By: Robyn Chuter
From the very beginning of the manufactured COVID-19 crisis, observant critics have been pointing out deviations from accepted scientific and medical norms in the diagnosis of this new clinical syndrome, and the attribution of deaths to it.
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford examined the various case definitions offered by national and international bodies, and concluded that there was no consistent definition of what a “case” of COVID-19 actually was.
Furthermore, contrary to accepted practice for infectious diseases, people who had no symptoms of disease whatsoever but had tested positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2, using laboratory tests whose own manufacturers caution that they should not be used to diagnose disease, were counted as cases.
This is unprecedented. No one is diagnosed with the flu merely because they test positive to influenza virus; one would have to be actually displaying symptoms of respiratory illness to be counted as a “case” of influenza.
Way back in March 2020, retired pathologist Dr John Lee brought attention to the abrupt departure from standard practices of recording deaths from respiratory disease, that were only being applied to COVID-19 and not to influenza or any other respiratory virus:
“If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare ‘notifiable disease’. So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal infections. If the patient has, say, cancer, motor neurone disease or another serious disease, this will be recorded as the cause of death, even if the final illness was a respiratory infection. This means UK certifications normally under-record deaths due to respiratory infections.
Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list — as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) — has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.
In the current climate, anyone with a positive test for Covid-19 will certainly be known to clinical staff looking after them: if any of these patients dies, staff will have to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate — contrary to usual practice for most infections of this kind. There is a big difference between Covid-19 causing death, and Covid-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making Covid-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded.”
How deadly is the coronavirus? It’s still far from clear
How prescient Dr Lee turned out to be. In country after country, when the medical records of people whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19 were examined, the overwhelming majority were found to be a) elderly and b) have multiple comorbidities which would be expected to reduce their already-limited life expectancy, as well as render them susceptible to any respiratory virus, including influenza and the host of viruses that cause cold and flu-like symptoms.
In Italy, for example, according to Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to the health minister,
“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”
Italy: Only 12% of “Covid19 deaths” list Covid19 as cause
Detailed analysis of supposed COVID-19 deaths in the US state of Tennessee found that 96.3% had at least one comorbidity, and the majority had close to three.
And in Australia, “71.2% of people who died from COVID-19 had pre-existing chronic conditions certified on the death certificate,” with the median age of death 81.2 years for males and 86.0 years for females.
To put it bluntly, we really don’t know how many people have died from rather than with SARS-CoV-2 infection – that is, we don’t know how many people whose deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 would have died within a few months anyway, due to advanced age and/or pre-existing life-limiting disease, if they had not been infected.
Some deaths that genuinely were directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection have no doubt been missed, and some (probably many, if not most) deaths have been mis-attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
That’s what makes all-cause mortality a useful measure of the overall impact of the advent of SARS-CoV-2, and I’ll be focusing on this (and some related metrics) in Part 1 of this mini-series.
Quite simply, all-cause mortality is the total number of deaths that occur in a given time period, irrespective of cause. If SARS-CoV-2 is truly a deadly virus, we would expect to have seen all-cause mortality rise in the first year of its emergence. And conversely, if the novel injections commonly called “COVID-19 vaccines” were truly safe and effective, we would expect to see all-cause mortality fall in countries that have administered them to a large proportion of their population.
How does these expectations mesh with reality?
All-cause mortality in 2020In Australia, all-cause mortality in 2020 was lower than expected, with an age-standardised death rate (SDR) for January to October of 355.3 per 100,000 people, compared to the average SDR for 2015-2019 of 386.5. So in the middle of what we were told was the deadliest pandemic since the 1918 Spanish flu, with COVID death counters blaring from the chyrons of every news program, considerably fewer Australians died than in previous years. Huh.
An analysis of mortality data from 37 countries found that in 2020, all-cause mortality ranged from 4.3% less than expected to 14.4% more than expected. And here’s something strange: Latvia had 2.2% fewer overall deaths than expected, despite having the 22nd highest number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 per million of population (out of 224 countries).
Something fishy is clearly going on. Intriguingly, Denis Rancourt’s forensic analysis of week-by-week mortality data in the US and Europe found no “winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters” in 2020, but did observe a sharp peak of excess mortality in several jurisdictions, that directly followed the declaration of a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
However, this “COVID peak” was not observed in the seven US states (Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Arkansas) that did not impose a lockdown. Instead, Rancourt found, the presence of a “COVID peak” was positively correlated with the share of COVID-19-assigned deaths occurring in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, to which – inexplicably and disastrously – hospital patients were discharged at the beginning of the pandemic, seeding institutions full of vulnerable elderly people with sick individuals.
“I postulate that the “COVID peak” represents an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation.”
All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response
Rancourt and co-authors went on to conduct a similarly microscopic analysis of week-by-week mortality data in Canada from 2010 to 2021, and drew essentially the same conclusion:
“We find that there is no extraordinary surge in yearly or seasonal mortality in Canada, which can be ascribed to a COVID-19 pandemic; and that several prominent features in the ACM/w [all-cause mortality per week] in the COVID-19 period exhibit anomalous province-to-province heterogeneity that is irreconcilable with the known behaviour of epidemics of viral respiratory diseases (VRDs). We conclude that a pandemic did not occur.
In addition, our analysis of the ACM/w, by province, age and sex, allows us to highlight anomalies, occurring during the COVID-19 period, which provide strong evidence that:
* Among the most elderly (85+ years), many died from the immediate response to the pandemic that was announced by the WHO on 11 March 2020.
* Predominantly young males (0-44 years, and also 45-64 years) probably indirectly died from the sustained pandemic response, in the summer months of 2020, and into the fall and winter, starting in May 2020, especially in Alberta, significantly in Ontario and British Columbia, whereas not in Quebec.”
Analysis of all-cause mortality by week in Canada 2010-2021, by province, age and sex: There was no COVID-19 pandemic, and there is strong evidence of response-caused deaths in the most elderly and in young males
Demographer Dana Glei confirmed that “nearly 2/3 of excess deaths among younger Americans appear to have resulted from causes other than COVID-19” and that these deaths – mostly from drug overdose and homicide – were “likely to be an indirect result of economic distress, the disruption of normal life, and heightened uncertainty related to the pandemic.”
Parenthetically, it’s important to point out that all these factors were direct results of government policies that impacted negatively on the lives of working-age people, rather than of the virus itself, which causes severe illness and death predominantly in older individuals. It’s intellectually dishonest to attribute the social and economic devastation wreaked upon the population to “the pandemic”, as if a virus had the power to shut down businesses, close schools and churches and stop people from seeing their loved ones.
All-cause mortality in 2021Now, what about 2021? What happened to all-cause mortality as countries rolled out COVID-19 injections? Again, if the injections worked – that is, protected recipients against COVID-19 – and were as safe as we were promised they were, we would expect to see all-cause mortality drop.
If vaccines save lives, there should be fewer people dying in countries with high vaccine uptake.
In Europe, excess mortality (all-cause mortality above expected rates) in people aged 15-44 during the second half of 2021 was nearly double what it was during 2020, although vaccination rates across the continent averaged at least 70%. Adults aged 45-64 also had somewhat higher excess mortality in the latter half of 2021 than in 2020, whilst in the oldest age groups, excess mortality was lower in 2021, most likely due to the “harvesting effect” – a large proportion of people with compromised health died in 2020, leaving fewer frail people to die in 2021.
In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands and Germany, COVID-19-related deaths were dramatically lower in 2021 than 2020. However, bumps in all-cause mortality in 2021 coincide with the timing of the COVID-19 injection in all of these countries bar Sweden.
In the US, excess mortality has been higher for all of 2021 (up 15% on expected deaths) than 2020 (up 13.6%).
Once again, the greatest excess mortality is seen in younger age groups that have an exceptionally low risk of dying of COVID-19, but have been exposed en masse to experimental injections. For 0-24 year olds, excess mortality in 2021 was close to double what it was in 2020:
25-44 year olds and 45-64 year olds also had significantly higher excess mortality in 2021 than in 2020:
75-84 year olds had roughly equivalent excess mortality in both years, and the 85+ group had higher excess mortality in 2020 than in 2021, indicating a harvesting effect as would be expected given the carnage that occurred in US nursing homes in 2020.
OneAmerica, a major provider of life insurance in the US state of Indiana has disclosed that death rates in their working age population (aged 18-64) are an unprecedented 40% higher than before the advent of COVID-19, but the vast majority of deaths claims are for non-COVID-related deaths. Both short- and long-term disability claims have also risen dramatically.
According to the company’s CEO Scott Davison,
“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica… A three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic… so 40% is just unheard of.”
Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64
Remarkably, India’s life insurance industry has also experienced nearly the exact same increase in deaths claims, which were up 41% in 2021 compared to 11% in 2020; once again, claims for COVID deaths have decreased whilst non-COVID death claims have increased.
Here in Australia, the age-standardised death rate (SDR) for January to October 2021 (the latest date for which the Australian Bureau of Statistics has adequate data) was 357.8 per 100,000 people, which was slightly higher than the SDR of 355.3 per 100,000 people for the same time period in 2020. In particular, the number of deaths in September and October was slightly above historical averages .
While the number of injections administered to the Australian population ticks ever upward, new deaths attributed to COVID-19 have increased dramatically. In fact, more Australians are dying of (or with) COVID-19 now than in 2020, when no vaccine was available, despite 77% of the entire population being “fully vaccinated” and another 3% being “partially vaccinated”.
Australia’s experience is not unique. Mathematician Mathew Crawford has produced a fascinating case study of Vermont, the most highly-vaccinated state in the US (I’ve updated the figures in his article based on information current as at January 14, 2022). 78.3% of Vermont’s total population is fully vaccinated, and 100% of those 65 and older have received at least 1 dose. And yet, Vermont has seen its COVID-19 death toll blow out from 120 deaths before the vaccine rollout began to 370 deaths after it began.
Looking at countries with low, moderate and high COVID-19 deaths per million population (graphs below from Kathy Dopp), it’s clear that the majority of countries have higher COVID death rates after their vaccine rollouts than before and that, tragically, many countries that had essentially zero deaths from COVID-19 before they began injecting their populations – such as Taiwan, Laos, Tanzania, Vietnam, Cambodia, Fiji and Timor-Leste – are now seeing their death rates shoot up:
The data are clear: more people are dying now, of both COVID- and non-COVID-related causes, since the drive to inject every man, woman and child on earth with novel, poorly-tested experimental medical technologies began.
The question is “Why?” And that’s what I’ll be attempting to answer in Part 2. Stay tuned.
By; Robyn Chuter
On 21 December 2021, I received the following generic Christmas email from Karen Andrews, Federal member for McPherson and Minister for Home Affairs in the Morrison government:
The third paragraph of the email caught my eye, as it was evident by late December that the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was disproportionately infecting people who had already received COVID-19 injections.
For example, the Danish State Serum Institute published the following table in a report dated 17 December 2021, indicating that 91% of Danes infected with the Omicron variant had received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 injection, with nearly 80% double-jabbed:
The following data appeared in sheet 1b of this document, published 21 December 2021 by the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS), indicating that people who had received a third “booster” dose of a COVID-19 injection had 4.45 times the odds of being infected with “an Omicron probable result” – a noteworthy phrase in itself, since it implies that the ability of genomic sequencing to positively identify the new variant is less robust than our government overlords and their mockingbird media repeaters would have us believe – than unvaccinated people, while the double-jabbed had 2.26 times the odds, and the single-jabbed had 1.57 times the odds:
Screening characteristicCategoryEstimated likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 with an Omicron probable result (odds ratio)Lower 95% confidence intervalUpper 95% confidence intervalp-valueNumber of Omicron probable positivesTotal sampleVaccination statusNot vaccinated (Reference)1–––14536Vaccination status1 dose1.570.524.540.4138144Vaccination status2 doses, more than 14 days ago2.260.787.450.15772944Vaccination status3 doses, more than 14 days ago4.451.2917.030.02321185Modelled likelihood of testing positive with an Omicron probable result in people who test positive for COVID-19, by screened demographic characteristic, UK – data extracted from Table 1bGranted, the UK data have a small sample size and wide 95% confidence intervals, but the trend comports with the Danish data, indicating that Omicron is a variant of the vaccinated.
Consequently, I sent the following reply to Karen Andrews on 1 January 2022:
Dear Ms Andrews
Could you please provide scientific evidence for the statement in your email sent 21 December 2021, that “As we continue to live with the virus, getting your booster shot is the best way to make sure you are as protected as possible against Omicron”?
UK data indicate that “Those who have received three doses of a vaccine and test positive for COVID-19 are more likely to be infected with infections compatible with the Omicron variant compared with those who are unvaccinated”; the odds ratio of testing positive for COVID-19 with an Omicron probable result is 4.45 times higher in people who have received 2 COVID-19 vaccines plus a booster than in people who are unvaccinated.
The same pattern has been repeated in the US, South Africa, The Netherlands and here in Australia – it is the fully vaccinated and/or boosted who are most likely to be infected with the Omicron variant.
It is clear that the Omicron variant is able to evade vaccine-induced antibodies. Since vaccines only induce blood-borne antibodies rather than the mucosal antibodies that are required to neutralise a highly contagious, airborne respiratory virus, there is no possible way that any of the vaccines currently in use for COVID-19 can protect people against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Do you have evidence that contradicts the above-cited scientific references? If not, then you are guilty of circulating medical misinformation to your constituents (of whom I am one) and I will be making sure that this becomes publicly known. I would remind you that a Federal election is imminent and that politicians who are revealed to be deliberately lying to their constituents are not likely to be re-elected.
Robyn Chuter BHSc(Hons), ND, GDCouns, FASLM, MATMS
ASLM Certified Lifestyle Medicine Practitioner
I received a reply from one of Ms Andrews’ electorate officers, Greg Betts, on 4 January 2022, as follows:
Good afternoon Ms Chuter,
Thank you for your email to Karen Andrews MP. Mrs Andrews is currently in home quarantine and she will be made aware of your correspondence. I am replying to you on her behalf.
Mrs Andrews, and the federal government MPs generally, rely on the medical advice that is provided by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). This is trusted medical advice from experts in the field. There will no doubt be a variety of opinions out there on many medical issues, particularly when there are new diseases arising.
The government must make decisions based on trusted information, and that is why they base their decisions on the advice of ATAGI. A statement on the Omicron variant and boosters is available on the ATAGI website, here.
Greg Betts | Electorate Officer
Before I share my response to Mr Betts with you, I invite you to take a moment to savour this vignette lifted straight from the Theatre of the Absurd, which has become our everyday reality: a “fully vaccinated” individual is in home quarantine, presumably because she came in contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2, or was in a location in which such a person was identified. (I emailed Mr Betts to ask him why Mrs Andrews was in quarantine, but have not received a reply.)
I’m sure I’m not the only person who wants to know, What was the point of getting jabbed if you still have to engage in pointless biosecurity theatre every time you are exposed to the thing the jab was supposed to protect you from???
It is an established principle of epidemiology that contact tracing can only delay the entry of a highly contagious respiratory virus into a community – not prevent it altogether – and that it is only useful in the early stages of an outbreak, before community transmission becomes established.
For example, discussing contract tracing in the context of influenza – a viral respiratory infection with a very similar mode of transmission to SARS-CoV-2 – the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that,
“There is no obvious rationale for the routine use of contact tracing in the general population for control of pandemic influenza.”
NONPHARMACEUTICAL MEASURES FOR PANDEMIC INFLUENZA IN NONHEALTHCARE SETTINGS—SOCIAL DISTANCING MEASURESThe Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention recommend ceasing contract tracing once sustained transmission is underway:
Given that Australia’s case rates currently look like this…
… it’s abundantly clear that we’re at Phase 4 of the epidemic and there is no longer any plausible rationale for contact tracing.
Now, about that reply from Greg Betts. Mr Betts stated that the Federal government “base[s] their decisions on the advice of ATAGI” and referred to ATAGI as providing “trusted medical advice from experts in the field”.
He failed to mention the dense web of conflicts of interest of ATAGI members that has been meticulously documented by the Informed Medical Options Party. Here are the highlights:
Let’s now take an in-depth look at ATAGI’s Statement on the Omicron variant and the timing of COVID-19 booster vaccination, published on 24 December 2021, to which Mr Betts referred me.
This is going to be a long post, as the ATAGI statement is a mammoth exercise in bureaucratic bullsh*t, so hang in there with me.
The statement opens by acknowledging that:
“Preliminary data from large superspreading events in New South Wales involving younger people suggested that two doses of vaccine did not provide any significant protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the Omicron variant.”
So far so good… however, it then claims – without citing any source – that
“Strong evidence has accumulated over the past two weeks to indicate that booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to increase protection against infection with the Omicron variant.”
Well, I’ll give them full marks for creativity, if not for accuracy. When I read the phrase “increase protection”, I assume that it means “getting a third dose will reduce your risk of being infected with Omicron”, not “getting a third dose will reduce your risk of being infected with Omicron compared to getting two doses, but you’d actually have a lower risk if you didn’t get the vaccine at all”.
But that’s precisely what both the UK and Danish data show. Remember, the ONS found that people who had received the booster had 4.45 times greater odds of being infected with Omicron than the unvaccinated, while those who had received two doses had 2.26 times greater odds. Meanwhile, analysis of the Danish data taking into account rates of single, double and triple vaccination calculates negative vaccine efficacy for all three:
In case you haven’t already twigged, let me spell it out for you: “negative efficacy” means, quite simply, you’re more likely to get infected with the Omicron strain if you’ve been jabbed than if you weren’t. It’s just that having three shots doesn’t increase the likelihood as much as having two. That’s what ATAGI calls “increased protection”. Like I said, full marks for creative interpretation.
Why did the UK data show increased risk of Omicron infection in the boosted compared to the double-jabbed, while the Danish data showed the converse? Probably because the Brits began their booster program in earnest earlier than the Danes…
… and preliminary research has shown that initial protection against infection with the Omicron variant falls off a cliff within weeks, with vaccine effectiveness against Omicron being just 54.6% (little better than a coin flip) at 1-30 days after receipt of a Pfizer booster shot:
Next, ATAGI rolls out that hoary old chestnut of “health system overload” in an attempt to justify further government meddling (euphemistically titled “enhanced public health and social measures”) in the long-predicted transitioning of SARS-CoV-2 into becoming the fifth endemic coronavirus:
“Although some early data suggest that the risk of hospitalisation due to disease caused by the Omicron variant is lower than that with the Delta variant, this difference would not be enough to offset the impact of high case numbers on the health system.”
I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, the medical-industrial complex that we laughably describe as a “health system” in this country has had almost two years to get its act together.
If those running this system can’t figure out how to handle a surge of people with the fearsome signature Omicron symptoms of runny nose, headache, fatigue, sneezing and sore throat, perhaps they should get out of the way and let some real doctors take over – like Shankara Chetty (over 7000 patients treated in South Africa, zero hospitalisations and deaths), George Fareed and Brian Tyson (over 7000 patients treated in an economically deprived area of southern California, zero deaths in those who sought treatment in the first week of illness and only a handful of deaths in total), Peter McCullough (whose article on early treatment of COVID-19 became one of the most downloaded articles in the history of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine), or Jackie Stone, who witnessed a 10-fold reduction in mortality after implementation of ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in Zimbabwe.
And while they’re at it, they might like to stop using remdesivir, a failed experimental Ebola drug that killed more Ebola victims than the standard-of-care control treatment. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends against it:
“WHO has issued a conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients… The evidence suggested no important effect on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes.”
WHO RECOMMENDS AGAINST THE USE OF REMDESIVIR IN COVID-19 PATIENTSHowever, inexplicably, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted provisional approval for use in COVID-19, describing it as “the most promising treatment option so far to reduce hospitalisation time for those suffering from severe coronavirus infections” and claiming that it “offers the potential to reduce the strain on Australia’s health care system. By reducing recovery times patients will be able to leave hospital earlier, freeing beds for those in need.” Really.
In any case, the notion that Australia’s hospitals are going to be overrun with Omicron patients is simply ludicrous, given the Danish data which show that only 0.7% of people who tested positive to Omicron (that’s 7 out of every 1000) were admitted to hospital and many of those either acquired it in hospital or were quite obviously admitted for treatment of some other condition and were incidentally found to test positive upon admission:
ATAGI then goes on to disingenuously claim that
“There are now reassuring data on the safety of early booster doses in tens of millions of people, with no new safety signals identified in the United Kingdom where more than 21 million booster doses have been delivered.”
Well, I guess if you’re going to ignore the unprecedented safety signals identified by Dr Tess Lawrie, research consultant to the World Health Organisation and Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group and director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and EbMC Squared CiC, in her early analysis of the UK Yellow Card vaccine adverse event reporting system, you could indeed argue that there’s “no new safety signals” – it’s just more of the same bleeding, clotting, cardiac, inflammatory, autoimmune, allergic, neurological, gynaecological and obstetric adverse events as before.
Shockingly, further along in the statement ATAGI shrugs off concerns about vaccine-induced myocarditis with the following statement, which I imagine is supposed to be reassuring:
“Preliminary data from people who received a Pfizer booster vaccine at least 5 months after a Pfizer primary course suggest that the risk of myocarditis is not higher after the booster dose than after the second dose.”
Is not higher. Which presumably means it isn’t any lower, or they would have said so. And that means ongoing risk for millions of healthy younger Australians who have virtually no danger of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 itself, but have been coerced into taking an mRNA COVID injection to keep their job, university enrolment or social life.
And in fact, since the ATAGI statement was published, British researchers have released data which demonstrate that for males younger than 40, there is indeed a dramatic increase in the risk of developing myocarditis after a third or “booster” dose of the Pfizer injection, and this risk far outweighs the risk of developing myocarditis from infection with SARS-CoV-2.
The British researchers examined data from over 42 million Britons over the age of 13, drawing on multiple databases tracking vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infection status, hospital admissions and mortality. In other words, it was a huge and comprehensive study.
The researchers found that for men under 40, testing positive to COVID-19 approximately doubled the risk of being diagnosed with myocarditis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.02).
In comparison, their risk of myocarditis went up by 66% over baseline risk with the first Pfizer shot, 241% with the second Pfizer shot and 660% with the third Pfizer shot (IRR 1.66, 3.41 and 7.60 respectively).
For the Moderna shot, risk of myocarditis rose 134% with the first shot, and 1552% with the second (IRR 2.34 and 16.52 respectively).
For the AstraZeneca shot, risk of myocarditis did not increase with the first shot but was 157% higher with the second shot (IRR 2.57).
Even more importantly, buried in a supplementary table, the researchers disclose the death rates of people admitted to hospital for treatment of myocarditis within 1-28 days of either receiving a COVID-19 injection or testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. These death rates were:
So much for COVID-19 itself being more dangerous than the injections, when it comes to myocarditis. Clearly, injection-related myocarditis is more deadly than infection-related myocarditis.
Bear in mind also that a substantial percentage of those in the study had already had COVID-19 before they received a COVID-19 injection (ranging from 27% of people who got the Pfizer shot through to 45% of those who got the Moderna shot), and systemic adverse events are more common in people who get a COVID-19 injection after they have already recovered from infection with SARS-CoV-2 (see here, here and here).
Unfortunately, the study authors did not tease out several relevant categories, which would help identify whether antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE – see below) or related phenomena are contributing to the occurrence and severity of myocarditis:
The statement continues:
“ATAGI expects that booster vaccination alone will not be sufficient to avert a surge due to Omicron. However, maximising booster coverage by expanding eligibility and encouraging high uptake, in combination with enhanced public health and social measures, may prevent a large surge in case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths.”
No, booster vaccination will most assuredly not avert a surge due to Omicron, no matter how high the uptake, as we can clearly see by examining the UK’s experience: highest new confirmed case count since the pandemic began, with 25,477,345 booster doses administered to a population of 68,430,562 [as of 6 January 2022], and 96% of sequenced cases now identified as Omicron:
As for hospitalisations, South Africa (94% of sequenced samples now Omicron) is seeing falling hospitalisation rates despite not imposing any restrictions during the Omicron surge and having substantially less than half the vaccination rate of the UK:
Deaths also remain low in both countries, regardless of their widely divergent vaccination status:
Just in case you missed the significance of that last point, let me spell it out for you: Omicron caused a massive spike in cases in South Africa and is now that country’s overwhelmingly dominant variant, which clearly means that it is infecting both injected and uninjected individuals. However, with only 27% of the population double-jabbed and 5.1% single-jabbed, a relative handful of cases are severe enough to require hospitalisation, and the case fatality rate is lower than during any previous phase of the pandemic:
ATAGI is playing fast and loose with the truth. Vaccination status has no bearing on mitigating the severity of the Omicron variant; it’s just an inherently benign variant, most likely because it has mutated to preferentially infect the upper airways – which are out of reach of the blood-borne antibodies induced by COVID-19 injections – while replicating poorly in the lungs, where it could be neutralised by those injection-induced antibodies:
Viral replication kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 variants in ex vivo cultures of human respiratory tract. Human ex vivo cultures of bronchus and lung were infected with 5×105 TCID50/mL at 37°C. Virus released in the culture supernatants were measured over time by TCID50 assay. a, c. Viral replication kinetics of wild-type (WT), D614G, Alpha and Beta in human ex vivo cultures of bronchus and lung. b, d. Viral replication kinetics of wild-type (WT), Delta and Omicron in human ex vivo cultures of bronchus and lung. The horizontal dotted line denotes the limit of detection in the TCID50 assay. Bar-charts show the geometric mean (n=6) (SD). Statistics were performed using Two-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s multiple-comparison test. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001. e, f. Viral titers from a to d are depicted as area under the curve (AUC). Bar-charts show the geometric mean (n=6) (SD). Statistics were performed using One-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s multiple-comparison test. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001.These properties of Omicron make it substantially more infectious than previous variants, but also substantially less dangerous.
Moving onto recommendations, ATAGI urges expanding the availability of booster doses to all adults aged over 18, and shortening the minimum interval between second and third doses from five months to four months and then to three months. Its justification for this recommendation is that:
“An earlier booster dose is expected to reduce the risk of symptomatic infection, severe illness and death from COVID-19. In combination with enhanced public health and social measures, it is also expected to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on the health system and its the broader impacts on the community.”
Take a moment to reflect on that. With absolutely zero real-world evidence that booster doses have any benefit to reducing infections, hospitalisations or deaths, but merely on the wing and prayer of its “expectations”, ATAGI now wants every man and woman in this country to be rejabbed after 3 months, and potentially every 3 months after that, ad infinitum, with a product that does not prevent infection with, nor transmission of, the Omicron variant (or the Delta variant, for that matter).
Not only is there no evidence of benefit of this strategy, there is also no evidence of its safety. Aside from the deluge of adverse event reports that dwarfs those of any previous vaccine, there are significant concerns about repeatedly revaccinating large swaths of the population which have not yet been addressed by scientific research, including but not limited to:
ATAGI further recommends that:
“Pregnant women aged 18 or older who received their primary COVID-19 vaccination course ≥ 4 months ago are recommended to have a booster dose. When practical and in line with the broader community, this interval should be brought forward to 3 months.”
ATAGI recommends using either the Pfizer or Moderna products as booster doses. Yet the product information for the Pfizer injection (“Cominarty”), hosted on TGA’s website, states the following:
“There is limited experience with use of COMIRNATY in pregnant women… Administration of COMIRNATY in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and fetus.”
The wording of the Moderna injection (“Spikevax”) product information in relation to pregnancy is virtually identical.
ATAGI stresses the urgency of booster doses for people whose work brings them in close contact with individuals who are vulnerable to severe outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection, because these “workers may transmit the virus to others with increased risk of severe disease, such as aged/disability care facilities”.
But there is abundant evidence that people with breakthrough infections (i.e. infection after vaccination) transmit SARS-CoV-2 as readily as unvaccinated people who become infected.
The CDC openly acknowledges this:
“CDC expects that anyone with Omicron infection can spread the virus to others, even if they are vaccinated or don’t have symptoms.”
And, buried further down in their statement, ATAGI itself admits that:
“The effectiveness of a booster dose to prevent onward transmission of Omicron from infected persons, and the duration of protection afforded by a booster are currently unclear.”
In other words, their advice is based on nothing but wishful thinking. There is simply no scientific rationale for recommending boosters of a product that does not reduce the risk of virus transmission to health care workers, or indeed any other category of people, and it is indefensible for ATAGI to make such a recommendation without providing supporting evidence of both efficacy and safety.
ATAGI goes on to claim that:
“Strong evidence suggests that booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines may enhance protection against symptomatic disease due to the Omicron variant. This is primarily based on in vitro [literally “in glass”, meaning not in a living body] studies of neutralising antibodies demonstrating that the decreased binding seen with the Omicron variant compared with ancestral strains can be overcome by increasing antibody concentrations with a booster dose. Multiple studies have shown a 2 to >20-fold decrease in neutralising antibody titre against Omicron compared with wild type and/or Delta variant in sera after the primary vaccination course. Studies demonstrate that neutralising antibody titres are higher against Omicron following a booster dose of an mRNA vaccine.”
However, as mentioned above, the Omicron variant preferentially infects the mucous membranes of the upper airways, and the neutralising antibodies referred to by ATAGI do not reach this site. Only secretory IgA, an antibody class that is produced by lymphocytes that reside just below the mucous membranes, is capable of neutralising a virus that has infected these membranes. No vaccine that is administered intramuscularly – bypassing the normal route of entry of a respiratory virus – is capable of inducing secretory IgA.
COVID-19 injections cannot prevent symptomatic disease induced by a variant that almost exclusively colonises the upper airways, and it is simply inexcusable for ATAGI to torture data from in vitro studies into confessing that they likely will.
Whose interests does ATAGI serve?The advice issued to the Federal government by ATAGI clearly favours the interests of the vaccine industry rather than the health and well-being of Australians. ATAGI overstates (and in fact blatantly misrepresents) the claimed but unproven benefits of booster doses of COVID-19 injections – products which have clearly failed to deliver on their promise to “end the pandemic” – and cavalierly downplays the very real risk of harm, both in terms of vaccine adverse reactions and the potentially catastrophic derangements of immune function that could potentially be induced by repeated revaccination, as described above.
Politicians, who almost invariably lack scientific training, are easily duped by such advice, which more often than not aligns with the policy directions that they favour as a result of intense lobbying activities by the pharmaceutical industry.
COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have pulled out all stops in their lobbying efforts to have their products approved in Australia, and no wonder – they have a government-guaranteed market, zero advertising costs, and total legal indemnity from being sued if their products harm or kill anyone who takes them.
While politicians scramble for both political advantage and personal favours from deep-pocketed lobbyists, and vaccine manufacturers stuff their coffers with taxpayer-funded, liability-free profits, the big loser is the Australian public which has been railroaded into accepting ineffective and unsafe products whilst being denied evidence-based early treatment with safe, cheap, generic drugs and nutraceuticals.
And so, Mr Greg Betts, Electorate Officer for Karen Andrews, I do not agree that ATAGI’s statements constitute “trusted medical advice from experts in the field”. Instead, they are a tissue of misrepresentations, distortions, strategic omissions and outright lies. Prove me wrong.
By : Robyn Chuter
We’re nearly two years into the COVID-19 debacle, and nothing that governments anywhere in the world have done to “stop the spread” and “end the pandemic” has worked. Nothing. Nada. Big fat zero.
If you have any remaining doubt about that, I urge you to read Dr Paul Elias Alexander’s outstanding summary of the damning evidence, More Than 400 Studies on the Failure of Compulsory Covid Interventions. The title kind of gives it away, but let me give you a quick summary:
SARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious respiratory virus that is spread primarily through airborne transmission, which means that sanitising your hands, disinfecting surfaces and maintaining an arbitrary distance from other people is pointless biosecurity theatre – pointless, that is, in preventing the spread of the virus, but that was never the real intention anyway.
The primary route of entrance of SARS-CoV-2 is via inhalation of tiny droplet nuclei, or aerosols, that are less than 5 micrometres (5 μm) in diameter. That is, we breathe it into our nostrils. (And by the way, cloth masks increase the dose of those tiny aerosols that end up in your nose.)
Luckily for us, we’ve co-evolved with viruses, so our bodies know a thing or two about how to handle them. The secretory immunoglobulin A system, or sIgA, is our first line of defence against both respiratory and gastrointestinal viral infections.
sIgA is the most prevalent type of antibody produced in the human body. It is produced by immune system cells known as lymphocytes, that live just under the mucous membranes that line our respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts (the respiratory and gut mucosa).
As soon as a viral antigen (a snippet of protein that the immune system recognises as foreign to the human body) comes in contact with the respiratory mucosa, lymphocytes release sIgA which is ejected through the mucous membrane onto the mucosal surface, where it can prevent viruses from binding to cells and thus infecting them:
From ‘The COVID vaccines were designed to fail’
At the same time as they’re firing their antiviral missiles through the respiratory mucosa, these crack troop lymphocytes send for reinforcements by signalling other immune system cells that live in the central lymphoid organs in the bronchial and intestinal mucosa to also pump out sIgA. Thus, a call-to-arms propagates through every mucous membrane-lined organ in the human body, along with military intelligence and a specific battle plan on how to recognise and defend against the viral intruder.
If secretory IgA levels are high enough, the virus will be stopped in its tracks, before it gets the chance to enter enough cells to generate an infection. If they aren’t, and if our innate immune mechanisms don’t manage to fend off the attack, the virus will replicate and will make its way down into the lower respiratory tract from where it can infect the lungs. This is the pattern that SARS-CoV-2 follows.
sIgA levels are lowered by suboptimal vitamin D levels, obesity, and possibly by zinc deficiency – so well done to those public health geniuses who designed COVID-19 policies that restricted going outdoors into the vitamin D-generating sunshine, and resulted in 35 per cent of Australians gaining weight, mostly because of increased junk food consumption.
Unlike the johnny-on-the-spot secretory IgA which mops up respiratory viruses at their point of entry into the body, the novel injections marketed as “COVID-19 vaccines” only generate the classes of antibodies known as immunoglobulin G (IgG) and circulating immunoglobulin A (IgA).
As the name of the latter class implies, these are antibodies which circulate in the blood, searching for virus that has breached the mucosal defences and broken through into the bloodstream (which is easy to do once the virus has invaded the highly-vascularised lungs) in order to try to invade internal organs.
Sufficiently high levels of these antibodies do help to prevent the organ damage that characterises severe COVID-19, which is why studies such as those I cited in my previous article, The COVID-19 vaccine treadmill, show an initial decrease in the risk of serious illness, hospitalisation and death related to COVID-19, which tapers off dramatically after around 6 months (sooner in males, frail elderly people and those with comorbidities) as vaccine-generated antibody levels plummet.
However, these blood-borne antibodies cannot neutralise SARS-CoV-2 in the respiratory mucosa because they don’t reach it. And this is why COVID-19 injections don’t stop infection with SARS-CoV-2, don’t stop viral replication in the nasopharynx (nose and throat), and don’t stop transmission of the virus.
I, and many others, have said it before, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again: The current crop of “COVID-19 vaccines” cannot possibly end the pandemic because they are incapable of generating herd immunity.
What they do, unfortunately, is to
Our articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team