Heavily Abused Legal Drugs Adderall And Xanax Blocked By "Secret Limits"

Word on the street, and what I've witnessed with my very own lying eyes, information technology CHUDS and medical students alike have been crying like little bishes about the market failure to keep them supplied with their longtime legal drugs of dependency.

Bloomberg  |  Patients diagnosed with conditions like anxiety and sleep disorders have become caught in the crosshairs of America’s opioid crisis, as secret policies mandated by a national opioid settlement have turned filling legitimate prescriptions into a major headache.

In July, limits went into effect that flag and sometimes block pharmacies’ orders of controlled substances such as Adderall and Xanax when they exceed a certain threshold. The requirement stems from a 2021 settlement with the US’s three largest drug distributors — AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp. But pharmacists said it curtails their ability to fill prescriptions for many different types of controlled substances — not just opioids.

Independent pharmacists said the rules force them come up with creative workarounds. Sometimes, they must send patients on frustrating journeys to find pharmacies that haven’t yet exceeded their caps in order to buy prescribed medicines.

“I understand the intention of this policy is to have control of controlled substances so they don’t get abused, but it’s not working,” said Richard Glotzer, an independent pharmacist in Millwood, New York. “There’s no reason I should be cut off from ordering these products to dispense to my legitimate patients that need it.”

It's unclear how the thresholds are impacting major chain pharmacies. CVS Health Corp. didn’t provide comment. A spokesperson for Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. said its pharmacists “work to resolve any specific issues when possible, in coordination with our distributors.” 

The Drug Enforcement Administration regulates the manufacturing, distribution and sale of controlled substances, which can be dangerous when used improperly. Drugmakers and wholesalers were always supposed to keep an eye out for suspicious purchases and have long had systems to catch, report and halt these orders. The prescription opioid crisis, enabled by irresponsible drug company marketing and prescribing, led to a slew of lawsuits and tighter regulations on many parts of the health system, including monitoring of suspicious orders. One major settlement required the three largest distributors to set thresholds on orders of controlled substances starting last July.

The “suspicious order” terminology is a bit of a misnomer, pharmacists said. The orders themselves aren't suspicious, it's just that the pharmacy has exceeded its limit for a specific drug over a certain time period. Any order that puts the pharmacy over its limit can be stopped. As a result, patients with legitimate prescriptions get caught up in the dragnet.

Adding to the confusion, the limits themselves are secret. Drug wholesalers are barred by the settlement agreement from telling pharmacists what the thresholds are, how they’re determined or when the pharmacy is getting close to hitting them.

Tucker Carlson Wandered Off The Reservation And Put Big Pharma On Blast

nationalreview |  I approach science news cautiously. I was blessed to have, in my own college-level science class, a professor who enjoyed showing us examples of how labs and the scientific press conspired together to keep federal and private funding going on research they viewed as important.

But I’m sort of astonished that in the last month or so the medical field seems to be abandoning the regnant theories of depression and Alzheimer’s.

The first is the publication in Molecular Psychology of a paper reviewing and ultimately dismissing the serotonin theory of depression. The conclusion is stunning:

Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity. Most studies found no evidence of reduced serotonin activity in people with depression compared to people without, and methods to reduce serotonin availability using tryptophan depletion do not consistently lower mood in volunteers. High quality, well-powered genetic studies effectively exclude an association between genotypes related to the serotonin system and depression, including a proposed interaction with stress. Weak evidence from some studies of serotonin 5-HT_1A receptors and levels of SERT points towards a possible association between increased serotonin activity and depression. However, these results are likely to be influenced by prior use of antidepressants and its effects on the serotonin system [30, 31]. The effects of tryptophan depletion in some cross-over studies involving people with depression may also be mediated by antidepressants, although these are not consistently found [63].

The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals [17], and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades [14]. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities [15, 16], and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood [64,65,66]. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs [67, 68].

This follows on another study in PLOS ONE saying that treatment of depression with SSRIs does not improve quality of life.

An astonishing percentage of Americans have been prescribed SSRIs and are on them for long-term use. A survey in 2015–18 showed that 13 percent of Americans over age 18 took anti-depressant drugs in any given month. Millions of people, even very young people, are on SSRIs for depression.

 

Drug Addicts Don't Even Trust These Damned Neo-Vaccinoids....,

statnews |  A patient who has taught me a lot about how to best care for people who use drugs floored me one afternoon while she was in the clinic when I asked her thoughts on getting vaccinated against Covid-19.

“I know this sounds crazy,” she said, casting her gaze to the floor, “but I trust my drug dealer more than I trust this vaccine.”

I was stunned. Curious how anyone could trust putting something from the current fentanyl-contaminated heroin supply in their arm over a highly vetted vaccine, I had to ask, “What makes you trust your dealer?”

Here’s the gist of what she told me: When she speaks to her dealer, they listen to her concerns without judgment and accept her for who she is. When she feels bad, they are attentive to her. They will not sell her drugs if they know she is in a bad place because they have known each other for a long time. They are highly accessible, often by text or phone at all hours. They deliver a tangible, immediate response to the needs she expresses. They have time for her and treat her like they would any other human.

To be sure, not all people who sell drugs operate in the best interest of their consumers. After all, we are currently enduring the fourth wave of the opioid overdose epidemic due to illicitly-manufactured fentanyl that has been contaminating the drug supply. Although this phenomenon should be analyzed as a potential result of the war on drugs, some sellers in the drug market clearly prioritize profits over the lives of their customers. This is highlighted by the fact that people who use drugs are more likely to die of a drug overdose than Covid-19.

Yet my patient isn’t alone having this kind of experience with the person who sells her drugs. Other people who use drugs trust their drug dealers, especially those they have established relationships with over longer periods of time. In these sorts of relationships, people who use drugs trust that their dealer communicates openly about the drug supply. As one person told British of Columbia researchers about their dealer: “I guess we’ve known each other for a long time and they’ve always had a good supply and treat me with respect.”

Contrast this with how the health care system treats people who use drugs.

 

 

Was The Covid Treatment Protocol A Medical Industrial "Cash For Death" Scheme?

lewrockwell |  The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a private medical organization founded in 1943, has the story — “Biden’s Bounty on Your Life: Hospitals’ Incentive Payments for COVID-19” (11/17/21), authored by Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. and Ali Shultz, J.D.

Here are stunning excerpts:

“Upon admission to a once-trusted hospital, American patients with COVID-19 become virtual prisoners, subjected to a rigid treatment protocol…for rationing medical care in those over age 50. They have a shockingly high mortality rate…”

“As exposed in audio recordings, hospital executives in Arizona admitted meeting several times a week to lower standards of care, with coordinated restrictions on visitation rights. Most COVID-19 patients’ families are deliberately kept in the dark about what is really being done to their loved ones.”

“The combination that enables this tragic and avoidable loss of hundreds of thousands of lives includes (1) The CARES Act, which provides hospitals with bonus incentive payments for all things related to COVID-19 (testing, diagnosing, admitting to hospital, use of remdesivir and ventilators, reporting COVID-19 deaths, and vaccinations) and (2) waivers of customary and long-standing patient rights by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).”

“In 2020, the Texas Hospital Association submitted requests for waivers to CMS. According to Texas attorney Jerri Ward, ‘CMS has granted “waivers” of federal law regarding patient rights. Specifically, CMS purports to allow hospitals to violate the rights of patients or their surrogates with regard to medical record access, to have patient visitation, and to be free from seclusion.’…The purported waivers are meant to isolate and gain total control over the patient and to deny patient and patient’s decision-maker the ability to exercise informed consent.”

“Creating a ‘National Pandemic Emergency’ provided justification for such sweeping actions that override individual physician medical decision-making and patients’ rights. The CARES Act provides incentives for hospitals to use treatments dictated solely by the federal government under the auspices of the NIH. These ‘bounties’ must paid back if not ‘earned’ by making the COVID-19 diagnosis and following the COVID-19 protocol.”

“The hospital payments include:

* A ‘free’ required PCR test in the Emergency Room or upon admission for every patient, with government-paid fee to hospital.

* Added bonus payment for each positive COVID-19 diagnosis.

* Another bonus for a COVID-19 admission to the hospital.

* A 20 percent ‘boost’ bonus payment from Medicare on the entire hospital bill for use of remdesivir instead of medicines such as Ivermectin.

* Another and larger bonus payment to the hospital if a COVID-19 patient is mechanically ventilated.

* More money to the hospital if cause of death is listed as COVID-19, even if patient did not die directly of COVID-19.

* A COVID-19 diagnosis also provides extra payments to coroners.”

“CMS implemented ‘value-based’ payment programs that track data such as how many workers at a healthcare facility receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Now we see why many hospitals implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates. They are paid more.”

“Outside hospitals, physician MIPS [Merit-based Incentive Payment System] quality metrics link doctors’ income to performance-based pay for treating patients with COVID-19 EUA drugs. Failure to report information to CMS can cost the physician 4% of reimbursement.”

“Because of obfuscation with medical coding and legal jargon, we cannot be certain of the actual amount each hospital receives per COVID-19 patient. But Attorney Thomas Renz and CMS whistleblowers have calculated a total payment of at least $100,000 per patient.”   Fist tap Big Don.

Curious: Delta Wave Was Driven By The Vaxxed Old, Omicron By The Vaxxed Young....,

💉 The omicron epidemic is being driven by young, vaccinated people, according to mounting data from countries as diverse as the UK, Denmark and South Africa https://t.co/bTRIBFsCc7

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) December 14, 2021

telegraph | The omicron epidemic is being driven by young, vaccinated people, according to mounting data from countries as diverse as the UK, Denmark and South Africa.

The new variant has now been detected in more than 60 countries, including 24 in Europe, with a similar pattern of infection and characteristics being reported across the globe.

But while the speed and the vaccine evading properties of the virus are now established, there is as yet no firm verdict on its virulence or severity.

“Generally those first cases are in relatively young, relatively healthy and – in the context of Europe – in relatively highly vaccinated groups,” Dr Catherine Smallwood, a senior emergency officer at the World Health Organization’s Europe office, told the Telegraph.

Data from Denmark – a world leader in genetic sequencing – shows that, of 3,437 omicron cases detected, just over 70 per cent have been among those younger than 40, according to the breakdown from the Statens Serum Institut published on Monday.

Some 75 per cent of these cases were in fully vaccinated individuals, the institute added, confirming that even the double jabbed can carry the virus.

Daily cases in Denmark have surged by a third since early December, despite almost 80 per cent of the population being double vaccinated.

The country tightened restrictions at the end of last week – introducing a midnight curfew on bars and restaurants and closing schools early for the Christmas holidays – but experts estimate omicron could become the dominant variant as soon as Wednesday.

Neighbouring Norway, which has so far reported 958 cases, also introduced new Covid control measures on Monday, with the Prime Minister warning that the situation is “serious”.

Preliminary data suggests the pattern of spread is, so far, similar worldwide.

Analysis from the European Centre for Disease Control found 72 per cent of early cases were in those under 40, while the US said the majority of the 43 infections detected so far were in this same age bracket. American authorities also revealed that 79 per cent of people infected were vaccinated.

Prof Emmanuel Andre, head of the national reference lab for Covid-19 in Belgium, said the country is two weeks behind the UK, where omicron cases jumped by 50 per cent on Monday and the first death with the variant was confirmed.

“Most infections documented at this early stage are among younger age groups,” he told the Telegraph, citing work, travel, sports competitions and schools as possible explanations. But Prof Andre added that Christmas celebrations could “amplify” omicron’s spread.

 

 

Google "Frist HCA" If You Want To Appreciate The Irony Of Frist Interviewing Faulkner...,

LATimes  |  Ridiculous, seemingly arbitrary price markups are a defining characteristic of the $4-trillion U.S. healthcare system — and a key reason Americans pay more for treatment than anyone else in the world.

But to see price hikes of as much as 675% being imposed in real time, automatically, by a hospital’s computer system still takes your breath away.

I got to view this for myself after a former operating-room nurse at Scripps Memorial Hospital in Encinitas shared with me screenshots of the facility’s electronic health record system.

The nurse asked that I not use her name because she’s now working at a different Southern California medical facility and worries that her job could be endangered.

Her screenshots, taken earlier this year, speak for themselves.

What they show are price hikes ranging from 575% to 675% being automatically generated by the hospital’s software.

The eye-popping increases are so routine, apparently, the software even displays the formula it uses to convert reasonable medical costs to billed amounts that are much, much higher.

For example, one screenshot is for sutures — that is, medical thread, a.k.a. stitches. Scripps’ system put the basic “cost per unit” at $19.30.

But the system said the “computed charge per unit” was $149.58. This is how much the patient and his or her insurer would be billed.

The system helpfully included a formula for reaching this amount: "$149.58 = $19.30 + ($19.30 x 675%).”

You read that right. Scripps’ automated system took the actual cost of sutures, imposed an apparently preset 675% markup and produced a billed amount that was orders of magnitude higher than the true price.

This is separate from any additional charges for the doctor, anesthesiologist, X-rays or hospital facilities.

Call it institutionalized price gouging. And it’s apparently widespread because the same or similar software is used by other hospitals nationwide, including UCLA, and around the world.

Lewis County Hospital To Stop Delivering Babies Because Forced Vaccination Caused 20 Nurses To Resign

Hospital administrators are firing nurses and screaming at the same time that hospitals are overflowing with unvaccinated patients? THIS clearly indicates a malevolent agenda to me.

Hospitals getting overwhelmed is a red herring.

Last year, hospitals and pubic health agencies stood up hundreds of beds at the Javits Center in weeks.

No one made use of any of this excess capacity.

It is not difficult to add emergency capacity in hotels, in parking lots, convention centers and elsewhere.

The excess capacity capability was amply demonstrated in 2020.

Since the preponderance of hospitalizations are the old and the sick, if there is to be a mandatory vaccination program it should be targetted toward the old and the sick.

Instead of the hundreds of billions going to feed the market cap of Big Pharma - maybe Cornpop could spend a fraction on treatments. It makes no sense to waste billions on jabs for those unlikely to land in the hospitals - like working people below the age of 50 and in reasonably good health.

Where hospitals are overwhelmed they are overwhelmed because they are designed to run ICU beds at maximum capacity. It has ALWAYS been common for ICUs to be “overrun “ at times. Having had parents who were old and sickly for years, I have stood in many a hallway with a parent on a stretcher waiting for a bed to open in the ICU.

Secondly, a hospital can only claim an open bed if that hospital has enough staff to use it. An ICU may have 30 beds and 18 patients, but cannot claim to have 12 open beds if the staff is not there to service those 12 beds. So that 19th patient is declined, and sent somewhere else. That 30 bed ICU is “full” at 18.

In my major medical city, we have seen the opening of 4 large, new hospitals in the last 5 years. What do you think that does to staffing in the older hospitals? This country has had a nursing shortage since my mom was a nurse in the 1970s. We always need more.

Every nurse knows that if he or she isn’t happy, there are 5 facilities begging for her services. I get postcards daily for offers in local hospitals, facilities, often offering thousands of dollars to sign on. It’s become a very transient career.

In the facility I work, the ONLY staff and residents that have tested positive for covid in the last 8 to 10 weeks are “fully vaccinated”. And the “unvaccinated” are tested 2 times a week. The “pandemic of the unvaccinated “ is a bald faced lie.

People need to be careful when they listen to “statistics” and realize that they are not always being told the whole picture. There is often a reason for that, a bigger agenda is at play.

Why Is The Entire Western Media Lying About Ivermectin And Calling It "Horse Deworming Paste?"

Why is basically the entire media lying about what Ivermectin is and calling it a horse drug?

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) September 2, 2021

Because Ivermectin has been chosen as a group membership indicator, independent of its own nature. If you advocate for Ivermectin then you must be an ignorant and expendable spreadneck extremist according to most of my Democrat friends. The media is signaling adherence to that group. This same group doesn't really care whether it works, only what tribe you belong to based on your attitude about it.  Quoth the great IMDoc:

The NIH current status on ivermectin is there is not enough data to recommend OR to discourage its use. The NIH changed this recommendation in December of 2020 as previously the NIH status on ivermectin usage was to discourage its use. Usually the status in which ivermectin is now placed would be accompanied with all kinds of funds to study the true efficacy of the drug, to see if it is successful. That of course is not being done at this time.

Interestingly, 2 of our other COVID modalities have exactly the same recommend/discourage status. That would be remdesevir and outpatient monoclonal antibodies. EXACTLY the same status on both of these as ivermectin currently. The NIH states there is not enough evidence to recommend or to discourage the use of either of these.

And yet we continue right on with both the others without a blink of an eye.

A little math –

An Ivermectin course for COVID is less than twenty dollars.

A course of REMDESEVIR is currently right at $8800.00 dollars.

An outpatient treatment with monoclonal antibodies is right at $23,000.00 – 25,000.00 dollars with all the infusion costs added.

Remdesevir is loaded with all kinds of safety problems that I have seen with my own eyes. And it has the extra benefit of obviously not working – it literally does not do a god damned thing. Multiple studies have hinted at this.

The monoclonal antibodies are reasonably safe, unless you are one of the unlucky 1-3 out of 200 who have a very significant allergic reaction. Sometimes quite bad. They do seem to help to some degree.
But it is my immunologist and virologist friends who are having seizures about their use like this in massive 100-200 daily infusion centers, and the very high likelihood of producing all kinds of mutant variants with this therapy.

Your bankrupt government that is in hawk already for tens of trillions of dollars is currently “paying” for the last 2 choices – but not sure how long that will last.

Facebook feeds are now filled with all kinds of memes and stories with horse paste and horse pictures. But not a word about the other 2 or how expensive they are. I have seen all kinds of pics lately of my fully vaccinated friends and family in a monoclonal infusion center. They seem to have no clue they are bankrupting their kids future for a medication with the same NIH recommendation as ivermectin – which they are just laughing out of the room. They go right on blaming the unvaccinated for the pandemic in their feeds, all the while the antibodies they have just been given may be leading to the next mutation that will come up snake-eyes. And to boot, that one dose of meds they are getting is more than a lot of people in this country make in a year.

Yet, I continue to use ivermectin and budesonide with statistically obvious effects to keep patients out of the hospital compared to my peers who are not using it.

I have never dreamed in my life that I would live to see the American people bamboozled this easily. But here we are. I just keep working – very hard lately – it keeps my mind in much better places.

I spoke with one of my old students who is now a medical missionary in Africa this week. How this is being handled in the West has been an eye-opener for all to see where he lives. At least they have perspective in Africa. We have lost 600K people in the USA to COVID. The world loses upwards of 1 to million a year from diarrhea. The only difference between the two is that the diarrhea deaths are almost completely avoidable with appropriate care that is freely available in the West but not so much in Africa. And that is just diarrhea. They see the immense COVID freak out in the West and just shake their heads. My poor student just stated that he has to pray every day for strength not to despise what his culture has become.

My mind has been reliving the story of Lot and Sodom & Gomorrah a lot lately. But also to the Book of Daniel and Balthazzar’s feast. MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSHIM. Written by a hand on the wall to leader of the most powerful country on earth at the time. NUMBERED NUMBERED WEIGHED AND DIVIDED. “Alas O Babylon, the Lord God Jehovah has weighed you in the balance and has found you wanting. Thy last day is upon you.”

Lord have mercy.

How Dare These Spreadneck Peckerwoods Kwestin Medical Authoriteh!!!

medpagetoday |   As hospitals continue to admit COVID-19 patients, some are contending with demands from family members to attempt to treat their loved ones with ivermectin.

Just last week, the CDC warned healthcare professionals to steer patients away from the drug. But that hasn't stopped the pressure on hospitals, and the outcomes of new legal cases to force hospitals to provide the drug to struggling, ventilated patients have been mixed.

In the case of Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, Illinois, a Sangamon County judge earlier this week ruled in favor of the hospital, the State Journal-Register reported.

Anita Clouse had sought to force Memorial Medical Center, part of Memorial Health System, to allow her husband, Randy Clouse, 61, to receive ivermectin, the State Journal-Register reported. Ralph Lorigo, a New York lawyer who represents Anita and has also taken on a bevy of other ivermectin cases, said in a court hearing that "she should have a right to try to save her husband."

However, Memorial Medical Center countered in court documents that Randy Clouse's condition was improving, and that he no longer had an active COVID infection, the State Journal-Register reported. The hospital further said that Clouse's physicians "believe administration of ivermectin will likely result in kidney and lung damage, which can lead to organ failure and death."

Randy and Anita Clouse were both unvaccinated and contracted COVID in July, the State Journal-Register reported. Anita had only mild symptoms, but Randy was admitted to the hospital shortly after he tested positive, and has since been placed on a ventilator and started on dialysis, the State Journal-Register reported, citing court documents.

Anita Clouse told the State Journal-Register that she and her husband knew about ivermectin before it was discussed by Fox News commentators because the couple bred German Shepherds and had given the drug to their dogs for parasites. She said that her husband previously told her he would want to receive the drug should he become sick with COVID.

Though the courts sided with the hospital in the Springfield case, a judge in Cincinnati, Ohio recently ruled in favor of a patient's family.

 

 

This Is Not The First Time The Government Was Hand-in-Glove With The Drug Industry

C-19 is a disease of the eldery and obese. And the extremely unlucky healthy people who sometimes fall prey to a novel vascular endothelial proliferation vector in the body.
 
Does anybody really believe vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity? As a society the young developing natural immunity would have been the preferred public health strategy. The experimental mRNA therapeutics target a single antigenic point on the virus. ONE. The spike protein.
 
Natural immunity targets 28 antigenic proteins on the virus. Robust immunological memory produces a vast array of Defense in Depth.
 
From a scientific perspective the masking/vaxxing strategy is farcical and deserving of contempt. Many Public Health authorities apparently no longer believe in evolution via immunological memory and have become Flat Earthers.
 
Another common sense point, most miss. Where does the virus enter the human body? Through the respiratory tract. The nose and mouth. Where is the vaccine given? In the shoulder. On the other side of the moat. Sure some IgG through the lymphatic system probably progresses to the lungs. And then wanes over time.
 
But the defense against infection from respiratory viruses begins in the mucosal immunity. IgAs are produced here. They are much more important in preventing infections from C-19 and other respiratory illnesses than IgG which is blood based for the most part.
 
Guess what? Natural immunity from infection equals robust IgA response the second time the virus tries to enter the individual.
 
This would not be the first time the “government” hand in glove with the drug industry used its offices to circumvent FDA oversight and safety requirements, in order to establish a national for profit health care agenda. Prior example: life time use of hormone drug replacement therapy for women.
 
Following is a well-researched and documented study of the long-standing government recommendations and health information campaign advocating for the multi-billion dollar hormone replacement drug industry. This government agenda fell to “science” only when its decades long recommendations were finally put to a double blind, randomized study.
 
Ironically, the study was intended to support official FDA approval for lifetime drug use instead of short-term symptomatic use; only to learn the very drugs were causing the very problems they had been previously telling women they would avoid if they used these drugs, and plenty more.
 
The template is familiar- establish a public health social agenda using an unproven hypothesis, partner with a for-profit pharmaceutical company, and actively discredit all opposition:
 
The Greatest Experiment Ever Conducted on Women: Exploding the Estrogen Myth (Barbara Seamans – solid health researcher with footnotes)

Only NIH Approved Treatments Get The HHS Prep Act Liability Waiver

“Enacted in December 2005, the PREP Act authorizes the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) to issue a declaration (called a PREP Act declaration) that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures.” (link)

 

A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from tort liability, and is different from, and not dependent on, other emergency declarations.

 

Under the HHS Notification, the PREP Act has been modified: “The amended Section VII adds that PREP Act liability protections also extend to Covered Persons for Recommended Activities that are related to any Covered Countermeasure that is:

 

1. licensed, approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (or that is permitted to be used under an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act or Public Health Service (PHS) Act to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, mitigate or limit the harm from COVID–19, or the transmission of SARS–CoV–2 or a virus mutating therefrom; (link)

 

The attachment of a liability or tort waiver to only cover FDA approved therapeutics likely explains a shift amid the medical community to stop patients treatment due to coverage restrictions on their malpractice insurance.  Additionally, Big Pharma -the group who controls NIH- wouldn’t make as much money if their mandatory vaccines had a less costly alternative.  So there’s that.

 

The PREP Act offers hospitals blanket financial liability protection in treating C19 patients only if the hospitals follow the approved protocol; if hospitals treat only with CDC, FDA approved countermeasures, i.e. NIH approved measures, they keep the liability shield. Any hospital deviating from the protocol loses the PREP Act C19 liability shield, it seems. Again, follow the money.

 

I can’t see any other reason hospitals would fight so hard to block dying patients last-chance medical requests for an FDA approved drug used off-label but not EUA’d for C19. It might explain the hospital’s use of the term “human guinea pig”.

 

This is from a brief outline of the current PREP Act applied to C19 treatments. Ivermectin is not a "covered countermeasure” by this definition.

 

“Fourth, the medical product at issue must be a covered countermeasure. The PREP Act specifies four types of covered countermeasures: (i) a qualified “pandemic or epidemic product”; (ii) a “security countermeasure”; (iii) a drug, biological product,or device that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)has authorized for emergency use; and (iv) a “respiratory protective device” that is approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).”

How Did India Abruptly Stop Being Ground Zero Of The Coronapocalypse?

Why is no one interested in India anymore with respect to the Coronapocalypse? Can a couple of weeks really make such an incredible difference? The contrast from July to August is really stark. When the news was bad you couldn't turn to a news outlet that wasn’t reporting about the continuous megadeath in India. Now, not nary a peep...,

Speaks volumes how reporting is being used to gin up fear beyond what is suggested by the "science". Since the Indian coronapocalypse has fallen off the official narrative radar, I went over to the Times of India to have a look. They have a “Covid Tracker” that says that there were 382 deaths on Aug 22 related to Covid-21. New Cases are down 30%, to 25,320.

Now if you do the math, India has ~1.4 billion people. These Covid-21 figures don't even amount to rounding errors. Given that Ivermectin is in the Indian Covid-21 treatment protocol - AS ACROSS PARTS OF THE AFRICAN CONTINENT - maybe the 1.4 billion horse-paste eating Indian animals are getting some type of prophylactic and curative benefit from their veterinary medicine?

This site is another good place to watch and keep track of the numbers. I follow Uttar Pradesh. Their deaths from Covid today (with a population above 500 million) were …. zero, niente, rien, zed. aka none. 

Of course there were likely a few, but I challenge anyone to prove that India’s numbers are as through the roof as the U.S. There are no funeral pyres burning, floating bodies in the Ganges, hospitals overflowing, shortages of O2 canisters, etc.

Ivermectin use? High.

Vaccination rate? Still in the single digits.

Florida? Under reporting did you say? 

Texas? Pediatric wards packed. 

Oregon? Sending children to hospital in Seattle due to lack of beds?

India? Passez moi l’ ivermectin stp dégolas!

The Mechanisms Of Action Of Ivermectin Against SARS-CoV-2: An Evidence-based Clinical Review

nature | Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, detection of various new mutant strains and future potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention. This evidence-based review article aims to discuss the mechanism of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 and summarizing the available literature over the years. A schematic of the key cellular and biomolecular interactions between Ivermectin, host cell, and SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 pathogenesis and prevention of complications have been proposed.

Introduction

A relatively recent surge in zoonotic diseases has been noted over the past few decades. Several reasons could be responsible for this “spill-over” of disease-causing agents from animals to humans. These include an exponential rise in the global population causing man to encroach new ecological habitats in search of space, food, and resources as well as improved opportunities for rampant wildlife trade causing inter-species pathogen jumps. The 1980s was known for HIV/AIDS crisis that originated from the great apes, while the Avian flu pandemic in 2004-07 came from the birds. The pigs lead to the Swine flu pandemic in 2009 and bats were the original hosts of Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), and probably Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak as well.

COVID-19 has already caused millions of deaths worldwide and has paralyzed not only the world’s healthcare system but also the political and economic relations between countries [1]. The fact that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been thought to have originated from wildlife and may have “jumped” into humans, not only highlights future risks from animal-borne diseases but also provides an important clue to its resolution.

You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it. https://t.co/TWb75xYEY4

— U.S. FDA (@US_FDA) August 21, 2021

In such a scenario, where this “jump” has been made from animal to human, it seems only logical to review a drug that has worked efficiently against a disease-causing agent and is available in a form that is safe for human consumption since the early 1980 s.

Ivermectin belongs to a group of avermectins (AVM), which is a group of 16 membered macrocyclic lactone compounds discovered at the Japanese Kitasato institute in 1967 during actinomycetes cultures with the fungus Streptomyces avermitilis [2]. This drug radically lowered the incidence of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis and was discovered and developed by William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura for which they received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015 [3, 4]. Ivermectin is enlisted in the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines [5].

Drug repurposing, drug redirecting, or drug reprofiling is defined as the identification of novel usages for existing drugs. The development risks, costs as well as safety-related failure, are reduced with this approach since these drugs have a well-established formulation development, in vitro and in vivo screening, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Moreover, the first clinical trial phases of many such drugs have been completed and can be bypassed to reduce several years of development. Therefore, drug repurposing has the potential to reduce the time frame for the whole process by up to 3–12 years and carries great potential [6].

Although several drugs received Emergency Use Authorization for COVID-19 treatment with unsatisfactory supportive data, Ivermectin, on the other hand, has been sidelined irrespective of sufficient convincing data supporting its use. Nevertheless, many countries adopted ivermectin as one of the first-line treatment options for COVID-19.

With the ongoing vaccine roll-out programs in full swing across the globe, the longevity of the immunity offered by these vaccines or their role in offering protection against new mutant strains is still a matter of debate. The adoption of Ivermectin as a “safety bridge” by some sections of the population that are still waiting for their turn for vaccination could be considered as a “logical” option.

Several doctor-initiated clinical trial protocols that aimed to evaluate outcomes, such as reduction in mortality figures, shortened length of intensive care unit stay and/or hospital stay and elimination of the virus with ivermectin use have been registered at the US ClinicalTrials.gov [7]. Real-time data is also available with a meta-analysis of 55 studies to date. As per data available on 16 May 2021, 100% of 36 early treatment and prophylaxis studies report positive effects (96% of all 55 studies). Of these, 26 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation. Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported 79% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis respectively (RR 0.21 [0.11–0.37] and 0.15 [0.09–0.25]). The results were similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 81% and 87% (RR 0.19 [0.14–0.26] and 0.13 [0.07–0.25]), and after restriction to 29 peer-reviewed studies: 82% and 88% (RR 0.18 [0.11–0.31] and 0.12 [0.05–0.30]). Statistically significant improvements were seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively (RR 0.27 [0.18–0.41] and 0.17 [0.05–0.61]), and 93% of all 28 RCTs. These studies are tabulated in Table 1. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive for the 55 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 23 trillion (p = 0.000000000000043). The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance [8].

The Human Use Of Ivermectin

nih.gov |  Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on human health and welfare around the globe, especially with regard to the campaign to fight Onchocerciasis.⁵⁷⁾

Today, ivermectin is being increasingly used worldwide to combat other diseases in humans, such as Strongyloidiasis (which infects some 35 million each year), scabies (which causes 300 million cases annually), Pediculosis, Gnathostomiasis and Myiasis—and new and promising properties and uses for ivermectin and other avermectin derivatives are continuing to be found.⁵⁸⁾ These include activity against another neglected tropical disease, Leishmaniasis.^59,60) Of perhaps even greater significance is the evidence that the use of ivermectin has both direct and indirect beneficial impact on improving community health. Studies of long-term treatment with ivermectin to control Onchocerciasis have shown that use of the drug is additionally associated with significant reduction in the prevalence of infection with any soil-transmitted helminth parasites (including Ascaris, Trichuris and hookworm), most or all of which are deemed to be major causes of the morbidity arising from poor childhood nutrition and growth.⁶¹⁾ It is also known that the prevalence of head lice is markedly reduced in children taking ivermectin tablets⁶²⁾ and that scabies is markedly reduced in populations taking the drug regularly.⁶³⁾ Above all, ivermectin has proved to be a medicine of choice for the world’s rural poor. In many underprivileged communities throughout the tropics, intestinal worms and parasitic skin diseases are extremely common and associated with significant morbidity. They usually co-exist, with many individuals infected with both ecto- and endoparasites.^64,65) Mass treatment of poly-parasitized populations is deemed to be the best means of control and ivermectin is the ideal drug for such interventions. A recent study in Brazil, using locally produced ivermectin, looked at the impact on internal helminthes and parasitic skin diseases. The researchers concluded that “mass treatment with ivermectin was an effective and safe means of reducing the prevalence of most of the parasitic diseases prevalent in a poor community in North-East Brazil. The effects of treatment lasted for a prolonged period of time”. This study also represented the first published report of human medical intervention using ivermectin that had not been produced by the hitherto traditional manufacturer, Merck & Co. Inc., the patent on the drug expiring in 1997.⁶⁶⁾

In reality, the renewed interest in fighting tropical diseases, including the involvement of the pharmaceutical industry, which has become increasingly evident over the past three decades, and which has saved lives and improved the welfare of billions of people, notably the poor and disadvantaged in the topics, can be traced back to the 1987 introduction of ivermectin for use in humans. According to a recent report, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) data show that the global pharmaceutical industry provided over $9.2 billion in health interventions (medicines and equipment) between 2000–2007 alone, benefitting 1.75 billion people worldwide.⁶⁷⁾ The hitherto unprecedented donation of ivermectin in 1987 can rightly be seen to be the origin of this philanthropic outpouring.

Since the inception of the Mectizan Donation Programme, Merck has donated well over 2.5 billion Mectizan^® tablets for Onchocerciasis treatment, with in excess of 700 million treatments authorised. Currently, some 80–90 million people are taking the drug annually through MDA in Africa, Latin America and Yemen. A further 300 million total treatments have been approved for lymphatic filariasis, with around 90 million treatments being administered annually (Fig. ​(Fig.8 ).8 ). At present 33 countries are receiving ivermectin for Onchocerciasis and 15 for Lymphatic filariasis. Consequently, around US$4 billion worth of ivermectin tablets have been donated to date. In 2010, Ecuador became the second country in the Americas to halt River Blindness transmission. It is hoped that transmission of the disease in the Western hemisphere will be stopped by 2012—a goal that will have been achieved thanks to twice-yearly MDA with ivermectin. Lymphatic filariasis is targeted for global elimination by 2020, and, if all goes well, Onchocerciasis may well be eliminated from Africa soon thereafter.

The Story Of Ivermectin

isglobal  |   What do penicillin, aspirin and ivermectin have in common? Apart from the fact that they rhyme, all three belong to a very select group of drugs that can claim to have had the “greatest beneficial impact on the health and well-being of humanity”.

They have at least two other things in common: all three were found in nature and all three led to a Nobel prize. Aspirin is derived from salicin, a compound found in a variety of plants such as willow trees. Its use was first mentioned by Hippocrates in 400 BC, but was isolated only in 1829 as salicylic acid and synthesised some years later as acetylsalicylic acid. The discovery of the mechanisms underlying aspirin’s effects gave Sir John Vane the Nobel prize in 1982. Penicillin was isolated from mold that grew by accident on a Petri dish in Alexander Fleming’s laboratory. Its discovery changed the course of medicine, and earned Fleming the Nobel prize in 1945, which he shared with Howard Florey and Ernst Chain.

And this brings us to ivermectin- not likely a drug you will have in your first-aid kit, like aspirin or penicillin, but definitely a drug that has improved the lives of millions of people since its discovery in 1975.

The story of how ivermectin was discovered is quite incredible. In the late 1960s, Satoshi Ōmura, a microbiologist at Tokyo’s Kitasako Institute, was hunting for new antibacterial compounds and started to collect thousands of soil samples from around Japan. He cultured bacteria from the samples, screened the cultures for medicinal potential, and sent them 10,000 km away to Merck Research Labs in New Jersey, where his collaborator, William Campbell, tested their effect against parasitic worms affecting livestock and other animals. One culture, derived from a soil sample collected near a golf course southwest of Tokyo, was remarkably effective against worms. The bacterium in the culture was a new species, and was baptised Streptomyces avermictilis. The active component, named avermectin, was chemically modified to increase its activity and its safety. The new compound, called ivermectin, was commercialised as a product for animal health in 1981 and soon became a top-selling veterinary drug in the world. Remarkably, despite decades of searching, S. avermictilis remains the only source of avermectin ever found.

Why Is The FDA Attacking A Safe Effective Drug While Approving Hot Garbage?

 WSJ  |  The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?

Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic.

Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin. 

Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Merck has donated four billion doses to prevent river blindness and other diseases in Africa and other places where parasites are common. A group of 10 doctors who call themselves the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance have said ivermectin is “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine."

Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.

Some 70 clinical trials are evaluating the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19. The statistically significant evidence suggests that it is safe and works for both treating and preventing the disease. 

In 115 patients with Covid-19 who received a single dose of ivermectin, none developed pneumonia or cardiovascular complications, while 11.4% of those in the control group did. Fewer ivermectin patients developed respiratory distress (2.6% vs. 15.8%); fewer required oxygen (9.6% vs. 45.9%); fewer required antibiotics (15.7% vs. 60.2%); and fewer entered intensive care (0.1% vs. 8.3%). Ivermectin-treated patients tested negative faster, in four days instead of 15, and stayed in the hospital nine days on average instead of 15. Ivermectin patients experienced 13.3% mortality compared with 24.5% in the control group.

Moreover, the drug can help prevent Covid-19. One 2020 article in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications looked at what happened after the drug was given to family members of confirmed Covid-19 patients. Less than 8% became infected, versus 58.4% of those untreated.

 

Why The Utter Stagnation And Suppression Of Covid19 Treatment Protocols?

 

WSJ  |  Nearly a year and a half into the pandemic, researchers are still struggling to find effective, easy-to-use drugs to treat Covid-19.

Ten drugs have been cleared or recommended in the U.S. for use. Two of those later had their authorizations rescinded after they failed to work. The government recently paused shipments of a third because it wasn’t effective against new variants. The best medicines for early treatment are cumbersome to administer, and drugs for those in the hospital can only do so much for patients who are already severely ill.

“We’re really limited, to be honest,” says Daniel Griffin, chief of infectious disease at healthcare provider network ProHealth New York. “We do not have any dramatic treatments.”

A long list of factors played into the checkered development of drugs to treat Covid-19 cases—exposing flaws in the infrastructure of medical research and healthcare, particularly in fighting a fast-moving pandemic.

Federal officials concentrated their resources on quickly developing vaccines, with success. However, a relative dearth of drug research focused on coronaviruses, despite previous outbreaks, held back a fast response on treatments. Scattered U.S. clinical trials competed against each other for patients. When effective yet hard-to-administer drugs were developed, a fragmented American healthcare system struggled to deliver them to patients.

Covid-19 cases, and the need for treatments, are continuing. U.S. hospitals are bracing for new surges of cases with the Delta variant spreading among the unvaccinated. Vaccination drives are slowing in many countries, and poorer countries face a shortage of doses. No vaccine is 100% effective against Covid-19.

The Biden administration recently said it would spend $3.2 billion to support the development of Covid-19 antiviral pills.

Current clinical trials are evaluating more than 225 drug treatments, including new medicines as well as already-approved ones for conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and gout, to see if they might also be effective against Covid-19, according to data from the Milken Institute, a nonprofit think tank.

A few potential Covid-19 therapies in development have shown promise. Merck & Co. and Pfizer Inc. are each testing antiviral pills that could be taken at home soon after someone is infected. Merck’s widely anticipated pill, which it is developing with partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, hit a setback in April when it failed to help hospitalized patients. Researchers are still studying its effectiveness among the newly infected.

Government-funded researchers in the U.S. and U.K. recently began large studies of ivermectin—an antiparasitic pill used for decades to treat river blindness in sub-Saharan Africa.

Systemic Lying, Exploitation, and Abuse Of The Masses Is The Nemesis Of Evidence Based Medicine

plos |   Once defined in rhetorical but ultimately meaningless terms as “the conscientious, judicious and explicit use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” [1], evidence-based medicine rests on certain philosophical assumptions: a singular truth, ascertainable through empirical enquiry; a linear logic of causality in which interventions have particular effect sizes; rigour defined primarily in methodological terms (especially, a hierarchy of preferred study designs and tools for detecting bias); and a deconstructive approach to problem-solving (the evidence base is built by answering focused questions, typically framed as ‘PICO’—population-intervention-comparison-outcome) [2].

The trouble with pandemics is that these assumptions rarely hold. A pandemic-sized problem can be framed and contested in multiple ways. Some research questions around COVID-19, most notably relating to drugs and vaccines, are amenable to randomised controlled trials (and where such trials were possible, they were established with impressive speed and efficiency [3, 4]). But many knowledge gaps are broader and cannot be reduced to PICO-style questions. Were care home deaths avoidable [5]? Why did the global supply chain for personal protective equipment break down [6]? What role does health system resilience play in controlling the pandemic [7]? And so on.

Against these—and other—wider questions, the neat simplicity of a controlled, intervention-on versus intervention-off experiment designed to produce a definitive (i.e. statistically significant and widely generalisable) answer to a focused question rings hollow. In particular, upstream preventive public health interventions aimed at supporting widespread and sustained behaviour change across an entire population (as opposed to testing the impact of a short-term behaviour change in a select sample) rarely lend themselves to such a design [8, 9]. When implementing population-wide public health interventions—whether conventional measures such as diet or exercise, or COVID-19 related ones such as handwashing, social distancing and face coverings—we must not only persuade individuals to change their behavior but also adapt the environment to make such changes easier to make and sustain [10–12].

Population-wide public health efforts are typically iterative, locally-grown and path-dependent, and they have an established methodology for rapid evaluation and adaptation [9]. But evidence-based medicine has tended to classify such designs as “low methodological quality” [13]. Whilst this has been recognised as a problem in public health practice for some time [11], the inadequacy of the dominant paradigm has suddenly become mission-critical.

Whilst evidence-based medicine recognises that study designs must reflect the nature of question (randomized trials, for example, are preferred only for therapy questions [13]), even senior scientists sometimes over-apply its hierarchy of evidence. An interdisciplinary group of scholars from the UK’s prestigious Royal Society recently reviewed the use of face masks by the general public, drawing on evidence from laboratory science, mathematical modelling and policy studies [14]. The report was criticised by epidemiologists for being “non-systematic” and for recommending policy action in the absence of a quantitative estimate of effect size from robust randomized controlled trials [15].

Such criticisms appear to make two questionable assumptions: first, that the precise quantification of impact from this kind of intervention is both possible and desirable, and second, that unless we have randomized trial evidence, we should do nothing.

It is surely time to turn to a more fit-for-purpose scientific paradigm. Complex adaptive systems theory proposes that precise quantification of particular cause-effect relationships is both impossible (because such relationships are not constant and cannot be meaningfully isolated) and unnecessary (because what matters is what emerges in a particular real-world situation). This paradigm proposes that where multiple factors are interacting in dynamic and unpredictable ways, naturalistic methods and rapid-cycle evaluation are the preferred study design. The 20^th-century logic of evidence-based medicine, in which scientists pursued the goals of certainty, predictability and linear causality, remains useful in some circumstances (for example, the drug and vaccine trials referred to above). But at a population and system level, we need to embrace 21^st-century epistemology and methods to study how best to cope with uncertainty, unpredictability and non-linear causality [16].

In a complex system, the question driving scientific inquiry is not “what is the effect size and is it statistically significant once other variables have been controlled for?” but “does this intervention contribute, along with other factors, to a desirable outcome?”. Multiple interventions might each contribute to an overall beneficial effect through heterogeneous effects on disparate causal pathways, even though none would have a statistically significant impact on any predefined variable [11]. To illuminate such influences, we need to apply research designs that foreground dynamic interactions and emergence. These include in-depth, mixed-method case studies (primary research) and narrative reviews (secondary research) that tease out interconnections and highlight generative causality across the system [16, 17].

You Are The Carbon They Want To Reduce

This paper was originally hosted on the Doctors for Covid Ethics Medium account, but the platform censored the expert group and removed the paper, claiming the post was “under investigation”

archive |   Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.

In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.

• Necessity: Immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
• Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
• Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.

The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.