Guest Post by David O’Reilly
Dr. Hector Carvallo’s discovery that ivermectin prevents COVID-19 is saving thousands of lives and helping open regions and cities of the world to normal life. So why is he constantly attacked?
Dr. Hector Carvallo, retired University of Buenos Aires professor of medicine, and his wife Dr. Mirta Carvallo on their last vacation before COVID-19 hit. The unstoppable disease inspired Hector to make one of the most important life-saving discoveries of the pandemic.
The novel coronavirus COVID-19 was already looking dangerous in February of 2020. More than 75,000 cases had been reported in China, the death toll was approaching 3,000, and virologists around the world were warning of an epidemic—with no medicine to fight it.
Then, late in the month, Mirta Carvallo, M.D. a retired pediatric dermatologist in Buenos Aires, Argentina, heard a rumor. “Something’s going on with ivermectin in Australia,” she told her husband, Hector. Researchers at Monash University had reportedly neutralized the Covid virus in laboratory tests, she said.
A retired endocrinologist, professor of internal medicine, and former director of one of the city’s largest hospitals, Hector Carvallo, then 63, was instantly intrigued. An anti-parasitic medicine, ivermectin has saved millions in the southern hemisphere from the plague of onchocerciasis, or river blindness.
He and Mirta had prescribed it countless times for dermatologic ailments like scabies and rosacea, and he calls it “one of the safest medicines I’ve ever used.” Acclaimed as one of the most important medicines of the 20th century, ivermectin won its discoverers the Nobel Prize in 2015.
Within weeks—long before the Australians even reported their findings—Carvallo and a colleague would conduct the first human trials of ivermectin for prevention in the fight against Covid.
“I am not ashamed to say I cried when we got the results,” Carvallo recalls in a recent Zoom interview.
Alas, months later, “I cried again,” Carvallo says. That’s when medical authorities in Argentina—and soon others around the world—began their ongoing effort to suppress public knowledge of ivermectin’s efficacy and safety, and to question Carvallo’s results and attack his reputation.
It’s a story the world, and history, needs to know.
One of the hospitals in Buenos Aries where Dr. Hector Carvallo, a retired professor at the University of Buenos Aires medical school, launched his ground-breaking study showing the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing COVID-19. (Photo by Info Region)Soft-spoken and gracious, Carvallo speaks impeccable English, some of it learned watching the 1960s American TV medical dramas Dr. Kildare and Ben Casey that inspired him, as a small boy, to become a doctor.
Days after Mirta told him about the rumors out of Australia, he explains, he sat down with Roberto Hirsch, M.D., one of Argentina’s leading experts on infectious diseases, to mull ivermectin’s possibilities.
While little known in North America and Europe except as a veterinary de-worming medicine, ivermectin was known to inhibit RNA viruses in vitro, including dengue, Zika and yellow fever—apparently by blocking the virus’ ability to transport from a cell’s watery cytoplasm to its nucleus. But what happens in a petri dish doesn’t always happen in the human body. Could ivermectin be as potent against Covid, they wondered, as it was against river blindness?
And so, in early March—three months before the Australians would report in the journal Antiviral Research that ivermectin had effected a 5,000-fold reduction of Covid in vitro—Carvallo and Hirsch wrote to the Journal of the American Medical Association about its exciting possibilities.
Noting ivermectin’s “virucidal properties,” their letter theorized that ivermectin could be a safe, potent, widely available and cheap prophylaxis against Covid, urgently in need of swift investigation. They further hypothesized that it could be efficacious against Covid infections in combination with a blood thinner to reduce dangerous hyper-coagulation, and a corticosteroid to reduce the hyper-inflammatory immune response that was turning Covid infections fatal in so many patients.
“But the editor of JAMA said he was not interested. He gave us no good reason,” Carvallo recalls with a shrug. “I was surprised. I wrote to say, ‘At least take it as a possibility,’ but we never heard back. So, we decided to form our own trials. We would replicate what the Australians had done in vitro, but we would do it in vivo.”
Instead of testing ivermectin against Covid in a glass dish, they would test it in the human body.
First, they approached the ethics committee of Eurnekian Hospital, where they worked, one of Buenos Aires’ largest. Their proposal: to administer weekly oral doses of ivermectin to about 100 of the hospital’s health care workers regularly exposed to Covid patients. (The doses would be about three times higher than is typically prescribed as an anti-parasitic, but there was ample evidence these were safe levels, Carvallo says.) One hundred other health care workers who chose not to take ivermectin would serve as the control. All participants would continue to wear masks and wash hands.
A lengthy randomized controlled double-blind study with placebos—the putative “gold standard” of medicine trials—would be unethical, Carvallo and Hirsh agreed. “If I had to post my hypothesis atop a pile of corpses, that’s criminal,” says Carvallo. Instead, theirs would be another classic form of medical research: An “observational” trial: no one would receive placebos, and the trial’s administrators would know who got the ivermectin and who did not.
The hospital’s administrators were “elated” by the proposal, says Carvallo, and Buenos Aires’ health office swiftly approved its protocols. A county judge signed off, too.
Dr. Hector Carvallo (back row), with medical university students immediately before Argentina’s lockdown, presenting Eurnekian Hospital’s new journal and announcing the start of the ivermectin trials.Unfunded, informal, and using donated medicine, the trial began in late April, with 131 subjects taking ivermectin and 98 not. Each person in the test group was given 8 mg of ivermectin per hundred pounds of body weight once weekly, along with several daily nasal spritzes of carrageenan, shown effective in reducing intake of rhinoviruses and other airborne pathogens.
A month later, Carvallo and Hirsch could scarcely believe the results. “Among the 98 who did not take ivermectin, eleven had contracted the virus,” he recalls in our interview. “Of the 131 [who received ivermectin], nobody had.
“Word spread quickly through the hospital, and the union representing our health care workers demanded the prophylaxis be given to everyone [on staff] who wanted it.” With so large a volunteer pool suddenly available, he and Hirsch undertook a second, expanded phase of the trial.
This time they recruited 966 more health care workers at Eurnekian and three other Argentine hospitals while continuing to treat the original 229 subjects. Beginning June 1 and continuing to August 1, they received weekly doses of the ivermectin/carrageenan protocol, while the 407 in the control did not. All continued to observe PPE guidelines.
At the trial’s close in August (ended because they’d run out of free medicines), 237 of the 407 participants in the control group, or 58.2 percent, were infected. Among the 788 patients treated with the ivermectin/carrageenan protocol, nose swabs and assessments of symptoms showed no evidence of Covid infection. “None,” says Carvallo.
By then they had launched an observational treatment trial of patients already infected with Covid, modeled on the protocol they had proposed months earlier to JAMA. Starting in June they enrolled 135 outpatients presenting mild Covid symptoms, and 32 inpatients with moderate to severe symptoms.
All were given ivermectin weekly, based on body weight and severity of symptoms, typically oral drops in doses ranging between 24 and 48 milligrams. All hospitalized participants received 4 mg of the corticosteroid dexamethasone by injection, and aspirin or a blood thinner depending on severity of symptoms. The most seriously ill were on ventilators.
After four weeks, none of the 135 outpatients required hospitalization, and one inpatient had died. That was an 82-year-old man, with severe co-morbidities, who had been admitted at the hospital in a desperate condition.
The 3.2 percent death rate for those on the IDEA protocol, as they called it, was one-seventh the then-prevailing 23.5 percent death rate for hospitalized Covid patients in Argentina, they later reported in the Journal of Clinical Trials.
Dr. Roberto Hirsch, one of Argentina’s leading experts on infectious diseases, teamed with Dr. Hector Carvallo to test ivermectin’s efficacy in preventing Covid.In July, Carvallo and Hirsch submitted their preliminary findings to Argentina’s Ministry of Health. The rest they sent in August.
“A few days later I received a call at home from the health minister’s secretary,” remembers Carvallo, shaking his head. “He said I was not allowed to keep investigating ivermectin, or it would put my job in jeopardy. I was baffled. I said, ‘Why?’ and he would give me no answer.” The usually gracious Carvallo had harsh words for the health minister before hanging up.
“And that’s when I cried again, from frustration. I’m not ashamed to say I cried, because it’s true.”
A year and a half later, with the Delta variant on the rise—and reports of an even more virulent strain circulating in the Amazon rain forest—ivermectin still struggles for official recognition as an anti-Covid agent despite the large body of research in its favor.
In May, 2021, for example, the journal Antibiotics Review published a metanalysis of ivermectin showing that “100 percent of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects” against Covid, with 26 of those trials reporting “statistically significant improvements.”
Yet three months later, in August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was still pounding the same drum it first pounded in June, 2020, when the Australian researchers published their findings.
“Taking a drug meant for horses and cattle to prevent or treat COVID-19 is dangerous and could be fatal,” the FDA warned in August. Carvallo calls the mockery and disinformation “very frustrating.” (But in this vacuum of official censorship of the drug, he still doesn’t want people self-prescribing ivermectin—not because it’s dangerous, but because they might take too low a dose or not at the proper frequency.)
Lately, the fight has become even more pointed. On September 2, BuzzFeed News published a long, critical examination of Carvallo’s ivermectin studies which, it said, “raised questions about how the study’s data was collected and analyzed,” they say. (You can read the BuzzFeed story here.) Carvallo disputes the story as medically uninformed, saying his was a legitimate observational trial.
“It’s not a matter of ignorance,” Carvallo insists of the backlash against ivermectin. “The NIH, the CDC, the FDA—they’ve all read the studies. They just don’t care, because there’s a double standard. The more expensive a compound is, the less quantity of evidence is required to get it approved. “But when a compound is cheap and available,” he says, “that’s another matter.”
He told BuzzFeed it’s only a matter of time before ivermectin is widely approved to fight Covid. “All truth passes through three phases,” he told them. “First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as self-evident. We are in phase two now.”
I COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER …where rights are ripped asunder.
Actually, it’s rather ironic that the catchy song from which I took the above headline, “The Land Down Under,” is written and sung by the band “Men at Work”.
Why is that ironic? Because right now men in Australia are decidedly NOT at work. They are instead on the sofa, attached to the WiFi, their rights stripped from them under the ridiculous guise of a pandemic, unless, of course, they’re deemed by some pointy-shoe beaurocrat as “essential.”
The Great Reset barrels ahead in Australia at a blistering pace. All hail the albino snail that lost his shell.
The damage already done is incalculable, and yet to come is much, much more because we have of course been promised much more. All the while the sheeple sleep, sound in the belief their leaders are protecting them and keeping them safe.
Some have said that the Australian government has lost the plot. No, they haven’t. Suggesting that provides a plausibility to their actions. There is none. It is not possible to implement such far reaching, damaging rules and regulations by merely being incompetent, and certainly not for such a length of time, where the evidence piles high that highlight the innefectiveness of the experimental gene therapies, constantly changing protocols and mandates (no mask, one mask, two masks, etc.), and control groups such as Sweden, which instead of being used as a proof of evidence are chastised and ignored, or where the country sporting the greatest deaths per capita is simultaneously the country most vaccinated: Israel.
No, only an idiot would look at all of this and conclude that it is mere incompetence. Only an idiot would look at this and conclude that it is being done in good faith.
No this is planned. It is, folks, “the great reset” that the global elites scumbags drool over.
Davos man has been hard at work. And you may say, “Well, they have no real power. I mean, they don’t pass these laws.” True. They don’t need to. Instead, like a mob boss who never brings out the baseball bat to beat the victim, relying instead on his henchman, today it is gutless invertebrates that out of sheer cowardice follow them.
Corporates, CEOs, governors, local elected officials. And, of course, there is the media — the poisoned chalice that never stops giving. Driving the hysteria, and boy has it worked. More clicks, more eyeballs. Then, of course, there is the fact that the revenue model for media has flipped to one of advertising. And so it is that the advertisers pull the strings.
For context, Bill Gates, via various structures, owns 113 media outlets.
And don’t get me started on the “fact checkers.” These are the folks telling Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier (whose field of expertise is virology) to stand down and stop spreading “misinformation.” The same folks telling us that the inventor of mRNA technology Dr. Robert Malone doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he yells from the rooftops that we’re in the process of committing a slow motion global genocide.
It is surreal. I understand that, but just because it’s surreal doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
We look at evidence, such as this.
But when we look around us the outcomes of this evidence are nowhere to be found. Everyone dutifully scans into shops, dons a useless, dirty mask ensuring they breathe their own carbon dioxide back into their body along with the chemicals from the mask.
Here is the issue, folks, and it’s dead bloody serious. This is a colossal deception based on fraud and lies. The governments of Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, all those in the European Union, and the UK have borrowed sums of money that will never ever be paid back.
A father and his daughter in a park. Their crime? Unmasked.
Sadly, one can see exactly where this is all headed. Most everyone knows exactly what Auschwitz and the numerous “facilities” like it were. We also know that many of the victims actually willingly went to these camps. Heck, some paid the rail fare to get there, such was the power of the propaganda.
And yet it is hard to imagine anything like this happening again, which is, of course, why it happens. It is why history repeats itself.
When you are confronted with something so dark, so sinister, so dystopian that it makes you feel physically ill, and at the same time nobody around you seems to think it an issue it is only normal to think to yourself… well, it must be me that is mad. But you are not mad. You are the rational one. Just because you are in the minority does not mean you are wrong. It just means that you are in the minority.
Here is the new Alice Springs “quarantine” facility.
Not at all like, you know, a prison. And here are the rules.
If you’re looking at this progression of events and not alarmed, you have a screw loose. That it has as much to do with “public health” as a donkey has to do with cryptography should be obvious to all.
So what comes next? Asset seizure.
Editor’s Note: Disturbing economic, political, and social trends are already in motion and now accelerating at breathtaking speed. Most troubling of all, they cannot be stopped.
The risks that lie ahead are too big and dangerous to ignore. That’s why contrarian money manager Chris Macintosh just released the most critical report on these trends, What Happens Next. This free special report explains precisely what’s coming down the pike and what it means for your wealth and well-being. Click here to access it now.
Now that CDC chief Dr. Rochelle Walensky - possibly working on behalf of her political puppet masters - has overridden her agency's advisory panel to expand the eligibility for Pfizer booster jabs to high-risk workers (a group that ACIP, the advisory panel, had decided to exclude given a paucity of efficacy and safety data), many employers are confused about whether the new guidance applies to them - and whether they might be left in a difficult situation with employees who didn't get the first two vaccines.
At the end of the day, the big worry is that hundreds of thousands of shots allocated for workers might simply go unused, left to expire while dozens of poorer countries would be overjoyed to have them.
According to the Hill, chaotic and at times contradictory messaging from federal health officials has culminated in a confusing set of recommendations about who should, and shouldn't receive booster jabs, and why?
Panel members initially said they had excluded approving jabs on an employment basis because there wasn't enough evidence those people were losing protection. That decision was clearly a disappointment to the Biden Administration, which is possibly why Dr. Walensky interceded.
The depth of Dr. Walsensky's contradiction of the science can be found in the exact wording of her decree: Starting immediately, anyone between the ages of 18 and 64 who is at increased risk of COVID-19 "exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting" can get a third dose.
Legal experts told the Hill that those words are so vague, practically anyone could qualify. Already, many local level officials appear to be leaning toward simply giving boosters to anyone who asks.
"There's going to be confusion. If we are going to create guidelines that are essentially making the vaccine available to almost everyone, the simplest solution is, make it available to everyone," said Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist at NYU and Bellevue Hospital. "The best public health programs are the ones that are simple and easy to understand and clear, and the more complexity you build into it, the more difficult it is to roll out."
That statement above about not creating obstacles to the third shot - that's coming from a scientist who doubted whether they were even necessary.
Gounder, who advised the Biden transition team on COVID-19, has been critical of the administration's fervent push for boosters, and said the evidence for a third dose based on occupation was mixed at best.
"You have to step back and ask the question, why is it that we're vaccinating people in high risk settings? Is it because they as individuals are at high risk, or is it because it would be disruptive to the workplace," Gounder said.
As far as the dramatic conclusion to what was supposed to be a 'staid' scientific process - the CDC director overruling her advisory panel on the issue of occupancy-based eligibility in a late night statement - that should be enough to alert Americans that something strange is happening. Despite the panel's claims, Dr. Walensky took to the White House press briefing on Friday to claim that she did not "overrule" the advisory committee and that she had listened to both sides on the issue of whether to approve boosters by occupational risk.
Amusingly, the assiduously pro-Democratic the Washington Post was willing to dismiss this usurpation of "the science" as simply another communications breakdown from the doddering Dems.
“Everyone is kind of confused,” he said. The current discontent has deep roots. In April, Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla said a third coronavirus dose was “likely” to be needed. In late July, Pfizer-BioNTech announced that their vaccine’s efficacy waned over time. Data from Israel confirmed a drop. Then, last month, as the delta variant of the coronavirus surged and the World Health Organization decried the distribution of third shots in wealthy countries while poor countries were lacking first doses, President Biden announced that most Americans could begin getting boosters of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines Sept. 20 — subject to the government’s regulatory processes, which unfolded in recent days and focused only on Pfizer. Regulators already allowed third shots for the immunocompromised who have received Pfizer or Moderna shots but have not yet made recommendations for all recipients of the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.
The deluge of phone calls about booster shots to Primary Health clinics in Southwestern Idaho began weeks ago. On Friday morning, the group’s Garden City clinic, where Maddie Morris fields inquiries, saw an increase in calls, mostly from senior citizens.
“The calls seem pretty nonstop,” the customer service representative said. “It seems like a lot of people are anxious to get a booster.”
Doctors say confusion clouds patients’ willingness to receive boosters. In Idaho, the problem coincides with the primary health-care system’s struggle to meet the demands of the latest covid-19 crush, which earlier this month plunged the state into crisis standards of care — essentially the rationing of health care as demand overwhelms resources.
Unfortunately for them, it looks like the whole thing is back-firing...
Maybe they'll think twice next time around (though we doubt it, since 'next time' is literally happening in the coming weeks when they do this all again with Moderna).
(HEADLINE USA) – The year 2020 saw the largest spike in murder rates in U.S. history, the New York Times reported. The largest previous change on record was a 12.7% spike in 1968. Last year’s surge nearly tripled the old record.
Though the change occurred throughout the country, large urban centers got hit the hardest. Murder rates increased by 35% in cities with populations of over 250,000 people.
While the legacy media has largely blamed former President Donald Trump for the spike, it appears likely that increased murder rates are due to highly publicized efforts to “Defund the Police” and unconstitutional coronavirus lockdowns.
The post Murder rates spike 30%, biggest increase on record appeared first on WND.
Data released Sept. 17 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that between Dec. 14, 2020 and Sept. 17, 2021, a total of 726,965 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The data included a total of 15,386 reports of deaths — an increase of 461 over the previous week.
There were 99,410 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 7,887 compared with the previous week.
Excluding “foreign reports” filed in VAERS, 569,294 adverse events, including 6,981 deaths and 44,481 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020 and Sept. 17, 2021.
Of the 6,981 U.S. deaths reported as of Sept. 17, 12% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 17% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 30% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 383.6 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Sept. 17. This includes: 220 million doses of Pfizer, 149 million doses of Moderna and 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
The data come directly from reports submitted to VAERS, the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent deaths involve a 17-year old male (VAERS I.D. 1689212) with cancer who was vaccinated April 17, tested positive for COVID on July 20, was hospitalized and passed away Aug. 29; and a 16-year old female (VAERS I.D. 1694568) who died from a pulmonary embolism nine days after receiving her first Pfizer dose.
Other recent reported deaths include two patients [VAERS I.D. 1655100] who died after their second dose of Pfizer, including a 13-year old female, a 15-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1498080) who previously had COVID, was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy in May 2021 and died four days after receiving his second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine when he collapsed on the soccer field and went into ventricular tachycardia; and a 13-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1505250) who died after suffering a heart condition after receiving her first dose of Pfizer.
This week’s U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020 to Sept. 17, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:
CDC overrules agency’s own vaccine safety committee, sides with FDA on boosters
In an “unusual move,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, on Thursday overruled her agency’s vaccine advisory committee recommendation to limit Pfizer’s COVID booster shot for people 65 and older, long-term care facility residents and certain people with underlying conditions.
Instead, Walensky aligned with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authorization of a third dose of Pfizer’s vaccine for a broader population, including healthcare workers, grocery store workers, teachers and others whose jobs put them at “high risk” of infections, plus residents of prisons and homeless shelters.
CDC director disregarded advice of agency’s vaccine advisory committee, clearing way for healthcare workers, teachers, and residents of long-term care facilities, homeless shelters and prisons to get a third Pfizer COVID shot.https://t.co/sYxt7S8y2t
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) September 24, 2021
President Biden today acted on the news, announcing his administration will begin to deliver booster shots this week, Politico reported.
The CDC’s vaccine advisory panel in a meeting Thursday voted unanimously to approve booster doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for people 65 and older, long-term care facility residents and certain people with underlying conditions. The booster dose would be given at least six months after being fully vaccinated.
However, the advisers voted against recommending a booster dose for people whose jobs or situations put them at high risk of vaccine breakthrough infection.
FDA ignores safety committee’s guidance, broadly authorizes boosters
The FDA on Wednesday amended the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine to allow for a single booster shot to be administered to people 65 and older.
In addition to older Americans, the FDA authorized boosters for people 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe illness from COVID, and also those “whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure” to the virus puts them at high risk of serious complications from the disease caused by the virus, the agency said.
On Sept. 17, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) unanimously recommended EUA for a booster dose of Pfizer’s vaccine for people 65 and older and those with compromised immune systems — but the committee voted 16 to 2 against recommending boosters for the general population, citing a lack of long-term data. The committee said the risks did not outweigh the benefits for those people.
Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the agency considered the committee’s input, but conducted it’s own review of the data in reaching a decision.
Experts tell FDA vaccines ‘harm more people than they save’
During the public comment session at VRBPAC’s Sept. 17 meeting, numerous experts said data supporting Pfizer’s request for booster doses was inadequate.
Several people highlighted concerning patterns with data from VAERS — requesting more attention be given to potential signals and reported adverse events.
Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist and virologist said there are clear risk signals emerging from VAERS data — with a 1000% increase in the total number of adverse events for 2021 so far.
Rose pointed out that as of Aug. 27, there were 1,500 adverse reactions occurring per million fully injected people, and 1 in 660 individuals reporting immunological adverse events associated with the COVID products. She said underreporting was not considered in the data.
Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, said during his presentation to the FDA’s safety panel that no clinical evidence exists to disprove claims the COVID vaccines are harming more people than they save.
Steve Kirsch, founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, using data from four different analyses, said even if the vaccines had 100% protection, it still means we kill two people to save one life.
Physician ‘horribly injured’ after Pfizer vaccine pleads with U.S. agencies for help
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Danice Hertz, a 64-year-old physician who is “horribly ill” and “incapacitated” after getting Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, claims U.S. health agencies are ignoring thousands of adverse events.
Dr. Hertz said people like her who have been seriously injured by COVID vaccines are being ignored + because health officials won’t research their injuries + potential treatments, they have nowhere to turn.#TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66EdwTnDhttps://t.co/ahmaX2UiPF
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) September 23, 2021
Hertz told The Defender there are thousands of people like her — injured by COVID vaccines — who are suffering and need help, yet they’re ignored by mainstream media and U.S. health agencies.
Meanwhile, COVID vaccine mandates are being rolled out for millions of Americans, with barely any discussion of the risks, she said.
Hertz said those injured by the vaccines are struggling to get validation and medical care because these reactions are being hidden from the medical community.
She said the FDA, CDC, and National Institutes of Health have known about vaccine injuries since the clinical trials, yet are not giving informed consent — fully disclosing the possible risks associated with vaccines and allowing the individual to decide.
“This is truly shocking,” Hertz said. “Having practiced medicine for 33 years, I always had faith in our regulatory agencies. Now, having been seriously injured by this vaccine and struggling to be taken seriously and get medical assistance, I no longer have faith.”
30,000 women in UK report menstrual problems after COVID shots
As of Sept. 2, more than 30,000 reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal bleeding had been made to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Yellow Card Scheme — the UK system for collecting and monitoring adverse reactions following COVID vaccines.
According to an editorial published Sept. 16 in The BMJ, reports of adverse reactions include heavier-than-usual periods, delayed periods and unexpected vaginal bleeding. Yet, none of the COVID vaccine manufacturers list any issues pertinent to menstrual health as a side effect, and no research was done to assess the effects of the vaccines on the menstrual cycle during clinical trials.
According to VAERS, between Dec. 14, 2020 and Sept. 17, 2021, there have been 9,589 total reports, including U.S. and some foreign, of menstrual disorders after vaccination with a COVID vaccine.
Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events, which means the number of actual adverse events evolving menstrual disorders could be much higher.
Pfizer says COVID vaccine for 5- 1o 11-year-olds ‘safe’ and shows ‘robust’ antibody response
Pfizer said Monday a phase 2/3 trial showed its COVID vaccine was safe and generated a “robust” antibody response in children ages 5 to 11, but experts warned Pfizer’s data is misleading, and some questioned the need for kids to be vaccinated in the first place.
These are the first results released for this age group for a COVID vaccine, and the data has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.
Pfizer said it plans to request EUA from the FDA soon. FDA officials said once data is submitted, the agency could authorize a vaccine for younger children in a matter of weeks.
Dr. Elizabeth Mumper, pediatrician, president and CEO of The RIMLAND Center and member of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Scientific Advisory Committee, in an email to The Defender said, Pfizer did not share specific data on efficacy or side effects and relied on measurements of antibody responses — extrapolating from adult data to imply protection. Mumper said CHD remains skeptical of “science by press release.”
New study questions need for vaccinating children against COVID
As The Defender reported this week, a new study published in Science Direct questioned the need for vaccinating children against COVID. The study found the bulk of official COVID-attributed deaths per capita occurred mostly in the elderly with high comorbidities, while COVID-attributed deaths were negligible in children.
By comparison, the study’s authors found the bulk of normalized post-vaccination deaths occurred mostly in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-vaccination deaths were small, but not negligible, in children.
Researchers pointed out clinical trials for COVID vaccines were very short (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size.
Further, clinical trials for COVID vaccines did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases, the researchers said.
“Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”
198 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries
According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We have made repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions.
Despite multiple phone and email communications with many people at the CDC, and despite being told that our request was in the system and that someone would respond, we have not yet received answers to any of the questions we submitted. It has been 198 days since we sent our first email to the CDC requesting information.
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
The post More Than 726,000 COVID Vaccine Injuries Reported to VAERS as CDC, FDA Overrule Advisory Committees’ Recommendations on Third Pfizer Shot appeared first on Children's Health Defense.
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,
A North Carolina health care system said it suspended hundreds of its employees after the firm implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, adding that workers who refuse to get vaccinated after five days will be fired.
“Beginning this week, approximately 375 team members—across 15 hospitals, 800 clinics and hundreds of outpatient facilities—have been confirmed to be non-compliant and are not able to report to work,” stated a press release from Novant Health, which is based in North Carolina but operates in other states.
“They will have an opportunity to comply over a five day, unpaid suspension period,” the release said.
“If a team member remains non-compliant after this suspension period, he or she will have their employment with Novant Health terminated.”
The firm then claimed that about 98.5 percent of its workforce are compliant with the policy, meaning they have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Workers who started a two-dose vaccine series have until Oct. 15 to get the second shot, Novant said.
Employees who have an exemption are required to get weekly COVID-19 testing, as well as wear N95 masks and eye protection, it added.
In a similar move, 125 workers with Indiana University Health, the biggest hospital system in the state, parted ways with the company, according to a news release issued last week. Those workers, it said, did not comply with the firm’s vaccine mandate.
“Indiana University Health has put the safety and well-being of patients and team members first by requiring employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Sept. 1,” the company said in a Sept. 16 statement. “After a two-week unpaid suspension period ending Sept. 14, a total of 125 employees, the equivalent of 61 full-time employees, chose not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and have left the organization.”
It comes as President Joe Biden on Sept. 9 announced he would direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to penalize companies with 100 or more employees if they do not comply with his administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Under the mandate, details of which have not been released, private-sector workers would have to either get the COVID-19 vaccine or submit to weekly testing.
The president also said he would mandate that all health care workers who are employed at facilities that receive Medicaid or Medicare funding get vaccinated.
Republican leaders, as well as some union bosses, have criticized Biden for the announcement and said it’s tantamount to federal overreach. Some governors and state attorneys general have threatened to file lawsuits against the mandate.
What happened to "heroes!"?
From 'They Thought They Were Free', by Milton Mayer.
Chapter 13: But Then It Was Too Late
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."
"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"
"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.
Authored by Egon von Greyerz via GoldSwitzerland.com,
Will the autumn of 2021 be the end of the everything bubble?
Are investment markets very soon coming to the end of market insanity?
Since there is very little sanity left in markets or the in the world economy, we have now reached a point where we must accept madness as sanity, as George Bernard Shaw said:
“When the world goes mad, one must accept madness as sanity; since sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the madness on which the whole world happens to agree.”
Investment markets today are all about instant gratification and getting rich quick.
“Stocks always go up” and so does property in the everything bubble. Even the normally boring bond market has had a 40 year rise. And then we have the supercharged tech stocks, many of which have gained 1000s of percent in this century
And we mustn’t forget the SPAC stocks (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) or Blank Cheque Companies where shell companies are used to acquire existing companies to inflate their share price.
None of these things are new of course. During the South Sea Bubble in the 1720s for example, companies were formed and capital raised with just the purpose of “Making Money”.
We mustn’t forget the cryptocurrencies which are now worth valued at $2 trillion. They were just over $1 billion 8 years ago. Is that the bubble of the century like tulip bulbs in the 1600s or is it the money of the future. Well, most readers know or can guess my opinion on this!
In a world where everything is based on “get rich quick” neither value investing nor wealth preservation enters the equation. Why worry about preserving your wealth when you could have made 14x your money on the Nasdaq since 2009 or 5,000x your investment on Bitcoin since 2011.
Calling tops is a mug’s game. Some of us who look at risk have been worried about the everything bubble economy for quite a while. To us, since the end of the Great Financial Crisis in 2009, the world economy and asset markets have been an illusion.
It is as if we are watching a virtual reality game in which some people automatically increase their wealth by millions or even billions of dollars every time they pass GO.
But as the rich are getting richer, the masses are just getting poorer and more indebted.
Although we see the wealth that has been acquired by many as an illusion that will soon evaporate, for the ones who have benefited, this is all very real.
Anyone who believes that these gains are real and sustainable will have the shock of a lifetime in coming years. As I showed in a recent article about the End of the US Empire, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans has gone from 2% of GDP to 18% in the last 40 years.
This concentration of wealth is of course spectacular but also very dangerous for the world. Trees can always grow taller but they never grow to heaven!
So as Shaw said, we are now in “the madness on which the whole world agrees”.
As I have often stated, I believe that we are at the end of a very major economic cycle. Not only are markets insane, but so are deficits, debts and currency debasements.
But also moral and ethical values have now vanished into thin air and been replaced by lies, deceit and the golden calf.
We are now in a very critical period for the world since excesses of the magnitude we are now seeing must be corrected.
Exponential moves in one direction are always corrected. And the corrections will be of a similar magnitude to the rise but happen much quicker. We are talking about falls of 90% or more in all major asset and debt markets.
Nobody believes such moves are possible with central banks and governments standing by with unlimited money printing combined with new Central Bank Digital Currencies that will save the world.
We must understand that illusions cannot rescue the world economy. This despite whatever concoctions central banks or Schwab (World Economic Forum) and his billionaire cronies come up with.
Virtual illusions in the form of fake money or empty promises can never repay debt, nor can they change the laws of nature.
Clearly all these “evil forces” will use their power to orchestrate fake resets to “save the world” in an attempt to tighten their grip on the world economy and the financial system. But a heavily indebted and fake system can never be reset in an orderly manner.
In my view, any artificial or fake reset will only have a very limited effect. It is just not possible to solve a debt problem with more debt whatever way the PTB (Powers That Be) try to dress it in sheep’s clothing.
So an orderly reset is bound to fail very quickly. A new digital Fiat and thus fake currency will not solve the world’s debt problem.
Writing off the debt is just another illusory act. If you write off the debt, the assets on the opposite side of the balance sheet will also implode in value. And since the debt is leveraging the assets, they will have a very long way to fall.
This is why asset implosions of 90-100% are very likely. Few people believe this to be possible but with debt collapsing so will the bubble assets which are all inflated by worthless debt.
We must remember that the big stock market crash in 1929-32 saw the Dow lose 90% of its value. It then took 25 years for the Dow to get above the 1929 high. And today 92 years after that peak, debts, deficits, and asset bubbles are far greater than at the end of the 1920s.
Below are a number of graphs that all point to the everything bubble.
But as we have learnt in this century, bubbles can always grow bigger and especially if we are looking at the end of a major super cycle which could be as big (or long) as 2,000 years.
Nevertheless, the evidence keeps mounting of an epic asset bubble. In addition to the charts above that point to illusions never seen before in markets, we have a number of technical indicators that all point to the end of the everything bubble.
In the chart below, the RSI (Relative Strength Index) momentum indicator for example topped in 2017 and the major rise in the Dow since then has not been confirmed by the indicator. This is a very bearish sign albeit not a short term indicator.
Many other technical indicators including Elliott wave or Dow Theory all point to that a top to the everything bubble is imminent. Whether that means a top next week (which is possible), or in the next few months, time will tell. Some important cycle indicators point to potential turns between now and Sep 24.
But what is much more important than pinpointing the exact timing of the top is to understand the risk involved.
If, as we believe, we are now at the end of the everything bubble, nobody needs to time it. Investors should understand the upside might be 10% and the downside 90%+.
Who is foolish enough to accept such a risk? Maybe a 10% move up but a more certain 90% fall.
We are talking about a fall in real terms. If we get hyperinflation stocks and other assets can rise in nominal terms but fall in real terms when measured in stable purchasing power, like gold.
Well, that question is easy to answer. The whole investment world which has been spoilt by tens of trillions of dollars of fake money to fuel the Epic Everything Bubble will expect much more of the same in coming months or years.
Yes, much more money will be created but this time it will have very little effect. Instead the dollar, euro, yen etc will accelerate the falls that we have seen since 1913. They have all fallen 98-99% since then and by similar percentages since 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window.
The final 1-2% fall will soon start and take most currencies to their intrinsic value of ZERO. But don’t forget that this final fall is 100% from here.
Remember that measuring your assets in for example dollars is a futile exercise in self indulgence. You are just flattering your investment skills when you measure your performance in a currency that has lost 98% since 1971 and 84% since 2000.
If you use the same method in coming years, your paper wealth might look ok but be worthless in real terms. Just ask anyone who has lived in a hyperinflationary economy like Yugoslavia, Argentina or Venezuela.
So what is a Sleeping Beauty investment. Not difficult to guess. It is an investment that you can forget about for 100 years and when you wake up, it will have maintained its purchasing power.
If we get the expected stock market crash, it is possible that gold and the precious metals continue to correct a bit further like in 2008. As opposed to today, gold had then had a major bull run from $250 in 1999 to $1,000 in 2008. Weak gold hands then needed to get liquidity against a crashing stock market and the everything bubble.
Gold has now been in consolidation for years and there are a lot fewer speculative investors compared to 2008. Therefore I expect a much smaller and shorter correction, if any.
Coming back to the Sleeping Beauty, there is one investment which you could safely put away and forget about for 100 years. It is of course physical gold, safely stored.
As long as you store gold in a safe place and safe country, you know that it will maintain its REAL value as it has for 5,000 years. Yes, there are fluctuations, but gold’s history tells us that it is not just the only money which has survived but also the only money which has maintained real purchasing power.
Gold today at $1,750 is as UNLOVED AND UNDERVALUED as in 1971 at $35 and in 2000 at $288.
I will continue to show the chart below until that situation is rectified.
This reminds me of the Roman Senator Cato during the Punic Wars (around 150 BC) who finished every speech in the senate with “Furthermore I consider that Carthage must be destroyed”.
In the end Cato got his way as Carthage was destroyed.
I have no doubt that gold will soon rectify the current undervaluation and reach levels that few can imagine. This is what both technicals and fundamentals are clearly indicating.
(by Martin Bueger | LifeSite News) – Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro told the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday that he opposes vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, and any coercion that deters medical freedom. “Brazil has a president who believes in God, respects the Constitution, and values loyalty to the family. Brazil’s credibility has recovered in the world,” Bolsonaro stated in the room of delegates. “Since the pandemic started, we have supported doctor’s professional autonomy in the quest for early treatment measures in line with recommendations issued by the Brazilian Federal Council of Medicine.” Bolsonaro, who is not vaccinated himself, decided to take an […]