FDA endorses murderous vaccine ATROCITIES against children ... Emergency Rooms across America being filled with post-vaccine patients suffering serious illness

In a 17-0 decision, an FDA committee has codified medical atrocities against innocent children across America by voting to approve "emergency use" of covid vaccines in children aged 5 - 11. Importantly, there is no medical need for children aged 5 - 11 to take covid vaccines at all, given that their mortality rate from covid infections is nearly zero. Because of the near-zero mortality rate, there is no "benefit" that can be offered by the vaccines. Only risks. And these vaccines are incredibly risky, having already killed an estimated 250,000 Americans so far (and counting). Source: Dr. Zev Zelenko. This means the FDA panel members, by approving this deadly vaccines for children, are carrying out medical genocide against innocent children on a scale never even imagined by Third Reich medical experiments doctor Josef Mengele. The White House now plans to assault 28 million children with vaccine violence, and the mass slaughter of innocents is being carried out like clockwork. The only question remains: Will the slaughter of innocent children finally be enough to awaken America to the genocidal evil of Big Pharma and its captured regulators like the FDA? Find more answers in today's Situation Update podcast below...

NPR admits emergency rooms across America are "swamped" with organ failures and serious illness... it looks like a wave of vaccine injuries

As we've documented numerous times, covid vaccines destroy the innate immune system. This is part of their functional design, for if they didn't suppress immunity, the vaccine's mRNA strands would be attacked and destroyed by the immune system before they could infect human cells and take over the protein synthesis of ribosomes. Current estimates show that people who have taken mRNA-based covid vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) lose about 5% of their innate immune function each week. After about 20 weeks, they are characterized as "AIDS patients" who have little to no functioning immunity against in-the-wild pathogens such as common colds and flu viruses. Beyond merely theoretical, this phenomenon is now being confirmed by the swamping of US hospital emergency rooms with post-vaccine patients who are exhibiting extreme levels of sickness against common health insults. "ERs are now swamped with seriously ill patients — but many don't even have COVID," reported NPR.org yesterday. Running out of ER rooms, patients are being treated in reclining chairs placed in hallways. From the NPR story: (emphasis added) Months of treatment delays have exacerbated chronic conditions and worsened symptoms. Doctors and nurses say the severity of illness ranges widely and includes abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, heart conditions and suicide attempts, among others. A separate section of the hospital was turned into an overflow unit. Stretchers stack up in halls. The hospital has even brought in a row of brown reclining chairs, lined up against a wall, for patients who aren't sick enough for a stretcher but are too sick to stay in the main waiting room. There is no privacy, as Alejoz Perrientoz just learned. He came to the ER this particular morning because his arm has been tingling and painful for over a week now. He can no longer hold a cup of coffee. A nurse gave him a full physical exam in the brown recliner, which made him self-conscious about having his shirt lifted up in front of strangers. "I felt a little uncomfortable," he whispers. "But I have no choice, you know? I'm in the hallway. There's no rooms." [Notice that the tingling arm is a typical consequence stemming from vaccine injury and blood clots...] "We are hearing from members in every part of the country," says Dr. Lisa Moreno, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM). "The Midwest, the South, the Northeast, the West ... they are seeing this exact same phenomenon." NPR, of course, utterly fails to link any of this with vaccines, even when patients are being diagnosed with blood clots, heart conditions, breathing difficulty and the tingling of extremities. These are all vaccine side effects, yet no one in the media will dare report that truth. The upshot is that emergency rooms are being overrun with vaccine injured patients... and it's not even November yet. Imagine what the scene looks like in mid-January. This is one of those "we told ya so" moments, it seems, when the vaccine zealots realize they're already dead because they foolishly believed a depopulation weapon system was a beneficial vaccine. Without question, millions of vaccinated Americans will be dead or health compromised before Spring. What we're seeing now is just the leading edge of the health care catastrophe yet to be fully realized. Find more details in today's Situation Update podcast here: Brighteon.com/0b12e476-5181-40f9-b43d-47b92e766296Find news interviews and podcasts each day at: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport

Big Tech vs Medicine Leo G October 27, 2021

The root cause of many of the disastrous responses to this pandemic is the global echo chamber created and sustained by Big Tech. Big Tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple – in that order) systematically endorse false information and harmful governmental decisions, reject effective treatments, and collude among themselves to eliminate any dissenting views.

For example, no matter how many doctors and even politicians become convinced that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, Big Tech maintains its anti-ivermectin position. The narrative that “Ivermectin as a treatment against COVID-19 is disinformation” is ingrained in the brains of Big Tech’s low- and middle-rank censors, encoded in its databases and AI, and even in its business relationships. It is highly unlikely that any of Big Tech’s high-level executives would step in to change this narrative. Initiating such a change would almost be an admission of guilt, acknowledging that their company imperiled millions of people who would have greatly benefited from the treatment.

Big Tech is much more powerful than Big Pharma. Big Tech is also accustomed to impunity, unlike Big Pharma. During this pandemic, Big Tech has added to its valuation >$3 Trillion (yes, with T), much more than Big Pharma can dream of.

Let’s take Google, for example. Regardless of what happens in the real world, Google always finds anti-ivermectin stories to display at the top of its search results. This is a screenshot from Google search for ivermectin (clean browser, Tyler TX, Oct 24, 2021; your results will differ):

As usual, the FDA’s horse hoax “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent …”) is at the top. It is followed by Google-selected news. The first piece is from the Atlantic, rejecting ivermectin because “Not All Science is Worth Following”. It is signed by a co-author of an anti-ivermectin letter published in Nature. Next comes a piece from the Hill, insinuating that the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 is in a trial phase. This top placement of anti-ivermectin articles naturally creates artificial demand for them, ensuring that Google never runs out of them.

In addition to disseminating false information, Big Tech companies threaten articles and publishers that support ivermectin (or other effective treatments like Hydroxychloroquine). These threats include removal from the Facebook News section, de-platforming, demonetizing, de-ranking, and every other sort of abuse. Conducted collusively, these actions become a kiss of death for almost every large publication. This type of chilling effect, accomplished by threats, usually flies under the radar, as opposed to outright public de-platforming, which often garners criticism. 

Banning content with any positive information on ivermectin and penalizing its publishers creates a vicious spiral. Even without any additional human interference, Google’s AI concludes that treating COVID-19 with ivermectin is a fringe conspiracy theory and further downranks or penalizes such content and its publishers. And so, it continues. 

YouTube suspended Australian Sky News for lukewarm clips about IVM and HCQ, stating that: “The clips didn’t provide ‘sufficient countervailing context’ to indicate the claims were false”. Sky News, a large TV network, was forced to bow to Google and feature no more ivermectin clips. Such successes embolden Big Tech and intimidate publishers.

Frequently, what passes for support for ivermectin is weak and ineffective. For example, Breitbart’s ivermectin articles usually point out the media’s lies about ivermectin, rather than presenting the surmounting evidence of ivermectin’s safety and effectiveness as a COVID-19 treatment. Breitbart is still accepted in Facebook’s News Section, and apparently, it does not want to jeopardize this concession by going against the dominant narrative.

Most mainstream media companies depend on Big Tech both financially and for information, so they do not deserve a separate discussion here.

Such blatant controlling actions by Big Tech would be outrageous and likely illegal even if they were 100% correct on the subject matter. But considering how wrong they have been on so many pandemic responses, it’s staggering. Any other business would have been sued into oblivion by surviving COVID-19 patients and the relatives of deceased victims. 

Big Tech’s systematic elimination of all positive information about IVM, combined with a constant barrage of negative stories, undermines the faith and will of doctors and impacts decision makers, from politicians to insurance companies to the DC health care bureaucracy (CDC, FDA, & NIH/NIAID). Big Tech, in turn, justifies its attitude toward ivermectin by the stance taken by the federal health bureaucracy. This creates a deadlock because the federal bureaucracy cannot change its mind in the atmosphere that muffles criticism and encourages it to harden its wrong stances. 

All organizations, but especially federal agencies, are handicapped by forced telecommuting during the pandemic. It sharply decreases the amount of in-person communication and the quality of any communication. It also effectively puts everything on record, chilling both dissenting opinions and consideration of dissenting views. It also makes everyone more dependent on Big Tech.

Legal Action

For these reasons, I think that legal actions should target Big Tech first. Their immunity under Section 230 is a myth, propagated by themselves. Neither are they speakers, nor publishers protected by the First Amendment. Their impunity is more political than legal. 

I think that a good lawyer, with knowledge of the medical facts and Big Tech operations, can obtain a temporary injunction against Google/Facebook/Twitter as state actors under the First Amendment. Such an injunction would stop them from suppressing information and debate about ivermectin, other COVID-19 drugs, and public health actions. Thousands of lives lost daily justify an immediate injunction.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are state actors, which requires them to respect the rights of all citizens, including free speech. Many federal government agencies (including the FDA), state and local governments publish some essential information exclusively on Google YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter. To merely view this information on the Big Tech platforms, citizens must accept their unhinged Terms of Service (or so they think). The government has also created multiple accounts on these platforms and made them public forums for communication with citizens and for the public discussion of political matters. There are more factors making Big Tech companies state actors.

Other causes for actions against Big Tech include:

  • Big Tech has a duty to their consumers to deliver services as promised and fails to do so.

  • Fraud is illegal in the US. Interfering with witnesses or evidence in government proceedings is illegal, too. When committed at least twice in the conduct of a criminal enterprise, they become subject of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), allowing private action and triple damages.

  • Big Tech’s joint decisions to hide information from their consumers is an illegal collusive monopoly

  • Big Tech is not licensed to practice medicine (or whatever they practice instead of medicine)

After the first success, the road will be easy. But somebody must act.

CDC Slips in Guideline that Immunocompromised Can Get Fourth Dose

Apparently, the shots may keep coming—especially for the immunocompromised—as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated their guidelines. The CDC considers this fourth shot an actual “booster.” As it turns out, the CDC suggests that those with immunocompromised scenarios are essentially considered a different cohort than all else. Their third vaccine dose isn’t a booster but rather an “additional dose” with the same amount of dosage as the previous jabs.

While it’s not apparent what clinical trials have led to this decision, the immunocompromised fourth dose is now classified as a booster. This seems to be a lot of shots in a particular inoculation period. The recommendation of the fourth booster at greater than six months post the third jab applies to those individuals 18 and up that are “moderately to severely immunocompromised” who have completed the vaccine series from Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson and Johnson.

Was the Biden Administration’s Decision to Take Over Monoclonal Antibody Distribution for Equity or Red-state retaliation?

Clinical trials have demonstrated that monoclonal antibody treatments result in a 70% reduction in risk for hospitalization and death. In addition, these lifesaving but still investigational therapeutic treatments also proved to be 82% effective in reducing risk of contracting the virus for people who may have been exposed by other household members. (Florida Department of Health)

Since the beginning of August, President Joe Biden (POTUS) and Florida state Governor, Ron DeSantis, have been caught in a series of increasingly tense, very public, back-and-forth statements criticizing each other’s stance on alleviating COVID-19’s toll on America. 

In September, the Biden administration announced it would take over the control of monoclonal antibody distribution, which were previously ordered directly from healthcare providers and fulfilled by AmerisourceBergen, arguably without any federal red tape.

Now, weekly distribution to states is determined by a formula maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The White House made this decision based on the claim that just a handful of states were ordering most of the monoclonal antibody products. They contended that it wasn’t fair to many other states that may be in need.

At the time Florida and a handful of other Southern states happened to be experiencing a bad Delta-variant-driven surge. The federal government was critical of this fact, declaring that the lower vaccination rates were the primary cause. DeSantis introduced a statewide program that essentially democratized monoclonal antibody treatment in a market-based model. Florida and a few other states ordered about 70% of the entire supply. 

DeSantis accused Biden of seizing control of the supply calling it a “cruel” retaliation for DeSantis’ public opposition to and criticism of White House policies. While it is true that Southern states were using most of the therapies, Biden, on the other hand, pointed out that it was his responsibility to ensure an equitable distribution of these important investigational therapies authorized under emergency use. 


Was this a case of pure good faith intentions concerned with equity, or conversely, was this further politicalizing of the COVID-19 pandemic? TrialSite internally has some insight and speculation, but no smoking gun evidence indicating one truth versus another has been obtained. What follows is a timeline breakdown of events.

DeSantis prohibits vaccine passports and calls for parent-directed freedom as paramount

At issue here are fundamental differences in points of view and perhaps even values. On the one hand is a centralized, federal mandate, and the other a decentralized state-based authority. With growing talk of vaccine passports and potential mandates as early as the start of the year, by March 2021, DeSantis was already drawing a line in the sand.

On March 9, 2021, the Florida governor’s office issued an executive order, “Prohibiting Vaccine Passports.” The order was issued, in part, to “protect the fundamental rights and privacies of Floridians” because vaccine passports “would create two classes of citizens based on vaccination status.”

The tension mounted as fundamental questions about the science behind the project afforded by masks became center stage. While there were few to any studies demonstrating that masks specifically prevented COVID-19 spread, some studies indicated possible benefits. Regardless of this lack, federal health authorities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) embrace masks to stop transmission.

DeSantis was opposed to any federal mandates. In a bid to reject any forced federal edicts, by July 29, 2021, the Florida governor issued another executive order, “Ensuring Parent’s Freedom to Choose – Mask Mandates.”

This order cites various reasons including, a lack of “well-grounded evidence” that mask-wearing in school settings drives community transmission. Mask-wearing can “inhibit breathing,” collect bacteria, and “adversely affect communications in the classroom and student performance…”

Another major opponent of the governor is Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Nicole “Nikki” Fried.  Fried announced in 2021 that she will run against the incumbent for the 2022 election. She often calls DeSantis out on social media, asking him to “please follow the data and facts.” On her department’s official site, she provides information to assert the effectiveness of masking school students in Florida, claiming DeSantis “blocked” the data from the public. Despite this claim from Fried, all data used by the Governor, and the Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo is publicly available on the FDOH website.

“Every way you look at the data, kids were better off in schools requiring masks than those that did not. School districts that did nothing suffered four times higher COVID-19 cases than school districts that required masks, in direct contradiction to the governor’s disinformation,” says Fried.

The FDOH refuted the data from each claim made by Fried in a press release on October 7, 2021. DeSantis’ Press Secretary Christina Pushaw, in an email interview with TrialSite News, states that Fried’s data was “cherry-picked” to paint an inaccurate picture of the mask-wearing in schools.

Fried’s department didn’t utilize the eight required steps of the epidemiological methodology. Some of the main issues with Fried’s conclusions were failure to adjust for county vaccination rates, previous infection rates, community infection rates, failure to determine if infection was acquired in school or out of school, and other miscalculations. Fried’s claims were not removed from her page and her social followers (232.6K) were enraged by her misinformation.

The mask debates

The Delta variant surged causing many new infections during the summer of 2021. By August 2 during a  White House Press Briefing, Jen Psaki used mask mandates and mask encouragement synonymously.

For example, she declared “… There are steps and precautions that can be taken, including encouraging people to get vaccinated, encouraging people to wear masks, including allowing schools to mandate masks, and allowing kids to wear masks, which is not the current state of play in Florida.”

Interpreted one way, Psaki seemed to imply that Florida’s governor was not allowing kids to wear masks. However, based on an objective review, he was more accurately against mandates.

Pushaw addressed the distinction between the two terms, stating the governor “does not oppose masks, he opposes mask mandates.” Masking is not a “clinically proven” intervention, but rather a preference that no one has the right to impose on others. 

Striking a Balance

A conflict between fundamental values and associated points of view mounted during the summer. On the one hand, the White House sought out a way to accelerate the demise of COVID-19 in uniform actions purportedly backed by science.

Several governors in conservative-leaning states sought out to ensure that any rules or policies originating from the White House didn’t impede the economy nor trounce on the rights of residents.

However, during a pandemic, this resistance caused serious tension. By August 3, 2021, during a  White House Press Briefing, both Jen Psaki and POTUS emphasized that any state leadership resisting the CDC guidance should simply  “get out of the way.” For example, the press secretary went on to declare “…most Republican governors are doing exactly the right thing…advocating for — and taking steps to advocate for more people to get vaccinated.” However, in communicating in this way, many considered this an attack on DeSantis—that the governor wasn’t encouraging preventive measures as were other Republican governors.

Yet the Florida governor is certainly not an “Antivaxxer:”  TrialSite reviewed some of the steps that DeSantis took towards vaccination:

  • In January, with the beginning of the vaccine rollout, FDOH prioritized the first offerings of the vaccine to the 65+ population and led the nation in vaccination rates.

  • There are now hundreds of locations across 52 counties, including virtually every major retail pharmacy, (Publix alone has 500+) malls, parks, schools, clinics, mobile sites, and even the Hard Rock Stadium. Additionally, there is an abundance of testing locations as well.

  • DeSantis had over 50 events, in 27 counties, to promote vaccination and increase accessibility. Pushaw notes that he “devoted more time to COVID-19 vaccination than any other policy issues this year.”

  • DeSantis has repeatedly stated vaccination saves lives, and voluntarily disclosed his vaccination status. “I took it, I think it’s effective.”

Biden comes out swinging

By early August, POTUS became more concerned about any impediments to COVID directives at the state leadership level. So, by August 3, 2021, the President vowed to “take on” his opponents declaring “My plan also takes on elected officials in states that are undermining you in these life-saving actions. Right now, local school officials are trying to keep children safe in a pandemic while their governor picks a fight with them, and even threatens their salaries or their jobs. Talk about bullying in schools.” 

Biden suggested that DeSantis was “a bully” for taking corrective measures against school boards who violated his executive order. After all, one could argue that local school boards should be able to take preventive actions at the local level.

Even though Biden was on the subject of bullying, he did not address abusive acts of violence to students exacerbated by the insistence of CDC guidelines. Innocent children were berated, sprayed with disinfectantslapped, and even had masks taped to their faces, by teachers and other adults. While these incidents were most likely outliers, they were no less disturbing.

Another important point that Biden failed to address was the legitimate concerns that the vaccine-hesitant have about the possibility of adverse events. In his speech, the president singled out the unvaccinated, rhetorically asking “what more do you need to see? We’ve made vaccination free, safe, and convenient. The vaccine is FDA approved. Over 200 million have gotten at least one shot.”

The president then condemned the unvaccinated. “You have cost all of us.” He also stoked the flames of frustration among the vaccinated viewers and their complaints against those who remain unsure of the vaccine’s unknown long-term effects. “I understand your anger at those who haven’t gotten vaccinated,” POTUS stated.

The president continued speaking exclusively to the vaccinated, stating he also understood their worries about unvaccinated children. “For any parent, it doesn’t matter how low the risk of any illness or accident is when it comes to the safety of your child or grandchild, trust me, I know.”

Assuming this statement is sincere, it’s worth considering why President Biden does not also empathize with parents who are reluctant to vaccinate themselves or their children based on obscured adverse event data. To them he only states, “we’ve been patient, but our patience is running thin.”

DeSantis’s Responds “I am standing in your way.”

The nasty political conflict turned to allegations that questionable immigration trends were leading to even more risk during this pandemic. By the summer, news reports of significant increases in illegal immigration put more conservative-minded Americans on edge. Was it a factor that increasing numbers of illegal border crossings were threatening to worsen the pandemic? (Later in September, Psaki did admit that immigrants were not required to be vaccinated upon entry, even as American businesses with more than 100 employees were mandated.)

The former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott made claims that so far in 2021, under the Biden administration, there have been, at minimum, 400,000 border crossings sited in which the individuals were not caught or documented.

By August 4, 2021 DeSantis criticized Biden for possibly influencing the spread of COVID-19 and its vicious variants declaring “You have over one-hundred different countries where people are pouring through,…they’re then farming them out all…across this country. Putting them on planes, putting them on busses. Do you think they’re being worried about COVID for that? Of course not.” The governor’s proposed point concerning the border could be also considered more politicization of the pandemic, now including immigration as yet another topic contributing to the spike in cases. There was no proof that such is the case.

However, one trend was clear. Mounting pressure for a vaccination mandate over U.S. residents and citizens felt imminent. DeSantis shared that Biden wanted to enforce a stricter vaccination regimen over citizens and legal residents while there were seemingly few controls at the rapidly crowded border points.

Moreover, DeSantis continued to criticize POTUS’ COVID solution to “mask kindergarteners” and force the American people to prove vaccination to participate in society.  By September that mandate became a reality.  Yet DeSantis reminded all “But yet, if you want to vote, he thinks it’s too much of a burden to show a picture ID…”

The governor continued that in Florida, “People are going to be free to choose, to make their own decisions about themselves, about their families, about their kids’ educations, and about putting food on the table.” 

While the state went through a terrible spike, the economy continued to move.  After ending the Federal Unemployment Bonus, Florida employers hired 1.3 million new workers, and Florida’s economy has grown by more than 60 billion from pre-pandemic levels.

Biden on DeSantis: ‘Governor Who?’

When a journalist asked Biden to comment on DeSantis’ remarks on August 5, 2021, Biden replied, “governor who? That’s my response.”

DeSantis replied in another press conference the following day. “I guess I’m not surprised that Biden doesn’t remember me. I guess the question is what else has he forgotten?” Here’s his reminder. I’m the governor who answers to the people of Florida, not to bureaucrats in Washington.”

Florida sees a decline in cases

In less than two weeks, Florida’s average cases began trending down. Pushaw explained that Florida’s cases declined with the governor’s tireless efforts to promote monoclonal antibody treatments. “More than 135,000 Floridians have received this lifesaving treatment at our state-run sites alone; this does not count the thousands who have received the treatment from other healthcare providers.”

This is roughly the same time that utilization of monoclonal antibodies by Florida and other red states in the southern region gained the attention of HHS and the Biden Administration. When the White House announced its intention to take over, the press had questions about what would happen next.

Psaki explains the mAb takeover

In a White House Press Briefing, on September 16, 2021, the Press Secretary explained the administration’s stance on regulating the ordering of mAbs per state.

Psaki was questioned about why Biden was cutting 50% of mAb supplies in the 7 ‘red’ states even though he said he was purchasing 50% more for the US.

Psaki clarifies that the Biden administration would be purchasing an extra 50,000 doses for the country, on top of the weekly average of 100,000. But the reduction from the 7 red states was a different story. “I think people need to understand for clarity…those monoclonal antibodies are lifesaving therapies that are used after infection to prevent more severe outcomes,” Psaki explains. “So, clearly, the way to protect people and save more lives is to get them vaccinated so that they don’t get COVID to begin with.”

This last statement is saturated with inaccuracy.

  1. It is unclear why Psaki described the treatment as a measure of care only used after a COVID-19 infection, when the FDOH states eligibility for the treatment includes preventative care as well. “Individuals 12 years and older who are high-risk, that…have been exposed to COVID-19,” and that they have proven to be 82% effective in reducing risk of contracting the virus for those at-risk individuals.

  2. Psaki seems to suggest that more vaccination in Florida would solve the issue of reduced mAb supply. However, those who are already vaccinated comprise 40-45% of the patients benefiting from the treatment.

  3. Countless studies now from around the world that vaccines are not preventing infection or transmission, which contradicts her claim that Florida’s efforts should be redirected back to vaccines “so that they don’t get COVID to begin with.”

POTUS and team essentially believed DeSantis was using mAbs to detract from vaccination which of course isn’t the truth. But did POTUS and the team seek to punish the Governor?  Their actions seem to indicate that Florida shouldn’t be able to order mAbs as a backup for a less vaccinated population.  

Why does the introduction of another life-saving treatment mean that the Florida governor is not “doing his part,” as Biden and Psaki seem to suggest? In all fairness to DeSantis, what more can the governor do to increase vaccination rates aside from forceful coercion in the form of state-enforced mandates?

COVID-19 Treatment Just as Important

Pushaw refutes the suggestion that efforts in promoting vaccination and mAb treatments must be “mutually exclusive.” Arguably, it would behoove the medical community to have more awareness about mAbs positive outcomes.

In fact, on August 24th, even Dr. Anthony Fauci, Senior Medical Advisor to the Biden Administration, said in a White House Press Briefing, that there needs to be more focus on the effectiveness of monoclonal antibody treatments. When asked why more doctors around the country aren’t utilizing them, Fauci replied, “I can’t explain that.”

As one of the few FDA emergency-use-authorized treatments for COVID-19, popularity was bound to increase, and unsurprisingly, red states, with leaders who gave extra effort in raising awareness, embraced them for constituents. Their increased orders, (which HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra explained were 20 times higher in August than in July,) gave the Biden Administration a reason to pull back the reins in those states and reassess distribution for equity purposes.

Psaki continued to explain the administration’s decision was because “our supply is not unlimited, and we believe it should be equitable across states, across the country.”  

Psaki’s phrasing is somewhat ambiguous, “our supply is not unlimited.” The fact that a supply of anything is “not unlimited,” does not confirm that there was an actual shortage. Confirmation of an actual shortage would help in clearing the White House of the red states retaliation allegations.

When asked outright why the administration made this decision without any reports of supply shortage, Psaki ignored the question. 

In reviewing the timeline, there seems to be a pattern emerging here. Psaki is inexplicably unable to answer pivotal questions, and Biden won’t address core issues. What can we glean from an arguable lack of transparency?

Instead, Psaki reiterates equity.  “We’re not going to give a greater percentage to Florida over Oklahoma…”

Fair enough, but was Oklahoma in jeopardy of not getting orders filled? Were any states in jeopardy of not getting orders filled? Just because ordering increased doesn’t necessarily mean the three mAb manufacturers, (Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eli Lilly) are not equipped to provide. 

We asked HHS specifically for an answer. They did not confirm.

The Oklahoma State Department of Health, OSDH, has not responded to confirm supply issues either. However, a “Nursing LTC Provider Call,” summary on the OSDH site from September 9th, explained anticipated issues with the HHS takeover. Elyce Holloway, state hospital preparedness program (HPP) coordinator, wrote “there is not necessarily a shortage” but warned that after HHS takeover “you may have difficulty acquiring mAbs if you need them.” Unfortunately for Oklahoma, this came true.

On September 15th, Holloway issued another briefing on the status of mAbs for Oklahoma.

“OSDH will likely be unable to fill full requests for the next few weeks. We had roughly 11 days of most orders being denied, and the approved orders were not fully met. This has resulted in a statewide deficit for mAbs. As I stated in an earlier email, OK was allocated roughly a fifth of what had been ordered in those 11 days.”

Unfortunately, the White House’s intention to protect Oklahoma resulted in the opposite.

Still, in pursuit of an answer, we asked the three mAb manufacturers if they could confirm an issue. Eli Lilly didn’t respond, and GSK didn’t give an appropriate answer.

Associate Director, Product & Pipeline Communications, Tammy Allen, from Regeneron, said the manufacturer fulfills orders, but has no info on federal supply issues.

The good news. “We remain confident that we can fulfill this agreement and are actively making a new product to meet anticipated demands.” With the help of the world’s largest biotech company, Roche, Regeneron intends to increase global supply by 3.5 times.

Is there a verdict?

Ultimately, the case for equity turns up zero evidence other than the fact that most of the orders for monoclonal antibodies were from just a handful of southern states at the time. On the other hand, these states also faced significant spikes—higher than any of the other states. Now that Florida’s cases have plummeted, it is fair to assume that other parts of the nation experiencing increased infection rates, can utilize the nations’ supply as needed.

Concerning the case for retaliation, remember Biden’s “plan” to take on “elected officials in states that were undermining” those who comply with Biden’s mandates?  That public announcement could be argued as an indicator of motive, coupled along with the means, and the opportunity to carry out his promise to the American people. “I’ll use my powers as president to get them out of the way.” This statement, made just over a month before the takeover certainly would give a detective a compelling reason to investigate, but without the smoking gun, it remains inconclusive.

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel

No spam - we promise

The Puzzling Pandemic: A Possible Big Picture, An Interview With Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche by SoniaElijah October 27, 2021

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, a leading virologist and international vaccine expert. Before taking an R&D role for several well-known vaccine companies, he worked for fifteen years in academia. Dr Geert was also the former senior program officer in vaccine discovery for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the former senior Ebola Program manager for GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.

Dr Geert masterfully explained his concerns over the dangers of a global mass vaccination program; the threat of viral immune escape and the propagation of more infectious viral strains, which he had warned about as early as March 2021, when he penned an open letter to all authorities and scientists calling for its immediate halt. The response he received from sticking his head above the parapet, ranged from stark silence to utter vilification- the same fate shared by other scientists and eminent medical experts, who have warned about the dangers of mass vaccination during a pandemic.

“My problem with mass vaccination is that you can do a lot of harm, if you don’t use the vaccine in the right way.”

The right way, he explained, was the prophylactic (preventative) vaccination approach, which he described as “loading your gun before you’re on the battlefield.” This is where an individual’s immunity is activated, creating full-fledged immunity, before they encounter the pathogen.

The wrong way, which has been the pattern followed by almost every country, is “loading your gun, whilst already on the battlefield,” which he warned “is very, very dangerous.”

Since the mass vaccine rollout, Dr Geert explained there are two reasons why we have sub-optimal immunity- “which leaves the door open for the virus to escape,” leading to more virulent strains of the virus.

  1. We have a vaccine with a spike protein that no longer matches the spike protein of the circulating variants.

  • Immunizing massive percentages of the population who are already exposed to the circulating virus (while they’re already on the battlefield), gives an opportunity for the virus to escape.

“And why do we have these highly infectious strains, propagating so aggressively? It’s due to mass vaccination.”

He went on to explain that we’re no longer in a constant environment where parameters are standardized, like in clinical trials, with only small, selected groups vaccinated, which does not exert immune pressure on the virus. In contrast, now in the background, you have a pandemic with an evolutionary dynamic. You have the mass vaccination of the global population which exerts pressure on the virus, which will select more infectious variants that have a competitive advantage to overcome this immune pressure, leading to vaccine resistant strains. He went on to say, “highly infectious strains, like the Delta variant, means that the likelihood for somebody being infected is substantially higher than it was 18 months ago.”

Dr Geert made an alarming statement stating, “the virus is finding a favorable breeding ground in people who are vaccinated and that’s how we explain, not the emergence of these more infectious strains, but the propagation of these strains, since the mass vaccination.”

The waning of vaccine efficacy

Dr Geert made an important point that the goal of the vaccine studies was to protect against disease, not infection. It’s a well-known fact that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection. He explained that vaccine efficacy was waning because the more infectious variants are much more difficult for the current vaccines to overcome- particularly when they were produced when only the spike protein from the original wild strain was isolated and before the population was exerting immune pressure on the virus. The vaccine’s diminishing efficacy can help explain why we’re seeing an uptick of Covid cases in heavily vaccinated countries.

The suppression of innate antibodies

Another factor that comes into play with a mass vaccination program, is the suppression of innate antibodies (your body’s own evolutionary defence system) by the vaccinal antibodies. Dr Geert explained, “this is not a problem, provided the vaccinal antibodies work very well, however when the circulating virus becomes resistant to these antibodies, then you have a huge problem- because the vaccinated are having their own innate antibodies suppressed whilst their vaccinal antibodies will no longer neutralise the virus- this is the definition of resistance.”

This could explain why the vaccinated are being infected at an alarming rate around the world.

Looking at the recent data coming from Public Health England, it reveals that in the 40-49 age group, the Covid infection rate is 100% higher in the fully vaccinated (at least 2 doses) than in the unvaccinated.

When I asked Dr Geert to comment on the recent UK data, he explained:

“This is what I always predicted, the ratio of people who get the disease..and get severe disease in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated group, that this would progressively shift at the disadvantage of the vaccinees, due to the fact that vaccine efficacy is waning.”

The booster program

When it comes to the booster program, Dr Geert explained, additional doses of the vaccine will lead to elevated levels of vaccinal antibodies that will further suppress your innate antibodies that protect the individual against all variants. This is because naturally acquired antibodies recognise a more diversified spectrum of the variants. In addition, the booster program will put further immune pressure on the virus causing it to become more resistant. Dr Geert has been very concerned with what’s going on in Israel with third doses being administered. “I cannot imagine that what they’re doing in Israel will have a happy ending- or else we’ll have to rewrite immunology.”

Dr Geert raised the point how children who were primarily protected from the virus by their innate immunity or from their acquired immunity (based on prior exposure) are now getting sick because of the more infectious strains and because the vaccines would suppress their own innate immunity. He was adamantly against children being vaccinated as the risks outweigh any benefit they would receive.

With the many complexities of this pandemic, one thing is for certain, which can be summarized best by Dr Geert’s concluding statement: “Nobody can deny that this mass vaccination campaign has been a huge experiment on human beings.”

Sweden Publish Health Agency Indefinitely Halts Use of Moderna mRNA-1273 on Young People 30 & Below TrialSite Staff October 27, 2021

Sweden Public Health Agency extended a moratorium indefinitely on the use of the Moderna mRNA-1293 vaccine to anyone age 30 and under. While this extension was to end on December 1, the Swedish government is all but banning the use of the vaccine on younger people due to heightened risk of heart inflammation. Thus, moving forward in the most populated of the Scandinavian countries, the laws of the land deny anyone born after 1990 from receiving this vaccine, and instead, these people are offered the Pfizer vaccine in a move that can only be considered good for Pfizer’s market share. The rest of the Nordic nations have also imposed restrictions on using the shots on young people. Heart inflammation in younger people is a known adverse effect associated with Moderna—young males face higher risks.

TrialSite reported on October 6 Sweden halted the use of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine on people under the age of 30 due to safety concerns. Just a couple of days later TrialSite shared with global audiences that Iceland made the same move, along with the rest of the Scandinavian countries, to either halt or in the case of Norway, discourage the use of the Moderna vaccine in younger people due to the safety risks.

What about the U.S. FDA?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the use of Moderna mRNA-1273 to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older on December 18, 2020. By August 25, 2021, Moderna completed its submission for biologics license application (BLA) with the FDA.  On September 16th Canada approved the vaccine. By October 20 the FDA authorized a booster dose of mRNA-1273 under the emergency use authorization category.

Mounting concern of heart inflammation risk, particularly in young males apparently caused the FDA to delay their decision regarding adolescent access to the mRNA-1273 vaccine. According to a Reuters account, the regulatory body acted to investigate the data for risks associated with the rare heart condition. Undoubtedly, the Nordic actions over the past months caught the attention of the American regulators.

According to a recent headline in UK’s Daily Mail, the Public Health Agency of Sweden pointed to unpublished data signals evidencing the risk although they acknowledged ‘The risk of being affected is very small.’ Nonetheless, state health authorities don’t declare such precautions unless they have serious concerns.  Pfizer will undoubtedly seize the opportunity.

Call to Action:  If you have an adolescent ensure you understand the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Excess Deaths During Pandemic Include Vaccine and Collateral Deaths

During the pandemic many deaths have occurred, approaching 2 million.  Ponder this: Have large numbers of excess deaths over pre-pandemic years resulted from something other than COVID infections?

There have been increasing articles and studies about excess deaths during the pandemic.  Too many of these seem aimed at getting attention rather than being accurate and balanced.  The concept of excess deaths is simple: deaths above what was normally observed before the pandemic.  But why are more people dying even after accounting for COVID infection deaths?  Getting to the correct answer is the goal of this article.

The core issue in seeking truth is how to evaluate excess deaths during the pandemic and then explain them if they are not caused by COVID infections.  If there really are non-infection excess deaths, then the goal is to rise above often bad and uncertain data from government agencies to correctly figure out whether something especially concerning is happening.  Perhaps something that governments do not want to acknowledge and deal with, as we shall see.

Classification of deaths

To get to the truth about excess deaths it is important to make a critical distinction by defining two classes of deaths.

Class 1:  First, direct pandemic effects are twofold.

Most attention is needed to assess the magnitude of deaths from COVID infection.  These include breakthrough cases that are COVID infections despite full vaccination.

The other direct impact is deaths from COVID vaccines.

Class 2:  The second class is very different.  They are indirect health impacts resulting from actions other than from direct medical actions aimed at addressing COVID.

These are the many collateral deaths resulting from severe contagion controls used by federal and state governments, especially lockdowns, stay at home mandates, limited hospital and physician access, school closings, job losses, travel restrictions and widespread impacts on personal and medical freedom.

These many indirect impacts cause large numbers of deaths across the entire population.  They are the collateral damage caused by pandemic government authoritarian actions, but not infections nor COVID vaccines.  They are done, supposedly, in the name of public health.

The government does not collect comprehensive data on these indirect deaths.  Be clear about this category of deaths.  They are caused by all the public health systems to address the pandemic.

To be clear, deaths directly associated with COVID infections cover a range of situations.  Government agencies report COVID related deaths.  That word “related” is very important, because proving causality has proven contentious.  Most physicians see causality when deaths occur soon after COVID symptoms or a positive test result.

There are reasons why there are legitimate concerns and criticisms of official COVID death data.  It comes down to what criteria are used to declare a death as either caused by COVID or just, in some way, related to the infection.

US federal and state agencies have, for the most part, been very liberal in declaring deaths as COVID ones.  This has resulted from both financial incentives, political motivations (maintaining public fear and acceptance of authoritarian government actions) and procedural government guidance.

In the latter category are guidelines from CDC for death certificates issued in March 2020 that replaced a practice used for the previous 17 years.  This change allowed physicians, medical examiners and coroners to place less importance on all kinds of health problems contributing to a death and, if there was any evidence of COVID virus infection from testing (before or after death) or symptoms, to declare a death as a COVID one.

In other words, many people, especially the elderly, could have died with COVID but NOT from COVID.  They may have died from their underlying medical problems and weakened immune system more than effects directly associated with COVID infection.  Yet their deaths go into the COVID death column.

On the other side, is the view that some people have died from COVID infection but their death has not been officially declared as a COVID death.  Most likely these have been people who have died at home without medical attention.  It is difficult to believe that the numbers of deaths in this class could account for a large excess death figure.  Why?  Because people who die from COVID infection almost always experience severe symptoms as they move from stage one viral replication to stages two and three when vital organs are attacked, especially breathing problems.  These typically cause them to seek medical attention, usually hospitalization where so many COVID deaths occur.

Not to be dismissed, is the reality that many COVID deaths have preempted a number of normally occurring deaths, such as from the seasonal flu and many types of accidents in a more mobile population.  The latter are subsumed in the COVID death data.  They do not explain excess deaths.  If anything, they reduce non-infection excess deaths.

Taking all this into consideration means that COVID death totals are most likely to overstate the lethality of COVID.  In fact, as I have discussed elsewhere, COVID lethality for the whole population was initially overstated by Fauci to justify extreme government actions and mass vaccination.  He started the pandemic by wrongly saying that the China virus was so much more deadly than the seasonal flu.  Only the elderly had a high risk of death (and younger people with serious underlying medical problems) that warranted focused government attention, initially by using safe and effective generics, namely ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and later vaccines.

In seeking truth about excess deaths, it is most important to recognize the countless and not quantitatively reported indirect impacts of the pandemic on health and deaths of very large numbers of people who were not actually at significant risk from COVID infection.

Deaths have resulted, for example, from people not getting normal pre-pandemic health care from treatment to prevention and suffering from extreme mental stress (often pushing addiction and suicide) caused by abnormal living and negative economic conditions.  Unlike direct pandemic deaths there is hardly any useful tabulation of indirect pandemic death impacts by government agencies.  In the name of public health government agencies have harmfully impacted the lives of nearly all Americans.

There is need for caution when seeing numerical excess deaths beyond official COVID deaths, in coming up with explanations that involve controversial causes.  The big example is blaming what seems as major excess deaths on COVID vaccines.  Especially if the many indirect pandemic causes of death are not addressed, mainly because data are not readily available.

Also note that breakthrough COVID infections in fully vaccinated people that sometimes cause death are appropriately categorized as direct COVID deaths.

As I have discussed, declining vaccine ineffectiveness (especially for variants) make the fully vaccinated vulnerable to dying from COVID infection.  But it would be wrong to say that these deaths are different than COVID ones.  And wrong to place these deaths in a category of vaccine deaths.  Moreover, as I have analyzed, breakthrough deaths in the US most likely account for tens of thousands of deaths, much smaller than true excess deaths.  Though their numbers are likely to increase in coming months and years as mass vaccination continues.

To recap, it is important to focus on the many causes of vaccine induced deaths and collateral deaths that do not result from the viral infection.  Make no mistake, there are now widely recognized medical explanations of vaccine induced deaths, including a broad array of serious blood problems that this author has reviewed.  Data on vaccine deaths will be examined below.

Indirect health impacts

A March 2021 study examined how the pandemic caused non-infection health impacts and made it clear that they cannot be ignored.

“The COVID-19 pandemic and global efforts to contain its spread, such as stay-at-home orders and transportation shutdowns, have created new barriers to accessing healthcare, resulting in changes in service delivery and utilization globally.”

“One hundred and seventy studies were included in the final analysis. Nearly half (46.5%) of included studies focused on cardiovascular health outcomes.  The main methodologies used were observational analytic and surveys.  Data were drawn from individual health facilities, multicentre networks, regional registries, and national health information systems.  Most studies were conducted in high-income countries with only 35.4% of studies representing low- and middle-income countries.”

“Healthcare utilization for non-COVID-19 conditions has decreased almost universally, across both high- and lower-income countries.  The pandemic’s impact on non-COVID-19 health outcomes, particularly for chronic diseases, may take years to fully manifest and should be a topic of ongoing study.”

A November 2020 article Death by Lockdown “forecasted more than 100,000 excess deaths due to drug overdoses, suicide, alcoholism, homicide, and untreated depression – all a result not of the virus but of policies of mandatory human separation, economic downturn, business and school closures, closed medical services, and general depression that comes with a loss of freedom and choice.”  What was recognized is “that as bad as a virus is, policies that wreck normal social functioning will cause massive and completely unnecessary suffering and death. “

A new article made these wise observations: “Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance, journalism, academic freedom — and, worst of all, science.  They misled the public about the origins of the virus and the true risk it posed. Ignoring their own carefully prepared plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with terrible collateral damage.  We still have no convincing evidence that the lockdowns saved lives, but lots of evidence that they have already cost lives and will prove deadlier in the long run than the virus itself.  A few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness.  In April 2020, John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya and other colleagues reported that the fatality rate among the ­infected was considerably lower than the assumptions used to justify lockdowns.”

The TB case has been one of worst collateral health impacts of the pandemic.  This was documented in a detailed story.  “Tuberculosis killed roughly 1.5 million people in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, up from 1.4 million in 2019.  And researchers say COVID is to blame.”  And there is every indication that it has gotten much worse worldwide.  “The COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of progress and efforts in the fight against tuberculosis,” said Dr. Tereza Kasaeva, head of WHO’s global TB program.  Kasaeva said that COVID lockdowns, limited access to health care and patients’ concerns about visiting medical clinics made TB far more deadly during the pandemic.”

Justin Hart of Rational Ground said in October 2021 that “It’s estimated that 50% of regular child immunizations were missed in the spring of 2020.  You can do some actual math and I feel confident in saying that more children will die from missed vaccines in a year’s time than died of COVID-19.”  This is just another example of a collateral impact of the pandemic.

Another study “found that COVID-19 was cited in only 65% of excess deaths in the first weeks of the pandemic (March-April 2020); deaths from non–COVID-19 causes (eg, Alzheimer disease, diabetes, heart disease) increased sharply in 5 states with the most COVID-19 deaths.”

The conclusion is that when examining excess deaths, it is important to recognize indirect deaths resulting from pandemic control actions by governments.

The Economist article

Here are highlights from a discussion of this widely addressed article titled “The pandemic’s true death toll.”

This conclusion was the attention grabber: “Fifteen million more people have died during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to historical norms, according to a recent October report by the Economist.  This figure is more than three times the reported COVID-19 deaths, which stands at 4.6 million people.”  In other words, about 10 million excess deaths over direct COVID infection deaths.

“And what about people who died of preventable causes during the pandemic because hospitals full of COVID-19 patients could not treat them?  If such cases count, they must be offset by deaths that did not occur but would have in normal times, such as those caused by flu or air pollution.”  These ideas fall into the class of indirect COVID impacts.

The Economist had to invoke indirect pandemic impacts in addition to vaccine induced deaths.  When speaking of many millions of excess deaths globally, the only rational explanation are the widespread indirect pandemic impacts that have devastated the entire global population.  This means that it has not been the virus that has killed most people, but rather government actions.  It is quite plausible that for every COVID death two more people have died from the indirect impacts of pandemic management.

Here are the data reported for North America: 675 million COVID infection deaths and 843 million excess deaths (middle uncertainty).  That is a very large number of excess deaths that could only be explained by health impacts of government actions.  For the US it was reported that the cumulative COVID-19 infection deaths have reached close to 650,000, and excess deaths are 820,000, presumably indirect deaths.  Updating, for the current US 730,000 infection deaths that implies 921,000 indirect collateral deaths.

Important NIH and other results

Here is an important observation from a recent report from the NIH.  “Roughly 2.9 million people died in the United States between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020.  Compared with the same period in 2019, there were 477,200 excess deaths, with 74% of them due to COVID-19.”  That amounts to 343,584 COVID deaths during the first year of the pandemic; it is consistent with the over 730,000 COVID deaths reported since 2020.

For 2020 when COVID began ravaging the country, compared to pre-pandemic 2019, that leaves 133,616 deaths to be explained.  The answer cannot be deaths associated with COVID vaccines for this pre-vaccination period.  That is the key point – pre-vaccination, which means that the plausible explanation for the significant excess deaths of 133,616 are the many negative health impacts causing deaths from the expanding government pandemic control actions in 2020.  These included many lockdowns, stay at home mandates, disruptions in health care and loss of jobs.  In other words, collateral deaths.

In agreement with this statement was the finding in a medical journal article titled “Excess Deaths From COVID-19 and Other Causes in the US, March 1, 2020, to January 2, 2021.”  It said deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for 72.4% of US excess deaths, leaving 27.6% explained most likely from collateral deaths.

A June 2021 Scientific American article said 18 percent of excess deaths across the U.S. last year (2020) were not assigned to COVID.  Thus, 78% was related to COVID infections.  Reported was that Andrew Stokes, Boston University, and his colleagues calculated excess deaths for each of more than 3,100 U.S. counties.  To do so, they compared provisional 2020 mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics with predicted death rates based on previous years.  The researchers then compared the proportion of excess deaths attributed to COVID on death certificates with those assigned to other causes.  Their data showed that 18 percent of excess deaths across the U.S. in 2020 were not assigned to COVID.  That infers about 77,000 indirect deaths, reasonably explained by collateral deaths.

A journal article published in April 2021 said this: “Between March 1, 2020, and January 2, 2021, the US experienced 2,801,439 deaths, 22.9% more than expected, representing 522 368 excess deaths… Deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for 72.4% of US excess deaths.” That leaves 27.6% or a little over 144,000 non-COVID infection deaths.  Detailed data were given on specific non-COVID deaths, including: heart disease, Alzheimer disease/dementia and diabetes.

A September 2021 article titled “Impact of COVID-19 on excess mortality, life expectancy, and years of life lost in the United States” found that for 2020: There were 375,235 excess deaths, with 83% attributable to direct, and 17% attributable to indirect effects of COVID-19.  So, about 64,000 deaths were collateral deaths.

Data focused Our World Data website said the following:

“The raw death count gives us a sense of scale: for example, the US suffered roughly 472,000 excess deaths in 2020, compared to 352,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths (75%) during that year.”  That leaves 25% or 120,000 collateral deaths.

A new report “Collateral Damage from COVID”said this:  “In the first year of the U.S. COVID pandemic (the 52 weeks ended February 27, 2021) there were 665,000 excess deaths (deaths above the normal seasonal death rate) reported by the CDC.  The official COVID death toll for that span was 514,000 (77%).  Shockingly, this means that non-COVID deaths caused by the pandemic and possibly by our policy choices, are likely to total at least this 151,000 difference.”  The latter would logically be collateral deaths.

And this is how that 151,000 difference was explained: “Excess deaths due to unnatural causes surged by an estimated 82,000 above the normal levels, from March 2020 through August 2021.  Unnatural causes are dominated by homicides, suicides, overdoses, and accidents.  And, excess deaths due to the Big Four natural causes (heart and lung disease, cancer, and stroke) soared by over 86,000 over those same 18 months, mostly during 2020.  These two categories alone total 168,000 excess deaths.”  Clearly, many deaths were caused by government pandemic controls that made lives extremely difficult and stressful.

On this point, the report noted: “The death toll from unnatural causes has risen sharply and is not likely to fall as quickly.  Research shows that collateral effects on health, direct and indirect, following unemployment and other economic disruption remain elevated for several years.  The same seems likely to be true for overdoses and homicides, due to lingering mental health effects, though perhaps not for accidental deaths.”

In contrast to the above, it was reported in October 2020 that a report by CDC said that overall, an estimated 299,028 excess deaths occurred from late January through October 3, 2020, with 198,081 of them (66 percent) caused by Covid-19.  But that left nearly three months in later 2020 unaccounted for, when COVID infections probably mounted.  So, some 100,947 (or 134,596 for 12 months) excess deaths not related to COVID infection is mostly in agreement with the above figures.  These CDC numbers are the least credible.

Thus, despite data variations, most of these reports were fairly consistent in attributing 72 to 83% of US excess deaths over pre-pandemic years to COVID infection deaths, leaving a fairly broad range of about 64,000 to 151,000 excess deaths to non-infection causes.  These would be the collateral impacts of pandemic control actions by federal and state governments, but are much lower than what The Economist estimated; but these are not systematically measured by the government.

The average of the above reports is 25.3% for non-infection deaths and for these an average of 117,745 such collateral deaths annually, and before vaccine deaths would be a significant fact.

Dr. Joseph Mercola views

Receiving major attention on alternative news sites in October 2021 are the views of Dr. Mercola that will now be summarized.  He has been a strong proponent for explaining non-infection deaths on the basis of COVID vaccines.

“The number of Americans who have died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019.  Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.”

Mercola asked the key question: “Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of it?”

“The death toll from the jabs is estimated to be between 200 and 500 deaths per million doses administered.  With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called ‘COVID-19 deaths’ may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths.”  This range is a high fraction of about 5 million total global COVID infection deaths.  In the US 414 million doses have been given; using the above range that yields a range of 82,800 to 207,000 vaccine deaths on top of the 730,000 infection deaths given by CDC.

[To be clear, vaccine induced deaths are definitely real and significant.  The issue is their magnitude.  Nor is it fair to argue that vaccine induced deaths are to some degree hidden within COVID death data.  And clearly it is unreasonable to argue that high COVID deaths after mass vaccination, which has been widely observed, should be counted as vaccine deaths.]

The key question is whether the high level of US vaccine deaths is compatible with what the public is seeing.

Mercola also references the following:

“According to this whistleblower, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths caused by the COVID shots by a conservative factor of five or more.  She claims the number of Americans killed by the shots was at least 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.  At that time, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths following COVID injection. That number is now 16,310 (as of October 1, 20218).  Using an under-reporting factor of five, that gives us an estimated vaccine death toll of 81,550.”  That is at the low end of the range calculated above.

Another source is also used by Mercola:

“Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, has come up with even more drastic numbers.  In the video ‘Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,’ he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 212,000 Americans have already been killed by the COVID shots.”  That is at the high end of the range calculated above.

To recap, Mercola’s reporting provided different sources to support the range of 82,800 to 207,000 for vaccine deaths to date.

Rose and Crawford study

The September 2021 study “Government’s Own Data Reveals that at Least 150,000 Probably DEAD in U.S. Following COVID-19 Vaccines.” by Jessica Rose and Mathew Crawford is the most detailed and impressive effort to determine vaccine deaths.

This is the summary of its findings: “Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can be used to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines.  A simple analysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the current COVID vaccines as of Aug 28, 2021.”  This is close to the high end of the range given above.

The study is both long and complex.  Here are some highlights.

On the problem of underreporting of vaccine deaths: “In our informal physician surveys we saw a bias to under-report serious adverse events in order to make the vaccines look as safe as possible to the American public since most physicians believe they are hurting society if they do anything to create vaccine hesitancy.  Secondly, we’d estimate that at least 95% of physicians have completely bought into the “safe and effective” narrative and thus any event that they observe they deem as simply anecdotal and don’t bother to report it since it couldn’t have been caused by such a safe vaccine that appeared to do so well in the Phase 3 trials.”

On the search for quantifying underreporting in the CDC VEARS system: “The point of this paper is not to find the exact number of deaths, but merely to find the most credible estimate for deaths. We think that anaphylaxis is an excellent proxy for a serious adverse event that, like a death, should always be reported so we think 41X is the most accurate number.”  That means multiplying CDC numbers by 41.

To get estimates of vaccine deaths: “There are three ways to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the vaccine.  Using these three methods we can estimate the low and high likely bounds for the number of excess deaths caused by the vaccine:

1. Subtract the average number of background deaths in previous years: estimate is 252,109
2. Use 86% based on the analysis in the Mclachlan study; estimate is 252,073
3. Use 40% based on the estimate of Dr. Peter Schirmacher one of the world’s top pathologists ; estimate is 175,865”

This was the explanation for looking at other studies: “In order to validate that our estimates are reasonable (or simply that the evidence was more likely consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine does more harm than good), we looked at four different quantitative methods from very small to very large and summarized their estimates:”

Excess Case Fatality Rate analysis done in Europe: 72,000-180,000

Excess death analysis for 23 nations: 147,960

Small island study: 171,000

Analysis of Norway deaths: 150,000

“In summary, the qualitative and quantitative confirmation techniques we used were all independent of each other and of our main method, yet all were consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccines cause large numbers of serious adverse events and excess deaths and are inconsistent with the null hypothesis that the vaccines have no effect on mortality and have a safety profile comparable to that of other vaccines.”

“We were not able to find a single piece of evidence that supported the FDA and CDC position that all the excess deaths were simply over-reporting of natural cause deaths.”

In wrapping up a very complex analysis this was said:

“In 1976, they halted the H1N1 vaccine after 500 GBS cases and 32 people died.  However, there is no stopping mortality condition for these [COVID] vaccines.  We are likely at 150,000 deaths and counting and nobody in the mainstream medical establishment, mainstream media, or Congress is raising any concerns.  No member of the medical community is calling for any stopping condition nor autopsies.  We find this troubling.”

Here is the most important reason for respecting this study.  As you can see the final estimate of 150,000 vaccine deaths is lower than other figures in various studies but consistent with the range from Mercola’s reporting.  Overall, this figure of 150,000 vaccine deaths is conservative.

Here are more concluding insights that the public should greatly think through, especially when deciding whether or not to get a vaccine shot, initial or booster:

“In short, say our vaccine reduces the risk of dying from COVID by 2X. But it came at a cost, e.g., increasing your risk of dying from a heart attack by 4X.  And let’s say both events are equally likely (which they aren’t).  Then you’ve made a bad decision… you’re more likely to die if you took the vaccine.

“When you combine (1) the negative efficacy of the vaccine with (2) the negative all-cause mortality benefit, it’s impossible to justify vaccination.  Either alone is sufficient to kill the benefit; both of them together makes things even more difficult for recommending vaccination.”

“The bottom line is clear: If you got the vaccine, you were simply more likely to die.  The younger you are, the greater the disparity.”

As more Americans succumb to pressure, propaganda and mandates it is very likely that the figure of 150,000 vaccine deaths will become an underestimate of the lethality of COVID vaccines.

Lastly, it is relevant to note what the eminent medical researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits has said.  Her medical science credentials are impeccable, including a long stint at the National Cancer Institute.  Her views may seem extreme to some people, but they are based on a deep scientific understanding and are consistent with the highly frightening forecasts of other scientists and physicians.

She said: “I just can’t even imagine a recipe for anything other than what I would consider mass murder on a scale where 50 million people will die in America from the vaccine.”  Time will tell whether this dire prediction will materialize as more people get the shot.  The shot that kills.

Conclusions

It is challenging to reconcile the average of 117,745 excess deaths beyond infection deaths given above with the conservative figure of 150,000 vaccine deaths.  Add in the indirect, even higher collateral deaths across society broadly, probably what The Economist found, namely for the current US 730,000 infection deaths and some 921,000 indirect collateral deaths.  The latter seems reasonable when you consider that most of the population, several hundred million people, had their lives devastated by government pandemic controls.  In other words, a collateral death rate of around .5%.

As to the latter, though taken in the name of public health, most government actions have had no basis in medical science.  Considering all the deaths, pandemic management has been a colossal failure.  Adding up the infection, vaccine and collateral deaths gets to a total approaching 2 million pandemic deaths.  And note that breakthrough infections of the fully vaccinated are escalating, as vaccines lose effectiveness, and are at least 10,000 to 20,000. 

Public health officials failed to promote early wide use of generics and foolishly pushed mass vaccination that has not proven effective.  The former could have prevented over 600,000 infection deaths.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that public health officials have stubbornly refused to admit their mistakes.

The government has made no attempt to systematically account for the non-infection indirect collateral pandemic deaths.  And surely more and more Americans are dying from the onerous pandemic controls – now emphasizing vaccine mandates – that are destroying and disrupting the lives of millions of people.  Especially in view of the above estimates for vaccine deaths.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.  As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers.  He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.  He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.