I am repeatedly hearing the media blare, "the vaccine is ~99% effective against hospitalization etc." Yet I also see the rapidly declining indications of efficacy in UK and Israel, where ~40-60% of hospitalizations are among the vaccinated. I find it implausible that there would be such stark differences in case rates, even accounting for differing levels of vaccination. I'd love your take on this. ie, do you trust this data? (and I don't mean the Cleveland Clinic data referred to which used an irrelevant timeframe to make such inferences, that is clearly bullshit, I mean the more recent claims which are too numerous to even bother citing).
The only thing that I think could skew it that much, aside from outright fabrication, is that the tests in the US are run at different cycle thresholds among the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. But that, too, seems like it would be difficult to pull off logisitically. ie, a hospital gets 100 sick unvaccinated people, and orders PCR tests at 40(Ct) and finds 99 of them are positive, vs 100 vaccinated people and orders PCR tests at 28 (Ct) and finds 1 of them is positive. While that is what would happen if they did such a glaringly manipulative protocol, it would take implausible (to me) levels of coordination to make sure all these hospitals treated the testing so asymmetrically. Am I wrong about that? What is your thinking on the issue?
It requires mental force for me to stay open to the fact that these data could be legitimate. My bias to distrust the official narrative is nearing calcification, which has its own dangers, and I want to be weary of that. But either way, even if it as remarkably effective at preventing severe cases as 99%!, then shouldn't the vaccinated feel highly assured in their safety and not exposed to undue risk by the unvaccinated? ie- WTF would the rationale be for mandates/passports etc if the vaccinated were afforded so much protection?
Something doesn't add up and I need help figuring it out. If I had to boil it down to one question, do you trust these claims?
This will take several articles, but some of which I'm working toward.
The most important thing is to understand that there are signals of mortality. If you go back a few articles and read "What Risk-Benefit Analysis?" you will find the perspective that matters most---does the vaccine save or take more lives (other harms secondary, but real, of course)?
Those who do not factor that into their claims are always talking bogus efficacy numbers rife with survivor bias and lack of corrections. In fact, the vaccines are generating new silent hypoxics that throw off most all claimed calculations, and nobody is bothering to analyze that.
Almost no Americans realize autopsies are being blocked, and they would settle the question quickly. That alone should tell us a lot.
I am not surprised at all by the superficial critiques leveled at your analysis. The barrier to entry for these conversations is high and if you don't have a robust statistical background (or the desire to learn), then most people have to take the approach of "the media tells me this is laughably false, so there has to be an obvious mistake in the methodology." Unfortunately, after years of research into various unrelated topics like cosmology, history, etc, I have come to realize that almost nothing that gets promoted as "conclusive" in the mainstream actually has the necessary legwork backing it. Most folks are content (whether through lack of time, cognitive dissonance, or fear) to believe that "people smarter than figured this out." Which is partially amazing because I also think most people of average or greater intelligence are also aware of the conflict of interests in our corporate media, medicine, government, etc.
I believe the extreme specialization of knowledge plays a large role in this... most people, by necessity, are very familiar with their own little niche and have very little exposure to information outside of their particular sphere (this obviously contributes to the Gell-Man effect, described a few articles back). When one considers this specificity within the medical industry alone, for example, just within the last half century or so, the average person has gone from having a primary physician who handled essentially all of their maladies to the point where their main doctor more or less just exists to write referrals to other experts, so every person has a full team of medical authorities responsible for their health (to say nothing of the issues that arise when we outsource responsibility for our personal well-being to third parties who have, no matter how well-intentioned, a profit motive).
So, most of us don't have the time required to fully understand a wide range of topics, so many attempt to assess validity by judging the analyst's character nstead of reviewing the data (and the quality of said data). This I further compounded by herd mentality and not wanting to appear as a foolish tin-foil hat nutter. The funny thing is, I have some very unorthodox opinions and I also do not subscribe to grand, unified conspiracies. Certainly, concealed agendas and propaganda do exist, but for many topics, it's as simplistic and naive to believe in hidden cabals making world impacting decisions as it is to believe the mainstream narrative. Paradigms, which arise both organically and with motivated assistance, sort of take on a life of their own. Essentially, I think the problem is a symptom of over-organization and historically, this is what contributes to the fall of a civilization. We create a complex machine with very specific parts that are not interchangeable and the focus shifts to filling these precise roles, at the expense of general understanding. So, contrary to much conspiratorial thinking, the problem is that eventually there's no one pulling the strings because everyone's forgotten how to do so, lost in the minutia of specificity. Compound this with a culture that values brevity above accuracy (Twitter and it's character limit is a wonderful sign of the times) and I believe that analytical "mistakes" on the level of what is described on this substack are to be expected as the rule, not the exception.
Apologies for my rambling, as I review more of the data and analysis here, I hope to be able to contribute in a more direct way. There are certainly enough red flags in the data I've reviewed over the last 18 months to cause me to reject most of the "accepted" premises of this pandemic, but I haven't applied the sort of statistical analysis done here in a couple decades, so I have a lot of mental cobwebs that need clearing. But even just a cursory review of the VAERS database should alarm anyone with even a basic knowledge of math, it's hard to hand-wave away AEs and deaths that are at least an order of magnitude higher than all other vaccines combined (which appear to have about the same total amount administered when compared to the total COVID doses). And I don't believe that assuming that the COVID vaccines AEs are recorded more consistently than AEs from other vaccines would be enough to get them to a similar level of safety, especially in light of reports that COVID vaccine AEs have been encouraged to not be recorded. Like Matthew though (and I think most who are interested in researching this, contrary to "popular opinion"), I do not want this to be the case... I'd rather not live in a world where a dangerous, un-approved, ineffective experimental gene therapy is promoted and mandated. In another classic case of projection, the "follow the 'science'" folks somehow think that the people who point out potential hazards are suffering from a form of wishful thinking... which I can't help but find incredibly odd. At no point in my life did I want to be a contrarian who disagrees with virtually everything presented by traditional academia via the mainstream (and social) media. It's frankly exhausting and certainly a lot harder than simply wearing a mask and getting a couple shots. If I was going to pick something to have "wishful thinking" about, I'd pick something a lot better!
From one rambler to the another: Salute! Please take an interest in vitamin D supplementation and early treatment as superior responses to vaccines and lockdowns, as I wrote in a comment below. My second comment on SSRIs and general health is getting off-topic, apart from the link at the end regarding facial lesions.
Hehe, appreciate the shout out. Us ramblers are a dying breed, I suspect! I will definitely be spending more time looking into vitamin D, as I've been running into a lot of information of late indicating that I've perhaps too underestimated its importance throughout my life. The older I get, it seems the more simple solutions are the more efficient ones (in many, often unrelated, matters). It would be humorous how much we tend to overcomplicate things, if the results weren't often so tragic!
I am focused on raising awareness of the need for 50ng/ml 125nmol/L or more circulating 25-hydoxyvitamin D, which is required for proper immune function, in a world where MDs tend to think half this level is OK, and were most people have half to a tenth of this level. Please see the research articles cited at: "What every MD should know about vitamin D and the immune system" https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
In this context, vaccines and lockdowns are 3rd and 4th best approaches to suppressing COVID-19 severity, viral shedding and so transmission compared to the number 1 solution of population wide vitamin D3 supplementation (such as 0.125mg 5000IU / day for 70kg 154lb bodyweight) and the number 2 solution which is early treatment, with calcifediol (AKA 25-hydroxyvitamin D), with ivermectin, melatonin, zinc, vitamin C, magnesium and perhaps an anti-inflammatory SSRI. I will soon be adding a page on these early treatments to the above site. Either one of these would be safer, easier, less expensive and more effective than vaccination - but they are less profitable, and many MDs can't imagine how important vitamin D is to the immune system.
I keep an eye on the debates surrounding mRNA and adenovirus vector COVID-19 "vaccines", but don't have the time to thoroughly evaluate the growing number of concerns about this. This article links to other concerning neurological impacts of some of these vaccines:
I have all along been suspicious about drugs that fool around with quantities or re-absorption capabilities for various neurotransmitters such as the SSRIs. I'm sure to get some pushback on this, and not being a neuroscientist it is perhaps merited. But from what I've seen with a friend or two being treated for depression with SSRIs, these reuptake inhibitors are no cure at all, but more like the psychological equivalent of sandbagging a river. Sure, you can sandbag consciousness to stay away from those dangerous floodplains of depressing devastation. But a sudden unusual storm (death of a family member maybe) and the sandbags get washed way and you're back not to square one, but worse. So, never having liked taking a drug that might be dangerous in small overdose (why take paracetemol when naproxen should do even better and be safer as well) - or a drug that seems to have powerful but not obvious effects, especially on consciousness, why not avoid SSRIs as anti-inflammatorys and use something else without the possible neurotransmitter complications?
Hi Peter, I am not advocating SSRIs for psychological reasons. I think they are over-rated and over-prescribed - but I am an electronic technician, not a medical professional. Without wanting to start a really long, definitive, discussion with references, it seems that SSRIs work on depression - to whatever extent that they do - by, (in part at least, perhaps this is all they do) reducing chronic inflammation. I recall reading that such inflammation in the hippocampus reduces the neurogenesis which is required for not being depressed. I have reports of SSRIs reducing inflammation in auto-immune (hyper inflammatory) skin disorders and shoulder pain, so this anti-inflammatory mode of operation sounds quite plausible to me. The primary causes of chronic inflammation are lack of helminths (intestinal worms) https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#helminthsgone with considerable individual genetic variation on how overly aggressive our inflammatory responses are. This is made much worse by hyperinflammatory immune dysregulation caused by lack of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. See McGregor et al. cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ . Some people find that much higher than normal vitamin D3 intakes suppresses psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis etc. (medical supervision is best). See articles cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/06-adv/ though the mechanisms behind this are not yet known.
I think that before starting any psychoactive drug for depression, anxiety or whatever, the person should ensure proper nutrition - vitamin D especially, boron, omega 3 fatty acids, a bunch of minerals and vitamins too long to list here, including B12. They should avoid excessive salt and take a potassium supplement. MDs think this is impossible, or undesirable, but with care (not too much at once) potassium gluconate solution has a very mild taste: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/kna/ . I get about 2.4 grams a day of potassium, this way, with 4 small drinks, so probably doubling my potassium to sodium ratio which reduces the risk of hypertension and stroke. I also find it reduces anxiety. They should not use alcohol (depressant) and caffeine (addiction, anxiety, tiredness, impatience - don't get me started) and of course opioids, methamphetamines etc. They need good omega-3 fatty acid intakes and less omega-6 than is common today. They need exercise too. Non-prescription theanine seems to be safe, mild and subtle as a way of improving sleep and clarity of mind without inducing drowsiness. Then see if there are any problems which prescription drugs might help with. I think with all this, it is likely that at least some people would derive significant benefit from an SSRI. Some people get way more bad luck than whatever their fair share might be.
The research on fluvoxamine for COVID-19 https://www.treatearly.org/fluvoxamine shows impressive results, but this is with ordinary people who generally have very low 25-hydroxyvitamin D compared to the 50ng/ml their immune system needs, and poor nutrition in many other respects. Apparently the dose is relatively small and it is only for two weeks - so I guess it is reasonably safe. According to 51:30 in this Steve Kirsch interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHIYXqMXZOU fluoxetine (Prozac) is at least as effective against COVID-19 severe outcomes.
All quite interesting and I agree as far as possible. My observation, maybe qualifying as a gentle warning, is that IF you can avoid altering your neurotransmitters it is very probably a good thing to do. Especially if you can do so by avoiding a BigPharma product in favor of a "natural" one (hate that word, as a chemist there are only a few things that should actually be labeled unnatural: like those with chemical bonds that are impossible to create outside the lab.) best regards!
I don't think it is wowserish to disparage regular use of cannabis and the other recreational drugs just mentioned. They are all boring as batshit and harmful. Without these, and with good nutrition - and hopefully good friends - the party begins.
I have used various SSRI’s for depression and never had particularly good results. Most of the supplements you suggest have shown benefit. Personally, methyl folate and b12 made a world of difference and I ceased SSRI’s and felt even better. I see them as a crutch for acute depression but their side effects make them less than desirable. I started butyrate recently and have noticed improvement in mood and perhaps gut motility, that one is so subtle it’s hard to know. L-Theanine is wondrous for anxiety, particularly coffee jitters(I know, I know- but I love coffee too much to give it up). A question about your suggestion for potassium and sodium- what do you think of hydration supplements like liquid IV? At times I find drinking some of that really calms me down and quiets some muscular pain I experience. Thanks for all the info and sources.
Interesting to read that, from April 2020. The recommended HCQ subsequently got illegitimately squelched, and the recommended Remdesivir got illegitimately and highly promoted despite horrific results - see the interview by Reiner Fuellmich with Dr. Bryan Ardis about that one. Filthy lucre at the core of those happenings.
apparent lack of vaccine efficacy could be explained by:
vaccines are effective, but their effect is approximately cancelled out by risk compensation - the vaccinated put themselves in situations with greater risk of infection, believing they are protected.
another possibility: attitude clusters that include preference for urban living also include relatively positive stance towards vaccination. the protective effect of vaccination is cancelled by the higher infection risk of high population density.
I've gradually realized who you are in various forums. I appreciate that you don't seem to take sides while truth seeking. Your question about the categorization of VAERS deaths, for instance, is the right one to ask, and I wish I could give you the answer sooner than publication. But it is good to have independently-minded good faith critics during a journey like this. I'm sure I'll make mistakes and that everyone around me is making mistakes, but independent thinking with communication improves end quality.
More importantly, I'm breaking out a "system vs. the individual" efficacy analysis. People have fallen asleep being told out to think during this pandemic, but any time something in a complex system changes fundamentally, we should remember to examine effects that differ on the individual/system level.
The Mayo data surely reflects both decreased efficacy and the true incidence of asymptomatic/mild cases.
From the very beginning, in zoom talks I questioned public policy makers how they were going to make broad claims about efficacy without teasing out how very important variables (masks/social distancing/economic shutdown and asymptomatic transmission) were discounted.
Walensky flagged two studies in particular—one from New York and another based on data from the Mayo Clinic. The New York study, which looked at COVID-19 tests and linked them to peoples’ vaccination status using state records, found that efficacy against infection dropped from 92% in May to 80% by July 25.
Meanwhile, data from the Mayo Clinic found that Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy dropped from 76% to 42%, Walensky said. Efficacy for Moderna’s shot fell from 86% to 76% between January and July, when delta had established a foothold in the U.S., she added.
Walensky also cited data from a study of U.S. nursing home residents that found vaccine efficacy slipped from 75% in March to 53% as recently as Aug. 1, 2021. That’s a substantial decline in efficacy against infection “among those who are most vulnerable, including during months where delta was the predominant circulating variant,” Walensky said.
It’s important to note that the studies Walensky referenced include asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections. In their FDA application, Moderna and Pfizer submitted efficacy data on symptomatic COVID. That means the initial efficacy figures reported in Pfizer, Moderna and J&J’s pivotal studies can’t be compared to the efficacy figures Walensky spotlighted Wednesday.
If those phase 3 trials had tested all participants regularly, the efficacy figures would have been inherently lower. Instead, participants were only tested for the virus after certain symptoms cropped up.
This statement sounds like a contradiction... and this study seems to refute the idea that "risky" behavior- which I assume you mean putting oneself in more contact with more people- increases your chance of infection. Though, there certainly are a lot of confounders.
not a contradiction. effective = if challenged by the virus, the vaccinated person is less likely to become infected. risk compensation = believing they are protected the vaccinated end up behaving in a way that means they're challenged by the virus more often. in case numbers the latter can mask benefit from the former.
I see your point- Though, if this factor of risk changes quickly over time as the vaccine antibody production and effectiveness wanes as Kris Alman notes above, the question becomes what, if any, benefit is had by vaccination? A few months of protection only delays the inevitable exposure and likely infection with an endemic virus. Now in the case of the breakthroughs, these individual are in the same boat as the unvaccinated where the body must challenge and mount a natural immune response to survive.
Between the waning vaccine antibodies and and escape variants it appears as if "the way out of the pandemic" is for the world population to reach natural herd immunity which will happen regardless of man's arrogant/ignorant attempts to control the pandemic with masks, lockdowns, vaccines, etc. It appears as if our health agencies and governments just prolonged the course and, if anything, made the situation much worse when you add all the incidental effects (delayed medical treatment, increased domestic violence, stunted education, collapsed economies, higher drug and alcohol abuse, etc.)
There is a sense of paradox in the idea that to "benefit" from the vaccine one must limit social exposure by distancing, masking, or avoiding crowds. To give credence to the vaccine it must allow protection in human behaviors that were considered "normal" before Nov. 2019.
Crawford's work indicates the vaccine had questionable effect on Covid mortality, and may have contributed to many more deaths and AE's than reported. Help me understand ANY benefit (besides delaying infection and consequences thereof) that is had by vaccination? Vs. incidental negatives was there a "net" benefit or harm?
It is appropriate to point out the lack of all cause mortality benefit in the six month Pfizer report. Though a weakness of the Pfizer trial was a paucity of elderly and otherwise high risk where nearly all mortality occurs.
However, when the vaccine partisans jump to population level analysis, they contradict the stark refusal to allow such analysis into evidence pools as per early treatment antivirals. Those medicines es and protocols must necessarily be suppressed in order to make a policy of vaccination pass a risk-benefit analysis.
Mathew, I appreciate your attention to how vaccines can put selective pressure on the virus to evolve to more deadly, transmissible strains. This is indisputable.
One is the immunity that is now rapidly building in the human population. On one hand, immunity reduces the likelihood of people getting infected, and may hamper viral replication even when they are. “That means there will be fewer mutations emerging if we vaccinate more people,” Çevik says. On the other hand, any immune escape variant now has a huge advantage over other variants.
The scientific community has put all their eggs in the Covid vaccine basket, targeting the spike protein. It appears that the Delta variant is more transmissible, rather than escaping immunity.
"There is now clear evidence of the changing antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and of the amino acid changes that affect antibody neutralization. Spike amino acid substitutions and deletions that impact neutralizing antibodies are present at significant frequencies in the global virus population, and there is emerging evidence of variants exhibiting resistance to antibody-mediated immunity elicited by vaccines."
Where states are doing a better job on vaccine breakthroughs (like SC), I acknowledge that Covid deaths and hospitalizations still skew toward the unvaccinated.
If indeed, the FDA fully authorizes the Pfizer vaccine next week, one must wonder whether it will still come with blanket immunity for any severe adverse events or death. As politicized as vaccines are, my guess is that Congress will swiftly pass a bill or there will be an executive order coming from the Biden administration.
As for masks, I am not with you, Mathew. In high risk situations, I will wear an N-95 or KN-95. I wear other masks with less conviction that I am really doing much to protect myself or others. But then again, I will admit to magical thinking about a lot of innocuous things I do like taking Vitamin D and zinc.
But I do understand why this global effort to vaccinate was undertaken. We can point blaming fingers to the FDA and CDC for data obfuscation/manipulation and to the MSM for taking a stenographic approach. The paucity of data makes it challenging to interpret transmission of the disease and severe adverse events, including deaths, subsequent to Covid vaccines. Mathew, I do hope you don't double down to the point that you lose site of the difficulty for the average working person, who becomes numbed and crazed by statistics.
It is that much more important to mitigate Covid cases with antiviral drugs, including mild and asymptomatic cases. So many generic candidate drugs already exist that should be used in RCTs for mild/asymptomatic individuals--ivermectin being one of them.
There is no question that the most important thing to understand is that throwing the kitchen sink---antivirals, vitamins, zinc, steroids or blood thinners as needed---has supportive data, when begun early in the mild stage of illness.
Regarding proper statistics: the actions of public health authorities are indistinguishable from sabotage in regards to collecting that data.
This article highlights a looming crisis in the US military - 1/3 of 1.3 million active-duty members are unvaccinated, and the government is attempting to convince / cajole / force them to be vaccinated by mid-September, 3 weeks from now.
The article repeatedly misuses "innoculate" as a synonym for mRNA or adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccination. This term properly only applies to the subset of true vaccines (these treatments are not vaccines by prior definitions) which involve infecting the person with a replicating bacteria or virus to raise immunity against the more dangerous, but closely related, pathogen which causes the serious disease.
Both the Delta variant and disputes about compulsory COVID-19 vaccinations have the potential to weaken US military effectiveness at a time when the Chinese Communist Party is threatening to invade Taiwan.
I wish all MDs read the research articles I cite at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ . Then the worst of the harm and death from COVID-19 could be avoided by D3 supplementation and early treatment, with much reduced transmission so there would no longer be a pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines would only be advisable for those who are especially vulnerable - mainly those who are suffering from obesity.
I have only glanced at this: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/frances-long-time-vaccine-policy-chief-covid-policy-is-completely-stupid-and-unethical . There are an increasing number of vaccine-critical interviews with people who are experts in relevant fields. (However this interview cites Delores Cahill, who - though extraordinarily well qualified - is an out-and-out COVID-19 denialist regarding the harm the disease causes, including to children.) These, the increasing shrillness and desperation of the pro-vaccine government-business-majority-public-increasingly-angry-mob will give many people pause for thought.
Recently the friendly, pro-vaccine, government funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported on a government minister in the state of NSW suffering Bells Palsy during a press conference: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-19/nsw-minister-victor-dominello-bells-palsy-press-conference/100389606 There is no suggestion that he was infected with COVID-19. The article was completely avoidant of the possibility that it was caused by recent COVID-19 vaccination: "According to the Australian government's Health Direct website, most people fully recover from Bell's palsy, with improvements noticeable in two weeks and full recovery in three to six months. It's believed viral infections are the main cause of the paralysis."
I can easily imagine a sudden onset of Bells Palsy being potentially deadly for multiple people if the sufferer is driving.
Banta's substack home page: "If you 'trust the science' but never read an academic study or checked the raw stats in the freely available online databases, you actually 'trust the media.'"
This reports on a Bloomberg (antidote: https://doomberg.substack.com) report that the already Biden-approved US 3rd injection "booster" COVID-19 vaccine program has yet to be approved by the FDA, and that the two day meeting to do so has been pushed back to the end of August.
"This is what is really concerning to many of us," said Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist at Bellevue Hospital in New York. "Because it feels like the scientific process is being short circuited by political concerns... It is almost science by popular demand."
There are concerns about declining protection against infection and severity and about vaccinated people becoming infected and transmitting the virus anyway. There's no mention of adverse reactions, but Zerohedge reports on these in other stories.
None of these people who are advising the public and the government seem to think of anything but VACCINES!, social distancing, lockdowns, masks and new, highly profitable, patented drugs or antibody concoctions.
Hey Mathew. Thank you for your hard work. I am a supporter. Your moment of Zen chart is very interesting. No correlation between county’s Covid rates and vaccine rates. So either the vaccines have no effect or there is another explanation. I’m serious when I say this. 😊 Maybe there is no Covid virus. Maybe there are no viruses as we’ve been taught. Many smart scientists throughout history have disagreed with “germ theory” and believed that toxins caused disease, and that viruses are waste products made by the cells, not the source of sickness. Polio can be explained by the arsenic based pesticides and DDT. HIV can be explained by gay men inhaling nitrite based “poppers” (drugs), and intravenous drug users. All “viral infections” can be explained by toxemia. Covid symptoms are loss of taste and smell and dry cough, trouble breathing and death. Nurses saying people cannot breathe. They’re suffocating. All those symptoms are radiation poisoning symptoms.
Currently, the population is already sick with heart disease, cancer, diabetes. We don’t eat naturally so probably a little malnourished and we are surrounded by radiation producing technology topped off recently by the worst yet. 5G. Wuhan was the world’s first full 5G city. Thought?
I have not studied the effects of cellphone radiation to have an opinion. But my default would be to want to live further than close to any kind of energy tower. DNA is always unhappy with excesses of energy.
Hi Mathew,
I am repeatedly hearing the media blare, "the vaccine is ~99% effective against hospitalization etc." Yet I also see the rapidly declining indications of efficacy in UK and Israel, where ~40-60% of hospitalizations are among the vaccinated. I find it implausible that there would be such stark differences in case rates, even accounting for differing levels of vaccination. I'd love your take on this. ie, do you trust this data? (and I don't mean the Cleveland Clinic data referred to which used an irrelevant timeframe to make such inferences, that is clearly bullshit, I mean the more recent claims which are too numerous to even bother citing).
The only thing that I think could skew it that much, aside from outright fabrication, is that the tests in the US are run at different cycle thresholds among the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. But that, too, seems like it would be difficult to pull off logisitically. ie, a hospital gets 100 sick unvaccinated people, and orders PCR tests at 40(Ct) and finds 99 of them are positive, vs 100 vaccinated people and orders PCR tests at 28 (Ct) and finds 1 of them is positive. While that is what would happen if they did such a glaringly manipulative protocol, it would take implausible (to me) levels of coordination to make sure all these hospitals treated the testing so asymmetrically. Am I wrong about that? What is your thinking on the issue?
It requires mental force for me to stay open to the fact that these data could be legitimate. My bias to distrust the official narrative is nearing calcification, which has its own dangers, and I want to be weary of that. But either way, even if it as remarkably effective at preventing severe cases as 99%!, then shouldn't the vaccinated feel highly assured in their safety and not exposed to undue risk by the unvaccinated? ie- WTF would the rationale be for mandates/passports etc if the vaccinated were afforded so much protection?
Something doesn't add up and I need help figuring it out. If I had to boil it down to one question, do you trust these claims?
This will take several articles, but some of which I'm working toward.
The most important thing is to understand that there are signals of mortality. If you go back a few articles and read "What Risk-Benefit Analysis?" you will find the perspective that matters most---does the vaccine save or take more lives (other harms secondary, but real, of course)?
Those who do not factor that into their claims are always talking bogus efficacy numbers rife with survivor bias and lack of corrections. In fact, the vaccines are generating new silent hypoxics that throw off most all claimed calculations, and nobody is bothering to analyze that.
Almost no Americans realize autopsies are being blocked, and they would settle the question quickly. That alone should tell us a lot.
on the face of it, claims like 99% anything make you just shake your head. it never happens. ever. And yes, even if it were 95% , who would worry?
I am not surprised at all by the superficial critiques leveled at your analysis. The barrier to entry for these conversations is high and if you don't have a robust statistical background (or the desire to learn), then most people have to take the approach of "the media tells me this is laughably false, so there has to be an obvious mistake in the methodology." Unfortunately, after years of research into various unrelated topics like cosmology, history, etc, I have come to realize that almost nothing that gets promoted as "conclusive" in the mainstream actually has the necessary legwork backing it. Most folks are content (whether through lack of time, cognitive dissonance, or fear) to believe that "people smarter than figured this out." Which is partially amazing because I also think most people of average or greater intelligence are also aware of the conflict of interests in our corporate media, medicine, government, etc.
I believe the extreme specialization of knowledge plays a large role in this... most people, by necessity, are very familiar with their own little niche and have very little exposure to information outside of their particular sphere (this obviously contributes to the Gell-Man effect, described a few articles back). When one considers this specificity within the medical industry alone, for example, just within the last half century or so, the average person has gone from having a primary physician who handled essentially all of their maladies to the point where their main doctor more or less just exists to write referrals to other experts, so every person has a full team of medical authorities responsible for their health (to say nothing of the issues that arise when we outsource responsibility for our personal well-being to third parties who have, no matter how well-intentioned, a profit motive).
So, most of us don't have the time required to fully understand a wide range of topics, so many attempt to assess validity by judging the analyst's character nstead of reviewing the data (and the quality of said data). This I further compounded by herd mentality and not wanting to appear as a foolish tin-foil hat nutter. The funny thing is, I have some very unorthodox opinions and I also do not subscribe to grand, unified conspiracies. Certainly, concealed agendas and propaganda do exist, but for many topics, it's as simplistic and naive to believe in hidden cabals making world impacting decisions as it is to believe the mainstream narrative. Paradigms, which arise both organically and with motivated assistance, sort of take on a life of their own. Essentially, I think the problem is a symptom of over-organization and historically, this is what contributes to the fall of a civilization. We create a complex machine with very specific parts that are not interchangeable and the focus shifts to filling these precise roles, at the expense of general understanding. So, contrary to much conspiratorial thinking, the problem is that eventually there's no one pulling the strings because everyone's forgotten how to do so, lost in the minutia of specificity. Compound this with a culture that values brevity above accuracy (Twitter and it's character limit is a wonderful sign of the times) and I believe that analytical "mistakes" on the level of what is described on this substack are to be expected as the rule, not the exception.
Apologies for my rambling, as I review more of the data and analysis here, I hope to be able to contribute in a more direct way. There are certainly enough red flags in the data I've reviewed over the last 18 months to cause me to reject most of the "accepted" premises of this pandemic, but I haven't applied the sort of statistical analysis done here in a couple decades, so I have a lot of mental cobwebs that need clearing. But even just a cursory review of the VAERS database should alarm anyone with even a basic knowledge of math, it's hard to hand-wave away AEs and deaths that are at least an order of magnitude higher than all other vaccines combined (which appear to have about the same total amount administered when compared to the total COVID doses). And I don't believe that assuming that the COVID vaccines AEs are recorded more consistently than AEs from other vaccines would be enough to get them to a similar level of safety, especially in light of reports that COVID vaccine AEs have been encouraged to not be recorded. Like Matthew though (and I think most who are interested in researching this, contrary to "popular opinion"), I do not want this to be the case... I'd rather not live in a world where a dangerous, un-approved, ineffective experimental gene therapy is promoted and mandated. In another classic case of projection, the "follow the 'science'" folks somehow think that the people who point out potential hazards are suffering from a form of wishful thinking... which I can't help but find incredibly odd. At no point in my life did I want to be a contrarian who disagrees with virtually everything presented by traditional academia via the mainstream (and social) media. It's frankly exhausting and certainly a lot harder than simply wearing a mask and getting a couple shots. If I was going to pick something to have "wishful thinking" about, I'd pick something a lot better!
From one rambler to the another: Salute! Please take an interest in vitamin D supplementation and early treatment as superior responses to vaccines and lockdowns, as I wrote in a comment below. My second comment on SSRIs and general health is getting off-topic, apart from the link at the end regarding facial lesions.
Hehe, appreciate the shout out. Us ramblers are a dying breed, I suspect! I will definitely be spending more time looking into vitamin D, as I've been running into a lot of information of late indicating that I've perhaps too underestimated its importance throughout my life. The older I get, it seems the more simple solutions are the more efficient ones (in many, often unrelated, matters). It would be humorous how much we tend to overcomplicate things, if the results weren't often so tragic!
I am focused on raising awareness of the need for 50ng/ml 125nmol/L or more circulating 25-hydoxyvitamin D, which is required for proper immune function, in a world where MDs tend to think half this level is OK, and were most people have half to a tenth of this level. Please see the research articles cited at: "What every MD should know about vitamin D and the immune system" https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
In this context, vaccines and lockdowns are 3rd and 4th best approaches to suppressing COVID-19 severity, viral shedding and so transmission compared to the number 1 solution of population wide vitamin D3 supplementation (such as 0.125mg 5000IU / day for 70kg 154lb bodyweight) and the number 2 solution which is early treatment, with calcifediol (AKA 25-hydroxyvitamin D), with ivermectin, melatonin, zinc, vitamin C, magnesium and perhaps an anti-inflammatory SSRI. I will soon be adding a page on these early treatments to the above site. Either one of these would be safer, easier, less expensive and more effective than vaccination - but they are less profitable, and many MDs can't imagine how important vitamin D is to the immune system.
I keep an eye on the debates surrounding mRNA and adenovirus vector COVID-19 "vaccines", but don't have the time to thoroughly evaluate the growing number of concerns about this. This article links to other concerning neurological impacts of some of these vaccines:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/generalneurology/94151
"perhaps an anti-inflammatory SSRI"?
I have all along been suspicious about drugs that fool around with quantities or re-absorption capabilities for various neurotransmitters such as the SSRIs. I'm sure to get some pushback on this, and not being a neuroscientist it is perhaps merited. But from what I've seen with a friend or two being treated for depression with SSRIs, these reuptake inhibitors are no cure at all, but more like the psychological equivalent of sandbagging a river. Sure, you can sandbag consciousness to stay away from those dangerous floodplains of depressing devastation. But a sudden unusual storm (death of a family member maybe) and the sandbags get washed way and you're back not to square one, but worse. So, never having liked taking a drug that might be dangerous in small overdose (why take paracetemol when naproxen should do even better and be safer as well) - or a drug that seems to have powerful but not obvious effects, especially on consciousness, why not avoid SSRIs as anti-inflammatorys and use something else without the possible neurotransmitter complications?
Hi Peter, I am not advocating SSRIs for psychological reasons. I think they are over-rated and over-prescribed - but I am an electronic technician, not a medical professional. Without wanting to start a really long, definitive, discussion with references, it seems that SSRIs work on depression - to whatever extent that they do - by, (in part at least, perhaps this is all they do) reducing chronic inflammation. I recall reading that such inflammation in the hippocampus reduces the neurogenesis which is required for not being depressed. I have reports of SSRIs reducing inflammation in auto-immune (hyper inflammatory) skin disorders and shoulder pain, so this anti-inflammatory mode of operation sounds quite plausible to me. The primary causes of chronic inflammation are lack of helminths (intestinal worms) https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#helminthsgone with considerable individual genetic variation on how overly aggressive our inflammatory responses are. This is made much worse by hyperinflammatory immune dysregulation caused by lack of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. See McGregor et al. cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ . Some people find that much higher than normal vitamin D3 intakes suppresses psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis etc. (medical supervision is best). See articles cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/06-adv/ though the mechanisms behind this are not yet known.
I think that before starting any psychoactive drug for depression, anxiety or whatever, the person should ensure proper nutrition - vitamin D especially, boron, omega 3 fatty acids, a bunch of minerals and vitamins too long to list here, including B12. They should avoid excessive salt and take a potassium supplement. MDs think this is impossible, or undesirable, but with care (not too much at once) potassium gluconate solution has a very mild taste: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/kna/ . I get about 2.4 grams a day of potassium, this way, with 4 small drinks, so probably doubling my potassium to sodium ratio which reduces the risk of hypertension and stroke. I also find it reduces anxiety. They should not use alcohol (depressant) and caffeine (addiction, anxiety, tiredness, impatience - don't get me started) and of course opioids, methamphetamines etc. They need good omega-3 fatty acid intakes and less omega-6 than is common today. They need exercise too. Non-prescription theanine seems to be safe, mild and subtle as a way of improving sleep and clarity of mind without inducing drowsiness. Then see if there are any problems which prescription drugs might help with. I think with all this, it is likely that at least some people would derive significant benefit from an SSRI. Some people get way more bad luck than whatever their fair share might be.
The research on fluvoxamine for COVID-19 https://www.treatearly.org/fluvoxamine shows impressive results, but this is with ordinary people who generally have very low 25-hydroxyvitamin D compared to the 50ng/ml their immune system needs, and poor nutrition in many other respects. Apparently the dose is relatively small and it is only for two weeks - so I guess it is reasonably safe. According to 51:30 in this Steve Kirsch interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHIYXqMXZOU fluoxetine (Prozac) is at least as effective against COVID-19 severe outcomes.
However, I suspect that most people would get little additional benefit from fluvoxamine (or from other SSRIs with anti-inflammatory properties) if they already had 50ng/ml 25-hydroxyvitamin D (from D3 supplementation or calcifediol 4 hour early treatment https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunilwimalawansa_multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-mis-activity-6815294839769436160-99qJ/ , ivermectin https://ivmmeta.com, melatonin https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440921001417, zinc, magnesium, vitamin C, B vitamins etc. So I mention fluvoxamine as one of the early treatments for COVID-19, while I think many others are easier to obtain and highly effective. So I don't think SSRIs should be urgently sought if all the others are used, as they should be.
Here's another account of ill-effects from the Moderna mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. The following links have graphic pictures of two men with facial lesions. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2782441 written up at a good source of bad news (some of it probably not very well based in reality) https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/08/20/two-men-develop-swollen-pus-filled-bumps-on-their-faces-after-receiving-moderna-covid-19-vaccine/ .
All quite interesting and I agree as far as possible. My observation, maybe qualifying as a gentle warning, is that IF you can avoid altering your neurotransmitters it is very probably a good thing to do. Especially if you can do so by avoiding a BigPharma product in favor of a "natural" one (hate that word, as a chemist there are only a few things that should actually be labeled unnatural: like those with chemical bonds that are impossible to create outside the lab.) best regards!
I don't think it is wowserish to disparage regular use of cannabis and the other recreational drugs just mentioned. They are all boring as batshit and harmful. Without these, and with good nutrition - and hopefully good friends - the party begins.
I have used various SSRI’s for depression and never had particularly good results. Most of the supplements you suggest have shown benefit. Personally, methyl folate and b12 made a world of difference and I ceased SSRI’s and felt even better. I see them as a crutch for acute depression but their side effects make them less than desirable. I started butyrate recently and have noticed improvement in mood and perhaps gut motility, that one is so subtle it’s hard to know. L-Theanine is wondrous for anxiety, particularly coffee jitters(I know, I know- but I love coffee too much to give it up). A question about your suggestion for potassium and sodium- what do you think of hydration supplements like liquid IV? At times I find drinking some of that really calms me down and quiets some muscular pain I experience. Thanks for all the info and sources.
Indeed there are many candidate drugs that are being considered.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7189851/
Interesting to read that, from April 2020. The recommended HCQ subsequently got illegitimately squelched, and the recommended Remdesivir got illegitimately and highly promoted despite horrific results - see the interview by Reiner Fuellmich with Dr. Bryan Ardis about that one. Filthy lucre at the core of those happenings.
apparent lack of vaccine efficacy could be explained by:
vaccines are effective, but their effect is approximately cancelled out by risk compensation - the vaccinated put themselves in situations with greater risk of infection, believing they are protected.
another possibility: attitude clusters that include preference for urban living also include relatively positive stance towards vaccination. the protective effect of vaccination is cancelled by the higher infection risk of high population density.
I've gradually realized who you are in various forums. I appreciate that you don't seem to take sides while truth seeking. Your question about the categorization of VAERS deaths, for instance, is the right one to ask, and I wish I could give you the answer sooner than publication. But it is good to have independently-minded good faith critics during a journey like this. I'm sure I'll make mistakes and that everyone around me is making mistakes, but independent thinking with communication improves end quality.
thanks, I appreciate that. enjoying your work.
Both of these thoughts are included in my list.
More importantly, I'm breaking out a "system vs. the individual" efficacy analysis. People have fallen asleep being told out to think during this pandemic, but any time something in a complex system changes fundamentally, we should remember to examine effects that differ on the individual/system level.
Cheers.
The Mayo data surely reflects both decreased efficacy and the true incidence of asymptomatic/mild cases.
From the very beginning, in zoom talks I questioned public policy makers how they were going to make broad claims about efficacy without teasing out how very important variables (masks/social distancing/economic shutdown and asymptomatic transmission) were discounted.
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/u-s-gives-blessing-covid-19-boosters-for-all-september-but-fda-still-needs-to-sign-off
Walensky flagged two studies in particular—one from New York and another based on data from the Mayo Clinic. The New York study, which looked at COVID-19 tests and linked them to peoples’ vaccination status using state records, found that efficacy against infection dropped from 92% in May to 80% by July 25.
Meanwhile, data from the Mayo Clinic found that Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy dropped from 76% to 42%, Walensky said. Efficacy for Moderna’s shot fell from 86% to 76% between January and July, when delta had established a foothold in the U.S., she added.
Walensky also cited data from a study of U.S. nursing home residents that found vaccine efficacy slipped from 75% in March to 53% as recently as Aug. 1, 2021. That’s a substantial decline in efficacy against infection “among those who are most vulnerable, including during months where delta was the predominant circulating variant,” Walensky said.
It’s important to note that the studies Walensky referenced include asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections. In their FDA application, Moderna and Pfizer submitted efficacy data on symptomatic COVID. That means the initial efficacy figures reported in Pfizer, Moderna and J&J’s pivotal studies can’t be compared to the efficacy figures Walensky spotlighted Wednesday.
If those phase 3 trials had tested all participants regularly, the efficacy figures would have been inherently lower. Instead, participants were only tested for the virus after certain symptoms cropped up.
This statement sounds like a contradiction... and this study seems to refute the idea that "risky" behavior- which I assume you mean putting oneself in more contact with more people- increases your chance of infection. Though, there certainly are a lot of confounders.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246548
not a contradiction. effective = if challenged by the virus, the vaccinated person is less likely to become infected. risk compensation = believing they are protected the vaccinated end up behaving in a way that means they're challenged by the virus more often. in case numbers the latter can mask benefit from the former.
I see your point- Though, if this factor of risk changes quickly over time as the vaccine antibody production and effectiveness wanes as Kris Alman notes above, the question becomes what, if any, benefit is had by vaccination? A few months of protection only delays the inevitable exposure and likely infection with an endemic virus. Now in the case of the breakthroughs, these individual are in the same boat as the unvaccinated where the body must challenge and mount a natural immune response to survive.
Between the waning vaccine antibodies and and escape variants it appears as if "the way out of the pandemic" is for the world population to reach natural herd immunity which will happen regardless of man's arrogant/ignorant attempts to control the pandemic with masks, lockdowns, vaccines, etc. It appears as if our health agencies and governments just prolonged the course and, if anything, made the situation much worse when you add all the incidental effects (delayed medical treatment, increased domestic violence, stunted education, collapsed economies, higher drug and alcohol abuse, etc.)
There is a sense of paradox in the idea that to "benefit" from the vaccine one must limit social exposure by distancing, masking, or avoiding crowds. To give credence to the vaccine it must allow protection in human behaviors that were considered "normal" before Nov. 2019.
Crawford's work indicates the vaccine had questionable effect on Covid mortality, and may have contributed to many more deaths and AE's than reported. Help me understand ANY benefit (besides delaying infection and consequences thereof) that is had by vaccination? Vs. incidental negatives was there a "net" benefit or harm?
shouldnt the RCTs be judgd as the "BEST' data we have so far? And if so, we saw no change in overall mortality over 6 months in 40K people. None.
It is appropriate to point out the lack of all cause mortality benefit in the six month Pfizer report. Though a weakness of the Pfizer trial was a paucity of elderly and otherwise high risk where nearly all mortality occurs.
However, when the vaccine partisans jump to population level analysis, they contradict the stark refusal to allow such analysis into evidence pools as per early treatment antivirals. Those medicines es and protocols must necessarily be suppressed in order to make a policy of vaccination pass a risk-benefit analysis.
Yes. and you cant have your cake and eat it too. Either the trial results are applicable to that high risk group or they are not
"Either the trial results are applicable to that high risk group or they are not"
If you can extrapolate between demographics, RCTs would be entirely unnecessary.
In this case, we know that high risk demographics absorb the fast majority of all of the harms. There was no RCT for them.
exactly. even If we buy the 95% efficacy that was largely for a low risk population.
Mathew, I appreciate your attention to how vaccines can put selective pressure on the virus to evolve to more deadly, transmissible strains. This is indisputable.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/new-sars-cov-2-variants-have-changed-pandemic-what-will-virus-do-next
One is the immunity that is now rapidly building in the human population. On one hand, immunity reduces the likelihood of people getting infected, and may hamper viral replication even when they are. “That means there will be fewer mutations emerging if we vaccinate more people,” Çevik says. On the other hand, any immune escape variant now has a huge advantage over other variants.
The scientific community has put all their eggs in the Covid vaccine basket, targeting the spike protein. It appears that the Delta variant is more transmissible, rather than escaping immunity.
https://virological.org/t/viral-infection-and-transmission-in-a-large-well-traced-outbreak-caused-by-the-delta-sars-cov-2-variant/724
That said, immune escape seems inevitable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0
"There is now clear evidence of the changing antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and of the amino acid changes that affect antibody neutralization. Spike amino acid substitutions and deletions that impact neutralizing antibodies are present at significant frequencies in the global virus population, and there is emerging evidence of variants exhibiting resistance to antibody-mediated immunity elicited by vaccines."
Where states are doing a better job on vaccine breakthroughs (like SC), I acknowledge that Covid deaths and hospitalizations still skew toward the unvaccinated.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cdc-only-tracks-a-fraction-of-breakthrough-covid-19-infections-even-as-cases-surge
If indeed, the FDA fully authorizes the Pfizer vaccine next week, one must wonder whether it will still come with blanket immunity for any severe adverse events or death. As politicized as vaccines are, my guess is that Congress will swiftly pass a bill or there will be an executive order coming from the Biden administration.
As for masks, I am not with you, Mathew. In high risk situations, I will wear an N-95 or KN-95. I wear other masks with less conviction that I am really doing much to protect myself or others. But then again, I will admit to magical thinking about a lot of innocuous things I do like taking Vitamin D and zinc.
But I do understand why this global effort to vaccinate was undertaken. We can point blaming fingers to the FDA and CDC for data obfuscation/manipulation and to the MSM for taking a stenographic approach. The paucity of data makes it challenging to interpret transmission of the disease and severe adverse events, including deaths, subsequent to Covid vaccines. Mathew, I do hope you don't double down to the point that you lose site of the difficulty for the average working person, who becomes numbed and crazed by statistics.
It is that much more important to mitigate Covid cases with antiviral drugs, including mild and asymptomatic cases. So many generic candidate drugs already exist that should be used in RCTs for mild/asymptomatic individuals--ivermectin being one of them.
There is no question that the most important thing to understand is that throwing the kitchen sink---antivirals, vitamins, zinc, steroids or blood thinners as needed---has supportive data, when begun early in the mild stage of illness.
Regarding proper statistics: the actions of public health authorities are indistinguishable from sabotage in regards to collecting that data.
This article highlights a looming crisis in the US military - 1/3 of 1.3 million active-duty members are unvaccinated, and the government is attempting to convince / cajole / force them to be vaccinated by mid-September, 3 weeks from now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/08/21/vaccine-mandate-pentagon/
The article repeatedly misuses "innoculate" as a synonym for mRNA or adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccination. This term properly only applies to the subset of true vaccines (these treatments are not vaccines by prior definitions) which involve infecting the person with a replicating bacteria or virus to raise immunity against the more dangerous, but closely related, pathogen which causes the serious disease.
Both the Delta variant and disputes about compulsory COVID-19 vaccinations have the potential to weaken US military effectiveness at a time when the Chinese Communist Party is threatening to invade Taiwan.
I wish all MDs read the research articles I cite at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ . Then the worst of the harm and death from COVID-19 could be avoided by D3 supplementation and early treatment, with much reduced transmission so there would no longer be a pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines would only be advisable for those who are especially vulnerable - mainly those who are suffering from obesity.
I have only glanced at this: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/frances-long-time-vaccine-policy-chief-covid-policy-is-completely-stupid-and-unethical . There are an increasing number of vaccine-critical interviews with people who are experts in relevant fields. (However this interview cites Delores Cahill, who - though extraordinarily well qualified - is an out-and-out COVID-19 denialist regarding the harm the disease causes, including to children.) These, the increasing shrillness and desperation of the pro-vaccine government-business-majority-public-increasingly-angry-mob will give many people pause for thought.
It is likely that the facial disfiguration photos https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2782441 will do the rounds on social media. While Bells Palsy can be caused by COVID-19, it can also be caused by COVID-19 vaccines: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2779389 and https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/93643 . Some of the 40 articles found with https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Bells+Palsy%22+%22COVID-19%22+vaccine&btnG= report on such occurrences. Apparently this does not usually lead to lasting difficulties, but the fact that the vaccine, which is supposed to be active in the person's arm, is causing serious, if transient, neurological dysfunction, is a real concern.
Recently the friendly, pro-vaccine, government funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported on a government minister in the state of NSW suffering Bells Palsy during a press conference: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-19/nsw-minister-victor-dominello-bells-palsy-press-conference/100389606 There is no suggestion that he was infected with COVID-19. The article was completely avoidant of the possibility that it was caused by recent COVID-19 vaccination: "According to the Australian government's Health Direct website, most people fully recover from Bell's palsy, with improvements noticeable in two weeks and full recovery in three to six months. It's believed viral infections are the main cause of the paralysis."
I can easily imagine a sudden onset of Bells Palsy being potentially deadly for multiple people if the sufferer is driving.
Banta's substack home page: "If you 'trust the science' but never read an academic study or checked the raw stats in the freely available online databases, you actually 'trust the media.'"
Zerohedge reports on concerns that the US government isn't even following the science - but making decisions in anticipation of scientific support: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/math-doesnt-work-more-scientists-speak-out-against-biden-admins-push-booster-jabs
This reports on a Bloomberg (antidote: https://doomberg.substack.com) report that the already Biden-approved US 3rd injection "booster" COVID-19 vaccine program has yet to be approved by the FDA, and that the two day meeting to do so has been pushed back to the end of August.
"This is what is really concerning to many of us," said Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist at Bellevue Hospital in New York. "Because it feels like the scientific process is being short circuited by political concerns... It is almost science by popular demand."
There are concerns about declining protection against infection and severity and about vaccinated people becoming infected and transmitting the virus anyway. There's no mention of adverse reactions, but Zerohedge reports on these in other stories.
None of these people who are advising the public and the government seem to think of anything but VACCINES!, social distancing, lockdowns, masks and new, highly profitable, patented drugs or antibody concoctions.
Hey Mathew. Thank you for your hard work. I am a supporter. Your moment of Zen chart is very interesting. No correlation between county’s Covid rates and vaccine rates. So either the vaccines have no effect or there is another explanation. I’m serious when I say this. 😊 Maybe there is no Covid virus. Maybe there are no viruses as we’ve been taught. Many smart scientists throughout history have disagreed with “germ theory” and believed that toxins caused disease, and that viruses are waste products made by the cells, not the source of sickness. Polio can be explained by the arsenic based pesticides and DDT. HIV can be explained by gay men inhaling nitrite based “poppers” (drugs), and intravenous drug users. All “viral infections” can be explained by toxemia. Covid symptoms are loss of taste and smell and dry cough, trouble breathing and death. Nurses saying people cannot breathe. They’re suffocating. All those symptoms are radiation poisoning symptoms.
Currently, the population is already sick with heart disease, cancer, diabetes. We don’t eat naturally so probably a little malnourished and we are surrounded by radiation producing technology topped off recently by the worst yet. 5G. Wuhan was the world’s first full 5G city. Thought?
I have not studied the effects of cellphone radiation to have an opinion. But my default would be to want to live further than close to any kind of energy tower. DNA is always unhappy with excesses of energy.
This is very informative, as per usual. I hope the "bounty" comment was not for real, though!
Bounty is a positive in this case