Norway Investigates 29 Deaths in Elderly Patients After Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccination

What Happened: 29 patients who were quite old and frail have died following their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, Norwegian officials have since adjusted their advice on who should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to many given the fact that the clinical trials were conducted with people who are healthy. Old, sick, and frail people were not used in the trials, and people with severe allergies and other diseases that can make one more susceptible to vaccine injury were not used either. It can be confusing given the fact that vaccination is being encouraged for the elderly in nursing homes and those who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

O the 15th of January it was 23 deaths, Bloomberg is now reporting that a total of 29 deaths among people over the age of 75 who’ve had their first COVID-19 shot. They point out that “Until Friday, Pfizer/BioNTech was the only vaccine available in Norway”, stating that the Norwegian Medicines Agency told them that as a result “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine.”

“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”

Madsen also told the BMJ that,

There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly. We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease. We are not asking for doctors to continue with vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it. This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

The BMJ article goes on to point out that the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after COVID-19 vaccination, and closes with the following information:

In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.

“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.

“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”

Vaccine Hesitancy is Growing Among Healthcare Workers: Vaccine hesitancy is growing all over the globe, one of the latest examples comes from Riverside County, California. It has a population of approximately 2.4 million, and about 50 percent of healthcare workers in the county are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine despite the fact that they have top priority and access to it.  At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot. Roughly 20% to 40% of L.A. County’s frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials. You can read more about that story here.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

A study published in the journal EbioMedicine  as far back as 2013 outlines this point, among many others.

Pfizer’s Questionable History:  Losing faith in “big pharma” does not come without good reason. For example, in 2010 Robert G. Evans, PhD, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC, published a paper that’s accessible in PubMed titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR.”

In it, he outlines the fact that,

Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The 2.3-billion settlement…set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research.

Suppressing clinical trial results is something I’ve come across multiple times with several different medicines. Five years ago I wrote about how big pharma did not share adverse reactions people had and harmful results from their clinical trials for commonly used antidepressant drugs.

Even scientists from within federal these health regulatory agencies have been sounding the alarm. For example, a few years ago more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the  Spider Papers.

The Takeaway: Given the fact that everything is not black and white, especially when it comes to vaccine safety, do we really want to give government health agencies and/or private institutions the right to enforce mandatory vaccination requirements when their efficacy have been called into question? Should people have the freedom of choice? It’s a subject that has many people polarized in their beliefs, but at the end of the day the sharing of information, opinion and evidence should not be shut down, discouraged, ridiculed or censored. In a day and age where more people are starting to see our planet in a completely different light, one which has more and more questioning the human experience and why we live the way we do it seems the ‘crack down’ on free thought gets tighter and tighter. Do we really want to live in a world where we lose the right to choose what we do with our own body, or one where certain rights and freedoms are taken away if we don’t comply? The next question is, what do we do about it? Those who are in a position to enforce these measures must, it seems, have a shift in consciousness and refuse to implement them. There doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer, but there is no doubt that we are currently going through that possible process, we are living in it.

Psycho-Acoustic Medicine: Science Behind Sound Healing For Serotonin Production

Mental illness has reached an all time high in the world, and yet the modern day medicines to relieve symptoms have gained controversy. This is, in part, why people have dug up the past to better understand alternative ways of healing.

Sound, for instance, has been a tool for promoting the physical and emotional health of the body for as long as history can account for, deeply rooted in ancient cultures and civilizations. The ancient Egyptians used vowel sound chants in healing because they believed vowels were sacred. Tibetan monks take advantage of singing bowls, which they believe to be “a symbol of the unknowable” whose “vibrations have been described as the sound of the universe manifesting.”

“Our various states of consciousness are directly connected to the ever-changing electrical, chemical, and architectural environment of the brain. Daily habits of behavior and thought processes have the ability to alter the architecture of brain structure and connectivity, as well as, the neurochemical and electrical neural oscillations of your mind.”

Psychoacoustics is the scientific study of the perception of sound, and it has fueled researchers paths to better understand how it can be used as medicine. For instance, in 1973, Dr. Gerald Oster, a medical doctor and biophysicist, proved, in his research paper, “Auditory Beats in the Brain,” how sound affects the how the brain absorbs new information, controls mood, sleep patterns, healing responses, and more, and how quickly. Thus, specific frequencies of sound and music can be used to generate neurotransmitters such as serotonin.


To understand the fundamentals of sound in healing, we must first understand our brain waves. The nucleus of our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, is the communication between neurons. Brain waves are generated by way of electrical pulses working in unison from masses of neurons interacting with one another. Brain waves are divided into five different bandwidths that are thought to form a spectrum of human consciousness.

The slowest of the waves are delta waves (.5 to 3 Hz), which are the slowest brain waves and occur mostly during our deepest state of sleep. The fastest of the waves are gamma waves (25 to 100 Hz), which are associated with higher states of conscious perception. Alpha waves (8 to 12 Hz) occur when the brain is daydreaming or consciously practicing mindfulness or meditation.

According to Dr. Suzanne Evans Morris, Ph.D., a speech-language pathologist:

Research shows that different frequencies presented to each ear through stereo headphones… create a difference tone (or binaural beat) as the brain puts together the two tones it actually hears. Through EEG monitoring the difference tone is identified by a change in the electrical pattern produced by the brain. For example, frequencies of 200 Hz and 210 Hz produce a binaural beat frequency of 10 Hz (The difference in 210 Hz and 200 Hz is 10 Hz). Monitoring of the brain’s electricity (EEG) shows that the brain produces increased 10 Hz activity with equal frequency and amplitude of the wave form in both hemispheres of the brain (left and right hemisphere).

It is thought that different brain wave patterns are connected to the production in the brain of certain neurochemicals linked with relaxation and stress release, as well as better learning and creativity, memory, and more. Such neurochemicals include beta-endorphins, growth factors, gut peptides, acetylcholine, vasopressin, and serotonin.

A series of experiments conducted by neuro-electric therapy engineer Dr. Margaret Patterson and Dr. Ifor Capel, revealed how alpha brainwaves boosted the production of serotonin. Dr. Capel explained:

As far as we can tell, each brain center generates impulses at a specific frequency based on the predominant neurotransmitter it secretes. In other words, the brain’s internal communication system—its language, is based on frequency… Presumably, when we send in waves of electrical energy at, say, 10 Hz, certain cells in the lower brain stem will respond because they normally fire within that frequency range.

Additional research upholds the beliefs of mind-body medicine in this sense, stating that brainwaves being in the Alpha state, 8 to 14 Hz, permits a vibration allowing for more serotonin to be created.

It’s important for us to come to terms with the fact that there is science behind age-old medicinal practices that do not require putting unknown substances in our bodies to alleviate issues like stress, depression, anxiety, and more.

But even more intriguing is to think something as simple as sound, as music, which we have come to treat as utterly pleasurable entertainment, has not only been used to promote healing and well-being, but has proven to work through research as well.

If your mental health is of concern, try listening to a binaural beat to generate alpha waves between 8 and 14 Hz to produce more serotonin. Another option is to take advantage of music that promotes a relaxed alpha state in the brain such as classical music.

Related CE Article: Research Shows We Can Heal With Vibration, Frequency & Sound

Study: Short Break From Cosmetics Causes “Significant Drop of Hormone Disrupting Chemicals”

A study led by researchers at UC Berkeley and Clinica de Salud del Valle Salinas has demonstrated how taking even a short break from various cosmetics, shampoos, and other personal care products can lead to a substantial drop in the levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals present within the body.

The results from the study were published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers gave 100 Latina teenagers various personal care products that were labeled to be free of common chemicals including phthalates, parabens, triclosan, and oxybenzone. These chemicals are used regularly in almost all conventional personal care products such as cosmetics, soap, sunscreen, shampoo, conditioner, and other hair products, and animal studies have shown that they directly interfere with the body’s endocrine system.

“Because women are the primary consumers of many personal care products, they may be disproportionately exposed to these chemicals,” said study lead author Kim Harley, associate director of the UC Berkeley Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health. “Teen girls may be at particular risk since it’s a time of rapid reproductive development, and research has suggested that they use more personal care products per day than the average adult woman.”


After just a three-day trial with the girls using only the lower-chemical products, urine samples showed a significant drop in the level of chemicals in the body. Methyl and propyl parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, dropped 44% and 45%, respectively, metabolites of diethyl phthalate, used often in perfumes, dropped by 27%, and both triclosan and benzophenone-3 fell 36%. The authors of the study were surprised to see an increase in two lesser common parabens, but, being minor, could easily have been caused by accidental contamination or a substitute not listed on the labels.

Co-director of the study Kimberly Parra explains why having local youths participate in the study was of particular importance:

The results of the study are particularly interesting on a scientific level, but the fact that high school students led the study set a new path to engaging youth to learn about science and how it can be used to improve the health of their communities. After learning of the results, the youth took it upon themselves to educate friends and community members, and presented their cause to legislatures in Sacramento.

Included in the CHAMACOS Youth Council were 12 local high school students who helped design and implement the study. One of the teen researchers, Maritza Cárdenas, is now a UC Berkeley undergraduate majoring in molecular and cell biology.

“One of the goals of our study was to create awareness among the participants of the chemicals found in everyday products, to help make people more conscious about what they’re using,” said Cárdenas. “Seeing the drop in chemical levels after just three days shows that simple actions can be taken, such as choosing products with fewer chemicals, and make a difference.”

The researchers noted that cosmetics and personal care products are not well-regulated in this country, and that getting data about health effects from exposure, particularly long-term ones, is difficult. But they say there is growing evidence linking endocrine-disrupting chemicals to neurobehavioral problems, obesity and cancer cell growth.

What Can You Do?

Well, you can be sure to check the labels on any products you purchase. Most personal care products contain a list of ingredients, but unfortunately many cosmetics do not. If you use a particular brand that you really love you can try contacting the manufacturer directly and asking them for an ingredient list.

You can also opt for more natural and organic products, but be sure to keep in mind that in the industry of personal care products, the words “natural” and “organic” are often meaningless. A safe bet would be to buy these products from a health food store and be sure to read the ingredients or ask the sales clerk. Generally, when products do not contain specific chemicals, the manufacturers are happy to label them as such.

The less demand for these chemically-laden products there is, the less these chemicals will be used. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR! We have the power to create the type of world we want. Be the change.

Check out The Story Of Cosmetics below!

Three Eminent Epidemiologists Explain Why They Strongly Oppose Lockdowns For Covid-19

Censorship of information by Big-Tech, all of whom have strong connections to Department of Defense agencies and big politics, is at an all time high. Not only has a sitting president had his social media accounts completely wiped out,  but thousands of doctors, scientists, journalists and people have had the same thing happen to them. Regardless of your views and what you believe, whether you are “left” or “right”, this is quite concerning. This type of censorship comes under the guise of good will, claiming that freedom of speech is causing harm, but this, in many cases, simply isn’t true. We’ve see academic thought, opinion, evidence and research removed from social media, especially when it comes to Covid. Any information that opposes the narrative that’s constantly beamed out by mainstream media or government health authorities seems to come under a watchful eye. A political scientist like Dr. Anthony Fauci is given free reign, instant virality and air time yet other renowned experts in the field have their voice silenced and never get a chance to speak to the masses. This has many people questioning what’s really going on here? Open scientific discussion is being stifled.

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

Because this article is presenting a discussion of three renowned scientists who oppose government measures, I am also concerned that it will be “flagged” and perhaps labelled as “fake news.” When this happens, not only is the discussion and article completely censored from our followers but our social media accounts, like our Facebook Page, is punished. As a result of the “flag” our algorithms are adjusted and anything we post with this “flag” on our page is essentially blocked from our followers. This is why we are moving away from Facebook and asking people who wish to keep in touch with us to join us on Telegram, and/or our email list.

Below is a video of Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist where the initiators of the declaration. Together, they created The Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration has an impressive list co-signers, and has also now been signed by more than 50,000 doctors and scientists and more than 700,000 concerned citizens, which is pretty impressive given the fact that it’s received no attention from mainstream media.  Follow their twitter account here.

The declaration explains why these health professionals and scientists strongly oppose lockdown measures, and also brings up the topic of herd immunity. In the video below they explain their belief of why there should be a different response to the pandemic.

Scientists Explain How The Growth of A Baby’s Brain “Literally Requires Positive Interaction”

Loving your child will physically translate into a larger, healthier brain than children who suffer from extreme neglect, abuse and trauma. It’s true that children need to be loved and supported and not just so they can feel good about themselves, but so they can physically develop the way they are supposed to.

This is important information for parents to know, especially as there has been a debate over whether or not children, especially babies, should be attached with their mothers or if they should be left to ‘cry it out’ on their own, or ‘self-soothe.’ This goes beyond the child being independent and emotionally strong; it will impact how the child will develop physically into a healthy adult, and whether they will encounter mental health problems and addictive behavior as they grow up.

Brain Scans

The following image is a depiction of the brains of two children; the one on the left had an attentive caregiver who consistently loved, cared for, responded to and interacted positively with him. The brain of the child on the right was neglected, ignored and abused.

“The child on the right will grow into an adult who is less intelligent, less able to empathize with others, more likely to become addicted to drugs and involved in violent crime … and to develop mental and other serious health problems,” says an article published in The Telegraph in 2012.

According to UCLA Psychiatry Professor Allan Schore. a leading neurologist in the study of how the development of a child is affected by the amount of love given by its caregiver, “the growth of the baby’s brain literally requires positive interaction between mother and infant, the development of cerebral circuits depend on it.”

When Is This Most Crucial?

From the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy, up until the 24th month of life the baby’s brain will more than double in size, but that is only if it gets the proper love, care and affection that children actually require.

“There is something the human brain needs in terms of contact with other humans for it to grow. The connections that are not used die off,” he says. “It’s a use it or lose it situation. Cells that fire together wire together and do not die together.”

“The brain does not continue to grow and grow and grow. It organizes, then disorganizes, then reorganizes. The disorganization of the brain — the massive death of billions of neurons and disconnection of synapses — is part of how the brain is growing as it’s reorganizing,” says Schore.

To some this may seem obvious, but there are many caregivers that don’t understand how important this is and believe that in order to raise independent children that they must be left to soothe themselves. Unfortunately what they don’t realize is that infants are not equipped with any means to do this, and when they cry out, even if they are not hungry, don’t need to be changed, or don’t seemingly need anything, what they do need is love, care, and attention.

In the following video, Dr. Schore explains some of the findings from his research in more detail.

Repeating Cycles

“Parents who, because their parents neglected them, do not have fully developed brains, neglect their own children in a similar way: their own children’s brains suffer from the same lack of development,” according to the same Telegraph article.

Because the damage that is done is typically believed to be permanent, one might think there is no hope as generations will keep repeating the same cycles of what is often unintentional abuse. However with this knowledge and awareness we can practice early intervention. That involves identifying mothers who are “at risk” of neglecting their babies, and having a nurse check up on them often to instructs them on how they should be caring for their newborn child.

Early intervention has been tried in the US for more than 20 years. Data from the city of Elmira in New York State, where these programs have been in place for the longest have shown that children whose mothers had received guidance did much better compared to children with similar circumstances but without assistance. These children whose mothers were identified as “at risk” grew up to have about 50 percent fewer arrests, 80 percent fewer convictions and a significantly lower rate of drug abuse, according to the Telegraph article.

Hold Onto Your Children

Hopefully soon this information will be such common knowledge and our children will be raised with the utmost care, love, and affection. But until then, it’s important to spread the word! If you found this information useful or know anyone who would, please share.

Medical Prof Explains Devastating Effects of Lockdown For A Virus With A “99.95%” Survival Rate

What Happened: It’s quite clear to see for anybody who is doing deep research into the COVID pandemic that there is a big split within the scientific/medical community as to whether or not the measures being taken by governments around the world, like lockdowns, masking and social distancing are appropriate, effective and necessary. If watching mainstream media and only obtaining information via the television screen, radio and newspaper is ones only exposure to news regarding the pandemic, this wouldn’t seem to be the case, and it would seem that these measures are indeed necessary and appropriate because it seems to be the dominant viewpoint that’s constantly presented and beamed out to the masses.

It’s quite a concern to many that doctors and scientists who oppose the views and perception being given to us by mainstream media about the pandemic are largely ignored and censored. Somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, can receive instant virality yet thousands of scientists and experts in the field who disagree seem to be ignored, censored and never really given the light of day to share their research, data, and opinions.

The truth is, lockdown measures may not only be unnecessary and useless for combating COVID, but they are also having other detrimental consequences that could be worse than the virus itself. This was recently expressed by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in an article written for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.”

In that article he expresses that the case fatality rate from the virus has dropped sharply since March, and that it’s now 99.95 percent for people under the age of 70 and 95 percent for people over the age of 70. He also recently expressed this fact  on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles. Bhattacharya cited this study published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, along with approximately 50 others as expressed in the video interview.

In the article he wrote for The Hill, he points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures.

The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, EnglandFrance, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again.

By lockdowns, we mean the all-too-familiar shuttered schools and universities, closed playgrounds and parks, silent churches and bankrupt stores and businesses that have become emblematic of American civic life these past months. The relative dearth of reporting on the harms caused by lockdowns is odd, since lives lost from lockdown are no less important than lives lost from COVID infection. But they’ve received much less media attention.

The harms from lockdown have been catastrophic. Consider the psychological harm. Reader, since you’re reading this in lockdown, you can undoubtedly relate to the isolation and loneliness that these policies can cause by shutting down typical channels for social interaction. In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one in four young adults had seriously considered suicide. Opioid and other drug related deaths are on a sharp and unsurprising upswing.

The burden of these policies falls disproportionately on some of the most vulnerable. For example, isolation led to a 20 percent increase in dementia-related deaths among our elderly population. Moreover, retrospective analysis of the lockdown in the United States shows that patients skipped cancer screenings, childhood immunizationsdiabetes management visits and even treatment for heart attacks.

Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis. The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.

Criticism of lockdowns has been a common theme. Early on during the first wave of the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19?  has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May .

A response by Professor David Paton, Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham and Professor Ellen Townsend, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, to an article  published in the the BMJ in November titled “Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced worldwide” states,

Taken together, the data are clear both that national lockdowns are not a necessary condition for Covid-19 infections to decrease and that the Prime Minister was incorrect to suggest to MPs that infections were increasing rapidly in England prior to lockdown and that without national measures, the NHS would be overwhelmed…Lockdowns have never previously been used in response to a pandemic. They have significant and serious consequences for health (including mental health), livelihoods and the economy. Around 21,000 excess deaths during the first UK lockdown were not Covid-19 deaths. These are people who would have lived had there not been a lockdown.

It is well established that the first lockdown had an enormously negative effect on mental health in young people as compared to adults. The more we lockdown, the more we risk the mental health of young people, the greater the likelihood the economy will be destroyed, the greater the ultimate impact on our future health and mental health. Sadly, we know that global economic recession is associated with increased poor mental health and suicide rates.

According to a recent study published in Pediatrics, lockdown and social distancing measures are strongly correlated with an increase in suicidal thoughts, attempts and behaviour.

According to Dr. John Lee, a former Professor of Pathology and NHS consultant pathologist,

Lockdowns cannot eradicate the disease or protect the public…They lead to only economic meltdown, social despair and direct harms to health from other causes…Scientifically, medically and morally lockdowns have no justification in dealing with Covid.

These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.

The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.

Scrolling through the twitter feed of The Great Barrington Declaration, I came across a post from the American Institute For Economic Research (AIER) titled “Lockdowns Do Not Control The Coronavirus: The Evidence.”

In the article they argue that, “In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.”

According to the AIER,

The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.

AIER gathered data that was put together by engineer Ivor Cummins Ivor Cummins but has also added its own in the summary they posted, which you can see below. The studies are focused only on lockdown measures and they “do not get into the myriad of associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issuesdeath misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.”

You can access those studies posted by the AIER here.

Other concerns with regards to lockdowns are the fact that they are based on “positive” results from a PCR test. Just because a person, especially an asymptomatic person, tests positive does not mean they have COVID. We seem to be forgetting this. For example, 22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives.

The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it. In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.

There are many examples, the list goes on and on and you can read more about that specifically here.

Although deaths are currently running at normal levels, fear is being driven by inflation of Covid “ases” caused by inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. This test is hypersensitive and highly susceptible to contamination, particularly when not processed with utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Case inflation also occurs from use of excessive number number of rounds of amplification cycles (termed CT) which amplifies non-infectious viral fragments and cross-reacting nucleotides from non-Covid coronaviruses/other respiratory viruses. These become mis-labelled as Covid. Even Dr. Fauci confirms that a positive result using CT above 34 is invalid. An obvious improvement is to immediately halt any use of CTs above 34 and ensure that or CTs between 25 and 34, two consecutive positive results are required before confirming a case as Covid positive. – Eshani M King, Evidence Based Research in Immunology and Health, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, UK. (Source, BMJ)

Many concerns have also been raised about the death count, with various public health authorities admitting to counting deaths as COVID when they’re not actually a result of COVID. For example, Ontario (Canada) public health clearly states that deaths will be marked as COVID deaths whether or not it’s clear if COVID was the cause or contributed to the death. This means that those who did not die as a result of COVID are included in the death count. You can read more about that and see many more examples, here.

The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence..came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)

The Takeaway

Implementation of the current draconian measures that so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. –Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

Why is there so much suppression of science and scientists who oppose the narrative and information being put out by the World Health Organization?

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

Why is there a digital fact-checker going around the internet censoring information? Should people not have the right to examine information, publications and evidence transparently, openly and determine for themselves what they wish to believe? Why are government health authorities not consulting with independent scientific organizations to determine the right course of action during this pandemic? Why do tens of thousands of doctors and scientists oppose the measures being taken by our governments? Why have other treatments been ridiculed and not even considered? Why has a vaccine been made out to be the only solution here, and why did the World Health Organization recently change their definition of herd immunity?

Do we really want to give these entities so much power that they can basically do whatever they choose against the will of so many people? Do governments even represent the will of the people and have our best interests at heart or is something else going on here? Why do we as a society fail to have proper discussions about controversial topics? Why are controversial stances that go against the grain always labelled as a “conspiracy theory” and ridiculed by mainstream media no matter how strong the evidence is behind them?

Ontario (Canada) Admits Labelling Deaths As COVID When They’re Not A Result of COVID

What Happened: Ontario (Canada) Public Health has a page on their website titled “How Ontario is responding to COVID-19.” On it, they clearly state that deaths are being marked as COVID deaths and are being included in the COVID death count regardless of whether or not COVID actually contributed to or caused the death. They state the following,

Any case marked as “Fatal” is included in the deaths data. Deaths are included whether or not COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing or underlying cause of death…”

This statement from Ontario Public Health echoes statements made multiple times by Canadian public health agencies and personnel. According to Ontario Ministry Health Senior Communications Advisor Anna Miller,

As a result of how data is recorded by health units into public health information databases, the ministry is not able to accurately separate how many people died directly because of COVID versus those who died with a COVID infection.

Again, this means when we observe the COVID-19 death count in Ontario, Canada, we are observing an inaccurate number given the fact that those who died with COVID may not have necessarily died as a result of it. Theoretically if a person committed suicide and tested positive for COVID or died in a car crash, of a heart attack, of cancer, diabetes or any other illness, they are also included in the COVID death count. Let’s not forget the fact that a positive PCR test does not mean one has COVID.

This has been common theme during the span of this pandemic so far. For example, in late June Toronto (Ontario, Canada) Public Health tweeted that “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.”

It’s not just in Canada where we’ve seen these types of statements being made, it’s all over the world. There are multiple examples from the United States that we’ve written about before.

For example, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health stated the following during the first wave of the pandemic,

If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you were also found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death, despite if you died of a clear alternative cause it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death that doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.

During the first wave, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had to announce a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths due to complaints that it inflated the numbers.

The only issue is that we can’t know how many people have been added to the COVID death count in multiple places across the globe that did not actually die as a result of COVID. Theoretically, this could drive the global death count significantly lower than the official numbers we are getting.

At the end of the summer the CDC put out data showing that 94% of deaths that have been marked as COVID deaths had at least two or there other causes listed.  Out of all the deaths that have been labelled as a COVID-19 death in the United States up to the end of August, for 6% of them COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned and for 94% of the deaths there were other causes and conditions in addition to COVID-19. The CDC states that “for deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.” So how do we know that COVID was the cause for many of these deaths or even contributed? Many believe COVID was the cause and even contributed to the comorbitities listed. You can view the updated numbers here in table 3 from the CDC as they are similar.

We also saw this very early on in Italy, where 99 percent of those who were marked as COVID deaths had multiple comorbidities.

With the last two examples it’s important to mention that COVID may have been the cause or even a contributing factor. We already know that people with comorbidities as well as the elderly are the most vulnerable. We also know that for people 70 years and younger the survival rate of the virus is 99.95 percent, according to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD,PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine. This is why approximately 50,000 doctors and scientists have now signed The Great Barrington Declaration strongly opposing lockdown measures, citing information showing that they are doing more harm than good and explaining that we don’t have to lockdown everything to protect the vulnerable. There are, according to them, more proper and efficient ways of doing so.

Why This Is Important: There are a lot of questions on the minds of many people, not only with regards to the severity of the virus, PCR testing, and the measures being taken by governments to combat it, but also the fact that information, evidence, science and expert opinion during this pandemic has been heavily censored. A lot of scientists and doctors have been doing their best to create awareness about this as we don’t hear a peep from the mainstream about it. Social media outlets have been censoring and blocking information that opposes the official narrative that’s beamed out by government health authorities. It’s odd how one scientist, like Dr. Anthony Fauci for example, can get all the air time in the world and given instant virality, yet thousands of other experts it the field who share an opposite opinion are completely ignored. It raises a lot of questions and red flags.

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

The bottom line is, science is being suppressed, and this is no secret. Below is a tweet from Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard professor of medicine that emphasizes this point, which was also recently emphasized by Kamran Abbas, a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has published an article about COVID-19, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine. There are many examples to choose from, I thought I’d simply mention these few to get my point across. It’s also not surprising to find conflicts of interests among government COVID advisors.

The Takeaway: A big problem we seem to be having today as a collective is that we are unable to communicate and discuss controversial issues or stances, or what are labelled as controversial stances appropriately. This is in large part due to the fact that these stances are heavily censored and ridiculed by mainstream media, a lot of information is labelled as controversial or a “conspiracy theory” which leads to a lack of understanding by the masses. It also makes it easy to not even entertain or have a discussion around the topic. Why do we have such a hard time entertaining what are deemed controversial stances? Why do we have such a hard time suspending our own beliefs and taking on other beliefs that contradict our own? Why do we have such a hard time understanding the view of another person and why they feel that way? Why have we become so polarized in what we believe in to the point where we can’t even have appropriate conversations about it with each other? Why do so many people respond with hatred, anger and ridicule when it comes to an opposing view? What’s going on here? Is information really the solution, because sometimes extremely credible information and evidence is completely ignored in order to protect one’s own belief system.

Epidemiologist At Yale Provides Testimony On Hydroxychloroquine For Treating COVID-19

We are living in a day in age where social media “fact-checkers” are patrolling the internet calling into question information, science, opinion and testimony from countless amounts of doctors and scientists, as well as independent media outlets who source this information, simply because it opposes the information that we are getting from the World Health Organization(WHO) for example, or other government health authorities. One great example to illustrate this point is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a drug, according to many, that can help treat COVID-19 patients.

This idea has been a common theme throughout the pandemic, which begs the question, if it’s true, why wasn’t the drug administered and made available for doctors to use and treat COVID patients during this pandemic? Why was it ridiculed by mainstream media and why did Facebook fact-checkers claim that Hydroxychloroquine was not useful, and possibly dangerous? Facebook fact checker Health Feedback, for example, states that there is no evidence that hydroxychloroquine can cure or prevent COVID-19.

Recent testimony from Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health is one of many, who in my opinion seem to represent a large majority, says otherwise. He provided an evidence based presentation for safe early outpatient HCQ treatment for high-risk Covid-19 patients to reduce hospitalizations and mortality.

Senators and colleagues: thank you for convening this hearing. We all understand the endemic disease that we are facing, that we have to face it head-on and not hide from it hoping that it will go away. I want to give you my perspective.

In May of this year I observed that results of studies of a drug suggested to treat Covid, hydroxychloroquine, were being misrepresented by what I thought at the time was sloppy reporting. We have heard from Dr. McCullough how Covid disease progresses in phases, from viral replication, to florid pneumonia to multi-organ attack. Viral replication is an outpatient condition, but the pneumonia that fills the lungs with immune-system debris is hospitalizable and potentially life-threatening. We have also heard how each phase, each pathologic aspect of the disease, has to have its own specific treatments that apply to its own biologic mechanisms. Thus, I was frankly astounded that studies of hospital treatments were being represented as applying to outpatients, in violation of what I learned in medical school about how to treat patients.

We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient treatment.

We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient treatment.

I reiterate: we are considering the evidence for early treatment of high-risk outpatients to prevent hospitalization and mortality. That is it. Treatment starting in the first five days or so after the onset of symptoms. Treatment of older patients or patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, heart diseases, lung diseases, kidney diseases, immune-system diseases, survivors of cancer etc. These are the people most likely to die from Covid, and they are the people most needing protection. I have sought to obtain reports of every study of every medication pertaining to early treatment of high-risk outpatients. I monitor the literature daily. And what I have found is actually quite remarkable. What I have observed is that while there have been positive reports about a number of drugs, every study of outpatient use of one drug, hydroxychloroquine, with or without accompanying agents, has shown substantial benefit in reducing risks of hospitalization and mortality.

These studies break down into two major types. The first is double-blinded, randomized controlled trials, and the second is non-randomized but still controlled trials. You have heard from various government and scientific personalities that randomized controlled trials provide the strongest form of evidence. Many of these people have also claimed that randomized trials provide the only trustworthy form of evidence. There is some truth in these assertions, but there is also lots of falsehood. We know for example that the great majority of drugs used to treat heart diseases were established with non-randomized trials. Cholesterol-lowering drugs were in widespread use before randomized trials were ever done. Azithromycin, the most commonly used antibiotic in children, was not established by randomized trials. The idea that only randomized trials provide trustworthy evidence is a simplistic notion that may sound good in theory, but the comparison between randomized and non-randomized trials is something that has actually been extensively studied in the medical literature. I am an epidemiologist because even though I love biological theories, I develop them all the time to study how nature works, but it is from the human empirical data that we learn how indeed nature works.

And we have huge amounts of empirical data to show that randomized trials and their corresponding non-randomized trials give the same answers. Dr. Tom Frieden, previously Director of the CDC, in 2017 wrote an extensive essay in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that non-randomized trials can provide fully compelling evidence, especially when they are done carefully to account for reasons why patients received the drugs, and importantly, when circumstances are such that the cost of waiting for randomized trials involves major sickness and mortality as we have been experiencing this year. But Dr. Frieden’s essay, as authoritative as it is, provides only snapshots of the empirical evidence for his observations. The real evidence comes from a meta-analysis of meta-analyses done by the Cochrane Library Consortium, a British international organization formed to organize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions. The Cochrane investigators examined what involve tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their non-randomized counterparts and found that the two types of studies arrived at virtually identical conclusions. This is the real evidence about why good non-randomized trials comprise evidence every bit as important as randomized trials. Large amounts of consistent empirical data are the evidence, not plausible but simplistic assumptions, no matter who says them.

So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients? The first thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe. Common sense tells us this, that a medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu. In fact, a study by researchers at the University of Oxford showed that in 14 large international medical-records databases of older rheumatoid arthritis patients, no significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality for patients who did or did not use hydroxychloroquine. The Oxford investigators also looked at cardiac arrhythmias and found no increase for hydroxychloroquine users. This was in more than 900,000 hydroxychloroquine users. This is examined at length in my paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology in May. Now, the FDA posted a warning on July 1 on its website about hydroxychloroquine used in outpatients, but we can discuss this later; the FDA has had no systematic evidence in outpatients and erroneously extrapolated from hospital inpatients to outpatients, what I said earlier was invalid.

About studies of hydroxychloroquine early use in high-risk outpatients, every one of them, and there are now seven studies, has shown significant benefit: 636 outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil; 199 clinic patients in Marseille, France; 717 patients across a large HMO network in Brazil; 226 nursing-home patients in Marseille; 1,247 outpatients in New Jersey; 100 long-term care institution patients in Andorra (between France and Spain); and 7,892 patients across Saudi Arabia. All these studies pertain to the early treatment of high-risk outpatients—and all showed about 50 percent or greater reductions in hospitalization or death. The Saudi study was a national study and showed 5-fold reduction in mortality for hydroxychloroquine plus zinc vs zinc alone. Not a single fatal cardiac arrhythmia was reported among these thousands of patients attributable to the hydroxychloroquine. These are the non-randomized but controlled trials that have been published.

Now we also know that all of the outpatient randomized controlled trials this year also together show statistically significant benefit. These six studies comprised generally much younger patients, only a fraction of whom were at high risk, so they individually had too few hospitalizations or deaths to be statistically significant. But they all suggested lower risks with hydroxychloroquine use, and when they were analyzed together in meta-analysis as my colleagues and I found, this lower risk was statistically significant across the studies.

We have spent the last six months with formal government policies and warnings against early outpatient treatment, with large government investments in vaccines and expensive new treatments yet to be proven and almost no support of inexpensive but useful medications, and a quarter of a million Americans have died from this mismanaged approach. Even with newly promising vaccines, we have almost no information about how they will perform in older and high-risk patients, in whom respiratory virus vaccines are known to have weak efficacy; it will be a number of months before they become widely available; and we don’t know how long vaccine immunity will last, or even if the vaccines will work for the newly increasing mutant strains of the virus. As I have said on many occasions, the evidence for benefit of hydroxychloroquine used early in high-risk outpatients is extremely strong, and the evidence against harm is also equally strong. This body of evidence dramatically outweighs the risk/benefit evidence for remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies or the difficult to use bamlanivimab that the FDA has approved for emergency use authorizations while denying the emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine. This egregious double standard for hydroxychloroquine needs to be overturned immediately and its emergency use authorization application approved. This is how we will get on the road to early outpatient treatment and the major curtailment of mortality. Thank you.

Why This Is Important: The thoughts shared above have been a common theme throughout this pandemic. For example, Dr. Anthony Cardillo, an ER specialist and the CEO of Mend Urgent Care, has been prescribing the zinc and hydroxychloroquine combination on patients experiencing severe symptoms associated with COVID-19. In an interview with KABC-TV, Cardillo stated:

Every patients I’ve prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free…So, clinically I am seeing a resolution…We have to be cautious and mindful that we don’t prescribe it for patients who have COVID who are well, he said. “It should be reserved for people who are really sick, in hospital or at home very sick, who need that medication. Otherwise we’re going to blow through our supply for patients that take it regularly for other disease processes.”

According to Cardillo, it’s the combination of zinc and hydroxychloroquine that does the job. “[Hydroxychloroquine] opens the zinc channel” allowing the zinc to enter the cell, which then “blocks the replication of cellular machinery.”

This was also hinted to by the testimony from the Yale professor.

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a board-certified family practitioner in New York, said in a video interview that a cocktail of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc Sulfate and Azithromycin are showing phenomenal results with 900 coronavirus patients treated.(source)

These are just a few examples out of many. The issue is that these opinions and this type of evidence and testimony was blocked and censored by various social media outlets, and deemed “fake news.”

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. –  Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH

This has also recently been emphasized by Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

Concluding Remarks: We are at a point in time where decisions made by the government, which are supposedly done in our best interests, are completely influenced by powerful corporations that seem to dictate government policy in some sort of way. This has been a problem for quite some time, and combined with big tech this ‘medical industrial complex’ is able to influence the thoughts, minds, perception and overall consciousness of the masses when it comes to COVID and various other topics.

Do governments really execute the will of the people? When will we draw the line? Is it really justifiable for people who don’t get vaccinated to lose their rights and freedoms they were accustomed to prior to the pandemic? Why are so many doctors and scientists who oppose these measures being censored and unacknowledged?

COVID-19, just like 9/11, is forcing more people to ask questions about how our world really operates and whether or not governments actually execute the will of the people.

At the end of the day we have to ask, why are controversial topics so poorly covered and ridiculed by mainstream media? Why do so many of us have so much trouble looking at new information, especially information that contradicts what we believe and have been made to believe? Why do polarizing sides trigger us so deeply? Why do we accept the invitation to fight? Will our sense-making be much easier and effective if we are clam, centered within self, clearer of our own bias’ and more open to communicating with empathy? Perhaps it’s time we do that?

Canada Creates A Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Before COVID Vaccine Rollout

What Happened: The Canadian government has announced that it’s implementing a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury support program for all Health Canada approved vaccines. According to the government, the program “will ensure that all Canadians have to have fair access to support in the rare event that they experience an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This program will also bring Canada in line with its G7 counterparts with similar programs, and ensure the country remains competitive in accessing new vaccines as they become available.”

This means that people who are vaccinated to protect themselves against COVID-19, or vaccinated for any other disease and experience an adverse event or injury after the immunization, will be eligible for compensation.

This program is a “no-fault” program, meaning the vaccine manufacturer (pharmaceutical company) nor the government will be held liable for the vaccine injury. It’s is similar to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act created by the United States in 1986, which is now referred to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program has paid approximately $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children, while shielding pharmaceutical companies from any wrongdoing. The funds come from taxpayer money.

Health Canada claims that they approve vaccines after reviewing scientific evidence that shows the benefits outweigh the risks. According to Health Minister Patty Hajdu, “Canadians can have confidence in the rigour of the vaccine approvals system, however, in the rare event that a person experiences an adverse reaction, this program will help ensure they get the support they need.”

The federal government also says that the chances of someone experiencing a truly serious adverse reaction after vaccination are “extremely rare – less than one in a million.”

This is a comforting thought, but no statistics or data were given to back up this claim, and it’s also a clam that’s made by the Centres For Disease Control (CDC) in the United States with no evidence provided either. These claims have been heavily debated by many. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States cause injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim.

The main doctors involved with the study were Michael Klompas, M.D. and Lazarus, Ross, MBBS, MPH, MMed, GDCompSci.

Klompas is a Professor of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Lazarus was a Harvard Medical School professor for 11 years, and was a professor there during this pilot study.

Preliminary data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference.

If we look at examples from individual vaccines themselves, there is also some confusion. For example, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.

Why This Is Important: Information about vaccines is important especially in a time where, at least it seems, vaccines are going to be mandatory in order for some people to work, travel, go to a concert or the cinema and more. A lot of people are asking if this is justified, as it is not blatant mandatory vaccination measures, but rather a way of mandating a vaccine in another form that will take away some of the rights and freedoms that people were used to prior to the pandemic.

There are a number of concerns many doctors and scientists are raising about vaccines, and have been raising about vaccines for quite some time. Here’s one example I recently wrote about, out of many.

It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine  in 2013 outlines this point, and it’s one of many to do so.

At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project.

According to her.

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

The point is that there is information on both sides of the coin, information that sometimes completely contradicts what we often hear from mainstream media. The strange thing is that the points made by vaccine safety advocates and informed-consent supporters remain completely unacknowledged by mainstream media, and as a result a large portion of people are completely unaware of these concerns.

Why does mainstream media always use terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” and ridicule?

A paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social democracy titled, “Immunity and Impunity: Corruption in the State Pharma Nexus” by Professor Paddy Rawlinson from Western Sydney University may provide the explanation.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.

The Takeaway: Do we really want to live in a world where we give so much power to a small group of people and governments who can decide what we can and can’t do based on whether or not we take a vaccine? Where will we draw the line? Why isn’t freedom of choice a priority here, especially for such a low mortality virus?

Why are so many doctors and scientists who oppose these measures being censored and unacknowledged? We see this with The Great Barrington Declaration with regards to lockdown measures.  Why is science being censored?

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. –  Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH

COVID-19, just like 9/11, is forcing more people to ask questions about how our world really operates and whether or not governments actually execute the will of the people.

At the end of the day we have to ask, why are controversial topics so poorly covered and ridiculed by mainstream media? Why do so many of us have so much trouble looking at new information, especially information that contradicts what we believe and have been made to believe? Why do polarizing sides trigger us so deeply? Why do we accept the invitation to fight? Will our sense-making be much easier and effective if we are clam, centered within self, clearer of our own bias’ and more open to communicating with empathy? Perhaps it’s time we do that?