The Biden administration, after taking office in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, “dropped the ball” after the previous administration left it with the tools to keep up with the fight, former Vice President Mike Pence, who is campaigning for the GOP presidential nomination, said on Newsmax Saturday.
“It’s remarkable to think that that the Biden administration, in their first year of COVID, tragically lost more Americans to the COVID pandemic, [even] with all of the tools that we left behind, than we lost in a year when we began with no tools whatsoever,” Pence said on Newsmax’s “America Right Now.”
Instead, under President Joe Biden, “they defaulted into vaccine mandates, and they dropped the ball on testing,” said Pence. “They dropped the ball on therapeutics, so there’s a lot of lessons to be learned.
Share the post "Pence got one thing right. Biden blew it when it came to COVID."
A Federal appeals court Friday revived a lawsuit by three doctors who say the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority in a campaign against treating COVID-19 with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin.
Ivermectin is commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. It can also be prescribed for humans, and it has been championed by some as a treatment for COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment because certain studies have not proven it is effective. The agency did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Friday’s ruling from a panel of three judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans focused on various aspects of an FDA campaign against ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.
The ruling acknowledged FDA’s receiving reports of some people requiring hospitalization after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock. But the ruling said the campaign — which at times featured the slogan “You are not a horse!” — too often left out that the drug is sometimes prescribed for humans.
The doctors can proceed with their lawsuit contending that the FDA’s campaign exceeded the agency’s authority under federal law, the ruling said.
“FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise — but not to endorse, denounce, or advise,” Judge Don Willett wrote for a panel that also included Jennifer Walker Elrod and Edith Brown Clement. “The doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”
Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik filed the lawsuit last year. All three said their reputations were harmed by the FDA campaign. Bowden lost admitting privileges at a Texas hospital, the ruling noted. Marik alleged he lost his positions at a medical school and at a hospital for promoting the use of ivermectin.
The lawsuit was dismissed in December by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, who ruled that the complaints didn’t overcome the FDA’s “sovereign immunity,” a concept that protects government entities from many civil lawsuits regarding their responsibilities. The appellate panel said the FDA’s alleged overstepping of its authority opened the door for the lawsuit.
Willett was nominated to the 5th Circuit by former President Donald Trump; Clement and Elrod, by former President George W. Bush. Brown was nominated to the district court bench by Trump.
Share the post "Court Revives Doctors’ Suit Over FDA Anti-ivermectin Campaign."
Who gets the jab. Not I. Just putting this out there. There’s much that I disagree with here, but there are some good points. Overall the article was trying to be fair, but only doctors from the left were included. I’ll highlight some of the good points.
by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today.
High-risk groups get a resounding “yes” — but when it comes to younger, healthy adults, the answer is less clear.
There’s wide agreement that older adults will receive a hearty recommendation to receive the booster, which targets the XBB.1.5 strainopens in a new tab or window, said William Schaffner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
The same goes for people younger than 65 who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised, or who are pregnant, he said.
“Now for adults who are otherwise healthy and younger than 65, and young adults, adolescents, and children, that’s all going to be debated,” Schaffner noted, anticipating how discussions at CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will go when the group meets on September 12opens in a new tab or window. “Whether they receive a routine recommendation or one for shared clinical decision making … I think there will be some brisk discussion about that.”
Aaron Glatt, MD, of Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, who is also a spokesperson for IDSA, said that people “who have been vaccinated, who are healthy, who are younger, are probably not the first people who should be getting in line to get another COVID booster, especially if they’ve had one.”
In addition, someone who’s recently had COVID probably doesn’t need a booster, he added.
Glatt was a strong advocate for shared decision making when it comes to COVID boosters. He gave the example of a 62-year-old who was boosted 6 months ago and is in good health. “I think for that group, there’s more leeway to say, let’s individualize the decision.”
“The good news is that you’ve had the full primary series of the vaccine and a bivalent booster, or you were vaccinated and infected, you have substantial protection against getting very sick and dying,” Benjamin told MedPage Today. “But the older you are, the greater your risk of getting very sick and dying.”
Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the goal of the vaccine has always been to prevent serious illness, and on that basis, the highest-risk groups who should be candidates for vaccination include the elderly, especially people over 75; people with multiple chronic conditions; pregnant people; and the immune compromised.
“These four groups will get the most benefit,” Offit said. “We’re just not going to prevent mild disease for a short-incubation-period mucosal infection for any reasonable amount of time.”
Neither Schaffner, Glatt, nor Offit thought children should be strongly recommended to get a COVID booster. Schaffner noted that in young children, Omicron has been less likely to cause severe disease. In addition, he said, doctors are seeing less multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) due to COVID.
“Virtually every child has been exposed to COVID through infection or vaccination or both, so the population immunity, children included, is pretty high,” Schaffner said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the recommendations for these younger healthy populations are in the shared clinical decision-making category.”
“Why does a healthy 12-year-old with three doses of vaccine need another dose?” Offit said. “There would have to be protection against severe disease and I just don’t see that evidence.”
Glatt noted that “an immunocompromised, very sick child is a different story.” But if the child is healthy, “you’d really have to show me [good data] that there’s a reason to [boost].”
Even the U.K. is focusing its booster recommendations on older and more vulnerable people. Its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommendedopens in a new tab or window offering vaccines to those at high risk of serious disease, including adults ages 65 and up, people with chronic conditions, and people who work in care homes for older adults.
Indeed, that recommendation makes sense from a population health perspective that asks who would benefit most from this intervention, said Bob Wachter, MD, of the University of California San Francisco.
But he believes even young people can get an incremental benefit from fall boosters. Wachter, whose wife has long COVID and who himself experienced a trip to the hospital because of COVID — not from respiratory distress, but from a related fallopens in a new tab or window — said he would recommend a booster to his 30-year-old children because the benefits outweigh the minimal risks.
Even though people in this age group have a low baseline risk of hospitalization from the disease, a booster would reduce that risk even further, he said. It might also help lower their risk of long COVID, he added.
“I start from the baseline that this is a very safe intervention, and there is potential benefit in almost everybody, including relatively young and healthy people,” Wachter said. “But to the question of who’s most likely to benefit, clearly those are the people at higher risk of bad outcomes.”
He added that this year’s fall booster will probably not be very popular, “because not a lot of people got it when the risk was higher and the public attention on COVID was greater.”
“It’s pretty clear that the national consciousness is over it,” he said. “If you’re a healthy 40-year-old, you’re not making a crazy choice not to get boosted.”
Share the post "Who gets the jab. Not I. Just putting this out there."
Worth Posting again. Masks really don’t work that well.
Just in case you missed it, we did a similar story several months back. With the latest hysteria that’s going on out there with the fanatics about the alleged resurgence of COVID, I thought it best to remind folks on masking up. This from the Cochrane Institute.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
Share the post "Worth Posting again. Masks really don’t work that well."
WarRoom’s Natalie Winters uncovered millions of dollars in funding, awarded primarily to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs and DoD
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that InfoWars published insider information that alleges the TSA and US Border Patrol will be moving back to 2020-era COVID-19 mandates and restrictions starting in mid-September through mid-October, to include mask mandates on all flights. This is in addition to the confirmed mask-mandate reinstatement at Morris Brown College in Atlanta, GA, and Lionsgate Studios in Santa Monica, CA. Also, a school district in South Texas just outside of San Antonio closed down temporarily due to an ‘uptick’ in COVID cases.
To further the suggestion that another lockdown scare is in the forecast, on Tuesday, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced funding of $1.4 billion to “support the development of a new generation of tools and technologies to protect against COVID-19 for years to come” according to a press release.
“Project NextGen is a key part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to keeping people safe from COVID-19 variants,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “These awards are a catalyst for the program – kickstarting efforts to more quickly develop vaccines and continue to ensure availability of effective treatments.”
Project NextGen, a $5 billion initiative led by ASPR’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), coordinates across the federal government and the private sector to advance innovative vaccines and therapeutics into clinical trials, regulatory review, and potential commercial availability for the American people. The project builds on a better understanding of COVID-19 – with HHS developing, using, and constantly re-evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of current vaccines and therapeutics for over three years.
Recipients of the awards include:
$1 billion to four BARDA Clinical Trial partners to support vaccine Phase IIb clinical trial studies: ICON Government and Public Health Solutions, Inc of Hinckley, Ohio; Pharm-Olam, LLC, of Houston, Texas; Technical Resources Intl (TRI), Inc, of Bethesda, Maryland; and Rho Federal Systems, Inc., Durham, North Carolina.
$326 million to Regeneron to support the development of a next-generation monoclonal antibody for COVID-19 prevention.
$100 million to Global Health Investment Corp. (GHIC), the non-profit organization managing the BARDA Ventures investment portfolio to expand investments in new technologies that will accelerate responses in the future.
$10 million to Johnson & Johnson Innovation (JLABS) for a competition through Blue Knight, a BARDA-JLABS partnership.
The press release claims that their partnership with Regeneron will help develop a “novel monoclonal antibody that will protect people who do not respond to or cannot take existing vaccines,” despite their attempts to limit the distribution in Florida in 2021.
On Friday, Joe Biden announced that he plans to request more funding from Congress to develop a new COVID vaccine “that works.”
“I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress a request for additional funding for a new vaccine that is necessary, that works,” Biden told the reporters while vacationing in Lake Tahoe.
Biden warned that everyone will get it despite their previous vaccination status.
“It will likely be recommended that everybody get it no matter whether they’ve gotten it before or not,” he added.
NEW – Biden Says New COVID Shots 'That Work' May Be on the Way for All Americans
"I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress – a request for additional funding for new vaccine that is necessary that works…Tentatively it is recommended, it would… pic.twitter.com/uYBdOQOK4o
One of the greatest contributions that America gave to the world was and is religious freedom. In 2020, that freedom was taken away from all religions in the United States. We’ve not yet come to terms with this awful reality and what it means for the future of faith.
The lockdowns were a major blow to religious institutions and practices. Every major survey shows that attendance at weekly religious services is down from pre-lockdown times.
“The share of all U.S. adults who say they typically attend religious services at least once a month is down modestly but measurably (by 3 percentage points, from 33 percent to 30 percent) over that span,” writes Pew, “and one in five Americans say they now attend in person less often than they did before the pandemic.”
I’ve had this confirmed by many friends who report that the religious houses of their choice seem to show far less participation. This very likely translates to a decline in financial support too. Once people got out of the habit of participating in a physical church, the ritual was broken and now we see the spreading of indifference. This is surely not a good sign.
But that picture is complicated by a strange feature: the religious congregations that resisted COVID controls and shutdowns have likely earned the trust and loyalty of their members. Indeed, this weekend, I happened to attend the debut of a new opera where attendance was dominated by what are called “traditionalist” Catholics. Talking with people after, I was thrilled to learn just how many of their congregations never closed down.
A priest friend of mine in the Midwest tells the story of Easter 2020, when almost every church in the country was closed. That’s an outrage, by the way. It’s a devastating commentary on the Catholic Bishops that they uttered no protest against this. It’s a black mark against an entire generation of Church leadership.
My priest friend, however, stood up to his own Bishop and said he would sooner resign his post as pastor than lock his own parishioners out of church on Holy Week.
“You are bluffing,” the Bishop said.
“Try me,” the priest answered.
The Bishop could not afford to take the chance of losing this man because his parish had a very large school and was thriving. So the meeting broke up with the Bishop neither given permission nor refusing it. The parish allowed parishioners to come in the back entrance where the media was not on the lookout, and they kept the lights in the building very low so as not to attract government officials.
Services went on. The parishioners have not forgotten this act of bravery and increased their participation and financial support in gratitude. The priest was tested and showed that he took seriously the Gospel message. He was not going to throw away the words of Jesus that wherever two or three gather in his name, there is God.
There is nothing in the Gospels about social distancing, much less mRNA jabs as a moral imperative.
Jesus ate with the lepers but Fauci told us not to get near each other because of a virus circulating with a 99 percent and higher survival rate, even while he was banning therapeutics and killing people with ventilators and toxic pharmaceuticals.
Those who trusted Jesus over Fauci have earned the respect of their congregations. But there is even more to it than that.
There is something about a very strong religious faith that protected people against government propaganda in those times. They could see straight through the lies even as more secular people, in general, went for the government-pushed baloney.
Think back to those times. Who resisted? Certainly, the traditional Catholics did, more than a few of them devoted to the older form of liturgy with Latin and all the smells and bells. They teach a stricter doctrine about sin and salvation than you get from the watered-down version in modern parish life. Those people were certainly among the resistance to government decrees.
It was the same with Jewish congregations. The typical Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox temples and synagogues shut down and went to Zoom. This infuriated people and alienated them from their place of worship. But in many communities called “ultra-Orthodox” or Hasidic, among others, there was indefatigable resistance.
Indeed, both the governor and mayor of New York dared blame these faithful Jews for the spreading of disease. The New York Times agreed completely, despite how this claim revived one of the more grotesque smears of the Jews from the Middle Ages.
The Amish never paid the slightest attention to the disease frenzy that shut down the rest of society. In the Anabaptist tradition, which also includes the Mennonites, there is no real distinction between the community, the way of life, and the functioning of the place of worship. It is all in unity in both belief and practice. And so there simply was never a chance that these people would stop worshiping God in the way their tradition demands.
It was all true of many break-off sects of the so-called Mormons. Outside the confines of the official church that is forever seeking the respectability of the media and secular elites, these communities continued right on with their practices. And why not? Their whole lives are defined by the choice to believe and live in a certain way. Some hysterical screaming from D.C. and the media elites are not going to shake them from something much more fundamental: the relationship of their members to their God.
The evangelicals were a bit slow to catch on to the scam that was the lockdowns, but they figured it out too, many by the summer of 2020, and they started holding weddings and funerals. Regular weekly services returned to the howls of the media hounds, but they didn’t care. Once they had shaken off their fears, they were ready to get back to their religious obligations.
Tellingly, it was the more secular areas of the country that stayed closed longer. And the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches proved themselves all too willing to go along with the demands that they shut down services because of Fauci’s diktats.
For most of 2020 and 2021, many of these churches simply kept their doors closed or forcibly masked their parishioners. Horribly, some of them even went along with the vaccine mandate, not only for staff but parishioners, too.
“Nationwide, a number of churches and synagogues are implementing vaccine mandates,” wrote the Deseret News in September 2021. “Some are requiring not just clergy and staff to get vaccinated but even congregants. Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco, California, is enforcing such an all encompassing mandate — complete with ushers who will politely turn away those without proof of vaccination.”
I’m not saying that such churches deserve to go out of business, but … actually, such churches deserve to go out of business.
What have we learned? People who take their faith seriously have proven that they are more immune to the lies of the secular elites than those who barely go through the motions. It’s the hardcore among them who put God ahead of government, their teachings ahead of the media, and their personal convictions ahead of the biomedical elite and their bogus claims.
In other words, it was faith itself that enabled people to follow real science better than those who outsourced their hearts and salvation to pharmaceutical companies and government bureaucrats. In other words, it was the people of firm religious conviction who proved to be better practitioners of both science and human values.
Think what that means in terms of the history of science and faith. For centuries, we’ve been told that only faithless rationalism provides a true guide to truth, while faith is merely a superstitious distraction. There are perhaps some valid historical reasons for this bias—certainly, the union of church and state was not good for religion or civic community—but the truth is more complicated.
The last three years have shown that this claim might be completely inverted. It is faith that allows people clarity to see through government propaganda and inspires people with moral conviction to do what is right regardless of what a totalitarian government happens to be preaching at any one time.
In the end, it was Fauci and the whole COVID regime that was the superstitious distraction, while robust and traditional religion provided the best guide to light and truth.
(This post has been copy-edited to correct grammatical errors. No content was deleted.)
Share the post "Who Best Avoided the COVID Religion?"
A new COVID variant is gaining ground in the United States. You’ve probably been hearing about it in the news, and we’ve certainly been seeing it in our patients in recent weeks. Here’s what you need to know about it, how to protect yourself, and how to treat it if you do get sick.
First of all, DO NOT PANIC.
EG.5 — also known as the “Eris” variant — certainly seems to be highly contagious, but from what we’re seeing it is less virulent. In other words, it’s a lot like the Omicron variants we’ve seen recently — lots of cases, but not a lot of extreme illness or hospitalization.
If you’ve been exposed to the virus before, you likely have some natural ability to fight it off. We are finding that patients who have not been previously exposed are the ones hit hardest right now.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take steps to protect yourself. The good news is that the advice we’ve been sharing from the FLCCC all along still stands — do what you can to prevent getting ill (more on that below) and if you do get it, treat immediately. Early treatment is critical.
The symptoms of this latest wave are like other respiratory illnesses, and include things like dry cough, sore throat, conjunctivitis, headache, skin rashes, diarrhea, and fever. However, we have been noticing a few unique symptoms, including:
Nasal congestion and sinus pain
Dental pain and soreness of gums and teeth
Swelling and/or pain related to the orbit of the eye
Malaise and muscle pain
Tiredness and fatigue
There is no need to wait for a confirmed PCR test to begin treatment if these symptoms arise. The tests were developed for older variants and reliability was mixed at best. Tests can be negative for days until a positive result appears, and that is valuable time lost. If you begin to experience any of the symptoms listed above, start treatment immediately. If you need a healthcare provider, check the FLCCC directory.
If you have difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (dyspnea), chest pain or chest pressure, or lost motor skills or the ability to speak, seek medical attention immediately.
In terms of a treatment strategy, we want to start with killing the virus in the upper respiratory system. Nasal rinses and nose or throat sprays are effective for this. We have advice on this in the I-CARE: Early COVID treatment protocol. This should be paired with systemic antivirals like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Next, it is important to take a range of supplements that help boost the immune system. This includes things like: Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Quercetin with bromelain, N-acetyl cysteine, Probiotics, Omega-3 fatty acids, Melatonin (slow release is best), Zinc (taken with Quercetin), Selenium, and Andrographis.
If you are symptomatic, try a low-histamine diet that cuts out foods like sauerkraut and other fermented foods, alcohol, processed meat, aged cheese, certain types of fish and shellfish, and nightshade vegetables like tomato and eggplant.
If you’ve been following FLCCC for a while, much of this will sound familiar. Our early treatment protocol is still the right place to start when COVID comes to call.
Prevent illness in the first place
While we’re at it, let’s talk about getting your immune system into shape, and other evasive actions you can take to make sure you’re strong, healthy, and ready to fight off any virus coming your way this fall.
Follow our prevention protocol: Some easy things you can do include mouthwash and nasal spray, zinc supplements, Vitamins C and D, melatonin, quercetin or resveratrol, and elderberry.
Get enough Vitamin D: There is a clear link between low vitamin D levels and the risk of infections and other illnesses. Fortunately, boosting your vitamin D with supplementation is fairly easy and inexpensive.
Reduce stress: Too much stress can create hormonal and other imbalances that suppress your immune system. Incorporate stress-reduction techniques into your daily routine for your overall well-being and to ensure you’re prepared to fight off infection.
Get good sleep: Sleep recharges your body so your systems can function properly. On average, adults need between seven and nine hours of sleep each night.
Get outside and get some fresh air: Spending about 30 minutes outdoors each day can help the skin synthesize vitamin D, and sunlight has many other great therapeutic powers too.
Many people have asked whether they should start up a prophylactic treatment of ivermectin again. On that front, our advice has not really changed: if you have significant comorbidities, lack natural immunity, or have a suppressed immune system you may want to try a twice-weekly dose of ivermectin at 0.2 mg/kg. Likewise, consider it if you are currently suffering from long COVID or post-vaccine syndrome and are not currently being treated with ivermectin. If you have an upcoming situation where you may have high possible exposure — such as travel, weddings, or conferences — taking daily ivermectin starting two days before departure and either daily or every other day during the period of high exposure is a reasonable approach.
Remember to immediately initiate daily ivermectin at treatment doses (0.4 mg/kg) at the first signs of any kind of viral syndrome. It bears repeating: Early treatment is essential!
Most of all, pay no mind to the ongoing drumbeat of fear-mongering that the mainstream media is providing. We know the routine. We’ve been here before.
The information in this article is a recommended approach to preventing and treating COVID-19 infections in adults. Patients should always consult with a trusted healthcare provider before starting any medical treatment.
New COVID Variant More Likely to Infect Vaccinated
Wednesday, 23 August 2023
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Wednesday the new BA.2.86 lineage of coronavirus may be more capable than older variants in causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received vaccines.
CDC said it was too soon to know whether this might cause more severe illness compared with previous variants.
But due to the high number of mutations detected in this lineage, there were concerns about its impact on immunity from vaccines and previous infections, the agency said.
Scientists are keeping an eye on the BA.2.86 lineage because it has 36 mutations that distinguish it from the currently-dominant XBB.1.5 variant.
CDC, however, said virus samples are not yet broadly available for more reliable laboratory testing of antibodies.
The agency had earlier this month said it was tracking the highly mutated BA.2.86 lineage, which has been detected in the United States, Denmark and Israel.
CDC said on Wednesday the current increase in hospitalizations in the United States is not likely driven by the BA.2.86 lineage.
Share the post "Tale of two Covid strains: EG.5 & new BA.2.86 variant – more likely to affect the Vaxxed (Hmm.)"
Damning Life Insurance Data PROVES Far More Young People Are Dying — And It’s NOT from COVID
When data speaks, we must listen.
Thanks to Vigilant Fox
When data speaks, we must listen. And statistics from the Society of Actuaries reveal a harrowing health crisis in the American youth. While most of the attention has been directed towards the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, there’s an underreported situation emerging — a rise in the mortality rate of younger individuals. Disturbingly, these figures can’t solely be attributed to COVID-19 — far from it.
According to the data reported by the Society of Actuaries, which conducts research for the insurance industry, there is a concerning trend in deaths among the young. Much of this data comes from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has limitations with respect to data collection and transparency.
Actual-to-Expected (A/E) Death Ratios
To understand the gravity of the situation, retired nurse educator and respected medical figure Dr. John Campbell, walked through the Society of Actuaries data actual-to-expected (A/E) death ratios. The “actual” part of the ratio is the number of deaths that were actually recorded, and the “expected” part of the ratio refers to the number of deaths we would expect to see – using a 2015 to 2019 baseline.
Between April to December 2020, during the peak of the pandemic, the A/E ratio was 122%. This means there were 22% more deaths than expected. Excess mortality for all of 2020, including January to March, was recorded at 16.4%. 13.3% of the excess deaths were attributed to COVID, and 3.1% of the excess deaths were not. This makes sense because, at the time, there were no “miracle vaccines” to save us.
Fast forward to 2021, a year when vaccines were touted as our saving grace. The A/E ratio was at 117%, nearly mirroring 2020’s figures. Logic would suggest that with the rollout of vaccines, mortality rates, especially those related to COVID, should have declined. But they didn’t. And when it comes to non-COVID deaths, 15 to 34-year-olds saw a staggering 21.4% increasein excess deaths in 2021.
2022, primarily characterized by the less-severe Omicron variant, should have witnessed a sharp drop in excess mortality given the less virulent strain and increased vaccination rates. Instead, data up to March 2022 indicated an A/E ratio of 115% — and this figure excluded COVID deaths. Given this, one is compelled to infer that something went deeply wrong with pandemic measures. Most worrying, deaths among 35 to 44-year-olds, between October and December 2022, surged an alarming 34% above the expected 2015 to 2019 baseline.
Looking at graphical representations, particularly among males and females aged 15 to 34, the numbers stay consistently above the expected baselines. What’s more concerning is that these figures can’t solely be attributed to a lack of access to healthcare, as some pundits suggest. If this were the primary factor, the oldest age groups, more reliant on medical care, would see the highest excess deaths. Instead, it’s the younger and, often, healthier age ranges witnessing the most significant surges. The mainstream narrative is just not making sense.
Dowd’s book has thoroughly compiled headline after headline, of young people suddenly dying of an “unknown” cause. What you’re about to watch in the video below is young and healthy people, in the prime of their lives, suddenly and unexpectedly collapsing and dying. And this is just from the past eight months…
During the pandemic, we were told the measures were about “health” and “saving lives.” But in the midst of a major health crisis among young and working-aged people, health authorities are radio silent. Why is that? And why does no one seem to care what’s causing it? Because while COVID-19 is now well behind us, a more insidious health crisis is unfolding right before our eyes.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is still planning on recommending people receive a COVID-19 shot on an annual basis, the agency’s director says.
“We are likely to see this as a recommendation for an annual COVID shot, just like we have an annual flu shot,” Dr. Mandy Cohen, the director, said in a podcast episode released on Aug. 9. “And I think that will give more folks clarity about should they get one or not, because the answer is like, ‘Well, did you get one this year? If not, go get the new COVID shot.’”
She said that the CDC will likely make the recommendation in the coming weeks.
“This will be an annual vaccine … to make sure that you stay protected,” Dr. Cohen said.
Dr. Cohen was commenting after Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, questioned her over what data would support annual shots and asked for a briefing on the matter.
Dr. Wenstrup gave the CDC until Aug. 16 to provide answers. The agency has not done so yet, a spokesperson for the panel said.
Dr. Cohen had said in July, in one of her first interviews after becoming the CDC’s director, that the agency was poised to recommend annual shots.
U.S. officials initially said people would only need a primary series to protect themselves against COVID-19 but in 2021, less than a year after recommending vaccination for virtually everyone, they authorized and advised boosters to try to stem waning immunity.
As newer variants have emerged, the vaccines have performed even worse, leading to recommendations for additional boosters and, in the fall of 2022, the clearance of updated bivalent shots from Pfizer and Moderna. Those shots later replaced the companies’ old vaccines.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which decides whether to clear vaccines, said in June that it was directing Pfizer and other manufacturers to update the shots again to target the XBB.1.5 strain because the vaccines “appear less effective against currently circulating variants (e.g., XBB-lineage viruses) than against previous strains of virus.”
But XBB.1.5 has already been largely displaced by other variants, including EG.5. That undercuts the new strategy, Dr. Harvey Risch told The Epoch Times in an email.
“The boosters will be out-of-date before they are even released,” Dr. Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said. “As well, CDC has already said that efficacy of new boosters in preventing spread is transient and wanes, thus there is little reason to see the boosters as beneficial.”
A CDC spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email: “Dr. Cohen’s expert opinion is based on the science, which indicates that vaccine-induced immunity wanes and the COVID-19 virus is likely to continue to evolve. As she has said before, if the science changes, the agency will adapt its recommendations.”
The COVID-19 vaccines have never been 100 percent effective. No trial efficacy data exists for the currently available vaccines, but observational data indicate they provide transient protection against infection and severe illness, even turning negative after several months.
There is no evidence supporting the idea that the shots provide protection for one year.
“Federal mandates did not stop the spread or transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Should the CDC issue a recommendation for an annual COVID-19 vaccine, it will mark a significant change in federal policy and guidance regarding the COVID-19 vaccines and how they are utilized,” a spokesperson for the House panel told The Epoch Times via email. “Serious questions remain as to whether the science would support such a recommendation.”
In support of the planned recommendation, the CDC pointed to a modeling study and a seriesof other studieshighlightingwaningimmunity from the original shots, all of which were based on data from 2022 and earlier. The agency also cited a study that found the currently available boosters did not produce “robust neutralization” against newer variants.
Some of the papers concluded that people with so-called hybrid immunity, or vaccination on top of natural immunity, have the best protection. Other research has found that the latter protection, derived from recovering from COVID-19, is as good as or better than that from vaccines, though little data is available from recent months.
Executives with Pfizer and Novavax have said they expect the FDA to authorize the new shots by the end of August. Moderna also makes a COVID-19 vaccine. Johnson & Johnson’s shot is no longer authorized.
After the FDA authorizes the latest formulations, the U.S. government plans to phase out the older shots. according to a planning document from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of both the FDA and the CDC.
The FDA has indicated it will not require trial efficacy data before authorizing the new shots but will monitor observational data, similar to its stance on the influenza vaccines.
After the authorizations, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the CDC’s vaccine advisers, plans to meet to discuss for whom they will advise the CDC to recommend the shots. The CDC does not have to accept the advice, but often does.
“The FDA anticipates taking timely action to authorize or approve updated COVID-19 vaccines in order to make vaccines available this fall. After their authorization or approval, ACIP will meet to make a recommendation outlining use of these updated vaccines this fall,” the CDC spokesperson said.
The CDC has recommended, including in its latest slate of recommendations, that virtually every person receive a primary series. The CDC did ease up on booster recommendations in the most recent recommendations, saying some people did not need additional shots, in the first formal recognition of the high levels of natural immunity in the population.
Share the post "‘Stay Protected’: CDC Doubles Down on Plans to Recommend Annual COVID-19 Shots"