Yes, this Grenada!

There's a serious outbreak of COVID-19 in Grenada, but the timing it what makes it so interesting. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Grenada has had an extremely low infection rate. But just over the past 30 or so days, Grenada has experienced a massive spike in cases.

Click on the image below to see full size.

These spikes have happened everywhere at some point or another. The timing is What makes the spike in Grenada interesting. Grenada's COVID-19 infection rate has been flat for nearly the entire year. Much flatter than most other countries.

Grenada has a relatively small population, so the data coming from there is more accurate than some of the larger countries.

Click on the image below to see full size.

Grenada imported the AstraZeneca vaccine in February 2021, and the cases remained flat. On August 19 Grenada imported the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. The government of Grenada started an aggressive program to get people vaccinated as soon as the Pfizer vaccine was imported, then a huge spike occurred. Is this a coincidence? You be the judge.

It's hard to explain how Grenada was pretty much COVID free for nearly the whole year, and then they start seeing a huge spike in cases -- right around the time they start administering the Pfizer vaccine. That's very suspicious to say the least.

Tell me what you think.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

In case you haven't been paying attention; a new vaccine mandate has been issued by the federal government.

We now know that the vaccines are ineffective against the Delta Variant. So, why all the push now? Well, the answer might not be what you are expecting.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic, people have worked together for the most part. There was no real contention between those who were infected, vs. those where were not. People isolated at home, had food delivered to their front door, and things were working without much stress. Amazon was making tons of money.

In come the vaccines. As soon as it was announced that there was a vaccine that would provide immunity, people jumped on-board, because they were promised that the lockdowns and mask mandates would eventually be eliminated. Those restrictions would be lifted once we met some magic percentage of the population that were vaccinated. However, this didn't account for the number of people who had already been infected with COVID-19 and recovered from it. It also didn't account for the fact that as time went on, more data came out which showed that the vaccines didn't do nearly what was promised at the onset. This made people leery of taking the vaccine, especially those people who had already recovered.

Once it was found that the vaccines didn’t provide nearly the level of protection that was promised, did the government change their outlook on vaccinations? No, they doubled down on them. Government officials went on television and told the public that it’s the unvaccinated people who are really spreading the virus. “We need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated?” Of course this makes no sense, because if you’re vaccinated, you shouldn’t have to worry about the virus. That was the entire point of the vaccine, or any vaccine for that matter. Then data comes out that shows that the vaccinated who are infected carry a greater viral load than those where are unvaccinated. Meaning that those who are vaccinated can spread the virus just as easily, if not easier, than those who are unvaccinated. Not only was the original premise false, but the reality was literally the other was around. Why would government officials go on television and say something that they know is false? I believe these polls will show you exactly why.

The entire vaccine push has been about division. And recent polling proves this. More Democrats are more worried about the unvaccinated than are worried about China, The Taliban, Russia, and Illegal Immigration. What this data tells us is that the population, at least a large part of the population, has bought into the vaccine propaganda.

Then you have polling showing that people are losing friends over the whole vaccinated vs. unvaccinated argument.

NEW YORK — The coronavirus vaccine has been an incredibly divisive topic, and now it’s even ending friendships. Vaccinated Americans have called it quits with friends who refuse to get the COVID-19 shot, according to a new poll.

A survey of 1,000 Americans – conducted by OnePoll on Sept. 2 – examined why people have ended friendships in the last year and a half. Results show 16 percent of respondents have axed three pals from their lives since the pandemic began in March 2020.

Of those who ended a friendship, 66 percent are vaccinated and 17 percent don’t ever plan to receive the shot. Fourteen percent of vaccinated respondents — about 1 in 7 — say they parted ways with friends who didn’t want to get the vaccine. Even “Friends” and “The Morning Show” star Jennifer Aniston claims she’s ended friendships over vaccination beliefs.

Once you see these numbers and realize what’s going on, you can understand why the government has spread misinformation about their own program. It's helping to divide people on a large scale. If division is your objective, then these numbers are very promising.

These recent moves have all been to divide people. And the numbers are showing, it’s working. Now they have enacted mandates, to make those people who don’t want the vaccine a second class citizens, even furthering the divide.

Now you have to ask yourself, who benefits from all of this? Who can get more done with the country divided? I'll give you the short answer, the enemies of The United States, that's who benefits from this. The Biden regime wants division. At the end of the day, there can be no other reason for pushing a vaccine that’s minimally effective.

They are trying to divide the people because divided we are easier to control. Think mandates, vaccine passports, how else are they going to get a majority of the population to go along with these measures. Why do you think that the UK just dropped the vaccine passport idea, at least for now? Because the people of the UK are not divided enough for these measures to work.

Sky News — “If you divide any society into two distinct classes of people you have abandoned liberty and democracy and replaced it with tyranny, fear and suspicion.”

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

(Originally posted 08/23/21)

I'm going to keep this at the top of the page for a while, because I think it's important that people understand what is going on. There have been two updates about hospital "closures / reduction of services" since I first posted this. They are referenced below.

Newer posts will be below this post.

This is a point of contention for many people within the healthcare industry, and in general. Now that the vaccines are approved for use by the FDA, more mandates are on the way. Not only that, but the approval was pushed ahead, it wasn't supposed to happen until after Labor Day.

There are many in the healthcare industry that don't want to take the vaccine, for too many reasons to list here. This is widely known. There have been large demonstrations by healthcare workers opposing the vaccine mandates by their employers.

The employer mandates are going to lead to an inevitable shortage of healthcare workers as many will quit their jobs before they will take the mandated vaccines. Couple that with the fact that many of the nations hospital systems are already strained.

Hospitals and lawmakers in states gripped by the Delta variant are offering nurses tens of thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, rewriting job descriptions so paramedics can care for patients and pleading for federal help to beef up their crisis-fatigued health care workforces.

The alarming spread of new cases is draining the pool of available health workers in ways not seen since the pandemic’s winter peak, forcing officials to improvise and tear up rules dictating who cares for whom. Governors and hospital directors warn that the staffing crisis is so acute that patients, whether suffering from Covid-19, a heart attack or the effects of a car accident, can no longer expect the level of care that might have been available six weeks ago.

“The scenario we feared in 2020 is, unfortunately, now, a reality,” said Becky Hultberg, president of the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, which is calling in the National Guard for help and suspending many non-emergency surgeries as it nears its ICU capacity.

09-03-21 Update: Poll in Ohio shows just how far this might go.

A survey by an Ohio nurses’ union for the University of Cincinnati Medical Center (UCMC) found that almost a third of respondents would quit their jobs if UCMC officially finalized a Covid vaccine mandate, of which the hospital has made a preliminary announcement.

While UCMC did agree to “negotiate the vaccine policy” with the nurses’ union, according to Mendiola, the first date that was set for bargaining, August 23, fell through. “They canceled due to stating that they were unable to allow two of our nurses off of the floor for four hours to do the bargaining due to staffing concerns,” Mendiola explained.

The nurses union couldn't even negotiate the vaccine policy, because the hospital couldn't afford to let two nurses off for four hours to negotiate. They can't negotiate with the union --do to staff shortages. Wouldn't that be reason enough to drop the vaccine mandate policy? The absurdity of the situation is amazing. As a patient, would this situation instill confidence in the decision making capabilities of hospital and its employees?

Pushing up the vaccine approval has necessarily caused many within the healthcare industry, opposed to mandates, to look for work elsewhere. Meanwhile there's a shortage of healthcare workers nationwide. I believe this was done on purpose. Because this will put even more pressure on people to become vaccinated.

Notice how the narrative on the vaccines have shifted since the beginning. At first the vaccine was going to prevent people from catching SARS-Cov-2, then that was walked back. Then it was going to reduce the spread of SARS-Cov-2, then that was walked back. Now we're all the way down to, "The vaccines might reduce your symptoms should you contract SARS-Cov-2."

The people who have already been vaccinated have questions now. They were sold a bill of goods. The vaccinated are worried and looking for answers, but science doesn't have a good answer for them.

Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others.

All that said, some facts are well established at this point. Vaccinated people infected with the virus are much less likely to need to go to the hospital, much less likely to need intubation and much less likely to die from the illness. There’s no doubt that vaccines provide significant protection. But a large proportion of the nation -- almost 30% of U.S. adults -- have not been vaccinated, a fact that has conspired with the highly contagious delta variant to push the country into a new wave of outbreaks.

For the time being, there are simply more questions than answers. Are breakthrough infections ticking up because of the delta variant, waning immunity or a return to normal life? Are vaccinated people more vulnerable to severe illness than previously thought? Just how common are breakthrough infections? It’s anyone’s guess.

“It is generally the case that we have to make public health decisions based on imperfect data,” Frieden said. “But there is just a lot we don’t know.”

09-15-21 Update: Another hospital might have to close because of the vaccine mandate.

This stands to reason. The people who were working on the front line, hospital workers and emergency personnel "essential employees" already took on the risk of infection. Many were infected and recovered. Since they took on the risk of infection, they're being told that it wasn't enough. Now they have to submit to taking a vaccine that might pose a great risk to their health --with literally zero benefit. These workers know better. They were there at the peak of the pandemic, they can't be convinced now that they are going to drop dead without a vaccine. If the virus was a serious threat to these people they would know it by now.

The entire narrative has been blown apart, there is no more logical "scientific" leverage for the vaccines. That's why they are taking people's choices away, because they knew that they were going to loose the argument from the start. If what they have said, and are saying were true. People wouldn't need to be coerced into taking the vaccine. There wouldn't be vaccine lotteries and all of the other wacky ideas they've come up with to bribe people into taking the vaccine.

Remember this. If the vaccine is mandated at any point --it was never voluntary. Of course people will argue that it's still voluntary, like the income tax. You don't have to pay income taxes either, they are officially voluntary in the United States, but if you don't pay your income taxes, the IRS will seize your assets and you'll end up in jail. Those are your options for the voluntary income tax. The vaccine mandates will operate in much the same way.

09-24-21 Update:

Now we hear that COVID will be like the common cold. What they forget to mention is that it was already like the common cold!

Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert and Sir John Bell have both said coronavirus will eventually cause illness which are as mild as a common cold, playing down fears of a more deadly variant and adding the UK "is over the worst".

"Those who do not get vaccinated will immunize themselves naturally, because the Delta variant is so contagious," he added.

"In this way we will end up in a situation similar to that of the flu. You can either get vaccinated and have a good winter. Or you don't do it and risk getting sick and possibly even ending up in hospital."

Asked if that meant a return to normal in the second half of next year, he said: "As of today, in a year, I assume."

People are rarely hospitalized for the flu. Another thing to consider, do they perform flu tests for everyone that walks in the E.R. --right now? Did they ever test everyone that came into the E.R. for the flu? They test everyone that comes into the E.R. for COVID --regardless of why they are there. My friend works at a local hospital, and a patient was telling her about it. He thought it was odd that they tested him for COVID because he was in there due to a work-related injury to his arm. He tested positive, but he wasn't sick. I wonder why the COVID numbers are so high?

09-28-21 Update:

New York healthcare workers will be FIRED if not vaccinated.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said she is not budging on a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers and vowed to those who do not get the shot by the September 27 deadline that 'we will be replacing people.'

Hochul reiterated her hardened stance even as some hospitals face staff shortages and a lawsuit was launched by 17 doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals who say New York's requirement violates their constitutional rights in various ways.

'To all the healthcare providers, doctors and nurses in particular who are vaccinated, I say thank you. Because you are keeping true to your oath,' Hochul told WHAM-TV during a visit to Rochester on Wednesday.

'To those who won't, we will be replacing people.'

This sounds much less like a "thank you" and more like, "If you don't tow the party line, we'll find someone who will."

The governor's answer to this, is to call in the National Guard to make up for the staffing shortages --because of their own vaccine mandates.

New York Gov. Hochul said Friday that the state will deploy the National Guard to fill expected staff shortages as unvaccinated nurses and hospital workers are fired effective tonight.

The governor of New York is calling in The National Guard to staff hospitals because of worker shortages brought on by a government mandate. How will they spin this to blame it on the "unvaccinated."

SARS-CoV-2; greater than 99% chance of survival, until age 69. The Pfizer vaccine is now approved for people aged 16 and up. Follow the science...

Tell me what you think.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

ADE (Autoimmune Deficiency Enhancement) is a clear and present possibility with the current vaccines, mRNA and Viral Vector. However; the trial participants were not properly briefed on this data.

I took a full-page screenshot of the webpage from "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/" I did this specifically because I think this page will be removed once it reaches enough hits. The data within this document can be used in the court cases challenging vaccine mandates. I don't think those behind the vaccine push don't want this widely known.

Click the image to view the whole picture, then you can zoom and read it more easily.

Results of the study

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

...

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

...

3. CONCLUSION

Given the strong evidence that ADE is a non-theoretical and compelling risk for COVID-19 vaccines and the “laundry list” nature of informed consents, disclosure of the specific risk of worsened COVID-19 disease from vaccination calls for a specific, separate, informed consent form and demonstration of patient comprehension in order to meet medical ethics standards. The informed consent process for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials does not appear to meet this standard. While the COVID-19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID-19 vaccine risks.

Here is the entire text of the document:

Abstract

Aims of the study

Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Methods used to conduct the study

Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID-19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.

Results of the study

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications
The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

1. THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID-19 VACCINES IS NON-THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING

Vaccine-elicited enhancement of disease was previously observed in human subjects with vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), dengue virus and measles. 1 Vaccine-elicited enhancement of disease was also observed with the SARS and MERS viruses and with feline coronavirus, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, the causative pathogen of COVID-19 disease. The immune mechanisms of this enhancement have invariably involved antibodies, from direct antibody-dependent enhancement, to immune complex formation by antibodies, albeit accompanied by various coordinated cellular responses, such as Th2 T-cell skewing. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Notably, both neutralising and non-neutralising antibodies have been implicated. A recent study revealed IgG-mediated acute lung injury in vivo in macaques infected with SARS that correlated with a vaccine-elicited, neutralising antibody response. 8 Inflammation and tissue damage in the lung in this animal model recapitulated the inflammation and tissue damage in the lungs of SARS-infected patients who succumbed to the disease. The time course was also similar, with the worst damage occurring in delayed fashion in synchrony with ramping up of the immune response. Remarkably, neutralising antibodies controlled the virus in the animal, but then would precipitate a severe, tissue-damaging, inflammatory response in the lung. This is a similar profile to immune complex-mediated disease seen with RSV vaccines in the past, wherein vaccinees succumbed to fatal enhanced RSV disease because of the formation of antibody-virus immune complexes that precipitated harmful, inflammatory immune responses. It is also similar to the clinical course of COVID-19 patients, in whom severe COVID-19 disease is associated with the development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies, 9 with titres correlating directly with the severity of disease. 10 Conversely, subjects who recover quickly may have low or no anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies.

The elicitation of antibodies, specifically neutralising antibodies, is the goal of nearly every current SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate. The prior evidence that vaccine-elicited, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is likely to occur to some degree with COVID-19 vaccines is vertically consistent from controlled SARS studies in primates to clinical observations in SARS and COVID-19. Thus, a finite, non-theoretical risk is evident in the medical literature that vaccine candidates composed of the SARS-CoV-2 viral spike and eliciting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, be they neutralising or not, place vaccinees at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 disease when they encounter circulating viruses. Indeed, studies in mice of prior SARS vaccines revealed this exact phenotype, with four human vaccine candidates eliciting neutralising antibodies and protecting against SARS challenge, but viral re-challenge of thus vaccinated animals resulting in immunopathologic lung disease. 5 Independently, SARS/MERS vaccine candidates, commonly exhibited ADE associated with high inflammatory morbidity in preclinical models, obstructing their advancement to the clinic. 4 , 12 SARS ADE of both disease in non-human primates and viral infection of cells in vitro was clearly mapped to specific antibody-targeted SARS viral spike epitopes. 6 This phenomenon was consistent across a variety of vaccine platforms, including DNA, vector primes and virus-like particles (VLP), irrespective of inoculation method (oral, intramuscular, subcutaneous, etc). An unknown variable is how long this tissue damage lasts, possibly resulting in permanent morbidity (eg, diabetes from pancreatic damage 7).

Current data on COVID-19 vaccines is limited, but does not so far reveal evidence of ADE of disease. Non-human primate studies of Moderna's mRNA-1273 vaccine showed excellent protection, with no detectable immunopathology. 13 Phase 1 trials of several vaccines have not reported any immunopathology in subjects administered the candidate vaccines. However, these subjects were unlikely to have yet encountered circulating virus. 14 Nevertheless, all preclinical studies to date have been performed with the Wuhan or closely related strains of the virus, while a mutant D614G virus is now the most prevalent circulating form. Several observations suggest that this alternative form may be antigenically distinct from the Wuhan derived strain, not so much in composition, but in conformation of the viral spike and exposure of neutralisation epitopes. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 Similarly, Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of vaccine candidates have only been designed around immunogenicity as an efficacy end point and have not been designed to capture exposure of subjects to circulating virus after vaccination, which is when ADE/immunopathology is designed to occur. Thus, the absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects.

2. CHALLENGES TO INFORMED CONSENT FOR COVID-19 VACCINE STUDIES

Informed consent procedures for vaccine trials commonly include disclosure of very minor risks such as injection site reactions, rare risks from past, unrelated vaccines/viruses, such as Guillain-Barre syndrome for swine flu (interest in which is likely behind the interest in Astra Zeneca's recent vaccine transverse myelitis event) and generic statements about the risk of idiosyncratic systemic adverse events and death. Specific risks to research participants derived from biological mechanism are rarely included, often because of ambiguity about their applicability. 19

Signed consent forms from the COVID-19 vaccine trials are not publicly available because of privacy concerns. They also vary from clinical site to clinical site, and sample consent forms on which they are based are not required to be disclosed until after the trial is over, if at all. However, these consent forms are usually very similar in content to the “Risks to participants” section of the trial protocols, which have been released publicly by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson for their COVID-19 vaccine trials ( 20 & Supplement). As these three vaccines are representative of the diversity of vaccines being tested, it is very likely that the consent form inferred from these protocols is similar or identical to those from any and all of the vaccine trials currently underway. All three protocols mention the risk of disease enhancement by the vaccine, but all three list this risk last or next to last in the list of risks, after risks from the Ad26-Cov2 vector, adenovirus vectors in general, risks of vaccination in general, risks for pregnancy and birth control (which are said to be “unknown”), risks of blood draws and risks from collection of nasal swab samples (for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine), after allergy, fainting, local site injection reaction, general systemic adverse reactions and laboratory abnormalities for the Moderna vaccine and after local site injection reactions and general systemic adverse events for the Pfizer vaccine. In addition, both Moderna and Johnson and Johnson term the risk of vaccine-elicited disease enhancement as “theoretical.” Finally, in citing the risk, Pfizer and Moderna note prior evidence of vaccine-elicited disease enhancement with RSV and dengue, as well as feline coronavirus (Pfizer) and measles (Moderna), however, SARS and MERS are not mentioned. Johnson and Johnson discusses SARS and MERS, but make an unusual scientific argument that vaccine-elicited disease enhancement is because of non-neutralising antibodies and Th2-skewed cellular responses and that Ad26 vaccination does not exhibit this profile.Blank consent forms for AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson are also available online at https://restoringtrials.org/2020/09/18/covid19trialprotocolandstudydocs/, and while the AstraZeneca form clearly discloses the specific risk of ADE, the disclosure is listed last among risks only in an attached information sheet. In all, the evidence from the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson protocols for their COVID-19 vaccine trials and the sample consent forms, when contrasted with the evidence for antibody-dependent enhancement of disease presented by this report and widely available to any skilled practitioner in the field, establishes that patient comprehension of the specific risk that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine could convert a subject from someone who experiences mild disease to someone who experiences severe disease, lasting morbidity or even death is unlikely to be achieved by the informed consent procedures planned for these clinical trials.

Medical ethics standards required that, given the extent of evidence in the medical literature reviewed above, the risk of ADE should be clearly and emphatically distinguished in the informed consent from risks observed rarely as well as the more obvious risk of lack of efficacy, which is unrelated to the specific risk of ADE. Based on the published literature, it should have been obvious to any skilled medical practitioner in 2019 that there is a significant risk to vaccine research subjects that they may experience severe disease once vaccinated, while they might only have experienced a mild, self-limited disease if not vaccinated. The consent should also clearly distinguish the specific risk of worsened COVID-19 disease from generic statements about risk of death and generic risk of lack of efficacy of the vaccine.

3. CONCLUSION

Given the strong evidence that ADE is a non-theoretical and compelling risk for COVID-19 vaccines and the “laundry list” nature of informed consents, disclosure of the specific risk of worsened COVID-19 disease from vaccination calls for a specific, separate, informed consent form and demonstration of patient comprehension in order to meet medical ethics standards. The informed consent process for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials does not appear to meet this standard. While the COVID-19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID-19 vaccine risks.

The trial participants were not properly warned about the dangers associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, during the vaccine trials -- meanwhile the US public was/is told that the vaccines are, "Safe and effective?"

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

COVID cases are on the rise in a few states, and the CDC, the LAM (Legacy American Media) and others are trying to draw a correlation between vaccinations, and cases per state per 100,000 residents. There is one HUGE elephant in the room that is never mentioned. You might be surprised.

Five states broke records for the average number of daily new Covid cases over the weekend as the delta variant strains hospital systems across the U.S. and forces many states to reinstate public health restrictions.

Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, Oregon and Mississippi all reached new peaks in their seven-day average of new cases per day as of Sunday, according to a CNBC analysis of data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. On a per capita basis, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida are suffering from the three worst outbreaks in the country.

I'm not much for "in-the-box" thinking. I like venture into the unknown to find a better perspective.

Forget about the vaccination rate, or percentage in the state. We know that the percentage of people vaccinated has nothing to do with slowing or stopping the spread. Fauci has admitted this.

Just a quick look at the numbers will show that vaccinations can't be the contributing factor. The chart below is based on the data from the CNBC article and elevation data. I added the elevation data, because it's one metric that I've never heard mentioned to date.

The biggest disparity is between Florida and Oregon.

Looking strictly at the percentage of the population vaccinated, are we to believe that a 6.5% increase in the number vaccinated individuals, will lead to a decrease of 62 COVID cases per 100k? That's from 101 down to 39 per 100k!

I have my own hypothesis, and my numbers prove out better than the official Johns Hopkins numbers. This might sound ridiculous, but elevation also seems to play a role in cases per 100k. Barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity will also play a role. They necessarily play a role. Viruses can't live as long on surfaces in a dry climate. Similarly, they can't remain airborne as long in thinner, less dense air.

The biggest difference between Oregon and Florida is average elevation, not the number of people vaccinated. Louisiana gets the short end of the stick elevation-wise, because some of the most populous parts of the state are below sea level.

A clear seasonal pattern of outbreaks is well-recognized with many respiratory viruses. Meteorological conditions such as relative humidity, minimum temperature, cloud cover, exposure to sunlight (ultraviolet A and B), barometric pressure and rainfall affect viral survival and infectivity. For example, at locations with persistently warm temperatures and high humidity, RSV activity is present throughout the year. In temperate climates, RSV circulation correlates with lower temperature, and transmission is inversely related to temperature. In colder climates, RSV activity persists throughout the year.

It makes sense. The southern states are less likely to go along with federal government mandates, which makes them an easy target for politicians. Couple that with the likelihood that meteorological conditions will result in higher rates of infection, and you've got a great propaganda tool.

I believe that the CDC already knows of the effects elevation has on various different types of viruses, but they keep that information close to their vest. Why would they do that? It's simple, they are trying to overstate the effectiveness of the vaccines. If more people realized that elevation played a much greater role in infection rates than vaccinations do, less people could be convinced to get the vaccine. Or, you could just do what Fauci says, "...put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties..."

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"