Covid: A pandemic of the vaccinated?

The statement

“Could it be that Australia’s Covid story has morphed into a pandemic of the vaccinated?

So I checked out the Commonwealth Department of Health’s coronavirus website, but it too, while providing all manner of details on Covid statistics by age, sex, states etc, was conspicuously silent on the relationship between Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths on the one hand, and vaccination status (unvaccinated, single dose, double dose, boosters) on the other. …..

The NSW Respiratory Surveillance Report for the week ending 14 May offered the answers I was looking for. In this ‘epidemiological week 19’, there were 570 Covid cases admitted to hospital, 58 in ICU and 90 deaths (Figure 4). Of these, just 30, 34 and 17 per cent, respectively, were unvaccinated (or vaccination status unknown).

Conversely, fully 82 per cent of all Covid-related deaths in the state in this week were at least double vaccinated, including 64 per cent who had received boosters.

Figure 4

And still the conspiracy of silence continues among all state and federal governments about this disappointing failure of vaccine efficacy and lack of justification for vaccine mandates and passports.

There never was any ethical justification for vaccine coercion to begin with.

And clearly the regulators, health authorities and governments are stubbornly refusing to entertain, let alone scrutinise, the current data coming in for the pandemic, either by accelerated loss of efficacy or by weakening natural immunity with successive doses.

The source

Professor Ramesh Thakur, in Australian Spectator

(https://spectator.com.au/2022/05/is-this-what-success-looks-like/ )

Ramesh Thakur, Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University and former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, is based in Australia.  

My take on it

Table 4 above includes a category for No dose/Unknown. It is a pity that this category was not further divided, because in an exercise to determine association, No dose and Unknown are very different categories. If they had been so divided, I would have been inclined to do the analysis on a reduced sample size after excluding the Unknown.

The best I can do is to exclude the bundled category, thereby reducing the sample size to 399.

The table then looks like this:

Would someone like to run a regression analysis on those numbers for me?

But is there any need?

Professor Thakur calls out ‘the conspiracy of silence (that) continues among all state and federal governments about this disappointing failure of vaccine efficacy and lack of justification for vaccine mandates and passports.’

‘A disappointing failure of vaccine efficacy’ ???

This wording implies that the virus remains the villain.

What I and others observe rather is a conspiracy of silence about the toxic nature of this injection.

Covid? Flu? Zinc and Quercetin may help.

The statement

“There are emerging biological terror threats. The key is not to panic but to have a rational strategy on how to deal with it.

  1. Don’t trust anything WHO, AMA, CDC, FDA, NIH say. I suggest doing the exact opposite. They have consistently proven themselves to be the enemies of the people.
  2. Understand that all Covid-19 strains, Flu, RSV, Marburg, and Ebola are single stranded RNA virus that (use) similar pathways for replication. They use RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP) to make copies of their genome.
  3. Zinc inhibits RDRP. HCQ, IVM, Quercetin, and EGCG are zinc Ionophores that help zinc enter cells.

My point is that having enough Zinc inside cells may help prevent and/or treat the above viruses.”

The source

Dr Zev Zelenko, NY-based family physician, posting on Telegram (https://t.me/zelenkoprotocol/3558 )

My take on it

If you are struggling with the opening statement, and with Point 1, just skip to Points 2 and 3.

Point 2 is an abbreviated explanation of how replication happens in single-stranded viruses. (You can skip Point 2 as well, if you like.)

Pint 3 postulates that Zinc interrupts that replication pathway; and that certain compounds help Zinc to enter our cells where it acts to interrupt viral replication.

Compounds that increase the intracellular concentration of Zinc ions are called ionophores. Dr Zelenko mentions four:

HCQ (Hydroxychloroquine)

IVM (Ivermectin)

Quercetin, and

EGCG (Epigallocatechin gallate).

Our access to the first two has been frustrated by regulatory authorities.

Quercetin and EGCG are readily available over the counter or on line.

Dr Zeleko’s point is that having enough Zinc inside cells may help prevent and/or treat viruses like Covid and the Flu. Having enough Zinc inside our cells is a primary way of boosting our immune system, and it is inexpensive, and safe (as was pointed out by Professor Cahill and others, at the outset). But of course Natural Immunity has been Persona Non Grata in the official narrative.

And No, I am not a doctor. I am passing on information from someone who is, and whose track record in this field is impressive. Please only take advice from people who are qualified to give it, and whose motives you can trust.

Mask mandates and case rates: “no significant relationship” (Lancet)

The statement

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been called out for its misleading justification of school mask mandates before. Rarely has it come from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, such as “The Lancet.”

Two scientific researchers soft-peddle criticism of the CDC’s mask mandate claims in a new article entitled, “Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements—United States, July 1—October 20 2021.” But the results are devastating for the CDC’s support of school mask mandates.

Research abstract follows:

Background: There has been considerable debate around mask requirements in schools in the United States and other countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. To date, there have been no randomized controlled trials of mask requirements in children. All analyses of the effectiveness of school mask mandates have relied on observational studies. The Centers for Disease Control in the U.S. have released multiple observational studies suggesting that school mask mandates significantly reduce case rates. However, there have also been numerous additional US and international observational studies finding no significant effect of school mask mandates on pediatric cases. 

Methods: Our study replicates a highly cited CDC study showing a negative association between school mask mandates and pediatric SARS-CoV-2 cases. We then extend the study using a larger sample of districts and a longer time interval, employing almost six times as much data as the original study. We examine the relationship between mask mandates and per-capita pediatric cases, using multiple regression to control for differences across school districts. 

Findings: Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates. These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.   

The source

beckernews.com, 29 May 2022 (https://beckernews.com/new-study-at-the-lancet-debunks-widely-cited-cdc-study-justifying-school-mask-mandates-45145/)

(Original article: Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements—United States, July 1—October 20 2021, Lancet pre-print posted 25 May 2022 ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4118566 )

My take on it

Once again for the dummies: Masks don’t work.

The research approach is commendable in that it first replicates the prior observational CDC study, and then improves the methodology to a randomised controlled study – only to evince a contrary finding. From a scientific perspective the findings of the latter study should automatically prevail (unless and until proved wrong by subsequent endeavour).

Nonetheless, “The one convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

The tone in which the paper was written, has been described by Becker as ‘soft-peddle criticism of the CDC’s mask mandate claims.’ We understand why that might be so. You don’t cut off the hand that feeds you.