Health & Fitness

Yet again, mainstream media have completely ignored what should have been front-page news. According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind.

What makes the media’s silence all the more remarkable is that this revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. Paul Thacker, investigative journalist for The BMJ, writes in his November 2, 2021, report:¹

“Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight ...

[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety ... Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”

As noted by Bill Bruckner for transparimed.org:²

“Editors’ widespread failure to pick up on the story is deeply problematic. First and foremost, it lets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration off the hook for what appear to be severe lapses in regulatory oversight over this trial ... Where are the media outlets questioning the FDA about its oversight processes? Where are the politicians calling for an enquiry? ...

Second, it lets Pfizer off the hook for apparently failing to adequately oversee the operations of its subcontractor ... Where are the media outlets questioning Pfizer about its oversight and quality assurance processes? ...

Third, it undermines confidence in democratic institutions and public health bodies because it gives citizens ... the impression that mainstream media are deliberately ignoring a big story in order to avoid fueling vaccine hesitancy.”

So far, this story has been largely confined to the alternative news media. You’ll find a selection of video reports covering the whistleblower’s testimony in the sections below.

Research Organization Falsified Data in Pfizer Trial

The whistleblower in question is Brook Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas.

Jackson repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues,” Thacker writes, and when her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email.

Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all. She has provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns were valid. According to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator. Thacker explains:³

“Jackson was a trained clinical trial auditor who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ experience in clinical research coordination and management.

Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson documented several matters late one night, taking photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box.

Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants ... Jackson told The BMJ that drug assignment confirmation printouts were being left in participants’ charts, accessible to blinded personnel ...

In a recording of a meeting in late September 2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. ‘In my mind, it’s something new every day,’ a Ventavia executive says. ‘We know that it’s significant.’

Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organization with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: ‘The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.’

ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which ‘Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions … Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.’

According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have occurred ‘to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.’ Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks.

In a list of ‘action items’ circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to ‘Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.’ One of them was ‘verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,’ a note indicates.”

FDA Ignored Whistleblower Concerns

In her complaint to the FDA, Jackson listed a dozen incidents of concern, including the following:

• Participants were not monitored by clinical staff after receiving the shot
• Patients who experienced adverse effects were not promptly evaluated
• Protocol deviations were not being reported
• The Pfizer injection vials were stored at improper temperatures
• Laboratory specimens were mislabeled

Not a single one of the problems Jackson raised in her complaint to the FDA were noted or addressed in Pfizer’s briefing document submitted to the FDA’s advisory committee meeting December 20, 2020, when its emergency use authorization application was reviewed.

The FDA went ahead, granting the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the very next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson’s complaint, which ought to have put the brakes on the FDA’s authorization. At bare minimum, they should have investigated the matter before proceeding.

What’s more, the FDA’s summary of its inspections of the Pfizer trial, published in August 2021, revealed the agency only inspected nine of the 153 trial sites, and Ventavia was not one of them. The complaint also appears to have been ignored when the FDA granted full approval to Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID shot that is not yet available.

Pfizer is also in on the cover-up. Shortly after Jackson’s firing, Pfizer was notified of the problems she’d raised. Despite that, Pfizer has since then contracted Ventavia to conduct no less than four additional trials — one for COVID shots in children and young adults, one for the COVID jab in pregnant women, a booster shot trial, and an RSV vaccine trial.

So, clearly, Pfizer is not opposed to contractors falsifying data or otherwise undermining the integrity of the trials. That alone is a fiery indictment against Pfizer.

They can feign ignorance and proclaim to adhere to “the highest scientific, ethical and clinical standards”⁴ all they want. Those are just words which, unless backed by consistent action, are completely meaningless. Behind the scenes, they’re clearly well-aware that their trials are resting on fraudulent foundations.

Pfizer Trial Described as a ‘Crazy Mess’

Jackson wasn’t the only employee to get sacked from Ventavia after raising concerns about the integrity of the Pfizer trial. Thacker writes:⁵

“In recent months Jackson has reconnected with several former Ventavia employees who all left or were fired from the company. One of them was one of the officials who had taken part in the late September meeting. In a text message sent in June the former official apologized, saying that ‘everything that you complained about was spot on.’

Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for fear of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research community. Both confirmed broad aspects of Jackson’s complaint.

One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a ‘helter skelter’ work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial. ‘I’ve never had to do what they were asking me to do, ever,’ she told The BMJ. ‘It just seemed like something a little different from normal — the things that were allowed and expected’ ...

After Jackson left the company problems persisted at Ventavia, this employee said. In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported COVID-like symptoms, to test for infection. Laboratory confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted.

(An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19.) ‘I don’t think it was good clean data,’ the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. ‘It’s a crazy mess.’”

Such statements clearly fly in the face of statements made by world leaders, health authorities and the mainstream media. Most, like federal health minister for Australia, Greg Hunt, have claimed the COVID shots have undergone “rigorous, independent testing” to ensure they’re “safe, effective and manufactured to a high standard.”⁶

Nothing we know so far supports such a conclusion. The testing has been far from rigorous and has not been independently verified.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data show they’re shockingly far from safe; real-world data show effectiveness wanes within a handful of months while leaving you more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 variants and other infections; and manufacturing standards have also been shown lacking, as a variety of foreign contaminants have been found in the vials.⁷

Media Are Manipulated by Pfizer

>>>>> Click here <<<<<

One of the reasons why English- and German-speaking legacy media have completely ignored this whistleblower testimony is probably because Pfizer has such a dominating influence over them. Thacker told blogger Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D.,⁸ “Pfizer has such a huge PR machine, they have basically captured the media, they’ve hypnotized the media.”

Pfizer’s PR department is also hard at work trying to hypnotize the public. The TV ad above is perhaps one of the most offensive. In it, Pfizer brainwashes young children into thinking that getting the COVID shot will make them superheroes. Never mind the fact that getting the shot could kill or permanently injure them.

You Cannot ‘Follow the Science’ if There Are No Data

The video at the top of this article is a short extract from a November 2, 2021, meeting organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which associate editor of The BMJ, Peter Doshi, Ph.D., reviewed some of the many concerns experts have about the integrity of the COVID jab data.

He points out that Pfizer’s raw trial data will not be made available until May 2025. So far, Pfizer has refused to release any of its raw data to independent investigators and, without that, there’s no possible way to confirm that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true and correct.

In other words, we’re expected to simply take the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the list of white collar criminals; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $2.3 billion in fines for fraudulent marketing and health care fraud.⁹ Press releases are not science. They’re marketing. Without the raw data, we have no science upon which to base our decisions about the COVID shot.

As noted by Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford’s School of Medicine Clinical Excellence Research Centre, who also spoke at the meeting:

“The evidence we have comes from highly curated, industry-controlled press releases and journal publications. We are making big decisions based on limited, highly selected evidence. A compromised scientific process will lead to poor decisions, and it may set a bad precedent.”

Doshi stresses how utterly unscientific a process we’re now following. He also points out that doctors have an ethical duty to not recommend a treatment for which they have no data. Quoting from a 2020 article he co-wrote:¹⁰

“Data transparency is not a ‘nice to have.’ Claims made without access to the data — whether appearing in peer reviewed publications or in preprints without peer review — are not scientific claims.

Products can be marketed without access to the data, but doctors and professional societies should publicly state that, without complete data transparency, they will refuse to endorse COVID-19 products as being based on science.”

“The point I am trying to make is very simple,” Doshi said. “The data from COVID vaccines are not available and won’t be available for years. Yet, we are not just ‘asking’ but ‘mandating’ millions of people to take these vaccines ... Without data, it’s not science.”

Regulatory Agencies Are Designed to Fail

We’ve known the FDA is a captured agency for at least a decade. None of the issues we’re now seeing are exactly new. We’re now getting a close-up view of just how dangerous the incestuous relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma really is.

Americans are dying from COVID jab injuries at unprecedented record rates, and the FDA is completely ignoring it. Instead, it continues to push for more jabs, more injuries and more deaths. It’s complicit in causing avoidable deaths rather than protecting public health. That’s the price we’re now paying for not cleaning up the agency and sealing the revolving door between regulators and industry earlier.

In “Designed to Fail: Why Regulatory Agencies Don’t Work,”¹¹ published in May 2012 — nearly a decade ago — William Sanjour discussed the failures of regulatory reform. He points out that the reason reforms don’t work is because they keep reforming in the wrong direction:

“... as a result of the recent catastrophic failures of regulatory agencies, politicians and pundits are talking about the same old ‘Regulatory Reform’ again. ‘Fill the regulatory agencies with honest people who won’t cave in to special interests.’ ‘Give them more money, more authority and more people.’

But my experience has shown that by concentrating all legislative, executive and judiciary authority in one regulatory agency just makes it easier for it to be corrupted by the industries it regulates.

I worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection agency for 30 years and lived through many cycles of ‘Regulatory Reform,’ doing the same ‘reforms’ over and over again and expecting different results.

I’ve learned that the way to achieve true regulatory reform is to give regulatory agencies less money, less authority, fewer people but more intelligent regulations. The theme of this article is that by dispersing regulatory authority, rather than concentrating it, we would make corruption more difficult and facilitate more sensible regulation.”

Sanjour points out that regulators being captured by the parties they’re supposed to regulate is far more dangerous than having no regulatory agencies at all, because “capture gives industry the power of government.” Can there be any doubt that the FDA, as an agency captured by Big Pharma in general and Pfizer in particular, now wields power over the U.S. government?

“From my own experience with the U.S. EPA, even if an inspector finds a violation, this only triggers a lengthy complex process with many levels of warning, review, appeal, negotiation, and adjudication before any action is taken (or, more often, avoided),” Sanjour writes.¹²

“See the labyrinthine flow chart¹³ for an example of an agency enforcement procedure. It resembles a game of ‘chutes and ladders.’ Compare this with what happens when you park under a ‘No Parking’ sign. A policeman writes a ticket, and you can either pay the fine or tell it to the judge.

If the EPA wrote the rules for parking violations, the officer would first have to determine if there were sufficient legal parking available at a reasonable cost and at a reasonable distance, and would then have to stand by the car and wait until the owner showed up so that he could negotiate a settlement agreement.”

Regulatory Complexity Intentionally Hides Loopholes

Even more disturbing, Sanjour reveals that, when he was writing regulations for the EPA, he was “told on more than one occasion to make sure I put in enough loopholes. The purpose of the complexity is to hide the loopholes.” Sanjour went on to explain:

“Regulatory agencies are created by Congress in order to control some powerful forces in society (usually corporations), which benefit society but which are also prone to abuse their power. The purpose of a regulatory agency is to allow the flow of benefits while straining out the abuse.

In order to do this, Congress gives administrators of regulatory agencies broad discretionary power to write regulations for industries for which they are responsible. The flaw in the system is that the administrator is appointed by the president ... Thus any discretionary authority given to a regulatory agency administrator is, in fact, given to the president of the United States to be used as the president sees fit ...

[R]egulatory agencies, by their very nature, can do little that doesn’t adversely affect business, especially big and influential business, and this disturbs a president’s repose.

The EPA, for instance, cannot write regulations governing the petroleum industry without the oil companies going to the White House screaming ‘energy crisis!’ ... When the FDA wants to thoroughly evaluate a new drug, the pharmaceutical company lets loose a public relations barrage about how the bureaucratic delays are costing lives.

Regulatory agency employees soon learn that drafting and implementing rules for big corporations means making enemies of powerful and influential people. They learn to be ‘team players,’ an ethic that permeates the entire agency without ever being transmitted through written or even oral instructions.

People who like to get things done, who need to see concrete results for their efforts, don’t last long. They don’t necessarily get fired, but they don’t advance either; their responsibilities are transferred to others, and they often leave the agency in disgust. The people who get ahead are those clever ones with a talent for procrastination, obfuscation, and coming up with superficially plausible reasons for accomplishing nothing.”

How Do We Fix It?

The question staring us in the face now is, how do we fix these regulatory agencies so that they can operate for the benefit of the public rather than private for-profit interests?

“The reason salaried government regulators can be corrupted is that writing and enforcing effective regulations is not their No. 1 priority,” Sanjour noted. “Their main objective is keeping their job and advancing their careers.” Industries, meanwhile, believe that pressuring corrupt officials is the only way to protect their business. The answer, Sanjour suggests, is:

“… to remove discretionary judgment from the hands of the regulatory bureaucracy and place it in hands less susceptible to industry influence. The first thing I would suggest is to make use of people or institutions who have a vested interest in effective regulation as strong or stronger than the regulated community.”

Sanjour cites research showing that, by far, whistleblowers — who risk their jobs by speaking out — are the No. 1 fraud detection group, responsible for 19% of frauds being brought to light. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, which exists to uncover corporate fraud, was responsible for just 7%.

So, one way we could improve the system is by issuing monetary rewards to corporate whistleblowers. “Monetary rewards for whistleblowers pay benefits far in excess of the cost when compared with hired regulatory bureaucrats,” Sanjour notes. Insurance companies can also play an important role, as they are far less likely to overlook safety shortcuts that can result in disaster. An example given by Sanjour is the BP oil spill:

“BP has admitted, between 2005 and 2010, to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud and paid $373 million in fines. Between June 2007 and February 2010, BP refineries in Texas and Ohio accounted for 97% of the ‘egregious, willful’ violations handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Yet none of this resulted in any oversight of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that blew up ...

If BP had been required to carry a $10 billion insurance policy for an oil spill, I’m sure the insurance company would not have allowed the penny-pinching short cuts that the paid regulators allowed. If the laws are written intelligently, insurance companies can be a significant instrument for regulation.”

A third group that makes for a far better fraud detection system than federal regulators is the public. Organizations such as Citizens for Health and Environmental Justice teaches citizens how to get involved in the enforcement of regulations, and even more can be done in that regard.

For example, the EPA could sponsor civilian testing and equip citizens living in polluted areas with resources to conduct their own testing and report back if toxic exposures are found. Sanjour continues:¹⁴

“A second reform I would suggest for removing discretionary authority from the regulatory bureaucracy is to make the rules as simple as possible and to place all appellate functions and consent agreements into the hands of the law courts, just as in our traffic cop example.

This could be judicial courts or administrative law courts. Anything to take the discretionary authority away from the people who write and enforce the rules and provide one more barrier to industry influence.”

We Need to Return to the Constitution

To do any or all of that, we first need to reorganize our regulatory agencies in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. As explained by Sanjour, the U.S. has three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. However, when regulatory agencies were formed, we diverted from this structure.

Regulations are a type of laws, and as such they should come from the legislative branch. But regulatory agencies are part of the executive branch. Judicial functions have also been usurped by regulatory agencies, and hence the executive branch.

“Thus, despite the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the executive branch now includes a great many regulatory agencies whose functions span all three branches of government. A large part of the corruption and inefficiency noted above flows from this fact,” Sanjour notes.

While making changes such as those proposed by Sanjour sounds simple enough, the political pushback would be enormous, and would have to be broken through, somehow. Legally, however, it would be a reasonably simple affair.

All Congress would need to do is amend the law such that the agency administrator is stripped of its authority to write rules and implement the law. That authority would then be transferred to another agency, the administrator of which would be appointed by Congress, not the president.

“Note that these are all paper changes. They do not require any relocation, new buildings, new hires, etc. The functions all currently exist. They are merely rearranged,” Sanjour says.

At present, we can no longer overlook the FDA’s corruption. It’s costing too many lives. They have completely abandoned any semblance of working for the public good. How we get rid of them and fix the problem will become an increasingly pressing question as we move forward.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3FhB0wd
via IFTTT

In this short news report from Full Measure, Sharyl Attkisson interviews the coroner from Grand County, Colorado, where a murder-suicide during Thanksgiving 2020 were recorded as two COVID-19 deaths. While outlandish, it has appeared from other reports around the country¹ and statements from the Colorado governor, this practice is not uncommon.²

In the early months of 2020, many in the mainstream news media laughingly called concerns that there were more deaths reported from COVID-19 than could be attributed to the disease a “death toll conspiracy.”³ Rolling Stone reported this was led by conservative Republicans and “anti-vaxxers” who believe the numbers were inflated.⁴

Yet, it was only several short months later that data confirmed what many already knew: The number of people who died “from” COVID-19 we're not the same as those who died “with” COVID-19. The differentiation is not subtle. In the first case, individuals died from the disease.

However, in the second case, an individual may have tested positive for COVID-19 within the last 28 days but died from other health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes or end stage cancer.

Inaccurate and high false positive rates from PCR tests likely contributed to the number of individuals who died “with” COVID-19. PCR tests use something called “cycle thresholds” to look for positive cases. The higher the threshold, the greater the risk a healthy person is labeled as a COVID-19 “case.”⁵ In reality, PCR testing is not a proper diagnostic tool.⁶ Yet, it has supported the promoted narrative that the U.S. is suffering from a rising number of deaths.

Inflated COVID Death Numbers Recorded in Multiple Counties

In July 2021, Santa Clara and Alameda counties in California did an analysis of the number of people who died from COVID-19. Santa Clara found a significant discrepancy.⁷ The data did not change. The number of actual deaths did not change. But the authorities found 22% of the deaths recorded from COVID-19 could not be attributed to the virus.

The new numbers were generated by counting only those people whose cause of death was ‘from’ the virus. They left off the people who had tested positive at the time of death, but whose cause of death was not the result of an infection from SARS-CoV-2. In the month before, Alameda County recounted their deaths and registered a drop of roughly 25%.⁸

Dr. Monica Gandy is an infectious disease expert at the University of California San Francisco. She believes that it's important to have an accurate accounting of the cause of death. She spoke with a reporter from CBS KPIX San Francisco and rather optimistically believed the CDC “may soon ask all counties to do the same as Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and that the nation could also see a drop in its COVID-19 death toll.”⁹

In the Full Measure video above, Attkisson recounts the story from 2020 of the two deaths from gunshot wounds in Grand County, Colorado, that were recorded as COVID-19 deaths.

The video also reveals that what was happening in Grand County was happening across the state. Dr. James Caruso, chief medical examiner and coroner for Denver, recounted hearing similar stories from coroners in rural counties where it was easier to quickly assess whether a death was from COVID. He told Attkisson:¹⁰

“I was told by some of my fellow coroners in the more rural counties in Colorado that it was happening to them, that they knew of issues where they had signed out a death certificate with perhaps trauma involved. And they were being advised that it was being counted as a COVID-related death.”

Caruso believes that early in the process at the local level, death certificates are probably completed accurately. But then, potentially at the state or federal level, there is a possibility that agencies are cross-referencing COVID tests against death certificates. Anyone who had tested positive is listed as a COVID-related death, regardless of how they died.

When Attkisson checked the tally of deaths in Grand County in July 2021, she found The New York Times had over reported the deaths, including the two gunshot wounds, one who had died outside of the county and two people who were recorded as dead but were alive.¹¹

Merrit Linke is the chair of the Grand County Board of Commissioners. He and the other commissioners drafted and signed a letter that was sent to the governor of Colorado. Essentially, the letter said, “Hey, these numbers are not correct. It's not right. We should report these correctly, and please fix this."¹²

The response was appalling. Brenda Bock is the corner for Grand County, and she also signed the letter with the commissioners. She recounted her conversation with the governor of Colorado to Attkisson, saying, “He told me he didn't believe it was right, but he wasn't going to have them remove it from the count because all the other states were doing it that way so we were going to also.”¹³

Financial Incentives Likely Contributed to Inflated Numbers

The reason other states were over reporting COVID deaths, and maybe the reason the governor of Colorado wanted to continue, were the financial incentives offered to hospitals. As early as April 2020, some health authorities were suspicious that the COVID-19 death counts were padded.

However, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical adviser to the president, brushed off those questions, even after the CDC numbers were called into question later in the year.¹⁴ A host of mainstream media also reported these suspicions were a conspiracy theory.^15,16

Yet, in June 2020, nurse Erin Olszewski gave first-hand testimony, sharing how financial incentives were at the heart of diagnosis and mistreatment at a public hospital in Queens, New York.¹⁷ Olszewski was interviewed by The Press and the Public Project as part of the series “Perspectives on the Pandemic.” Olszewski has a long history of honorable service in the army.

She was deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. “Part of her duties involved overseeing aid disbursement and improvements to hospital facilities. While in the country she received the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service and was wounded in combat.”¹⁸ She retired in 2012 to work as a civilian nurse and continued work as a medical freedom and informed consent advocate.

According to Olszewski, patients who tested negative were routinely listed as positive and quickly placed on ventilators, a largely inappropriate treatment that ended up killing nearly all of them. By August 2020,¹⁹ then-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield admitted financial policies may have artificially inflated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics.

In response to a question before a House panel committee asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., about potential “perverse incentives” that hospitals might have to alter death certificates, Redfield said:²⁰

“I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too. Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement.”

The Washington Examiner²¹ also reported that in August 2020 more than 3,000 people were removed from the death count in Texas after it was revealed they did not test positive but were only considered a probable case.

CDC Now Counting Vaccination Deaths as Unvaccinated Illness

The issue of inaccurately counting COVID-related deaths is continuing. Based on statements made by Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it appears the CDC is manipulating statistics to create a false and inaccurate impression.

In a July 16, 2021, White House Press briefing, she claimed “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.”²² Just a few weeks later, she inadvertently revealed how the CDC came by that statistic.²³

The CDC took hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 to come to this conclusion. However, during this time frame, most of the people in the U.S. were not vaccinated,²⁴ so the majority of people in the hospital or who had died would not have received the vaccine.

The newest way that the CDC is playing with statistics is to count anyone who has died within the first 14 days post-injection as unvaccinated.²⁵ This not only artificially inflates the unvaccinated death toll, but also artificially deflates the number of people who die as a result of the genetic therapy shot.

The vast majority of deaths from the COVID jabs are happening within the first 2 weeks.²⁶ These deaths are now being recorded as an unvaccinated death from COVID, rather than being counted as a death related to a breakthrough infection or vaccine injury.

This may be related to the fact that public health agencies were fully aware of the expected side effects from the shot and that they may have determined these were acceptable losses. According to Slide 16 in an October 22, 2020, presentation to the FDA by the director of Biostatistics and Epidemiology on some of the expected effects included:²⁷

Death	Convulsions	Stroke
Acute myocardial infarction (heart attack)	Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children	Vaccine enhanced disease
Myocarditis/pericarditis	Autoimmune disease	Thrombocytopenia
Kawasaki disease	Anaphylaxis	Guillain-Barre syndrome

As you’ll note, many of these effects from the shot are reported in growing numbers to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²⁸ Additionally, the FDA added a warning to the Pfizer and Moderna shots about the risk of heart inflammation and myocarditis.²⁹

Just days before, the CDC announced the benefits of the shot outweigh the risk of a “likely association” between the shots and myocarditis in otherwise healthy young people.³⁰ In June 2021, CNN³¹ reported the CDC had received 1,226 preliminary reports of children with myocarditis or pericarditis through VAERS.

Interestingly, the CDC found these numbers enough to issue a warning but have completely ignored the number who have died from the shots. By October 22, 2021, VAERS had recorded 10,956 cases of “rare”³² myocarditis and 17,619 deaths from the shot.³³

AMA Teaches Doctors the Power of Misinformation

Before turning to your health care professional for accurate information, it's important to note that the American Medical Association is strongly advising doctors to follow the company line. And the company line is full of “language swaps,” samples of acceptable social media posts and information on how to deflect or redirect questions to push AMA acceptable content.³⁴

Deception has been the name of the game since long before the vaccine was released. As the push toward the “Great Reset” continues on multiple fronts, it is imperative that the medical establishment remain on board with the same rhetoric and unsubstantiated messages to drive fear and impair American’s critical decision making.

The language swaps and sample social media posts take advantage of a powerful tool – words. Language is a powerful way to shape reality,^35,36,37 because it shapes how we think about what we’re experiencing. As noted by storyteller and filmmaker Jason Silva:³⁸

“The use of language, the words you use to describe reality, can in fact engender reality, can disclose reality. Words are generative… We create and perceive our reality through language. We think reality into existence through linguistic construction in real-time.”

For example, “lockdown” sounds like involuntary imprisonment imposed by a totalitarian regime, which is what it is, whereas “stay-at-home order” sounds far less draconian. After all, “home” is typically associated with comfort and safety. The AMA goes on to provide instructions on how to block, deflect and stall in the face of tough questions where an honest answer might break the official narrative.

I encourage you to read through Page 8 of the guide and pay attention to how these psychological tricks are used when listening to interviews or reading the news.

The AMA’s guidance isn’t all bad. Some of its advice makes perfect sense. But the inclusion of language swaps that result in false statements being made, and tools for steering, blocking, deflecting, redirecting and stalling to avoid direct answers do nothing but erode credibility and thus trust in the medical community.

After having gathered data during the pandemic for roughly 19 months (March 2020 to October 2021) it is imperative that the American people begin to question the number of reported “cases” and deaths in a country where medical care is reportedly better and more advanced than many other countries.

In other words, why does the U.S. lead the world in number of deaths from an infection?³⁹ Might it be for the same reason that Australia is in a tyrannical lockdown when their infection rate is .6% and just 1% of those infected have died? Could there be a different agenda than what you’ve been led to believe?

from Articles https://ift.tt/3F7RN4S
via IFTTT

This article was previously published November 9, 2020, and has been updated with new information.

Aside from insulin resistance,¹ vitamin D deficiency has emerged as a primary risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection and death. Higher vitamin D levels have even been shown to lower your risk of testing positive for the virus in the first place.

Getting the word out about this — especially to the Black community and the elderly in nursing homes — could have a significant impact on future hospitalization and death rates from this virus.

If you have a loved one in a nursing home, taking the time to talk to the medical management about vitamin D testing and supplementation could also make a big difference in the general health of all the residents, as vitamin D is something that can strengthen your immune system in a matter of a few weeks and has many health benefits beside lowering your risk of viral illness.

Vast Majority of COVID-19 Patients Have Vitamin D Deficiency

According to a Spanish study^2,3,4 published online October 27, 2020, in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 82.2% of COVID-19 patients tested were found to be deficient in vitamin D, the medical term for which is 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25OHD).

The researchers compared the vitamin D levels of 216 COVID-19 patients and 197 population-based controls, finding that hospitalized COVID-19 patients had a higher prevalence of deficiency and had lower vitamin D levels overall. As reported by the authors:⁵

"In COVID-19 patients, mean± SD 25OHD levels were 13.8±7.2 ng/ml, compared to 20.9 ±7.4 ng/ml in controls. 25OHD values were lower in men than in women. Vitamin D deficiency was found in 82.2% of COVID-19 cases and 47.2% of population-based controls.

25OHD inversely correlate to serum ferritin and D-dimer levels. Vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients had a greater prevalence of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, raised serum ferritin and troponin levels, as well as a longer length of hospital stay than those with serum 25 OHD levels ≥ 20 ng/ml."

While this particular study failed to find a correlation between vitamin D levels and disease severity, other studies have shown patients with higher levels do tend to have milder disease. In fact, one such study^6,7 found your risk of developing a severe case of, and dying from, COVID-19 virtually disappears once your vitamin D level gets above 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L).

Vitamin D's Impact on COVID-19

Back in June 2020, I launched an information campaign about vitamin D that included the release of a downloadable scientific report. This report, as well as a two-minute COVID risk quiz is available on StopCovidCold.com.

October 31, 2020, my review paper⁸ "Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity,” co-written with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel, was also published in the peer-reviewed journal Nutrients. You can read the paper for free on the journal’s website.

As noted in that paper, dark skin color, increased age, preexisting chronic conditions and vitamin D deficiency are all features of severe COVID disease and, of these, vitamin D deficiency is the only factor that is modifiable. As such, it would be foolish to ignore, especially since vitamin D supplements are readily available and low cost.

Vitamin D can reduce your risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections via several different mechanisms, including but not limited to the following, all of which are discussed in greater detail in our paper:⁹

• Reducing the survival and replication of viruses¹⁰
• Reducing inflammatory cytokine production
• Maintaining endothelial integrity (Endothelial dysfunction contributes to vascular inflammation and impaired blood clotting, two hallmarks of severe COVID-19)
• Increasing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) concentrations. As explained in our paper:

"Angiotensin II is a natural peptide hormone best known for increasing blood pressure through stimulating aldosterone. ACE2 normally consumes angiotensin I, thereby lowering its concentrations. However, SARS-CoV-2 infection downregulates ACE2, leading to excessive accumulation of angiotensin II.

Cell cultures of human alveolar type II cells with vitamin D have shown that the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with the ACE2 receptor expressed on the surface of lung epithelial cells. Once the virus binds to the ACE2 receptor, it reduces its activity and, in turn, promotes ACE1 activity, forming more angiotensin II, which increases the severity of COVID-19."

Vitamin D also boosts your overall immune function by modulating your innate and adaptive immune responses, reduces respiratory distress¹¹ and improves overall lung function, and helps produce surfactants in your lungs that aid in fluid clearance.¹²

It lowers your risk of comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis, including obesity,¹³ Type 2 diabetes,¹⁴ high blood pressure¹⁵ and heart disease.¹⁶ All of these factors make it an important component of COVID-19 prevention and treatment.

Criteria for Causality Satisfied

As of September 27, 2020, the data from 14 observational studies — summarized in Table 1 of our paper¹⁷ — suggest that vitamin D blood levels are inversely correlated with the incidence and/or severity of COVID-19, and the evidence currently available generally satisfies Hill's criteria for causality in a biological system, which include:¹⁸

Strength of association	Consistency of evidence
Temporality	Biological gradient
Plausibility (e.g., mechanisms)	Coherence (although it still needs to be verified experimentally)

In our paper,¹⁹ we review several features of COVID-19 that are indicative of vitamin D deficiency. For starters, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the winter in the northern hemisphere, and as we moved into summer, positive tests, hospitalizations and death rates fell. So, generally, COVID-19 prevalence has been inversely correlated with solar UVB doses and vitamin D production.

Secondly, people with darker skin have higher COVID-19 case and death rates than Caucasians. Vitamin D is produced in your skin in response to sun exposure, but the darker your skin, the more sun exposure you need in order to maintain an optimal vitamin D level.

While a light-skinned individual may need only 10 to 15 minutes a day, a person with very dark skin may need upward of 1.5 hours. As a result, vitamin D deficiency tends to be far higher among Blacks and dark-skinned Hispanics.

Thirdly, one of the lethal hallmarks of COVID-19 is the cytokine storm that can develop in severe cases, which manifests as hyperinflammation and tissue damage. Vitamin D is known to regulate inflammatory cytokine production, thereby lowering this risk. Lastly, vitamin D is an important regulator of your immune system, and dysregulation of the immune system is a hallmark of severe COVID-19.

Results of the Largest Study to Date

The largest observational study²⁰ to date was published in the journal PLOS ONE, September 17, 2020. It looked at data for 191,779 American patients with a mean age of 50 who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March and June 2020 and had had their vitamin D tested sometime in the preceding 12 months. It found:

• 12.5% of patients who had a vitamin D level below 20 ng/ml (deficiency) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2
• 8.1% of those who had a vitamin D level between 30 and 34 ng/ml (adequacy) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2
• Only 5.9% of those who had an optimal vitamin D level of 55 ng/ml or higher tested positive for SARS-CoV-2

According to the authors:²¹

"SARS-CoV-2 positivity is strongly and inversely associated with circulating 25(OH)D levels, a relationship that persists across latitudes, races/ethnicities, both sexes, and age ranges. Our findings provide impetus to explore the role of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease."

This inverse relationship between vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates may be due to the fact that vitamin D reduces survival and replication of the virus by activating immune cells to produce the antimicrobial and antiviral peptides cathelicidin and defensins, and increasing concentrations of free ACE2, which prevents the virus from entering cells via the ACE2 receptor.²²

Higher Vitamin D Lowers Risks Associated With COVID-19

The argument for vitamin D optimization is strengthened by the fact that higher levels not only reduce your risk of testing positive for the virus but also cut the risk of severe illness, the need for hospitalization and mechanical ventilation, the length of hospitalization, and death. Examples of this include the following studies, which show vitamin D:

The Role of Magnesium and Vitamin K2

While regular sun exposure is the ideal way to optimize your vitamin D level, this can be nearly impossible during the winter. For this reason, an oral vitamin D3 supplement is recommended for most people. However, when supplementing you also need to be mindful of other nutrients that have synergistic effects.

One of them is magnesium, which is required for the conversion of vitamin D into its active form. Without sufficient amounts of magnesium, your body cannot properly utilize the vitamin D you’re taking.^41,42,43,44

According to a scientific review^45,46 published in 2018, as many as 50% of Americans taking vitamin D supplements may not get significant benefit as the vitamin D simply gets stored in its inactive form, and the reason for this is because they have insufficient magnesium levels. Research⁴⁷ published in 2013 also highlighted this issue, concluding that higher magnesium intake helps reduce your risk of vitamin D deficiency by activating more of it.

Another cofactor is vitamin K2, as it helps prevent complications associated with excessive calcification in your arteries. In fact, relative vitamin K2 deficiency is typically what produces symptoms of "vitamin D toxicity."

Research by GrassrootsHealth, based on data from nearly 3,000 individuals, reveals you need 244% more oral vitamin D if you’re not also taking magnesium and vitamin K2.⁴⁸ What this means in practical terms is that if you take all three supplements in combination, you need far less oral vitamin D in order to achieve a healthy vitamin D level.

Take-Home Message

If you live in the northern hemisphere, which is currently heading toward winter, now is the time to check your vitamin D level and start taking action to raise it if you're below 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L). Experts recommend a vitamin D level between 40 and 60 ng/mL (100 to 150 nmol/L).

An easy and cost-effective way of measuring your vitamin D level is to order GrassrootsHealth's vitamin D testing kit. Also, if you haven't already visited www.StopCovidCold.com please do so now so you can take your free COVID risk test and also grab a free PDF copy with far better graphics than I was able to put in my recently published Nutrients paper.

Once you know your current vitamin D level, use the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D calculator⁴⁹ to determine how much vitamin D you might need to reach your target level. Again, to optimize vitamin D absorption and utilization, be sure to take your vitamin D with vitamin K2 and magnesium.

Lastly, remember to retest in three to four months to make sure you've reached your target level. If you have, then you know you're taking the correct dosage. If you're still low (or have reached a level above 80 ng/mL), you'll need to adjust your dosage accordingly and retest again in another three to four months.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3kCljaY
via IFTTT