA doing Big Pharma’s dirty work.

To briefly recap how we got here: In a slew of warning letters sent last year, the FDA targeted a number of supplement companies marketing “unapproved” cures for hangovers—which the agency absurdly considers to be a “disease.”

Some of these products contain NAC. In the letters to those companies, the FDA states that NAC does not meet the legal definition of a supplement because it was approved as a drug in 1963; according to federal law, any substance approved as a drug before it was sold as a supplement cannot be sold as a supplement. All of this means that the status of NAC as a supplement is currently in dispute.

So, why is the FDA threatening NAC now, during a pandemic when a new FDA commissioner hasn’t even been appointed? For starters, a drug company is investigating NAC as a treatment for a rare genetic disorder that damages the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve cells in the brain. The Phase 1 trial was completed in March 2020.

But that’s just the beginning. A search through the government’s clinical trials database shows considerable interest from the pharmaceutical industry in NAC. There are 17 trials looking at NAC, in both drug and supplement form, in the treatment of COVID.

Additionally, there are over 50 trials looking at NAC for a variety of other conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol abuse disorder, rhinosinusitis, bronchiolitis, cardiac arrhythmia, and more.

Note that NAC drugs are currently available in generic form since it is off-patent, but a company could bring a new branded NAC drug to market if it was proven effective for an additional indication.

Given these facts, it seems reasonable to assume that the FDA is setting the stage for a new NAC drug to come to market by removing the competition from much cheaper NAC supplements.

We called it when the FDA pulled a similar move a few years back when they went after brain health supplements, trying to clear the market for a new Alzheimer’s drug—culminating in the recent approval of an Alzheimer’s treatment that many experts think is not effective.

CBD supplements may face a similar fate if Congress does not force the FDA’s hand by legalizing CBD in dietary supplements.

It is critically important to maintain access to affordable NAC supplements.

In a recent interview with the Life Extension Foundation, Dr. Daniel Amen noted that NAC “has shown promising results in people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, OCD, and addictions.

It can also decrease inflammation and may help delay brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease.” NAC protects the body from toxins, is a selective immune system enhancer, and helps remove free radicals, which contribute to neurogenerative diseases and aging. In Europe, NAC is a prescription medicine used to reduce congestion.

NAC is also a precursor to glutathione, one of the body’s most important antioxidants. Glutathione plays crucial roles in nutrient metabolism and the regulation of many cellular events (such as gene expression, protein synthesis, cell proliferation, and more); glutathione deficiency contributes to oxidative stress, which is implicated in the development of many diseases: Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, liver disease, HIV, heart attack, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.

Note that acetaminophen depletes glutathione, so those who regularly take it should consider, in consultation with an integrative doctor, supplementing with NAC to replenish glutathione levels. In fact, NAC is routinely used in hospitals to counteract acetaminophen toxicity.

NAC is far too important to be threatened by the FDA, especially under such dubious circumstances.




Surprising Ways COVID-19 Will Destroy Your Immune System

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The overuse of antibiotics, biocides, and disinfectants to fight COVID-19 may “raise disastrous effects” for antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
  • The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the spread of AMR, as the majority of patients are treated with antibiotics, despite most not having a bacterial co-infection
  • The excessive and liberal use of antimicrobial products like household and industrial disinfectants, hand sanitizers, and other cleaners is raising the risk of AMR in the environment
  • Your mitochondria, which play a role in antibacterial and antiviral immune responses, are an off-site target of certain antibiotics, thus antibiotic therapy may in turn weaken your immune response
  • With proper “training” at regular intervals denied by COVID lockdowns, your immune system can overreact when triggered by ordinarily harmless substances, leading to allergies and inflammation

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been declared one of the top 10 global public health threats to humanity,1 and it didn’t disappear once the COVID-19 pandemic appeared. Instead, it’s gotten worse, as infection control measures and hand hygiene using antimicrobial gels have become ubiquitous.

AMR causes about 700,000 deaths globally every year, but researchers estimated in mid-2020 that an additional 130,000 AMR deaths would occur in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The number of AMR deaths will likely surpass the number of COVID-19 deaths by at least threefold — annually — by 2050,3 with some estimates suggesting AMR deaths may reach as high as 10 million deaths per year.4

Prior to the pandemic, antimicrobial stewardship programs5 had been set up worldwide to help stop the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in hospitals, long-term care facilities, and other settings, but a review by scientists with Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Iran, published in Frontiers in Microbiology, predicts that overuse of antibiotics, biocides, and disinfectants to fight COVID-19 may “raise disastrous effects.”6 Further, the overuse of antibiotics may also be directly harming immune response.

Antibiotics Given to COVID-19 Patients ‘Just in Case’

Now, remember that COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which means antibiotics are useless against it. Despite this, antibiotics have been used prophylactically throughout the pandemic for COVID-19 patients, typically using the logic that it could prevent bacterial co-infections.

However, the rate of secondary bacterial co-infections has generally been low, while the use of antibiotics has remained high. This isn’t a case of antibiotics being used strategically for patients who develop bacterial infections, but rather using the “just in case.”7 In a study of 38 Michigan hospitals, 56.6% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics early in their stay, but only 3.5% of them turned out to have a bacterial infection.8

“For every patient who eventually tested positive for both SARS-Cov2 and a co-occurring bacterial infection that was present on their arrival, 20 other patients received antibiotics but turned out not to need them,” Dr. Valerie Vaughn, the study’s lead author, said.9 Other studies have revealed similar signs of rampant antibiotic overuse.

In a study of 99 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, 71% received antibiotic treatment, but only 1% had bacterial co-infections.10 Overall, it’s estimated that 1% to 10% of patients with COVID-19 contract a bacterial co-infection,11 yet antibiotics remained a mainstay of treatment for the majority of cases.

Antibiotics Considered ‘Routine’ Part of COVID-19 Treatment

Despite decades of efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics, one of the largest studies of antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients revealed that such drugs are being used indiscriminately and inappropriately for COVID-19. More than half (52%) of the approximately 5,000 patients included in the study received antibiotics, and in 36% of cases, more than one antibiotic was given.12

Most of the time, in 96% of cases, the antibiotics were given before a bacterial infection was confirmed, either at admission or within the first 48 hours of hospitalization. As it turned out, only 20% ended up actually having a suspected or confirmed bacterial infection for which the antibiotics would be indicated. The rest received them unnecessarily. The Frontiers in Microbiology researchers explained:13

“It is noteworthy to be highlighted that the inappropriate use of antibiotics could considerably and silently lead to AMR development during this global outbreak. Unfortunately, recent studies reveal that, in several countries, common and extensive use of antibiotic treatment for COVID-19 hospitalized patients is considered as a part of the routine treatment package.”

Even the World Health Organization made it clear that countries were at risk of the accelerated spread of AMR due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited data showing antibiotic use increased throughout the pandemic. About 79% to 96% of people who reported taking antibiotics didn’t have COVID-19 but were taking them in the hopes of preventing infection, even though antibiotics don’t work against viral infections.14

Antimicrobial Overuse Could Damage Immunity

Antibiotics can cause a number of serious adverse effects, a little-known one being damage to your mitochondria, which are genetically closely linked to bacteria.15 Your mitochondria are responsible for most of your cellular energy production and also play a role in antibacterial and antiviral immune responses — and they’re an off-site target of certain antibiotics,16 of which are known to inhibit mitochondrial activity, DNA synthesis, and biogenesis.

“Thus, antibiotic therapy could be an important and not well-appreciated cause of mitochondrial dysfunction. This, in turn, may weaken your immune response against the COVID-19 infection,” according to the featured review.17 In April 2020, scientists called for “urgent thinking out of the box” when it comes to antibiotics against COVID-19, as they noted:18

“ … mitochondria are vulnerable to antibacterial treatments, interrupting their physiology. Inhibition of these processes by antibiotics might render the immune system less capable of fighting acute COVID-19 viral infections.”

Concerning Overuse of Biocides and Disinfectants

The COVID-19 pandemic is poised to send antimicrobial-resistant disease sky high, as along with antibiotics overuse came the excessive and liberal use of antimicrobial products like household and industrial disinfectants, hand sanitizers, and other cleaners.

The ramifications are immense and only beginning to be understood. There are potential adverse effects to human health from inhaling disinfectants, as such chemicals are known to accumulate in the lungs, liver, kidneys, stomach, brain, and blood.19 Exposures were certainly elevated during the pandemic for many people, who were exposed to disinfectants by inhalation and oral routes, as well as via the skin and eyes.

There are also significant environmental concerns due to the “unusual release and dissemination of higher concentrations of biocide-based products into the surface and underground waters and also wastewater treatment systems” during the pandemic.20 When disinfectants and biocides enter the environment, they can wipe out beneficial bacterial species that are keeping drug-resistant microorganisms in check.

“[I]f the biocide concentrations reach the sub-minimum inhibitory concentration (sub-MIC), this event may augment the selective pressure, boost the horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and drive the evolution of AMR,” scientists warn.21

A team from the University of Plymouth in England also conducted a risk assessment to determine the potential environmental impact of prescribing COVID-19 patients antibiotics, which revealed, “The data for amoxicillin indicate a potential environmental concern for the selection of AMR … ”22 The team urged such assessments be carried out in the future to keep tabs on the potentially disastrous effects of pandemic prescribing habits on AMR.23

Gut Microbiome Influences Immune Response to COVID

Antibiotics disturb your gut microbiome, which has far-reaching effects on your overall health, including your immune system’s ability to fight COVID-19 — marking yet another way that indiscriminate antibiotics usage is counterproductive.

When researchers with The Chinese University of Hong Kong analyzed gut microbiome compositions from 100 patients with COVID-19, they found gut commensals known to modulate the immune system were low compared to people without the infection.24 The makeup of patients’ gut bacteria — including both the volume and variety — affected the severity of COVID-19 infection as well as the immune response.25

An imbalanced gut microbiome could also contribute to the inflammatory symptoms associated with “long COVID,” in which symptoms persist for months after infection. According to the study:26

“In light of reports that a subset of recovered patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms such as fatigue, dyspnea and joint pains, some over 80 days after initial onset of symptoms, we posit that the dysbiotic gut microbiome could contribute to immune-related health problems post-COVID-19.”

In the study, 50% to 75% of patients received antibiotics, while less than 7% had bacterial infections. While the researchers found no difference in outcomes with or without antibiotics, the drugs were not linked to improved patient outcomes and, they noted, “it is still possible that a higher prevalence of antibiotic administration in severe and critical patients could worsen inflammation.”27

Isolation Disturbs Your Immune Response

Of all the negative effects of social isolation endured during the pandemic, those experienced by your immune system may be the last that comes to mind, despite being among the most significant for your future health. What does staying home have to do with your immune system?

It alters your 24-hour light/dark cycle, on which your body is built to respond. With more time spent indoors, you have less sunlight exposure and less opportunity to produce vitamin D, which activates macrophages in your lungs that act as a first-line defense against respiratory infections, among other immune activities.28

It’s true that taking vitamin D supplements can somewhat compensate for this, provided your levels are optimized, but other ill effects of lockdown are less easily remedied. Take exercise, another crucial component of a well-oiled immune response, that can reduce stress levels and diseases like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, which are linked to worsened outcomes from COVID-19.

But even beyond that, staying indoors means you lose out on regular exposures to the natural world, which come with their own set of immune benefits. Trees release phytoncides, which people inhale and are known to alter natural killer cells.29 This is why, in Japan, shinrin-yoku, or forest bathing, is said to enhance immune function30 — but it’s difficult to spend much time immersed in the forest if you’re locked down at home.

The other factor that cannot be ignored is the lack of exposure to everyday dirt and germs that is missed when people stay home, socially distanced, and sanitized. “Our immune system needs a job,” Dr. Meg Lemon, a Denver dermatologist, told The New York Times. “We evolved over millions of years to have our immune systems under constant assault. Now they don’t have anything to do.”31

What is perhaps most disturbing is that this comment was made in March 2019 — prior to the pandemic. Now, it’s exponentially worse, and your immune system is likely missing out on interactions with bacteria and other microorganisms that teach it, train it how to respond, and keep it primed throughout your life.

Without proper “training” at regular intervals, your immune system can overreact when triggered by ordinarily harmless substances, leading to allergies and inflammation. Might a generation of children, kept isolated and masked, have immune repercussions when exposed to ordinarily routine childhood viruses post-pandemic?

Already, cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which normally circulates in the winter, have popped up in the summer months, suggesting possibly increased immunological susceptibility.32

New Antibiotics Are Unlikely to Save Us

There are 43 antibiotics in clinical development, but none of them shows much promise for solving rapidly rising AMR, as innovation is stagnant — most “new” antibiotics brought to the market are variations of drug classes that have been around since the 1980s. Further, according to WHO’s annual Antibacterial Pipeline Report, antibiotics currently in development are insufficient to tackle AMR:33

“The 2020 report reveals a near static pipeline with only few antibiotics being approved by regulatory agencies in recent years. Most of these agents in development offer limited clinical benefit over existing treatments, with 82% of the recently approved antibiotics being derivatives of existing antibiotic classes with well-established drug-resistance. Therefore, rapid emergence of drug-resistance to these new agents is expected.”

Also at issue, hospital reimbursement systems discourage the use of expensive new antibiotics, because they are only reimbursed up to a point. This means patients may be given older drugs that won’t work as well to protect the hospital from financial losses.

Legislation to reform this — the Developing an Innovative Strategy for Antimicrobial Resistant Microorganisms Act — has been introduced to help open up the use of new targeted antibiotics for superbug infections.34 Preserving the efficacy of existing antibiotics is also important, and agricultural antibiotics overuse cannot be ignored in this equation.

Worldwide, most antibiotics are used not for human illness or companion pets, but for livestock.35 Writing in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, researchers stated, “the ongoing pandemic is stretching the limits of optimal antibiotic stewardship”36 and called for an end to unnecessary use of antimicrobial agents.37

So, be sure you always avoid antibiotics unless they are absolutely necessary. Additionally, choosing organic foods, including grass-fed meats and dairy products, can help you avoid exposure to antibiotic residues in the food supply, while also supporting food growers who are not contributing to AMR.

You’ll also want to be careful in your use of disinfectants and sanitizers, using them sparingly and only when truly necessary, which — if you’re outside of a hospital — will be hard at all.

For all references please use the source link at the top of the article.




What Is a Lateral Flow Test?

Lateral flow tests aid in the identification of those who have COVID-19 but do not show any symptoms. They are different from other tests such as the PCR and antigen.

Whether you have no symptoms but suspect you have been in contact with someone with COVID-19, or you are suspicious of a new continuous cough, lateral flow tests make it easy to identify whether you have the virus or not.

In this guide, we’re going to provide readers with a full breakdown of what lateral flow tests are, why they are important, and how to carry them out.

How to take a lateral flow test

If you have never taken a lateral flow test before, you may be wondering exactly what it involves and how quickly you can expect results.

In the UK, lateral flow tests are provided free of charge by the NHS and you can apply for them online to take at home. Many people prefer taking tests for coronavirus at home since they avoid potentially passing on the virus by visiting a testing centre.

About 1 in 3 people with coronavirus do not experience any symptoms at all, which makes it especially important to get tested if you suspect you have been in contact with somebody who has the virus.

To ensure you are not infected, you should do a rapid test twice a week (every 3 to 4 days). Self-isolation helps stop the spread of the virus if people test positive.

What you need to know about rapid lateral flow tests

Patients who do not have symptoms of COVID-19 should undergo a rapid lateral flow test.

A long cotton bud (swab) is usually rubbed over your tonsils (or where they would have been) and inside your nose.

With the use of a device similar to a pregnancy test, a quick result can be obtained. Rapid lateral flow tests can be done either at home or at a site offering them.

Rapid tests are 99.9% accurate, according to research. Therefore, a false positive (where a positive result is actually negative) is extremely unlikely.

You will then need to isolate yourself and anyone you live with if you test positive for the timeframe advised. Failure to self-isolate will put other people at risk of becoming seriously ill.

Who is eligible for a lateral flow test?

Anybody who does not have symptoms of coronavirus but has been in contact with somebody who has the virus or suspects they have it, can get a lateral flow test.

You can order tests online via the NHS website following an easy process which includes entering some basic information along with details of your address.

For those that decide to do tests at home, you should report your results over the phone or online as it is important for the NHS to keep track of growing coronavirus infection numbers.

Can I pick up tests for at home?

You may be able to pick up lateral flow tests from a collection point located close to your home.

From the 3rd of July 2021, some testing sites in the UK are offering this option to those who wish to test themselves from the comfort of their home. You can also pick up these tests from a nominated pharmacy and even community run points inclusive of libraries, for example.

Is the test easy to take?

A lateral flow test is very easy and straightforward to take; however, you will need to follow the instructions provided to ensure an accurate result.

As mentioned above, it involves using a swab on the tonsils and in the nostril then depositing the liquid into a small vial.

You will then put a couple of drops on to the testing stick which will tell you whether you have the virus or not after 30 minutes.




Federal Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Halt of COVID Vaccines, Cites Whistleblower Testimony Claiming CDC Is Under-Counting Vaccine Deaths

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a motion July 19, seeking immediate injunctive relief in Alabama Federal District Court to stop the use of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) COVID vaccines — Pfizer/BioNTechModerna, and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) — for three groups of Americans.

According to a press release, AFLDS is asking to immediately stop the administration of experimental COVID vaccines in anyone 18 and younger, all those who have recovered from COVID and acquired natural immunity, and every other American who has not received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The 67-page motion requests the judge issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C) for the following reasons:

  • There is no emergency, which is a prerequisite to issuing EUA and EUA renewals for COVID vaccines.
  • There is “no serious or life-threatening disease or condition.”
  • Vaccines do not diagnose, treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 or COVID.
  • The known and potential risks of the vaccine outweigh their known and potential benefits.
  • There are adequate, approved, and available alternatives to vaccines.
  • Healthcare professionals and vaccine candidates are not adequately informed.

The authors of the motion attached a declaration by a whistleblower who came forward alleging deaths occurring within 72 hours of receiving a COVID vaccine are significantly under-reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

As of July 9, reported deaths in the VAERS totaled 10,991. Of those, 4,593 occurred within 72-hours of vaccination.

The whistleblower — a computer programmer who developed more than 100 distinct healthcare fraud algorithms, and who has expertise in healthcare data analytics that allows her to access Medicare and Medicaid data obtained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems (CMS) — filed a sworn statement under penalty of perjury alleging the actual number of COVID vaccine-related deaths is closer to 45,000.

The whistleblower alleged that VAERS, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least five.

In her statement, she said:

“On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths.”

AFLDS said the findings were shocking, and informed consent is impossible when safety data is not accurate.

In a press release, AFLDS said:

“It is unlawful and unconstitutional to administer experimental agents to individuals who cannot make an informed decision as to the true benefits and risks to the vaccine on an independent basis. They must be of an age or a capacity to make informed decisions and have been provided with all of the risk/benefit information necessary to make an informed decision.”

One of the named plaintiffs, Deborah Sobczak, the mother of a 15- and 17-year-old, said in the press release:

“My child will not be the subject of an experiment. What kind of monsters are we allowing to control us? Perfectly healthy children have developed heart inflammation, brain bleeding, and even died! I have had enough. I am not sacrificing my child so a pharmaceutical company can experiment on her. This madness has to stop.”

There is no emergency warranting EUA of COVID vaccines, plaintiffs allege

According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, named as one of the defendants in the lawsuit, declared on Feb. 4, 2020, pursuant to § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(C), that SARS-CoV-2 created a “public health emergency.”

This initial emergency declaration has been renewed repeatedly and remains in force today — a necessary legal prerequisite for the issuance of vaccine EUAs, the complaint states. EUA allowed the mass use of the vaccines by the American public before the completion of the standard regimen of clinical trials and FDA approval.

Plaintiffs allege the emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal because there is no underlying emergency. Using HHS COVID death data, SARS CoV-2 has an overall survivability rate of 99.8% globally, which increases to 99.97% for persons under the age of 70. This is consistent with the seasonal flu, the complaint states.

Plaintiffs argue HHS deliberately inflated COVID case data

Plaintiffs allege HHS’ data is deliberately inflated. On March 24, 2020, HHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and others responsible for producing death certificates and making “cause of death” determinations exclusively for COVID.

The rule change states: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to the death.”

According to the complaint, HHS statistics showed 95% of deaths classified as “COVID-19 deaths” involved an average of four additional comorbidities. Plaintiffs claim the CDC knew the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death would result in COVID being the underlying cause more often than not.

Plaintiffs said the actual number of COVID cases is also far lower than the reported number due to the emergency use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, which are used as a diagnostic tool for COVID. The PCR tests are themselves experimental products, authorized by the FDA under separate EUAs. The package inserts state PCR tests should not be used to diagnose COVID.

The complaint alleges the way in which the PCR tests are being administered knowingly guarantees an unacceptably high number of false-positive results.

COVID vaccine risks undisclosed and under-reported, the lawsuit says 

AFLDS medico-legal researchers analyzed the accumulated COVID vaccine risk data and found migration of the pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the body. Yet vaccines were authorized without any studies demonstrating where the spike proteins traveled in the body following vaccination, how long they remain active, and what effect they have, the complaint states.

AFLDS researchers analyzed VAERS and discovered an increased risk of death from COVID vaccines. The database indicated vaccine deaths in the first quarter of 2021 represented a 12,000% to 25,000% increase in vaccine deaths, year-on-year.

From 2009 to 2019, there were 1529 reported deaths associated with all vaccines reported to VAERS, according to the motion. In the first quarter of 2021, there were more than 4,000 reported deaths with 99% of all reported vaccine deaths in 2021 attributed to the COVID vaccine. Only 1% were attributed to other vaccines in the system.

Plaintiffs also disclosed evidence of reproductive harm, vascular disease, autoimmune disease, neurological damage and they highlighted an increased risk of harm for children with COVID vaccines to support their position.

Why the secrecy around V-Safe data?

The complaint called attention to the secrecy of the CDC’s V-Safe system — a parallel system used to track reported adverse events via a smartphone app-controlled exclusively by the CDC.

Plaintiffs raised concerns that information in V-Safe exceeds that in VAERS. They claim VAERS is inaccurate because it potentially includes fewer than 1% of all vaccine adverse events, and the federal government is failing to provide data from other monitoring sources such as V-Safe, CMS, and the military.

Plaintiffs stated informed consent cannot be given without understanding the risks. They said they can’t help but wonder why HHS would fail to disclose to the public critical information related to risk from its reporting systems, “particularly in light of the fact that they have had the time and resources to study and extend the authorizations on the vaccines, build an enormous vaccine marketing machine and roll out vaccine clinics all over the nation.”

The lawsuit was filed by several law firms, including RENZ Law. The complaint and whistleblower declaration can be read here.




Foo Fighters ‘Vaccinated Only’ Concert Canceled After Band Member Gets COVID as Breakthrough Cases on the Rise

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

Reports of COVID breakthrough cases continue to rise — as of July 12, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 5,492 breakthrough cases resulting in death and hospitalization.

breakthrough case refers to anyone who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.

In May, the CDC revised its system for reporting breakthrough cases, stating it would count only those cases that result in hospitalization or death. Previously, the agency had included in its breakthrough count anyone who tested positive for COVID.

Some states follow the new CDC guidance for counting breakthrough cases. Other states continue to report, at the state level, all cases where an individual test positive, but may choose to report only hospitalizations and deaths to the CDC.

Illinois, Massachusetts update breakthrough case numbers

According to data updated July 14 by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), 151 people in Illinois have died from COVID or COVID-related complications after being fully vaccinated. At least 563 fully vaccinated people were hospitalized, IDPH said.

Illinois follows CDC guidance, reporting only on breakthrough infections among those who have been hospitalized or died. The state does not publicize the number of residents who tested positive after being fully vaccinated but did not die or require hospitalization in order to “help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance,” IDPH’s website states.

In Massachusetts, public health officials have tracked 4,450 breakthrough cases, WBUR reported. About 92% of those cases did not result in hospitalization, while 303 people, or 6.8%, were hospitalized, according to Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) data through July 10.

Seventy-nine vaccinated residents in Massachusetts died from COVID, either without being hospitalized or following a hospital stay, DPH said.

According to NBC Boston, officials in Provincetown — a tourist destination with one of the highest vaccination rates in the state — sounded the alarm after a handful of new COVID cases “overwhelmingly” affecting fully vaccinated individuals were reported in the community in recent days.

Town Manager Alex Morse said July 13, “Overwhelmingly, the affected individuals have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. The moderate intensity of symptoms indicates that the vaccines are working as predicted.”

According to the state, there were 34 new COVID cases reported in the county in the past 14 days. Health officials said they are closely monitoring the situation.

Hundreds of fully vaccinated Alaskans got COVID

Despite being fully vaccinated against COVID, more than 656 Alaskans tested positive for the virus between February and June, according to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services.

Of the 656 breakthrough cases, 17 people were hospitalized and two people died with COVID, though health officials noted both had other “substantial comorbidities.”

About 52% of the Alaska breakthrough cases studied occurred among people who showed symptoms of the virus, while 38% were asymptomatic. For the remaining 10%, it was unknown whether they were exhibiting symptoms.

Of the 200 breakthrough cases Alaska health officials analyzed for a possible variant of the virus, 73 involved a variant of concern, including 54 instances of the Alpha variant and 15 of the Delta variant.

A small number of cases among vaccinated people is expected, health officials said.

The state’s new report comes as Alaska faces an increase in COVID cases, with multiple outbreaks drawing attention to more recent vaccine breakthrough cases.

In Sitka, Alaska, 18 out of 60 recent breakthrough cases reportedly involved vaccinated individuals. Two of the three cases identified last week in connection with a Southeast Alaska cruise involved people who were fully vaccinated. The outbreak has now grown to 10 cases.

Foo Fighters cancel a concert for ‘vaccinated only’ after vaccinated band member gets COVID

The Foo Fighters’ anticipated return to the stage in Los Angeles was postponed after someone within the organization tested positive for COVID, CNN reported.

On July 14, the band announced via its verified Twitter account:

The band did not reveal who tested positive.

In June, the Foo Fighters held a concert at Madison Square Garden in New York that was billed as being for a vaccinated audience only. Attendees of the 21-and-over had to show proof of vaccination upon entering the venue.

More fully vaccinated Yankees players test positive for COVID

The New York Yankees’ July 15 series opener against the Boston Red Sox was abruptly postponed after three fully vaccinated Yankees players tested positive for COVID. Three others are likely infected as well, CBS New York reported.

Yankees general manager Brian ​​Cashman said all three were fully vaccinated, as are most of the players on the team. Among the three who tested positive, two received J&J’s vaccine and the other received Pfizer or Moderna, according to Cashman.

The pitchers are “doing well thus far,” Cashman said, while he declined to comment on the unnamed players until final confirmation of their positive tests is received by the team.

“The vaccines that we encourage everybody to get guarantee not getting hospitalized and not getting death coming from COVID, which is important, but it doesn’t prevent you from contracting COVID,” Cashman said. “It just obviously protects you from the severe worst-case scenario effects from COVID.”

Major League Baseball released a statement saying the postponement was to allow for continued testing and contact tracing.

The statement said:

“Following positive COVID-19 tests within the New York Yankees organization, tonight’s game between the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox at Yankee Stadium has been postponed to allow for continued testing and contact tracing. Major League Baseball will continue to provide scheduling updates as available.”

According to The AP, the Yankees were on the field taking batting practice about three-and-a-half hours prior to the game when the organization asked the media in attendance to leave the field in order to conduct COVID testing.

MLB said in its last announcement on June 25 that 23 of its 30 teams had reached 85% vaccinations among players and on-field staff, excluding The Red Sox.

This is the second instance this year of breakthrough cases occurring among some members of the Yankees organization.

Despite high vaccination numbers, the Yankees had more than nine members with positive COVID tests in May involving staff, including pitching coach Matt Blake, third base coach Phil Nevin and first base coach Reggie Willits. Nevin, despite being vaccinated, became seriously ill with a kidney infection that kept him away from the team for more than three weeks, The AP reported.

None of the Yankees’ breakthrough cases were recorded by the CDC, as they did not result in hospitalization or death.




Analysis Proves SARS-CoV-2 Lab Origin

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • An overly conservative Bayesian analysis shows beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is laboratory-derived. There’s a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature
  • None of the 80,000 samples from 209 different animal species has been found to contain SARS-CoV-2
  • Of the first 259 cases in China, not one was traced back to animal contact. All were human-to-human transmissions. This is the equivalent of going to Las Vegas and flipping a coin and getting heads 259 times, which is virtually impossible
  • When one combines these two statistical anomalies, the real likelihood of the virus coming from nature is less than one in all the atoms of the universe — 1080 — which is a very, very large number, making it virtually impossible
  • SARS-CoV-2 has a protein signature that is similar to that found in melittin, a bee venom toxin

In THIS interview, Dr. Steven Quay — one of the most cited scientists in the world1 — discusses his Bayesian analysis,2 published January 29, 2021, which concludes beyond a doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is laboratory-derived. Quay is an M.D. with a Ph.D. in chemistry. You can learn more about Dr. Quay on his website.

He did his medical residency at Mass General at Harvard Hospital and his postdoctoral work at MIT with a Noble laureate. He holds 87 patents in 22 fields of medicine, including the gadolinium used with MRI imaging.

During his career, Quay published 360 papers, which have been cited over 10,000 times. His COVID origin paper, however, has already been downloaded 170,000 times. Bayesian analysis,3 or Bayesian inference, is a statistical tool used to answer questions about unknown parameters by using probability distributions for observable data.

Quay’s highly conservatively skewed analysis shows there’s only a 0.2% likelihood that this virus came from nature and a 99.8% probability that it came from a lab. His 140-page paper can be downloaded from zenodo.org4 for those who want to dive into the nitty-gritty of this statistical analysis. He presented these data to House Representatives during a June 26, 2021, subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis meeting.5

Instead of using the observed statistics of the data he gathered, he radically reduced the probability to 1 in 20. When one combines all the statistical anomalies from the 26 different data points he collected, the real likelihood of the virus coming from nature is less than 1 in all the atoms of the universe — 1080 — which is a very, very large number, making it virtually impossible.

SARS-CoV-2 Has a Protein Sequence Found in Bee Venom Toxin

As early as January 2020, Quay knew SARS-CoV-2 could be problematic.

“Nobody was paying any attention because there was no need to at that point,” he says. “I saw this virus coming out of China. I looked at the sequence of it and I remember telling my wife, ‘I know what this thing is going to do in cells,’ because for five years at Stanford, I was studying and was the world expert on the toxin melittin, which is a bee venom toxin, the thing that hurts when you get a bee venom …

This melittin, this toxin in bee venom, has the same sequence that SARS-CoV-2 had … I run a public company, so I went to the board a couple weeks later and said, ‘Look, I think we can come up with some therapeutics and some ideas around this.’ We actually are in clinical trials with some products for therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2.

Then I started hearing some really crazy public health advisories around masks, social distancing and things, so I ended up writing a little book that was a No. 1 best seller for a few weeks called ‘Stay Safe: [A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus,]’ on Amazon. That took me through the summer. Then I started going back to something. I was very concerned about what I saw as properties of this virus that had never been seen before.

It’s now public knowledge that the government identified one of my papers, so I was contacted by the State Department in the fall and basically was an adviser to their programs there, including a three-hour deep dive from all of the different committees or agencies there …

I continue to push this because … if it came from nature, there are certain things we should do differently to not have this happen again. If it came from a laboratory, there’s a completely different set of things you need to do. It’s not a blame game.”

There Are Several Ways to Make a Virus More Dangerous

Quay recently published another paper in which he reveals that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is also working on another virus, the Nipah virus, which has a 90% lethality rate. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what might happen if a virus with that lethality got out. Quay explains:

“[The WIV] published an early paper on samples from COVID patients in the hospital … It’s the most-read paper from the beginning of the pandemic. I did a deep dive into their raw data. The sequence is 30,000 nucleotides — the raw data’s 55 million nucleotides. What you can see in there is a fingerprint of everything they’ve been doing for the last two years. They’re doing a lot of crazy research.”

As explained by Quay, the WIV has been around for about 40 years. In 2003, after SARS-Cov-1 emerged, the U.S. and France helped China refurbish the WIV into a more secure BSL 4 bio lab, the only one in China. Since then, the WIV has become a primary laboratory for zoonotic viruses. It’s also one of the top three laboratories for gain-of-function synthetic biology, which can be accomplished in several ways.

If you know what you want to alter, you can insert a new synthetic amino acid into the pathogen. If you don’t have a precise idea of the change you want to achieve, but you want the pathogen to adapt from an animal to a human, you can do what is called a serial passage, where the virus is passed through a series of animal and human tissues.

For example, you could start by infecting 20 humanized mice with a virus, then isolate the virus from the sickest mouse and give it to another 20. Humanized mice are genetically modified mice to have human lung tissue. After four or five passages like that, the virus will have mutated to attack and kill human hosts.

“The third way is to drop big chunks of material in there. For example, the part of the virus of SARS-CoV-2 that interacts with the cell is about 200 amino acids, so times three for nucleic acid, so that’s 600. You can just drop a big piece of 600 in and instantly go from an animal to humans, or whatever direction you want.

So, those are the three [primary strategies]: Knowing what to do with single spots, randomly letting nature do it in serial passage, and then dropping big chunks in.”

The Bayesian Theorem

As mentioned, Bayesian analysis is a statistical tool using probability distributions. The theorem was developed by Thomas Bayes, a 17th-century Presbyterian minister and statistician-mathematician who published many papers during his lifetime. After his death, his estate discovered private notes detailing a process for understanding large complex events in a simple straightforward fashion. The Bayesian equation is A multiplied by B, divided by C. Quay explains:

“It’s exactly the same thing we do when we have a favorite baseball team and we watch it during the season. Before the season, we know what they did last year. We know who the new players are, the new coaches, all those things, and we come up with what we call a prior prediction.

We rank the teams according to what we think will happen at the World Series, and that’s what’s called our prior, our posterior probabilities. Then the season happens and you start winning games, losing games, people get injured, new players, transfers, and you update that every week.

At the start of the World Series, you’re probably quite far from where you were at the beginning of the season, because you’re now down to two teams but, nonetheless, you still don’t know the final analysis. One of the caveats for this 140-page work is, at the end, although I say there’s a 1 in 500 chance it came from nature, but that means … 499 times out of 500 it came from a laboratory.”

Bayesian Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Origin

With regard to SARS-CoV-2, “A” would be the prior estimate of the likelihood of it coming from a lab or from nature. “B” is the new evidence, the new probability that it came from a lab, and “C” is the probability that it came from nature. When you multiply A and B and divide it by C, you get a new A prime, a single probability. However, as new data accumulate, the answer changes.

“The first thing I did was assume the prior likelihood it came from nature or a lab, knowing nothing, basically. That has to be your starting point. Three papers informed that. One paper says that eight times a year, there’s a natural jump from nature to a human.

Another paper said, once a year, there’s a lab leak in Asia, so 8-to-1 [in favor of natural origin]. That’s like 85% probability [that it came] from nature. I used three papers, and my starting point was a 98% probability it came from nature, knowing nothing else.”

Quay did not include the three papers mainstream media and fact-checkers have leaned on to debunk the lab origin theory, and in his paper, he explains why they were excluded. In short, they relied on speculation and not science, so the clear bias and lack of scientific facts made them too unreliable.

Next, he entered 26 different pieces of evidence into the equation. The first piece of data was the fact that the virus first emerged in Wuhan, China, which has never happened before. Wuhan has a population of 11 million people. It’s a very urban area with little man-nature contact. Wuhan also has one of only three biosafety level (BSL) 4 laboratories in the world that are conducting coronavirus research specifically. Next, he calculated probabilities.

“You know the area of China; you know the population of China. If the virus happened randomly, what is the chance it would happen in Wuhan? If there’s a laboratory in Wuhan, what are the chances it would have escaped somewhere else in China and not appeared in Wuhan?

You do the flip. If it came from nature, why did it end up in Wuhan? If it came from Wuhan, what is the probability it could have first appeared somewhere else in China? That hits your probabilities pretty hard out of the box. That was item No. 1. Then you just work through the others.”

Zoonotic Transmission

One key piece that makes a big difference in this Bayesian calculation is the question of zoonosis. In order for zoonosis to apply, you must have an animal with a backbone (vertebrae) that are infected with a microbe. Malaria, for example, is not a zoonotic disease, because mosquitoes do not have vertebrae. Malaria is a vector-transmitted disease.

The key to finding the origin of zoonotic transmission is to locate the animal. If the animal is in the community, then zoonotic transmission occurs through a natural process. If the transmission occurs in a lab, then it’s a laboratory-acquired infection, not a zoonotic transmission. Early on, we were told up to 70% of the earliest COVID patients had visited one or more markets in Wuhan, some of which have live animals for sale.

The problem is SARS-CoV-2 was not found in any of the more than 1,000 animal specimens collected from those markets. They also sampled more than 1,000 pieces of frozen food imported from outside of China, all of which came back clean. About 15% of environmental samples, however, did have the virus.

They also collected samples from all the other markets across the Hubei Province, where Wuhan is located. No virus. About 1,000 bats in Hubei were tested, and no virus was found. Over 80,000 animals representing 209 species from every province of China were eventually tested, and no SARS-CoV-2 was found.

For comparison, SARS-1 was found in 85% of animals tested. The original host was identified as the civet cat. MERS, which came from the Middle East, originated in a bat that had jumped to a camel before turning into a human virus, and it was found in 90% of animals. Yet, after the largest surveillance ever conducted in the history of the world, having tested 80,000 animal specimens, not one has been found to carry SARS-CoV-2.

“In my Bayesian analysis … even though I should drop 80,000 into the denominator of my equation, what I did was I degraded it to the standard in clinical trials of biology to a P of .05. I said, ‘Despite the fact that zero out of 80,000 had this [virus], I’m going to treat this as if it’s a 1 in 20 event,’ because that’s the only way I could keep doing the analysis. Otherwise, I was done at the get-go,” Quay explains.

To be clear, this gives a very unfair advantage to the zoonotic origin theory, but Quay wanted to have a complete analysis of all the parameters. Diversity is a hallmark of nature, yet there’s no diversity in nature for this virus. Zoonotic proponents have argued that the virus must be found in high concentration in an intermediate species, yet not one out of 80,000 samples from 209 different animal species is a carrier of the virus.

No Animal Reservoir or Intermediate Host Has Been Found

Another key piece of the analysis is the virus itself. Bats are nature’s reservoirs for coronaviruses. The bats are never sickened by them, so the virus is never rooted out. It just lives in the bats for decades, mutating and recombining with other viruses along the way. Bat-to-human contact is very rare, so most of the time, the transfer occurs between the bats, the reservoir host, and an intermediate host before it enters the human population.

That’s what happened with SARS-1 and MERS. Early cases of SARS-1 and MERS were divided evenly between human-to-human transmission and transmissions that occurred between different animals and humans. This means both of these viruses were most likely zoonotic in origin.

As mentioned earlier, Quay cites research showing natural jumps from nature to a human occurs eight times a year, and lab escapes occur once a year. That gives us an 8-to-1 chance of zoonotic origin. However, of the first 259 cases in China, not one was traced back to animal contact. All were human-to-human transmissions.

As noted by Quay, “This is the equivalent of going to Las Vegas and flipping a coin and getting heads 259 times. When you ask your statistician to do that, it’s a P-value with 84 zeros and a number, so again, that’s absolutely impossible.”

To understand how big this number is, the estimated number of atoms in the universe is 10 to the 80th power. Despite this showing, it’s more or less impossible for SARS-CoV-2 to have a zoonotic origin, Quay gave this a P-value of just 0.5 (or a 1 in 20 chance) — again, just to keep the analysis going.

“It’s not in the animals in nature. The virus is a pure virus … It hit the ground with one sequence, and it makes a mistake every two weeks randomly and if it’s the kind of mistake it really likes, it keeps it and then that one takes off,” he says.

“Again, SARS-1, MERS, every other zoonosis, when it jumps into humans, it’s a two-step process. Initially, it jumps into humans, but it doesn’t have all the things it needs. It can’t make very many baby viruses, et cetera, and so it burns out, and then it tries again, and it tries again. It jumps back to camels, that sort of thing.

Eventually, it gets all the mutations it needs to support human to human transfer. Then you have the foundation for an epidemic, but that’s a long process. With SARS-1 it took a year and a half. With MERS, it took two and a half years in camels before it got there. What does that mean though? Every time a human gets an infection … there is a record in their blood. They make antibodies to the virus.

Once you know that a zoonosis is going to jump into humans and leave a record in the hospital specimens and you have a test from the epidemic of the virus itself, you can go back into the hospital and find specimens. Typically, it can range from 1, to 4, to 7, to almost 20% of the specimens.

For example, people working in the market will have antibody evidence that they had the infection, whether they knew it or not.

This is a very powerful tool … Because of the unique capability of this virus to hit human to human transmission from the get-go, [Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in California who published a paper6 supporting zoonotic origin] predicted that there would be a lot of pre-epidemic seroconversion.

These are fancy words for ‘go into a hospital, take samples out of the refrigerator, test them and find a high percentage.’ Of course, people took him up on that and tested over 9,900 banked specimens from December [2020] and before in Wuhan. How many do you think they found that were positive?

My statistician says they should have had 100 to 400. They got zero. You run the crank on that, and that’s a 1 in a million probability.

The virus has the incredible capability of being the most aggressive human to human virus that’s ever been seen in the history of virology, but it does not have the hallmark of how you would build that in nature, which is pre-epidemic human contact. You can’t have both of these properties in the same virus if it came from nature.

Now, if you take a mouse that’s been humanized in a laboratory to have human lungs and you serial passage there, that is an effective way to do it.

Amazingly, two months after the epidemic broke out, we’re February-March 2020 now, Dr. Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Baric in America, the No. 1 synthetic biologist in the world of coronavirus research in North Carolina, published a paper saying, ‘Hey, if you grow this virus in transgenic mice, it kills the mice and, by the way, they get brain infections, which is really unusual.’

I’m saying, ‘Yeah, that’s probably the experiment that was done in 2019 that led to the spill.'” 

Again, using extremely conservative data, Quay’s analysis shows there’s a 99.8% probability that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation. If you want to read through it all, his paper can be downloaded from zenodo.org.7

Odd SARS-CoV-2 Proteins Suppress Your Immune Function

At the end of the interview, Quay delivers yet another bombshell. SARS-CoV-2 makes three primary kinds of proteins. The first is the structural proteins for a virus — the spike, envelope, and nucleoplasm proteins. It also makes proteins that take over the cells’ manufacturing process, thereby allowing the virus to replicate inside the cell. In addition to those, it also makes two very odd proteins that are excreted into your blood.

“These strange proteins, they’re not the virus, they’re not in the cell,” Quay explains. “When you get an infection, you get a fever, you get sweaty and you get chills, you feel like crap. That’s not the virus. That’s your own interferon signaling and it helps you fight the virus and probably in prehistory it told your fellow tribe members to isolate you in your own tent. So, it evolved as a social signal for survival of the tribe.”

For all references please use the source link at the top of the article.




Expert Scientists Testify on Virus Origin

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Expert testimony from two scientists adds to evidence that clarifies the origin of COVID-19, which they believe leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, as a result of controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research
  • There is no evidence to support the theory that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a wet market in China, and no animal host or widespread animal-to-human transmission has been found
  • SARS-CoV-2 has a unique trigger on the surface called a furin cleavage site and a unique code in the genes for that site called a CGG-CGG dimer; these markers do not exist in natural coronaviruses but are known to have been used in GOF research
  • SARS-CoV-2 was preadapted for optimal human-to-human transmission, another sign of GOF research

Two scientists were called as witnesses at the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Select Coronavirus Crisis hearing, held June 29, 2021.1 Their testimony adds to evidence that clarifies the origin of COVID-19, which they believe leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, as a result of controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research.

Many have stated that we’ll never truly know the origin, short of China confessing or a whistleblower coming forward. But as Richard Muller, Professor Emeritus of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, stated during his testimony, “We have a whistleblower, the virus itself.”2

Muller, who has worked on scientific efforts that have won Nobel Prizes, states that the virus, which came out of China, carried with it genetic information about its origins.

“In my mind, there are five compelling sets of scientific evidence that allow us to reach this very strong conclusion that, yes, it was a laboratory leak,” Muller said. Dr. Steven Quay, the first scientist to testify, came to the same conclusion that COVID-19 has a laboratory origin, based on “six undisputed facts that support this hypothesis.”

A summary of the evidence, which they review in detail in the video above, follows, in the hope that, by revealing the true origin of COVID-19, we can help to prevent future pandemics and related loss of life.

‘Could They Have Come From Our Lab?’

Quay is a physician and scientist with an impressive background, including hundreds of published articles that have been cited over 10,000 times. Quay holds 87 patents across 22 different fields of medicine, has invented seven FDA-approved medicines — and believes that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory in China.

I recently interviewed Dr. Quay and we will post it soon. But in his research paper of 140 pages, which is more like a book, he makes a strong argument that there is virtually no chance that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is from nature. How unlikely? Imagine all the atoms in the universe and then imagine trying to find the same atom twice. That would be far more likely than the virus coming from nature.

As early as December 30, 2019, there were signs. This was the day Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “batwoman,” was told about a novel coronavirus that had caused an outbreak of pneumonia cases close to WIV.

“Could they have come from our lab?” Shi, who had been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses, wondered.3 Since then, evidence has continued to accumulate that COVID-19 likely emerged from a laboratory in China after having undergone some sort of manipulation to encourage infectiousness and pathology in humans, known as gain-of-function (GOF) research. According to Quay:4

“In the last 18 months, we’ve learned an intense amount about the origin of the pandemic, but one of my frustrations is that virologists and science writers around the world seem to want to ignore what has been learned and the inevitable conclusion it reveals.

As inconvenient as it is, I believe the evidence conclusively establishes that the COVID pandemic was not a natural process, but instead came from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and that it has the fingerprints of genetic manipulation for a process called gain of function research.”

Quay: Six Undisputed Facts Suggest COVID Leaked From Lab

Quay stated that six undisputed facts support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab.5

1.COVID Didn’t Begin in a Seafood Market — In the early days of the outbreak, China told the world that the COVID-19 pandemic began at the Hunan Seafood Market, a wet market in Wuhan because half the initial cases were associated with that location. This is reminiscent of other coronavirus outbreaks, including SARS-Cov-1 (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), both of which began in animal markets.

However, “after 18 months, we know it [COVID-19] did not begin in a market in Wuhan for three reasons,” Quay said. First, none of the early COVID patients from the Hunan market were infected with the earliest version of the virus, meaning that when they came to the market, they were already infected.

“Four patients with the earliest version of the virus had one thing in common,” Quay said. “None had exposure to the market.” Second, none of the environmental specimens taken from the market had the earliest virus either, which means they also came into the market already infected.

In addition, 457 animals from the Hunan market were tested, and all were negative for COVID. Another 616 animals from suppliers to the Hunan market were also tested, and all were negative. Wild animals from southern China — 1,864 of them, of the type found in the Hunan market — were also tested and found to be negative for the virus.

2.The Virus Has Not Been Found in an Animal Host — Scientists have tested 80,000 samples from 209 different species, but the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been found in a single specimen. “The probability of this for a community-acquired infection is about 1 in a million,” Quay said. “This is what you’d expect for a lab-acquired infection.”

3.No Cases of COVID Were Detected in Blood Samples Prior to December 29 — If the virus had emerged naturally from a wild animal, a small number of cases would likely have already been in circulation. But, “after testing 9,952 stored human blood specimens from Wuhan hospitals from before December 29, there was not a single case of COVID in any specimen,” Quay said.

“It was expected that between 100 and 400 would be positive. The probability of this for a community-acquired infection is also about 1 in a million, but this is what you’d expect for a lab-acquired infection.”6

4.No Evidence of Multiple Animal-to-Human Transmissions — With prior coronavirus outbreaks like SARS and MERS, 50% to 90% of the early cases were clearly linked back to various animal-to-human infections. For SARS-Cov-2, 249 early cases of COVID-19 were examined genetically and they were all human-to-human transmission.

For a community-acquired infection, Quay said, “This is the probability of tossing a coin 249 times and getting heads every single time. This is, however, what you’d expect for a lab-acquired infection.”

5.SARS-CoV-2 Has Two Unique Factors That Point to GOF — SARS-CoV-2 has a unique trigger on the surface called a furin cleavage site and a unique code in the genes for that site called a CGG-CGG dimer. “These are two independent levels of uniqueness,” Quay noted. Furin is a protein-coding gene that activates certain proteins by snipping off specific sections.

To gain entry into your cells, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved (cut). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further. “The furin site is why the virus is so transmissible, and why it invades the heart, the brain and the blood vessels,” Quay explained.7

While furin cleavage sites do exist in other viruses like Ebola, HIV, Zika, and Yellow Fever, they’re not naturally found in coronaviruses, which is one reason why researchers have called the furin cleavage site the “smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. The entire group of coronaviruses to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs does not contain a single example of a furin cleavage site or CGG-CGG code, Quay said.

Quay’s Bayesian analysis of SARS-CoV-2 origins revealed that finding a CGG-CGG codon pair in the furin site of SARS-CoV-2 is “a highly improbable event,” and this can be used to adjust the likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 is of zoonotic origin to only 0.5%, while the likelihood of laboratory origin is 99.5%.8

Further, since 1992, WIV and other laboratories around the world have inserted furin sites into viruses repeatedly as part of GOF experiments. “It is the only sure method that always works and always makes them more infectious,” Quay said. WIV was also known for its broad use of CGG-CGG codon pairs.

Quay wrote in his analysis, “Scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology provided the scientific community with a technical bulletin on how to make genetic inserts in coronaviruses and proposed using the very tool that would insert this CGGCGG codon.”9

6.SARS-CoV-2 Optimized for Human Transmission — Quay’s last point focused on SARS-CoV-2 being preadapted for human-to-human transmission. “Specifically,” he said, “the part of the virus that interacts with human cells was 99.5% optimized. When Sars-1 first jumped into humans, it had only 17% of the changes needed to cause an epidemic.” How was SARS-CoV-2 “taught” to infect humans so efficiently in a laboratory?

A commonly used GOF method to optimize SARS-CoV-2, Quay explained, would have been serial passage in a lab on a humanized mouse to develop human-like pneumonia. In short, researchers infect the humanized mouse with the virus, wait a week, then recover the virus from the sickest mouse. That virus is then used to infect more mice, and the process is repeated until you get a virus that can kill all of the mice.

The challenge is to create the humanized mice to begin the process in the first place, but it’s known that part of WIV’s GOF research involved using humanized mice for experiments to determine which coronaviruses could infect humans, as well as research to make viruses that weren’t able to infect humans do just that.10

Other reports also claimed that WIV was carrying out research infecting humanized mice with novel bat SARS coronaviruses in 2019, and years earlier video was released showing WIV scientists working with little or no protective gear while working with live viruses.11

What’s more, according to Quay, WIV acknowledged they’ve been working with humanized mice, developed by Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.12

Five More Signs That Point to a Lab Origin

Muller largely agreed with Quay’s testimony and added five points of his own, which further solidify the high likelihood that COVID-19 came from a lab.13

1.Absence of pre-pandemic infections — Like Quay, Muller found the absence of pre-pandemic infections in more than 9,000 samples taken in Wuhan to be highly suspect. “It’s unprecedented,” he said. “It didn’t happen with MERS or SARS.”

2.Absence of a host animal — Muller brought up the February 2020 Lancet letter,14 in which a group of 27 scientists, including Peter Daszak, who has close ties to WIV, condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

If you look at The Lancet letter, Muller said, they say you can dismiss a lab origin because China identified the host animal and even went so far as to praise China for its openness. “This paper, The Lancet, does not read well when we look at it 16 months later,” Muller said, noting that a host animal hasn’t been found.

3.Unprecedented genetic purity — Echoing Quay, Muller also said that SARS-CoV-2’s unique genetic footprint is unlike that of other coronaviruses like MERS and SARS, as well as that of other types of natural viruses. But, he said, “It is exactly what you would expect if you’d gone through gain of function.”

4.Spike mutation — Muller also highlighted the unique mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. “The fact that there’s no known way for that spike mutation to get there other than a gene insertion in a laboratory is a very powerful argument,” Muller said.

5.Virus was optimized to attack humans — This is something that has never happened in natural virus releases, Muller said, “but it does happen if you run it through gain of function.”

While there is no evidence in favor of a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2, “each one of these things is compelling by itself,” Muller said. “If we had any one of the five things, we should conclude that the evidence strongly favors the lab origin.” And we have not one of the five, but all of them. Muller also shared an anecdote that occurred with a colleague of his — a story he says is “as horrifying and more frightening than almost anything else in my life.”

In the early days of the pandemic, he called on an expert virologist friend to help him review literature suggesting there may have been a lab leak. The friend said no, so he asked if someone in his laboratory could do it. But the answer was no again. Muller pressed him on the refusal, to which he responded:

“If anyone in my laboratory is discovered to be working on a laboratory leak hypothesis, China will label us enemies of China and the laboratory will be blacklisted and we will no longer be able to collaborate. We collaborate all the time with China. Nobody will take that risk.”

“The idea that China has managed to interfere, to break United States’ freedom of expression, freedom of investigation, freedom of thought through this collaboration is really scary,” Muller said, calling it “one of the most chilling conversations I’ve had in my life.” Ultimately, however, the truth will prevail as long as the long-censored lab-leak theory and evidence in support of it continue to go mainstream.

For full references please click this link to the article source link.