….According to a CDC review of 113 studies, COVID-19 is only contagious ranging from two to three days before symptom onset to eight days after.
“That’s why the CDC recommends that people be exempted from any sort of PCR surveillance testing for 90 days after a positive test,” Gigi Gronvall, PhD, senior scholar at the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Verywell. Gronvall works with the center’s COVID-19 Testing Toolkit. “I expect that that this guidance is probably going to change at some point with more information, but some people continue to test positive by PCR even after they’re clearly no longer infectious. For whatever reason, there is still viral genetic material hanging out in their nose.”
Rapid tests are less sensitive, but a person will probably still test positive for six or seven days after they are no longer having symptoms, Gronvall said.
I heard this on the radio… I do not know which show, but I read about it shortly thereafter at TOWNHALL; it deals with the new favorite study cited by the CDC showing masks prevent spread among children. The CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, even double downed on the mask study from Arizona — even though the ATLANTIC (“The CDC’s Flawed Case for Wearing Masks in School”)trashed it:
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky is asked “Will you follow the science and stop relying on faulty studies and end mask mandates for children in schools?”
When the Director mentions studies in other countries… she is referring to the Bangladesh study, but that will be dealt with momentarily. Here is an excerpt from TOWNHALL’S article:
The Atlantic called out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for some of the data it relied upon to push its case for masking in schools, arguing the agency’s position is “based on very shaky science.”
“Scientists generally agree that, according to the research literature, wearing masks can help protect people from the coronavirus, but the precise extent of that protection, particularly in schools, remains unknown—and it might be very small,” author David Zweig argued.
The data that currently exists has led to a wide array of position on masking children in schools, Zweig pointed out—from the World Health Organization being against the masking of kids under the age of 6 to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control also opposed to masking children in primary school. The CDC, however, forces masks upon children as young as 2.
To help make this case, CDC Director Rochelle Walenksy in September touted a study based on Arizona public schools claiming that those without a mask mandate were 3.5 times as likely to have an outbreak of Covid-19 than those that forced masking. Walensky repeated the study’s claim in multiple settings in the weeks and months afterwards.
But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC’s back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading. “You can’t learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study,” Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me. His view echoed the assessment of eight other experts who reviewed the research, and with whom I spoke for this article. Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate. The Arizona study’s lead authors stand by their work, and so does the CDC. But the critics were forthright in their harsh assessments. Noah Haber, an interdisciplinary scientist and a co-author of a systematic review of COVID-19 mitigation policies, called the research “so unreliable that it probably should not have been entered into the public discourse.”
This is not the only study cited by Walensky in support of masking students, but it’s among the most important, having been deployed repeatedly to justify a policy affecting millions of children—and having been widelycoveredinthepress. The agency’s decision to trumpet the study’s dubious findings, and subsequent lack of transparency, raise questions about its commitment to science-guided policy. (The Atlantic)
After detailing the numerous issues with the study, Zweig said the government continuing to tout it is “especially demoralizing.”
“How did research with so many obvious flaws make its way through all the layers of internal technical review? And why was it promoted so aggressively by the agency’s director?” he wondered.
Not surprisingly, Walensky’s office declined to comment……
Other sites likewise write on this unraveling of a study founded not in science but in pseudo-science:
The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science (REASON)
Atlantic: Study On School Masking Promoted By The CDC Is ‘Unreliable’ (HOT AIR)
Walensky’s Junk Science On Masks And Other Commentary (NEW YORK POST)
INTERMISSION…..
Fact Checker Tries to Debunk Study Proving Masks Didn’t Work in Europe, Fails Miserably
An article from The National Pulse went viral last month that reported on a European study that concluded masks were not effective in preventing the transmission of COVID-19 when it was most needed, and even showed a positive correlation between mask usage and COVID deaths.
The peer reviewed study “Correlation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europe” was published in Cureus Journal of Medical Science in April of this year, and was authored by Beny Spira, an Associate Professor at the University of São Paulo.
Countries with high levels of mask compliance did not perform better than those with low mask usage,” found a new study, whose data and analysis instead discovered a “moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths.”
“Data from 35 European countries on morbidity, mortality, and mask usage during a six-month period were analyzed and crossed,” continued the study, which encompassed a total of 602 million people.
“The findings presented in this short communication suggest that countries with high levels of mask compliance did not perform better than those with low mask usage in the six-month period that encompassed the second European wave of COVID-19,” Spira summarized.
“The lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e., during the strong 2020-2021 autumn-winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission.”
The study also found the aforementioned positive correlation between mask wearing and deaths. “Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences,” though the positive relationship between mask usage and cases wasn’t statistically significant.
So in summary, the study’s main takeaway found a lack of negative correlation between mask wearing and a reduction in COVID transmission, and so absent was a negative relationship that a “moderate” positive one for COVID deaths was actually present……
Specifically, the study not only replicates the CDC study, which found a “negative association” between masks and pediatric cases of Covid-19, it also extends the study to include more districts over a longer period of time. In the end, the new study had nearly “six times as much data as the original study.”
“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the study finds. “These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”….
….The data suggests that the elderly benefit from community masking, and the elderly are at the greatest risk from COVID-19. But while the results were statistically significant, they were fairly limited. The study found just a 0.7% absolute decrease in COVID-19 symptoms in the cloth mask villages, and a 1.1% absolute decrease in the surgical mask villages.
[….]
The study also provided no insight into the question of masking for children. Children under age 12 remain the only population in the U.S. unable to get vaccinated, and whether or not to mandate masks in schools is the primary debate happening currently with regard to masking. The data suggests that masking kids may marginally benefit the adults around them, who have by now chosen whether or not to get vaccinated, but says nothing as to whether masking will benefit the kids themselves in a significant way.
Critics of the study also pointed out that, based on the 95% confidence intervals reported, it’s possible the cloth masks had zero effect.
The study shows that community masking helps slow the spread of COVID-19 by a relatively small amount among the elderly in a community with little-to-no vaccinated people. In the U.S., where most adults are vaccinated, and the most vulnerable were prioritized for vaccination and other mitigation efforts are available (ventilation, more advanced medical care, etc.), the meaning is less clear.
And a Michigan study of schools that had mask rules and those schools that required no masking was also devastating to the “masks help” narrative:
The latest reporting actually shows that schools with “few/no mask rules” had fewer 7-day average cases per 100,000 than schools where masks are required or schools with “partial mask rules.” (THE BLAZE)
IN UNRELATED NEWS
Masks are worse for the environment than Styrofoam cups!
“Definitions now are being rewritten and changed in real-time to fit…whatever the establishment wants people to think,” says five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. The term “anti-vaxxine” is now used to describe anybody who is opposed to vaccine mandates. In this episode, we discuss how propagandists have taken control of the information landscape.
MINISTRY of TRUTH
TECHNO FROG details the CDC’s emails discussing changing the term “vaccination”
The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.
The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.
[….]
CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue…..
Another note on the Merriam Webster (Ditionary) change to “Vaccine” is elucidated by DECEPTION, SELF-DECEPTION, & DEFACTUALIZATION — who has an excellent subtitle to the site: “Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.” Funny and sad at the same time.
Paraphrasing George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ to illustrate a simple concept my mother drummed into my head from as far back as I can remember, ‘Words mean things.’
In his other memorable offering, ‘1984,’ Orwell used a construct called “Newspeak” as a means for his dystopian government to control thought. It did so by limiting the number of words available with which to articulate thought. I suppose elimination of words was to the author a simpler method to use in fiction when compared to that which has been employed in fact by those who seek to control our thoughts and our acceptance of their agendas.
The current pathway to achieving Orwell’s objective in what we like to think of as ‘the real world’ is to keep the words but change their meaning. There can be no more glaring example than Merriam Webster’s treatment of the word ‘vaccine.’ One day the word referred to a substance administered to an individual in order to convey immunity and to stop the spread of a disease. Overnight it was expanded to include Gene Therapy.
Consider the difference this small addition makes. The pushback against ‘vaccine’ is growing in scope and strength, fueled primarily by the revelation that it is not a vaccine but in fact is gene therapy. Now, with the stroke of a pen, it is also a vaccine. For the propagandists this neutralizes all argument based on whether or not the government is being truthful in its vaccine regulations, mandates and other pronouncements. Now that gene therapy is a vaccine it is no longer a lie. Advantage Orwell.
Consider VAERS, that trove of information on the negative aspects of vaccines. This is a useful compilation of information but also illustrates our government’s approach to the entire subject. When reports are helpful to the official narrative they are akin to gospel but when they provide data that runs counter to the narrative they are false information. My reaction to the government’s self-serving position on VAERS is like that of Enid Strict, SNL’s Church lady, “Well, isn’t that special?”….
FOX NEWS covers the change in “Anti-Vaxxer” in the Merriam Webster dictionary as well, saying,
Merriam-Webster’s online definition of “anti-vaxxer” is spreading on social media this month amid outrage over vaccine mandates. The definition of the term was first added to the online dictionary in 2018 and was updated in late September.
“Redefine words all you want Merriam Webster, but WORDS STILL HAVE MEANING. By this definition, you aren’t pro-vaccine unless you believe the government should force everyone to get a medical procedure?” Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, tweeted Wednesday morning.
Fox News examined Merriam-Webster’s current definition of “anti-vaxxer” compared to its definition from 2018, and found it omitted the word “laws” in favor of “regulations.” The definition still states, however, that an “anti-vaxxer” includes people who oppose such rules on vaccinations or the vaccines, themselves.
“Definition of anti-vaxxer: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination,” Merriam-Webster’s website currently states, noting that it was updated on Sept. 29, 2021.
Editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com, Peter Sokolowski, told PoltiFact in May – after outrage first cropped up over the definition – that the word was first added in 2018.
At the time, Sokolowski said the definition remained unchanged from 2018.
Merriam-Webster did not immediately respond to Fox News’s request for comment on why the definition was updated on Sept. 29.
Fox News also examined the definition of “anti-vaxxer” in the New Oxford American dictionary and found it does not include language on mandates, laws or regulations.
“A person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child,” the New Oxford American dictionary states.
After the definition was criticized over the summer, critics have taken to Twitter to lambaste the definition again following its update last month.
[….]
And of course the CDC changes what is required to be considered “vaccinated” regarding Covid Shots — RIGHT SCOOP:
What do you call it when they create an endless set of steps you have to take to remain a part of society? Because that is what is happening. Think about what we’re being told.
We’re told to stay inside and do nothing until there’s a vaccine and then when we get it we can finally start returning to normal life. Except after the vaccines, they say it’s not enough, keep wearing masks and staying six feet apart and also a bunch of industries and private businesses will have to remain out of work.
That’s not good enough for them, though. So, every day someone on cable news, often CNN’s “Dr.” Wen but often just commentators or even reporters and anchors, goes on air and says how we aren’t harsh enough to unvaxxed, they have to be punished more, they have to be driven from society further. That’s still happening every day.
Except vaccination isn’t vaccination, is it? You have to get a booster too. The covid regime forever……
The reason I believe they admit these two facts that conservatives have been saying for over a year is that [coupled with the shorter isolation time-period] the Biden Administration is trying to make the cyclical spread of Covid (which moves just like the flu) in the blue states not seem as bad as when Florida had it. So the press bemoaned Florida and DeSantis when they had a supposed 25% of the nations cases. (See CLASH DAILY for newest statement conservatives have known since the beginning) Well, New York has almost 30% now. (See PJ-MEDIA for comparison). So bowing to keeping the economy going and not continually piss people off is the rational, which should have been the thinking to begin with (DAILY WIRE | NEW YORK POST). We know Fauci lies, and in fact, Hugh Hewitt points this out well in his challenge to Dr. Fauci retiring from his debacle [since HIV days] (100% FED-UP). Indeed, why can’t Dr. Fauci stop lying? (RED STATE)
This “Faucism” applies to adults as well… work injuries, appendix issues, etc.
SEE ALSO
(Recent) Fauci Now Says Hospitals Are ‘Overcounting’ COVID-19 Cases In Children Because They Automatically Get Tested. Sound Familiar? (DAILY WIRE)
(May 2021) Hospitals are OVERCOUNTING Children Admitted For Covid: Nearly Half Of Kids Recorded As Needing Inpatient Treatment For Virus Were Likely There For Something Else (And Just Happened To Test Positive), Study Suggests (DAILY MAIL)
(May 2021) COVID-19 Hospitalizations Among Children Likely Overcounted, Researchers Find (STANFORD)
If you weren’t already convinced, you double your risk of cardiac incidents and the rate of stillborn babies is up by 29 times (but only if you are vaccinated). Does anyone in authority care?(STEVE KIRSCH)
I’m getting a lot of people telling me about this abstract that appeared in Circulation, which is arguably the top-rated journal on cardiology. This was incorporated in my latest slide deck (slide 26 and 27 at the time this is being written).
Yes, this is a big deal. But nobody is listening. Cardiac risk could go up 1,000X after vaccination and it wouldn’t matter. Nobody is listening. This article is proof of that.
Here’s the punch line from the abstract:
These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac. We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
STILLBORN BABIES
The punchline here:
There is a 29X increase in the rate of stillborn babies in Waterloo, Ontario that started after vaccination program rolled out. All the mothers of the stillborn babies were vaccinated.
I’m sure this is happening everywhere, but nobody in the US wants to lose their job over this.
So why the CDC is saying this is perfectly safe for pregnant women? I’m curious as to what the CDC has determined the cause of this. Obviously, it couldn’t be the “safe and effective” vaccine. Note: the CDC doesn’t have jurisdiction in Canada of course, but they could call over there and find out…
The good news of course is that this only appears to be happening in areas of the world where they release data to the public on what is going on.
Dr. Daniel Nagase, and Dr. Mel Bruchet, ring the alarm on the alarmingly high rates of disasters that governments and the MSM don’t want to share.
Doulas that work in women’s and children’s hospitals raised the voice about the alarming rate of stillbirths in British Columbia, Canada!
The doulas had 13 stillbirths only in one day. There is another terrifying statistic from Waterloo, Ontario.
According to Dr. Nagase’s analysis, from January to July, there were 86 stillbirths, and the typical number of these cases is 5-6 per year. However, since the vaccine rollout, there have been 14 to 15 stillbirths per month in Waterloo.
Dr. Nagase shared that he has confirmed from the Waterloo, Ontario report that the stillbirths occurred only with vaccinated mothers…..
“Absolutely forbidden to give COVID shots to kids, young men and women”, Jewish court rules
Halachic stands for the legal part of the Old Testament, the principles of right and wrong that have worked for mankind for over 5,000 years, and upon which some of our most fundamental legal concepts are based. ….Mandatory COVID-19 “vaccines” transgress Halachic law, which means it could be anti-Semitic to enforce it on Jews who have no wish to take it. Given that the rabbinical courts in Israel are part of the formal legal system, further decrees forbidding mandatory Covid-19 vaccines might have the power to dissolve the infamous green pass system….. (Doctors for COVID Ethics)
MISSOURI COURT
Covid Restrictions and Mandates Imposed by “the whims of public health bureaucrats” are Illegal, Missouri Court Rules (PECKFORD42)
The Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, Judge Daniel R. Green presiding, has issued a sweeping judgement against Covid restrictions and mandates imposed by the Department of Health and Senior Services, November 22, 2021. Cole County is located in the center of the state and its largest city is Jefferson City, the state capital.
The decision begins: “This case is about whether Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services regulations can abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws, and whether it can authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official. This Court finds it cannot.”
The case is decided on grounds that the edicts clearly violated the traditional separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. The legislature cannot surrender its power to make law to an unelected bureaucrat, either by constitutional tradition in a Republican form of government or under the Missouri Constitution.
“Separation of powers among the three branches of government – legislative, administrative, judicial – is fundamental to the preservation of liberty. DHSS regulations break our three-branch system of government in ways that a middle school civics student would recognize because they place the creation of orders or laws, and enforcement of those laws, into the hands of an unelected administrative official.”
“The state delegated rulemaking power to an administrative agency, and the administrative agency, has in sum, delegated broad rulemaking power to an unelected administrative official. This type of double delegation, which results in lawmaking by an administrative entity, is an impermissible combination of legislative and administrative power.”
CDC Director Walensky Praised China’s “Really Strict Lockdowns” (BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE)
On October 20, 2020, with large parts of the country still in lockdown as a virus control measure, WBUR Radio Boston’s Tiziana Dearing conducted separate interviews with epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University and Rochelle Walensky, then at the Massachusetts General Hospital and later to be named by the Biden Administration as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control.
The station permitted Walensky to respond to Kulldorff but did not allow Kulldorff to respond back. The tone was obviously hostile toward the Great Barrington Declaration which pushed a program of focused protection over lockdown.
In her interview, Walensky praised the “really strict lockdowns” of China, and condemned Sweden’s policy of keeping schools and businesses open. She cited China’s good outcomes (deaths of 3 per million), though the data from China is highly suspect, and also cited Sweden’s high deaths, even though 74 counties in the world that locked down had higher Covid deaths per capita. She further cast doubt on the idea that natural immunity with Covid would be lasting or robust, though data has since shown her to be completely incorrect on this point too.
Finally, she opined without evidence that the mental health crisis was due not to lockdowns but instead “could be related to the fact that their loved ones have passed.”
(I assume this is a whistleblower Democrats don’t like.) BMJ listens to evidence from whistleblower over the Pfizer vaccine trial.
Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. (British Medical Journal)
In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open letter to the billions of people around the world who were investing their hopes in a safe and effective covid-19 vaccine to end the pandemic. “As I’ve said before, we are operating at the speed of science,” Bourla wrote, explaining to the public when they could expect a Pfizer vaccine to be authorised in the United States.
But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.
[…..]
Concerns Raised
In her 25 September email to the FDA Jackson wrote that Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres. She then listed a dozen concerns she had witnessed, including:
Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
Protocol deviations not being reported
Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.
Within hours Jackson received an email from the FDA thanking her for her concerns and notifying her that the FDA could not comment on any investigation that might result. A few days later Jackson received a call from an FDA inspector to discuss her report but was told that no further information could be provided. She heard nothing further in relation to her report.
In Pfizer’s briefing document submitted to an FDA advisory committee meeting held on 10 December 2020 to discuss Pfizer’s application for emergency use authorisation of its covid-19 vaccine, the company made no mention of problems at the Ventavia site. The next day the FDA issued the authorisation of the vaccine.8
In August this year, after the full approval of Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA published a summary of its inspections of the company’s pivotal trial. Nine of the trial’s 153 sites were inspected. Ventavia’s sites were not listed among the nine, and no inspections of sites where adults were recruited took place in the eight months after the December 2020 emergency authorisation. The FDA’s inspection officer noted: “The data integrity and verification portion of the BIMO [bioresearch monitoring] inspections were limited because the study was ongoing, and the data required for verification and comparison were not yet available to the IND [investigational new drug].”
Other Employees’ Accounts
In recent months Jackson has reconnected with several former Ventavia employees who all left or were fired from the company. One of them was one of the officials who had taken part in the late September meeting. In a text message sent in June the former official apologised, saying that “everything that you complained about was spot on.”
Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for fear of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research community. Both confirmed broad aspects of Jackson’s complaint. One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a “helter skelter” work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial.
“I’ve never had to do what they were asking me to do, ever,” she told The BMJ. “It just seemed like something a little different from normal—the things that were allowed and expected.”
She added that during her time at Ventavia the company expected a federal audit but that this never came.
After Jackson left the company problems persisted at Ventavia, this employee said. In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported covid-like symptoms, to test for infection. Laboratory confirmed symptomatic covid-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted. (An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic covid-19.)
“I don’t think it was good clean data,” the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. “It’s a crazy mess.”
A second employee also described an environment at Ventavia unlike any she had experienced in her 20 years doing research. She told The BMJ that, shortly after Ventavia fired Jackson, Pfizer was notified of problems at Ventavia with the vaccine trial and that an audit took place.
Since Jackson reported problems with Ventavia to the FDA in September 2020, Pfizer has hired Ventavia as a research subcontractor on four other vaccine clinical trials (covid-19 vaccine in children and young adults, pregnant women, and a booster dose, as well an RSV vaccine trial; NCT04816643, NCT04754594, NCT04955626, NCT05035212). The advisory committee for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is set to discuss the covid-19 paediatric vaccine trial on 2 November.
SCHOOL CLOSURES
School closures ‘did not significantly reduce Covid spread’ – The Telegraph (Michigan University Study – TELEGRAPH [takes a few seconds to load] & EVIDENCE NOT FEAR)
There is “no evidence” that school closures significantly reduced the spread of Covid, a study has found.
The research, published in the journal Nature Medicine, used data from Japan, where each municipality is responsible for the closure of schools in their areas.
…”Empirically, we find no evidence that school closures in Japan caused a significant reduction in the number of coronavirus cases,” they said.
“If opening schools leads to the spread of Covid-19, spikes of cases would occur in the control group; however, these were not observed. The implication is the same: school closures do not help reduce the spread of Covid-19 significantly.”
…Separate research, published earlier this year, found the UK had closed schools for longer than anywhere in Europe other than Italy over the past 18 months.
….Kyle Lamb, a data researcher for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, the state with the lowest rate of COVID infection, took issue with Walensky.
“There is not a single study in the entire world that has been produced during the pandemic, or especially before, that shows masks reduce infections by 80%,” he said on Twitter.
“This is the most comically bad misinformation I have ever seen. CDC has been reduced to outright lies.”
Yale Law School professor Samantha Godwin said the CDC director has made “a specific empirical claim for which no data exists.”
“Misinformation breeds justified distrust,” she said on Twitter.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an epidemiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, noted everyone is “dunking on” Walensky’s “preposterous tweet about mask efficacy.”
“But it’s an improvement since last year when the former CDC director said masks were better than vaccines,” he said, referring to Dr. Robert Redfield. “At this rate, they’ll get it right in 2050 or so.”
The CDC’s stance on masks has changed since the beginning of the pandemic. In March 2020, the agency said masks “are usually not recommended” in “non-health care settings.”
The same month, the World Health Organization recommended people not wear face masks unless they are sick with COVID-19 or caring for someone who is sick. Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said in March 2020 that there “is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit.
“In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,” he said.
Similarly, in a March 2020 interview with “60 Minutes,” White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci warned of “unintended consequences,” saying there’s “no reason to be walking around with a mask” in “the middle of an outbreak.”
In May 2020, a CDC study on the use of measures such as face masks in pandemic influenza concluded “evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission.”
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are among the many European nations not requiring masks for school children. Norway has never recommended face masks for schools, and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health explicitly advises against masking primary school-aged children. In Sweden, masks are no longer recommended on public transit, even at rush hour.
In most of the United Kingdom, the New York Times reported, elementary school children and their teachers were not required to wear masks during the delta surge there earlier this year.
A study of masked German schoolchildren published June 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics found carbon dioxide content in “inhaled air” was at least three-fold higher than German law allows. Complaints by children regarding mask-wearing registered in a German database included irritability, headache and reluctance to go to school. The JAMA paper cited the “dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time.”
An analysis published in Nature magazine found that N95 masks do offer some protection from airborne viral diseases, but the common surgical mask, which has holes bigger than the SARS-CoV-2 virus, loses any efficacy after about 20 minutes because of the buildup of vapor from breathing…..
In conversations on an anti-conspiracy website (which I am anti-conspiracy and have argued against vaccination conspiracies‘ at length as well), a video was posted that I found interesting and informative. I marked it at the 3:30’ish start to skip the pleasantries and allow for the beginning of the data comparisons. Enjoy:
Compare Confirmed Cases, Death, and Fully Vaccinated Rate From Singapore during First Wave and Second Wave (Current Wave):
Part of my contribution to to the recalling of this video is as follows:
Again, to be clear, as England is a month or more ahead of us, we use their numbers:
in England, of the 600,000 new cases of Delta, of the over 2,500 deaths, 63% of those deaths, 1,613 people, were the fully vaccinated. Twenty-eight percent were with the unvaxxed.”(PJ-MEDIA)*
I have yet to hear people give me an answer why this is… I have a response that explains it well, but this response is rejected in regard to the larger death toll, and is one used when needed to cover the tracks of those forcing vaccines [so-called] on people. For example, CDC Dir. Rochelle Walensky — when breakthrough cases were up-and-coming — noted that many of the 223 deaths “from Covid” she said were actually because of other illnesses. You see, when they want to pad numbers and skeptics say “well the numbers are inflated because these deaths would have happened anyways,” these common sense observations are rejected. But when the admin in charge wants to sweep stats under the rug, they borrow from arguments I have made since March 2020.
Not to mention the myriad of complications due to the Vaccines:
(GATEWAY PUNDIT) Jose Manriquez is a 7 year veteran of the Denver Police Department and a 12 year veteran of the Army National Guard but his most important job is taking care of his 4 children and being a loving husband, son, brother, and uncle. Manriquez was given the mandatory COVID vaccine required by the City of Denver. The mandatory mandate stated either get the vaccine or face termination from the job he loves so much!
Manriquez received the mandatory vaccine on August 22, 2021, and immediately started having a bad reaction. Since receiving the vaccine he has not been able to return to work and his future is uncertain. After receiving his vaccine he developed severe tremors and has trouble sleeping due to the amount of pain in his legs. He has fallen a number of times and basically can’t walk.
EXAMPLE TWO
(GATEWAY PUNDIT)Jessica Berg Wilson, a young mother and “exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old with no underlying health conditions,” passed away from COVID Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.
This occurred after she took the COVID vaccine that she did not want.
According to her obituary at Oregon Live:
Jessica fully embraced motherhood, sharing her passion for life with her daughters. Jessica’s motherly commitment was intense, with unwavering determination to nurture her children to be confident, humble, responsible, and to have concern and compassion for others with high morals built on Faith.
Jessica’s greatest passion was to be the best mother possible for Bridget and Clara. Nothing would stand in her way to be present in their lives. During the last weeks of her life, however, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom. She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat. But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education—which included being a Room Mom—was, once again, blocked by government mandate. Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed. It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife. It cost God’s Kingdom on earth a very special soul who was just making her love felt in the hearts of so many.
The family posted Jessica’s obituary at The Oregonian — But Twitter will not allow this information to be shared without a “misleading” label.
The social media giants are lying to the American public and people are dying.
A Public Health England Technical briefing released in September 2021 entitled “SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England” has some findings that do not bode well for vaccine supporters. The numbers show vaccinated people contracted and died of the so-called “Delta” variant of Coronavirus at a far greater rate than unvaccinated people between February 1, 2021 and September 12, 2021.
During the time period in question, unvaccinated people reportedly accounted for 257,357 Delta cases out of 593,572 total Delta cases (approximately 43 percent), and 722 out of 2,542 Delta deaths (approximately 28 percent) “within 28 days of positive specimen date.” What does that mean? It means that the vast majority of Delta deaths in England during this period occurred among vaccinated people, NOT unvaccinated people.
Here is Senator Ron Johnson’s presentation of this in-depth report:
More from PJ-MEDIA:
…On Thursday, Senator Ron Johnson (D-Wisc.) highlighted COVID data from outside of the United States. “The type of data we are not getting from our healthcare agencies,” he said, lamenting that “we have to look, unfortunately, to England and Israel,” which are being more transparent. The CDC has been accused of covering up the real numbers of breakthrough infections, which, if true, means that U.S. data isn’t very reliable. So, Senator Johnson first pointed to data from England.
“Now, President Biden – and this has been parroted by media and news media – said that what we are currently experiencing is a ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’. They don’t really give us any data to back that up. They just proclaim, pronounce that 99 percent of people with Covid now are unvaccinated. But they don’t give us the data,” he explained. “Well, we have data from England, and here’s the data. So, of the 600,000 cases in England, 43% were the unvaxxed, 27% were with the fully vaxxed, another 30% were with partially vaxxed, or just undetermined.”
“Here is another quote from President Biden,” Johnson continued. “President Biden said, ‘if you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized. You’re not going to an ICU unit. You’re not going to die. You’re not going to get Covid, if you have these vaccinations’. Well, maybe that’s true in the U.S., I kind of doubt it. Because in England, of the 600,000 new cases of Delta, of the over 2,500 deaths, 63% of those deaths, 1,613 people, were the fully vaccinated. Twenty-eight percent were with the unvaxxed.”…
It’s a pretty righteous rant about the CDC director’s decision to extend the eviction moratorium, and who gave the CDC authority over landlords and the houing market? I agree with Tucker that this is an outrageous overreach, but I have a beef or two with how he’s arguing his case.. The first is that Tucker is presnting it his audience as if it were a new thing, some new form of tyranny that the Biden Administration thought up just now. But this is misleading. What Tucker is describing actually has a name, administrative law, and it’s been going on over a century, informally since the end of the 1900s, and formally with the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946.
I don’t think this country’s founders ever envisioned regulations with the force of law being written (enacted) by unelected bureaucrats, but that’s the country we’re living in. This applies to any federal agency, but my favorite whipping boy is the EPA who can come in and designate all or part of your property as a “protected wetland” and too bad about your development plans you were counting on to bring in income for your retirement, but they’re now illegal. Or, worse, you need to spend many thousands of dollars to bring your “wetland” up to EPA specs, otherwise you’ll be subject to heavy fines.
Often with no appeal.
So what about due process? Congress enacted the APA specifically to establish fair administrative law procedures to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process. But I’ve heard enough horror stories to wonder how effective these protections are.
Second, despite Tucker’s protestations of the illegality of this, I’m not sure it will hold up in the long run. We’ve been living with administrative law for decades. Some Republicans have grumbled about it on and off, but, like any other federal program or agency, once it’s in place, it will never go away. It’s now a feature of the landscape. There is, for lack of a better word, “precedence” for this power grab. It’s outrageous that SCOTUS has already ruled against this but they’re going ahead with it anyway, but what the CDC director wants to do is only different in degree, not in kind, from what has gone before. The Biden administration is doing what it can get away with. As Tucker said, who is going to stop them? Mitch McConnell?
There’s a scene in the underappreciated science fiction movie Outland where the beleaguered Federal Marshall O’Neil (Sean Connery) appeals to the people he is trying to protect for help. “What about your men?” one of them asks. “My men?” responds O’Neil. “My men are shit.”
That’s pretty much how I feel about the Republican Party right now.
If you’ve been paying attention to the Biden administration’s and the CDC’s handling of COVID the last week, you’ve probably gotten a bad case of whiplash. The same people who just weeks ago were insisting masks were still needed after vaccination are now patting themselves on the back for reversing course, making clearly false claims that the science has somehow changed in that short period. It hasn’t, but what has changed is the politics surrounding all this.
Today, CDC Dir. Rochelle Walensky, in an attempt to bolster her agencies failing credibly, made the Sunday show rounds. While speaking to CNN, she made an astonishing admission.
All I can do is shake my head at this. What Walensky is doing is trying to draw a distinction between those who died directly because they got COVID and those who may have tested positive, but ultimately died of another comorbidity or condition. Now, to most people, that would seem like common sense. After all, why would you count someone with terminal cancer or an already failing heart as a COVID death — just because they had the virus when they died?
But what’s so astonishing about this is that what Walensky is saying has previously been declared to be completely off-limits for over a year by the powers that be. In fact, it’s the kind of thing that has often gotten right-leaning sites in trouble with the social media censors. Yet, here is the Biden administration saying what was previously labeled as taboo, just because it fits their narrative. Meanwhile, the media don’t question it, and the social media overlords just shrug.
Obviously, what Walensky is saying is true, though. What we know about COVID — and who is hit the hardest — says that co-morbidities, including heart problems, lung problems, and morbid obesity, are the top factor. If someone is otherwise terminally sick, even a mild case of COVID could expedite matters…..
Most important in this post is this, WHERE CAN I GET Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS has a consultation sign up HERE! See also FLCCC ALLIANCE (Click Pic)
