Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry Letter to Pharmacy Board: Do Not Block Ivermectin or HCQ

TrialSite recently reported on the efforts of Nebraska AG Douglas Peterson to ensure that physicians are allowed to, in their professional discretion, use ivermectin and HCQ off-label for COVID-19 treatment. Twenty-four state AG’s have threatened to sue over federal vaccine mandates. In the meantime, another state AG also stepped into the COVID-19 regulation space. On September 7, Jeff Landry of Louisiana wrote his state’s pharmacy board to advise that they not interfere with COVID-19 prescriptions. We cannot locate the letter on Landry’s government website, but a copy is posted on Twitter.

On September 27, The Blaze offered us some more details about Landry’s goals. “Never have pharmacists been allowed to practice medicine and get between a doctor and his patient,” Landry told The Blaze. “Most certainly not in the middle of a pandemic.” Predating Peterson’s actions, Landry was the first AG to publicly notify pharmacists not to block COVID medications such as ivermectin. The Louisiana AG’s letter was in response to an August memorandum from that state’s Board of Pharmacy entitled, “Do not Use Ivermectin to Treat of Prevent COVID-19.” The September 7 letter reminds the pharmacists that FDA has long approved off-label use of drugs by doctors, “when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.” Landry cited the Louisiana Medical Practice Act, which bars pharmacists from diagnosing or treating illness, and he notes that they have effectively been doing this by requesting diagnoses from physicians before filling prescriptions. “Upon reviewing this act, I find nothing that would allow the board to second guess the sound medical judgment of a physician when it comes to prescribing legal drugs to their patients, nor do I see anything that allows pharmacists generally to object to off-label use of FDA approved drugs,” offered Landry.

Big Chains Intruding into Doctor-Patient Relationship?

When a Blaze reporter asked about pharmacists’ rights to deny contraception in some states, Louisiana’s AG noted, “I don’t know where their conscience was when they were giving out opioids like M&Ms—-Ivermectin is not even a scheduled drug. All of a sudden they found a conscience.” Per The Blaze, Landry thinks that pushing back against “woke” censorship of news about effective COVID-19 treatments is key to preserving both health and freedom: “What’s always been great about American health care is that we allowed our doctors to practice their trade freely and do what’s best for their patients. What’s happening now is that big chain pharmacies are determining whether to treat this virus. That was never, ever the job of the pharmacist. After verifying it’s a legitimate prescription by a licensed doctor, they no longer have any license to do anything but fill the prescription.”

24-48 Hour Window

The Blaze also reports that physicians in all 50 states have noted pharmacist resistance to filling certain prescriptions. “It’s not just ivermectin,” said Missouri ICU doctor Mollie James. “I’ve had patients refused for any reason. Pharmacists have told them the scripts were ‘flagged’ as for COVID and ‘kicked out’ all of the scripts. I’ve had pharmacists refuse to fill an antibiotic for someone because they ‘think we’re using it to treat COVID.'” As one who worked in NYC ICUs from early in the pandemic, Dr. James argues that treatment from “day one” is key. “I regularly have patients infuriated and in tears, because they are sick and scared to death they will end up in a hospital because they can’t get their medications. There is a predictable timeline, and if people are having trouble breathing, I have about 24-48 hours to get them treated or they will end up in a hospital on oxygen. I can get anyone meds in 3-5 days, but sometimes that’s not enough.”

Candy and Hemlock

Since the Landry letter, the pharmacy board updated its guidance and said that they have no policy about ivermectin. “As a reminder, pharmacists have the right to exercise discretion when presented with any prescription, including ivermectin,” offered Malcolm Broussard, executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy. Landry is still concerned, and he thinks there is a “war” on supply leading to scarcity of medications like ivermectin. This is leading to prices much higher than a generic off-patent drug should cost. And insurance firms are also “balking” at ivermectin prescriptions at a time when many patients can’t afford the prices at smaller boutique pharmacies. Landry also notes that pharmacies hand out vaccines “like candy,” while the Nobel-winning ivermectin is attacked, “like it’s hemlock.” Finally, the AG asks why: “Why would the government want to discourage doctors working with their patients to try to find drugs that can therapeutically heal American citizens, especially when they are more effective and cost-effective?”

Merck’s Molnupiravir—An Independent Newspaper Reports on the Potential Risk for DNA Mutation & Cancer

With heightened excitement centering on the recent announcement by Merck that its  investigational antiviral therapy molnupiravir reduces the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19, the mainstream press has overwhelmingly served as cheerleader. Developed originally by a group within Emory University called DRIVE, the investigational product was licensed by Ridgeback Biotherapeutics. They attempted to secure taxpayer money during the start of the pandemic from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Given the government had already awarded the drug’s preliminary developers money, the acting director at the time—and soon- to-be whistleblower Rick Bright expressed concerns about funding this product reported TrialSite. As it turns out the antiviral induces mutations in SARS-CoV-2 purportedly stopping the virus from replicating itself. However preliminary results from a pivotal study showed efficacy and no immediate safety issues so the company halted the study and applied to receive emergency use authorization (EUA). The mainstream press cheered—led by industry’s main man at the top.

Fauci Cheerleads Again

The recent molnupiravir study ended early on preliminary data evidencing that while 14.1% of those subjects in a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that didn’t receive the study drug ended up hospitalized or dead due to COVID-19 within 29 days (53 out of 377 participants) only 7.3% of the participants taking molnupiravir were hospitalized and no one in this cohort died. TrialSite notes that while results of this study show promise the numbers still require a lot of cases for someone to benefit. The data has not yet been released nor has there been any substantial review, yet Dr. Anthony Fauci was already out promoting the drug—knowing all too well when he speaks, the markets listen. The nation’s top doctor and medical right hand to POTUS clearly thinks he operates with impunity from all typical standards immediately declaring the results “very impressive.” Fauci did the same thing with Gilead’s remdesivir—in fact he gave that study quite a helping hand—leading to $1 billion or more in the first nine months of the pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial concluded shortly after that since the drug brought no clinical benefit.

Massive Financial Stakes

TrialSite shares that since the beginning of the pandemic front-line physicians and care providers have called out that the government health agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) focused not enough attention on antiviral medications, especially repurposed ones that found some positive evidence including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fluvoxamine and even colchicine. 

Rather the NIH and other agencies such as BARDA allocated billions of dollars to novel therapeutics developers—right in a time of pandemic crisis—a point in time where doctors needed to provide urgent care for dying patients. Hundreds if not thousands of doctors first embraced hydroxychloroquine and then ivermectin. 

While there has been tremendous medical establishment pushback a recent Nebraska Attorney General opinion suggests doctors in that state should have a green light to prescribe those drugs off-label with certain conditions met.

Over the last several months aggressive media, government agencies, and health system campaigned to tarnish drugs such as ivermectin. Not surprisingly, these have coincided with the emergence of potentially expensive drugs such as molnupiravir. The stakes are gargantuan as about 90% of all COVID-19 cases are mild-to-moderate in and simply require effective, comprehensive home care to reduce the number of cases that progress. Given that most COVID-19 cases fall in this category the estimation of market size for an antiviral such as molnupiravir ranges from several hundred million to several billion per annum. The drug costs little to make but Merck plans on selling the drug at $700 per course (5-day treatment) should the investigational product be authorized.

A Real Newspaper—The Philadelphia Inquirer

In a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer science writer Tom Avril is one of a few reporters that raises any critical perspectives of late. Perhaps this is because the Philadelphia Inquirer is a public benefit corporation owned by the nonprofit Lenfest Institute https://www.lenfestinstitute.org/. Maybe this media outlet has a little more leeway than the others?

Regardless, Avril raises some safety concerns associated with the drug due to a University of North Carolina study in which results showed the drug “induced low levels of mutations in the DNA of hamster cells” suggesting that the investigational product could pose some “slight risk of cancer.” He shared that the authors in the University of North Carolina-led study shared in the Journal of Infectious Diseases that the risks associated with the antiviral “…may not be zero.”

Arguments Over Risk

Not surprisingly Avril informs the reader that Merck scientists sent a letter to the journal’s editor suggesting that their heightened concern was misdirected. The observations after all were accomplished in a lab cell culture, and “not relevant to how the drug would affect an entire animal—much less a human being” wrote the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter.

But the UNC preclinical research authors defended their approach calling for more studies while urging significant caution with the drug. Should the drug be authorized for emergency use, the UNC authors urge that only people facing serious risk should be able to access the drug.

Ronald Swanstrom who has a lab at UNC served as a lead author and shared while the drug looked promising, his study team’s observations cannot be ignored declaring “It’s really an unknown risk” further emphasizing “It’s someplace between an inconsequential risk and an important risk.”

What’s the Risk?

Avril goes on to describe how the antiviral experimental drug works. He shares that the “nucleoside analogue” indicates the molecules represent the “Chemical cousins of one of the building blocks of RNA, the genetic material inside the coronavirus.”

So, the drug’s molecules “incorporate themselves into the virus RNA ” triggering mutations, shared Drew University biologist, Brianne Barker. According to the Inquirer’s science writer the actual mutations associated with molnupiravir help direct a process called “error catastrophe” where the molecule serves to essentially disrupt SARS-CoV-2 replication by “adding more and more mutations in chemical ‘bases’ throughout the virus genome until it can no longer copy itself.”

UNC Concern

The crux of the concern, identified in the UNC letters, suggests that during their use of the study drug the investigators found that the drug triggered “low levels of mutation in DNA” and thus raised some cause for concern.

But the UNC researchers exposed hamsters in the preclinical animal studies for 32 days. Merck’s scientists contend that this amount of exposure was far greater than the “…3-to-6-hour exposure duration typically used per established guidelines.” Merck declared that when they conducted their preclinical studies on lab rats, they found no such observations for concern.

If No Risk…

TrialSite raises the issue of reproductive safety risks in the human clinical trials. If the drug posed no risks for mutation, why would the sponsor limit the drug’s access to those that are not actively trying to conceive children. TrialSite reported concerns expressed by UNC’s Dr. Shuntai Zhou affiliated with the Swanstrom Lab who declared “There is a concern that this will cause long-term mutation effects, even cancer.” Declaring that “Biochemistry won’t lie,” the scientists seemed highly confident that “This drug will be incorporated into the DNA.”

TrialSite also shared pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial inclusion/exclusion criteria including the fact that if males were to participate in the study they would need to abstain from heterosexual intercourse for at least four days after the last dose of molnupiravir. Moreover, pregnant, or breastfeeding females were excluded from the study.  Clearly this criterion indicates some concern.

Texas Continues Push-Back Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Across the US, state legislatures are proposing and passing laws to assert folks’ rights to decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Now, Texas legislators are proposing a new law, Senate Bill 51 that would make businesses and hospitals liable for discrimination if they mandate COVID-19 vaccinations. The Texas Tribune reports that while the state’s Republicans “wage a war” on vaccine mandates, a state Senate committee has voted on October 14 to advance SB 51. Medical and business groups have opposed this bill, cautioning that small businesses relying on federal money and immune-compromised people would be at risk. For his part, Texas Governor Greg Abbott says that vaccines are “safe, effective, and our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary and never forced.” Per the Tribune, earlier in the week Abbott banned businesses from either employee or customer COVID-19 vaccine requirements via executive order.

Range of Opponents to Bill

Opponents of SB 51 included the American Cancer Society, the Texas Medical Association, and the Texas Pediatric Association who all asked the committee to leave medical facilities out of the bill’s covered entities. Facilities are concerned that they would lose Medicare and Medicaid payments if state law forbids them from following federal rules. “The state shouldn’t be mandating a one-size-fits-all approach to hospitals,” opines Steve Wohleb, vice president and general counsel of the Texas Hospital Association. “It should leave those decisions to the hospitals, who are in the best position to know what’s best for their patients.” Annie Spilman, who is state director at the National Federation of Independent Business, noted, “We’re not arguing the merits of vaccination, good or bad, here—You could fill in the blank on the subject matter—if it creates a cause of action, or any sort of adverse action against a small business employer who already operates on thin margins, we’re generally going to oppose it.”

Separate Bill Tabled

A day earlier, a separate House bill, HB 155 which would allow workers to opt-out of employer testing for reasons of conscience and also for acquired immunity, was tabled. Business, tort-reform, and assisted living representatives all opposed the bill. The “big-time concern” of the Texas Business Associate is the legal exposure that HB 155 could expose firms to. And Lee Parsley, with Texans for Lawsuit Reform, said that such firms do not have a way around federal mandates that kicked in on October 15. “I’m afraid you’re up against federal preemption—-No matter what you pass, the federal law has preempted it.” A representative of the Texas Hospital Association, opined that the law might, “be devastating. Hospitals rely heavily on Medicare and Medicaid funding. It would effectively shut every hospital down if they could not comply with that particular requirement.”

Abbott Acts

To date, Texas House and Senate members have proposed at least 22 bills to oppose mandatory vaccination schemes. One proposal that did pass was SB 968. Signed on June 7 by Governor Abbott, the law precludes Texas businesses from demanding COVID-19 vaccination documentation from customers. Businesses that do not comply with this law are no longer eligible to get state grants or contract with the state. SB 968 does not deal with what rights, if any, workers have regarding vaccine mandates. The above-mentioned executive order protects both workers and customers via an exemption from mandates for, “any reason of personal conscience.” It will likely be up to the courts to decide on the applicability of this order in the absence of legislative authorization.

Biden's handlers working hard to crash the system: Airline pilots say prepare for chaos over refusal to take mandated COVID vaccine

When a society functions properly, the people living in it take a lot of things for granted, like the serenity of stability. As long as things run smoothly, people go about their daily lives without much to worry about or be concerned with. But when things go awry and suddenly, what was once stable becomes unstable, chaos generally ensues because that is what panic foments. Americans are no different and, in many ways, we are far more pampered by our own success than the vast majority of people on the planet. And we're about ready to find out just what real chaos looks like. Already there is major pushback against Joe Biden's vaccine mandates for companies with 100 or more employees. And while a month has gone by since he made the announcement, on Thursday he said the Labor Department was about to issue an "emergency rule" mandating that companies with 100 or more employees must order them to be vaccinated for COVID-19. That isn't going to go over well, and in fact, major industries are already prepared to make all of us feel the pain, including the airlines because a growing number of pilots are not going to get one and if they don't, they'll be fired, and if they're fired, guess what? They won't be flying -- passengers, cargo, or anything else we need to function in today's modern society. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1447971544962146307 According to the site Team Tucker Carlson: An airline pilot and activist for individual liberty told Fox News on Monday that situations such as mass flight cancelations will become more common if the Biden administration refuses to backdown from its hardline stance against coercing Americans to get vaccinated against COVID. Speaking on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Joshua Yoder, a commercial airline pilot and the co-founder of a group called U.S. Freedom Flyers, cautioned that events such as this past weekend’s Southwest Airlines flight cancellations could soon be unavoidable. The reason: Yoder said the people who do skilled jobs, such as flying planes and driving trucks, will stand against President Joe Biden and their own employers. “My motive for resisting [the COVID vaccine] is primarily religious for myself,” Yoder told Fox News host Tucker Carlson earlier this week. “Among my friends, I saw a need. Many of us don’t want to take this. People were being coerced. I believe in freedom, and I’m here to support the freedom of my fellow employees and all people across this country.” “I’m not going to take a mandate. I’m not going to be forced to do something that I don’t believe in,” he added. “If you have flights reduced by 30 percent because 30 percent of pilots are fired because they won’t take the vaccine, this is going to affect how your goods get here from overseas, how they are distributed to the store,” he said when the host asked him to describe the effect on the national transportation infrastructure. “The same thing is happening with the truckers; it’s happening in the shipping industry. Those Amazon boxes that typically show up in two days, you might be looking at three weeks,” he continued. And Yoder was plain as to who is responsible for this mess. “It’s squarely his [Biden’s] fault,” he said. “First of all, we have all the control, and the control comes from a simple word, and that’s ‘no,’” he said. “We just don’t need to comply. As far as I’m concerned, I will never promote a sick-out or a work action that is illegal. With U.S. Freedom Flyers, the organization I’m with, we will never promote such a thing. With that being said, we also cannot control the actions of individuals.” “And I think that you will see massive disruptions in [the] supply chain and in your travel if we just stand up and say no,” he said. “If these companies fire us and they fire 30% of the workforce, aircraft are going to stop moving, and it’s going to affect you. It’s going to affect your air travel, and it’s going to affect the economy.” The collapse is proceeding apace, America. Hope you stocked up. Sources include: TeamTuckerCarlson.com NaturalNews.com

60+ Ivermectin Lawsuits as Courts Become Battlefield: Hospital Administrations Against Patients

At least 14 lawsuits are ongoing in the State of New York alone to compel hospitals in that state to administer ivermectin to severely ill COVID-19 patients. A total of 60 lawsuits involving demands for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 have been handled by one law firm alone. TrialSite has followed many of these lawsuits, including an interview with the partner of a leading law firm leading the legal charge—the Law Office of Ralph Lorigo. While federal regulators don’t recommend off-label use of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved antiparasitic drug, that doesn’t translate to a legal ban on physicians doing so. Traditionally, physicians had the discretion to take an off-label drug and, if in their best professional judgment and assuming appropriate disclosure and approval by the patient, prescribe off-label to address a particular problem. However, with a concerted effort to tarnish the name of this drug used by billions primarily in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) over the last four decades—with very few safety issues—a concerted peer pressure to stop doctors and pharmacies from prescribing also leads to hospitals refusing to use the drug even if patient families request so. 

Recently David Robinson, the state health reporter for Lohud, part of the USA TODAY Network in New York, showcased some of the lawsuits associated with this unfolding situation. Robinson reports that in most cases, desperate families seek to find anything that may save the life of their loved ones. 

In these cases, the hospitals’ protocols have failed, and the patients are left in isolation and “kept alive by breathing machines while in medically induced comas,” reports Robinson. The patients’ families seek action and are forced to hire law firms such as Lorigo’s to compel the use of ivermectin.TrialSite reported that earlier in the year, judges seemed to be more open to taking the patient/plaintiffs side, but over the past few months, a significant change, coinciding with a massive seemingly orchestrated anti-ivermectin media campaign, has led to judges ruling against the patients’ families in most situations.

While the families of patients fall into desperate straits seeking any remedy to save their loved ones, Robinson reports hospital administrations and their physician employees counter that by stating the lawsuits cross an unacceptable line raising “far-reaching ethical and medical ramifications of judges overruling health officials on the safety and efficacy of drugs.”

While the FDA issued repeated warnings about self-medication, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shared a report by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (APPCC) indicating urgent action involving a three-fold increase in calls to poison control centers. The takeaway: with mounting off-label ivermectin prescriptions, there were many calls associated with overdose or toxicity concerns. TrialSite investigations debunked that story involving mass levels of ivermectin-based calls to poison control centers. TrialSite obtained data from the AAPCC that while ivermectin prescriptions driven by off-label for COVID-19 skyrocketed over 2,000%, there was a three-fold increase in calls to AAPCC concerning the drug. However, after analyzing the data, it became apparent the vast majority of calls (99%) were not serious. One percent (or 11 calls) were deemed serious, but it wasn’t clear what the outcome of those actions were. There were no reported deaths in association with the AAPCC data. TrialSite did report claims from the health department of New Mexico that an overdose death was associated with ivermectin; however, the individuals were already severely ill with COVID-19. No conclusive proof was offered—only the statement that the drug was associated with the death.

The Lohud piece included an interview with Ralph Lorigo, the Buffalo-area attorney, who reports he has now represented 60 cases involving actions to compel hospitals to administer ivermectin across 25 states.

Lorigo shared, “Some of the 60 cases ended with judges ordering hospitals to administer the drug.” Apparently, in several of the cases, the ivermectin purportedly worked, and patients went home. TrialSite has reported more denials than victories of late, and apparently, Lorigo didn’t share with Lohud just how many denials were involved with the 60 or so cases. 

Call to Action: Follow the link to the Lohud article for a full read on one point of view on the growing numbers of ivermectin-based lawsuits.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SENSIBLE MEDICAL PRACTICE?

Let the madness stop! In the last year and a half, we have gone from ‘let’s flatten the curve’ to mandatory vaccination; and now vaccine passports are a reality. We all chipped in initially, by locking down, masking, and isolating as needed. Then we were all told to wait for the magic vaccine and herd immunity so that we could move out of the pandemic. Has it worked? I would have to say a resounding ‘NO’ to that question! Why? Let’s look at what has happened.  

1. The Numbers Game. We kept getting numbers every day from mainstream media and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), but what did they mean? Some people sounded the alarm early on about the PCR test saying that it overestimated the cases. That is correct, because depending on the cycle threshold (Ct) the test can be positive in people whose viral loads are minimal and who are asymptomatic. I don’t think that ever before in medicine have we relied on a test without so much as a mention of symptoms! Symptoms are the sine qua none of diagnosis. It’s symptoms -> health care practitioner -> examination/testing -> diagnosis. Not testing -> diagnosis! Public Health will probably tell you it was done that way because it was a pandemic; but frankly that’s no excuse to pervert course of medicine. So, we got inflated ‘cases’. What is a case? It’s just a positive PCR. Even the inventor of the PCR has stated his test was not to be used this way. These inflated case numbers began the fear cycle. Never mind the fact that SARS Cov2 has infected over 190 million people and killed 4 million! That’s a 98% survival rate with essentially no treatment. And that is using the ‘inflated’ numbers. It’s likely there were less cases due to over-‘diagnosis’ and less deaths due to Covid due to simple fudging of causes of death, many patients dying with Covid rather than of Covid. In the USA some hospitals paid a premium for citing SARS COV2 as a primary cause of death.

2. No Treatment. Probably the worst mistake of all that we made is that we didn’t treat the illness until people were in the ER headed to the ICU. There is no other illness where we tell people to go home, take Tylenol, and come back when they cannot breathe – it’s even worse than the old aphorism: “take two ASA and call me in the morning”. But that’s essentially what we did. We have failed miserably to objectively and scientifically look at the evidence for potential treatments in an apolitical fashion. We dismissed hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment because it was tied to a President we did not like–despite he was a President in another country. We dismissed Ivermectin as an early treatment because there was ”insufficient evidence”, despite over 60 RCTs showing huge prevention effects, decreased death rates, and virtually no side effects. This is an utter scientific disgrace. Instead, we embraced a mediocre drug Remdesivir, with much less evidence to back it than Ivermectin, and serious side effects. Of course Ivermectin is off patent and costs a few dollars whereas patented Remdesivir costs $3000 per treatment. Now Merck, the manufacturer of brand-name Ivermectin Stromectol, actively discouraged the use of ivermectin and overinflated its danger. Now it has the audacity to be “looking for an effective antiviral” to help with early treatment–on patent of course.

3. The Vaccine. So we put all our eggs in one basket. The mainstream narrative was ‘get vaccinated and you can stop wearing masks and go back to congregating as normal’. But no – that didn’t happen! There were and are ‘breakthrough infections’, and the delta variant reared its ugly head. The vaccine, whatever kind you get, doesn’t stop the delta variant which is much better at transmission but less deadly. There are some who have posited that vaccinating during a pandemic, something never done before, might actually place selective evolutionary pressure on the virus to allow any mutations that are occurring to manifest more quickly. This possibility makes sense – if you are a virus, mutating 1000s of times a day and suddenly your host produces a spike protein that prevents you from replicating what would you do? Pick up on a mutation of course and start spreading that.

So now we are in a worse mess! Even if the above hypothesis is invalid the spread of the delta variant is wreaking havoc with the most vaccinated countries like Israel.   As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older.  Now, in September infection rates are skyrocketing, even after a third booster shot.  And vaccine efficacy is now waning.  Is anyone questioning the validity of this approach?

What about vaccine side effects? This is another travesty. Not only is the vaccine experimental and was under emergency use authorization, but the side effects are simply not being reported.  I was on a Canadian professional physician Facebook page since the pandemic started until about 6 months ago when I was ‘removed’.  Physicians and Nurses on the site were reporting a significant number of adverse effects beyond the usual ‘sore arm and fever’ effects you might expect. There were reports of long lasting neurological adverse effects (paresis and paralysis), (and lately increased Guillain Barre); polyarthritic symptoms especially in those with auto-immune conditions, increases in Shingles and reactivation of other latent inflammatory conditions.  Now I know the argument for ignoring these are that they are ‘not above the baseline rate’. But the point is that we do not know that unless we count them.  I was shocked to hear that several physicians in Canada were ignored when they brought their concerns to Public Health authorities – yes ignored! They were told that these effects could not be due to the vaccine – even though it is new and experimental! The Facebook page I was on removed me partly because I kept bringing up these important facts and I was not being ‘kind to our Public Health colleagues’!  What’s going on here? Are we no longer interested in facts; curious about the potential negative nuances of our treatments? Well, clearly physicians on the ground in the often rural practices are very much interested; but not so the PHAC who are not even counting adverse effects properly. I do not wish to be ‘unkind’ but that is an egregious mishandling of important data.  The VAERS system in the USA has markedly increased AE’s and deaths way beyond baseline.  When the ‘scare’ about myocarditis in young kids came out there was barely a murmur of concern. In fact, in Canada, there was a push on to vaccinate more kids and give them ice cream for getting the shot.

Now the adverse effects may be rare – although we do not actually know that – for reasons I made clear above; but if you are kid or the parent of the kid who gets myocarditis then that’s something to take seriously.

1. Censorship. As if this was not bad enough, the suppression of alternate views has been worldwide. Calling everything that is beyond the narrative of the PHAC a “conspiracy theory” just does not cut it. The advancement of science has always relied on disparate views being discussed, argued about, published, replicated, and finally accepted, or not. Instead we have individual physicians being shut down, fired, and ridiculed when they present ideas that are contrary to public health. YouTube, Google, and Facebook have become the arbiters of what is “scientific fact”. Since when did social media platforms and journalistic fact-checkers become the judges of what is truth?

2. Immunity in population. There have been some significant studies showing that there are likely high rates of immunity to COVID-19 in the population. And of course there are those who have had Covid who undoubtedly have a natural immunity which is robust. However, the mantra is that “everyone must be vaccinated”. Instead of seriously considering who is immune in the population and vaccinating everybody else, we have unwisely followed the dictates of public health mass vaccination.

Conclusions

To say that this is a mess is a bit of an understatement.  At every turn it seems as though we have lost all scientific rationality.  Could this be a part of some underlying postmodernism creep?  Or is it just that we have been mass hypnotized into thinking that we could be saved by a vaccine?  I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know if we continue on the same path then we are headed into a disaster of extreme proportions.  We cannot keep doing the same thing–vaccinating everybody and hoping for herd immunity – and expecting a different result.  Our way out of this pandemic is to do what we should have done in the first place–emphasize early treatment protocols and prevention, vaccines should rightly have been secondary not mandatory. 

Edward Leyton MD FCFP MDPAC(C)

Proof that the CDC is lying to the world about COVID vaccine safety Steve Kirsch

The CDC and the FDA claim that we can safely ignore the huge spike in event rates reported to the VAERS system this year (this is the official adverse event reporting system relied on by the FDA and CDC to spot safety signals). In their view, there is “nothing to see” in the death chart below. They claim that the propensity to report (PTR) is much higher this year and that all the events (with the exception of a few) are all simply reporting background events that were not caused by the vaccines. 

There’s just one tiny little problem with that explanation: there is a CDC paper that proves that they are lying. Big time.

I will show below that even if we believed everything they said, it can’t explain all the deaths and severe adverse events. The data simply doesn’t fit their hypothesis. At all.

The reality is the vaccines are extremely dangerous, they kill more than they save for every age range (it’s worse the younger you are), and they should be halted immediately, not green lighted like the FDA committee just did. All vaccine mandates should be rescinded.

The CDC paper

In a nutshell, there is a paper written by five CDC authors, The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome, that was published a year ago in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The paper claims that serious adverse events in the past have been under-reported by at most a factor of 8.3 (known as the under-reporting factor (URF)).

This means that in the best possible scenario, where there is full reporting (i.e., where the URF=1 and the PTR, defined as the avg URF/current URF, is 8.3), a reporting rate of serious adverse events that is 8.3X higher than the previous reporting rate for that symptom could be safely ignored as simply due to a higher propensity to report the naturally occurring rate of background events.

While theoretically you could have a URF of <1, this is unlikely since the HHS verifies all records before they are put in the database and eliminates duplicates. There are mistakes that happen but they are minor, e..g, we know of 2 gamed records out of the 1.6M VAERS reports. So the minimum URF would be 1 and it would be nearly impossible to achieve from a practical standpoint.

Here’s the problem. This year, with the COVID vaccines, there are a huge number of serious adverse events that are reported at a rate that is more than 8.3X higher than previous years. In fact, nearly every serious event I investigated was elevated from previous years by significantly more than this. I documented this in an important video on VAERS serious adverse event reports that I hope everyone will watch. 

Unfortunately, none of the people at the FDA, CDC, or on their respective outside committees has ever watched that video. If they did, they would immediately realize the enormous mistakes that have been made and I’m sure take corrective action. 

But cognitive dissonance prevents them from watching the video. I think the only way to force them to watch the video would be to physically strap them in a chair and put clamps on their eyes as was done in the movie “A Clockwork Orange.”

How do you explain the rates of pulmonary embolism?

The most stunning serious adverse event I found was pulmonary embolism (PE). 

As I show in the video, the average annual number of reports of PE per year in VAERS for all vaccines was 1.4. So we’d expect to see at most 11.6 PE events this year according to the belief system of the FDA and CDC. Well, one tiny little problem: with the COVID vaccines, there were 1,131 reports, nearly a 100-fold increase over the “best case” scenario. Please watch the video on VAERS serious adverse event reports to see this for yourself. 

Also, for those suffering from “cognitive dissonance syndrome” (this is a common affliction of people who think the vaccines are safe), the increase in reports isn’t due to increased rates of vaccination either as we explain in this paper which shows historical vaccination rates among various age groups. 

In other words, even if you totally buy the bullshit argument of the FDA and CDC (which they never justified with analysis or data) that the URF=1 this year, it still means that 99% of the reports of pulmonary embolism (PE) are unexplainable. They must be caused by “something” and that something has to be very big and it has to be correlated with the administration of the vaccine because the PE reporting rate was correlated with the vaccine administration.

If these PE events weren’t caused by the vaccine, then what caused them? 

Nobody can explain that. Nobody even attempts to explain it. Nobody even wants to talk about it.

But since the mainstream media and fact checkers are completely tone deaf to safety reports, they never ask the question. They never will. It would explode the whole false narrative. 

We kill 15 people to maybe save 1. Are we nuts?

Furthermore, if we use the same methodology as used by the CDC in their paper to determine the actual underreporting factor for this year, but we use a much more accurate reference, we find that the best estimate for the minimum URF is 41. For less serious events you’d use a higher number since healthcare workers and consumers are far less likely to report less serious events. So using 41 is always “safe” in that it will not overestimate any event.

This means that we’ve killed well over 150,000 Americans so far, and all of those deaths had to be caused by the vaccine because there is simply no other explanation that fits all the facts. See this paper for the details. The paper also details 7 other ways that the number was validated and none of those methods used the VAERS data at all. This makes it impossible for anyone to credibly attack the analysis. Nobody wants to debate us on this.

And Pfizer’s own Phase 3 study showed that we save only 1 COVID death for every 22,000 people we vaccinate (you have to see Table S4 in the supplement to learn that 2 people died from COVID who were unvaccinated and 1 person died from COVID who got the vaccine, so a net savings of 1 life).

We have fully vaccinated almost 220M Americans which means we may save an estimated 10,000 lives from COVID per the Pfizer study which is the most definitive data we have (since “real scientists” ONLY trust the data in the double-blind randomized controlled trials). 

Yet the VAERS data shows we killed over 150,000 Americans from the vaccine to achieve that goal. 

In other words, we killed 15 people for every COVID life we might save.

But it’s worse than that because the Pfizer study was done pre-Delta. The Pfizer vaccine was developed for Alpha variant and is less effective against Delta. So our numbers are even more extreme.

This means of course that the FDA, CDC, and their outside committees are all incompetent in their ability to spot safety signals. They couldn’t even spot the death safety signal. It also means that the vaccine mandates are immoral and unethical.

Inconvenient truth: vaccine-induced myocarditis is neither rare or mild

When we apply the proper URF to the myocarditis data, we find that myocarditis goes from a “rare” event to a common event.

Using data from the CDC and applying the correct URF, for 16 year-old boys, the rate of myocarditis is 1 in 317 as we can see from this slide from our All you need to know deck. That’s not rare. That’s a train wreck.

Also, as far as the myocarditis being “mild” that’s bullshit too. According to the cardiologists I talked to such as Peter McCullough, there is no such thing as mild myocarditis. Anytime you have an event that puts a teenager in the hospital, that’s problematic. In fact, as we show in All you need to know, troponin levels can rise to extreme levels and stay elevated for months. Troponin is a marker of heart damage. Unlike a heart attack, the levels are much higher and they stay elevated for much longer. The damage that is done is usually permanent and it may lead to loss of life within 5 years. Of course nobody knows the death rate in 5 years. We’ll find out in 5 years. Our kids are enrolled in the clinical trial of this by getting vaccinated, but we don’t notify the parents of this. And the kids are clueless because the doctors tell them it is safe. They believe the doctors. The doctors believe the CDC. And the CDC was lying. And now the CDC simply doesn’t want to talk to us about it. I get that.

There are thousands of elevated events

It’s not just a few symptoms that are elevated. There are thousands of them. If they don’t kill you, you can be disabled for life, even after you use the right drugs to rid yourself of the damaging effects of the vaccines. 

Here are the pills taken daily by a friend of mine (a former top nurse at one of the top medical schools in the US) who has been injured for life from the vaccine and cannot work (she’s a single mom).

Medication and supplements taken before vaccine injury: 0

Compensation received from the US government for her injuries: 0

Censorship has replaced scientific debate

This is embarrassing for everyone: the CDC, FDA, Congress, mainstream media, and the medical community. This is why nobody will debate me and my team of experts in an open debate. Because nobody wants to face the fact that they were wrong.

The public wants a debate. It’s overwhelming. I’ve never seen such a lopsided survey result in my life:

But nobody supporting the false narrative will debate us. These people are not accountable to public opinion. They are all driven by what Biden wants. And Biden wants to inject us. All of us.

TrialSiteNews made this public call for a debate; nobody responded. They even reached out to Pfizer and they refused to debate. We weren’t surprised.

Of course they won’t debate. They never will. Here’s why:

So censorship and ad hominem attacks are the preferred method for disputing what I wrote in this article and my other articles because nobody is able to attack the data or our methodology in a live debate with a neutral moderator.

It’s not just me of course. There are dozens of respected scientists, doctors, and statisticians who agree with me (see slide 82 TFNT #1: COVID vaccines have killed over 200,000 Americans for a partial list). 

Summary

The FDA and CDC are caught between a rock and a hard place as I explain in my video on the VAERS statistics. They cannot reveal the true URF and PTR because that would put them in hot water; it would be an admission that they got it totally wrong on the myocarditis data and everything else. 

So they have to lie and claim the current URF=1 so that the PTR is maximized at 8.3. But then they have a huge problem because adverse events like death and pulmonary embolism are impossible to explain. 

So they are in a no win situation. To play out the game, they avoid being questioned and simply refuse to answer. They are like a magician using misdirection. We are told to focus on all the lives being saved and to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (i.e., all the deaths and disabilities).

For more information on vaccine safety, please check out my comprehensive vaccine safety slide deck, All you need to know. I am pleased to report that it has been used successfully to reverse vaccine mandates. At least some people are listening.

The good news is far more people are speaking out and moving to the anti-vaccine camp. The numbers keep growing every day.

It will be interesting to see how long the medical community can keep up the charade. The longer they resist, the worse it will be when this house of cards comes tumbling down.