My SARS-CoV-2 & Vaccination FAQ [Update 1/2023]
Composed originally for family and friends, this FAQ consolidates my research over the past year to help you ask informed questions of your physician, and make the best decision for your family.
About:
Since this is pseudo-anonymously published, I feel obligated to provide you with a very brief bio to consider. As a Christian, father, and husband I’ve assembled this FAQ in response to questions I’ve received from family and friends concerning the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the mRNA-based vaccinations that are available. This FAQ incorporates the research I've captured over the past year or so, into a series of FAQ-style questions and answers, with references to studies, Medical Doctors, and related research. I am not a physician, and I do not have a medical background. Please keep that context in mind, and make inquiries with medical professionals that you trust.
I have a BS from a US-based institution of higher learning, and work for a moderately sized business, in an executive capacity. Please consider this to be a source to add to your arsenal of information, as you try to make the best decisions you can for yourself, and your family as it pertains to the SARS-CoV-2, and the novel mRNA-based inoculations/vaccines.
I've broken this FAQ down into two sections
The main section tends to address objective findings, and has specific studies referenced explaining my answers. I have included a little commentary for the purpose of being as genuine as possible in terms demonstrating my level of understanding. If you find mistakes, or misunderstandings, please let me know.
The second section features primarily my commentary and opinion. This section has fewer specific references linked up. You’ll find some of it to be a rehash of the studies I've already referenced, though I do expand on my interpretations with a degree of reason and opinion.
For the purposes of providing you with a starting point related to my perspective, you’ll find I am biased toward trusting the 3 individuals listed below. While I do not know them personally, I do find them to credible on the subjects I’ve outlined.
As an aside, I have not attempted to monetize this article in any way. While I’ve never used Substack before, I chose it as it seemed like a lower barrier to publication than putting together a website dedicated to this content. I have linked directly to individuals, and some of their materials are for-profit (for them), but I do not derive any income either directly, or indirectly. If there are any embedded referral codes, these are unintentional and do not compensate me - will modify them if any exist.
[Updated 1/2023]: Conclusion
I have not gone through and conducted a comprehensive review of this document since I first published it in May, 2021. I have however, periodically added studies or context as new information came available. In cases where I’ve made modifications they are all prefixed with “[Updated Month/Year]” notation, so you can easily search for “[Update” in order to sort for the latest information.
This means that I’ve left everything “as-is”, so you can contrast my point of view around May, 2021 with the updated information, and consider my perspective side-by-side in an unaltered manner. The only exceptions to this are trivial grammatical modifications that I’ve come across in subsequent drafts which didn’t alter the original points whatsoever.
While I haven’t outlined the multitude of Doctors, medical researchers, and individuals both online and in the real word that hand-waived away my earnest concerns, and refused to answer my legitimate questions, I wish I could go back and find all of you and thank you. You’ve done more to inform my future decisions across a range of domains, than would have been possible otherwise.
In conclusion, I hope you too “Did your own research and survived the winter of death”, instead of relying on the so called “experts”.
Four Primary Resources:
Dr. Peter McCullough, principal faculty in internal medicine for the Texas A&M University, internationally recognized authority on the role of chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state. He has over 1000 published manuscripts, and 600 citations in the Library of Medicine. Dr. Peter McCullough is one of the leading doctors successfully treating SARS2 infections with one of the first published protocol's for SARS-CoV-2. He also published "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection" in August, and is recognized for publishing the first effective treatment protocol, preventing death.
https://rumble.com/vhp7y5-full-interview-world-renowned-doctor-blows-lid-off-of-covid-vaccine.html
Dr. Ryan Cole is a Mayo Clinic trained, board-certified pathologist (AP & CP) and the CEO/Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics (17 years), which is the largest independent laboratory in Idaho. As of March 2021, he and his team has swabbed >100k people and have not contracted the virus, while being on prophylactic treatments. He seems extremely credible, engaged, and clearly has a deep understanding of the outbreak, and it's on-going effects. Please consider reviewing this video below, and/or this interview podcast for perspective as I reference them significantly throughout this piece. https://www.bitchute.com/video/1md31fLh2YiR/
Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer Vice President who strikes me as extremely credible on facts, and the data, with a background in biopharma research. If you listen to his interview he clearly delineates between facts and opinion . His self-bio is... "A middle-class professional guy, who did ok, laughed at conspiracy theorists. Never campaigned, or had a public perspective... Has loved pharmaceutical research for 30-years. Massively in favor of new therapeutics. Pro safe medicine. Against things that increase risk or are used in the wrong context. Strong medicine reserved for people with a strong risk”. While “doing okay” might be a bit of an understatement (his public bio is a more impressive than he alludes), he comes across as credible in like manner as Dr. Ryan Cole. I reference this video interview with him to a significant extent: https://www.bitchute.com/video/KKOtC1OaH04E/
Alex Berenson, is a former New York Times writer, who has been focused on the SARS-CoV-2 story since the earliest phases of the outbreak. While I find him to be quite credible, he is controversial from the perspective that the mainstream media outlets are often at odds with him. I've noted all of my references to him in the FAQ, and tried to incorporate his data-based findings where they made sense. He substantially focused in his book, "Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 4: Vaccines" on the published trial data from Pfizer and Moderna, and I find his conclusions to be reasonable and appropriate. His findings are broadly consistent with my other research. I also should point out that it seems as though Scott Adams no longer closely follows what Alex has to say, while in earlier phases of the pandemic he did. I generally value Scott’s perspective and keep up with him on Locals, as well as Rumble.
Additional Doctors
These provided presentations, context, or otherwise helped inform my perspective:
Dr. Richard Urso
Dr. Amy Offutt
Dr. Angelina Farella
Dr. George Fareed
Dr. Brian Tyson
Other Helpful Resources
Beyond these 4 primary resources and the linked studies, I’ve also encountered many helpful individuals in presentations, on social media, and websites. I’ve done my best to link-up this list of folks below, not all of which seem to have a social media presence. I have not intentionally plagiarized anything from them, but my research was collected over the course of a year, and it’s possible I inadvertently copied something without attributing it properly. If you find something, please let me know and I will correct it/attribute it appropriately.
Section I
I see the virus referenced as SARS-CoV-2, SARS2, COVID-19, etc. are they all the same thing?
Yes.
How dangerous is the risk from SARS-CoV-2 ?
According to the CDC's official data, the mean survival rate for people in the age-group 35-44 is 99.925%, which translates into something like 20k deaths as of February, 2021. The risk generally increases with age, starting with children who have essentially zero deaths. The average age of death historically in the US is 78.6 years, which is the same as the average age of death from SARS-CoV-2.
Sources:[COVID Infection Fatality Rates By Sex And Age, COVID-19 Deaths by Age, Life Expectancy]
For the people that come down with SARS-CoV-2, what should they expect?
The vast majority recover within 11 days because they do not have a robust immune response
Most people had some previous exposure that they recovered quickly from
Most people have a normal immune response and do not require hospitalization
For people under 50, who are not obese, and have no medical complications it would be similar to any normal head-cold, according to Dr. Peter McCullough.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Peter McCullough, Various other sources]
How contagious is the virus within a household?
The combined household and family secondary transmission rate was 16.6%. This is lower than I initially expected, based on the anecdotal transmission information as it was characterized out of China (January 2020), and well into the spring (April 2020), based on what I was seeing about alleged transmission via surface contamination. Subsequent reports (last updated 4/2021) by the CDC indicate that surface transmission is low. It seems that you could break down household transmission into direct, and indirect transmission. Based on some of the below questions/answers, it might be reasonable to conclude that direct transmission within a household is relatively low, and indirect household transmission in a multi-tenant facility may be substantially higher.
Sources: [Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (12/2020), Science Brief: SARS-CoV-2 and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environment (4/2021)]
How does household contagion of SARS-CoV-2 compare with household transmission of influenza?
The short answer is that it appears broadly comparable to the flu in terms of how communicable it is.
SARS-CoV-2 household transmission rate was measured at 16.6% (earlier studies pegged it closer to 50%) and the household transmission of influenza was in the 24-34% range (or 1% - 38%, depending on the study).
My interpretation is that these types of observations may be "messy", and flu varies year-to-year (certainly, it did between studies), but an assessment of "somewhat lower than flu, to comparable to the flu" seems like a reasonable takeaway. Put differently, it's not vastly more communicable than the flu within most households.
Sources:[SARS-CoV-2 rates (12/2020), Risk Factors of Influenza transmission rates (2004), Household Transmission of Influenza Virus (2015)]
Based on the household contagion data in the prior question, is asymptomatic transmission a real risk?
According to the 12/2020 meta-analysis referenced above, there is no meaningful risk of asymptomatic transmission.
"Estimated household secondary attack rate was 16.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-19.3%), higher than secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV (7.5%; 95% CI, 4.8%-10.7%) and MERS-CoV (4.7%; 95% CI, 0.9%-10.7%). Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from **asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)**, to adult contacts (28.3%; 95% CI, 20.2%-37.1%) than to child contacts (16.8%; 95% CI, 12.3%-21.7%), to spouses (37.8%; 95% CI, 25.8%-50.5%) than to other family contacts (17.8%; 95% CI, 11.7%-24.8%), and in households with 1 contact (41.5%; 95% CI, 31.7%-51.7%) than in households with 3 or more contacts (22.8%; 95% CI, 13.6%-33.5%)."
Sources:[SARS-CoV-2 rates (12/2020)]
Can we generalize the indirect household transmission risk in a simple manner?
Where household transmission occurred, it seems that a significant source of transmission occurred though fecal aerosol plumbing. My interpretation of this is that multi-tenant facilities pose the greatest risk (specifically apartments, and long-term care facilities), which was possibly accelerated by shared HVAC, and poor plumbing design.
"The WHO hypothesized that empty U-traps in the plumbing system created a pathway for virus-laden droplets and aerosols to enter bathrooms and spread the infection as residents touched contaminated surfaces. The transmission pathway was aided by mechanical bathroom extract fans and favorable outdoor air conditions, which allowed an additional transmission pathway on the outside of the building."
Note this risk did not extend in a meaningful manner to schools, restaurants, and similar facilities (e.g. less than 2%). My guess is that dwell time (e.g. time spent in close contact with aerosolized fecal matter containing SARS-CoV-2), and quantity of the exposure posed the greatest risk.
If you recall the Diamond Princess cruise ship, it's believed that more than 50% of spread was attributed to aerosolized spread, which continued (though more slowly) even after quarantine was implemented on 2/5/2020. The linked study doesn't specifically state plumbing in the role of aerosolized transmission on the cruise ship, but that does seem like a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the plumbing systems and waste management aboard ship.
If you look at the sources closely, you’ll note that this individual study (9/2020) looked at the data differently than household transmission data in the Meta-study (12/2020).
Source: [Data show prevalence of in-home transmission, Probable Evidence of Fecal Aerosol Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a High-Rise Building (12/2020), SARS-CoV-2: The Growing Case for Potential Transmission in a Building via Wastewater Plumbing Systems (12/2020), Mechanistic transmission modeling of COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess cruise ship demonstrates the importance of aerosol transmission (7/2020)]
Is the CDC death rate data reliable?
The reliability of the death rate data is not a simple conclusion to arrive at, and therefore I've primarily set it aside to instead focus on what we know about the deaths that have occurred. For consideration, you'd have to take into account multiple variables (e.g. died-with, died-from, not-reported, COVID-reaction fatalities, COVID-upheaval fatalities, accident reduction, etc.), which I have not attempted to do assess.
Instead, I've considered death & hospitalization with respect to age, obesity, and ethnicity and concluded that the CDC official death rate data for is probably misleading for some groups. For the stated .075% death rate in the age-group 35-44, if you factor into it ethnicity, and BMI, the risk may be dramatically overstated for certain groups.
Why do you think the CDC data overstates the risk substantially?
Because they told us so on at least a limited basis. According to the CDC, about 78% of people hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 were overweight or obese. If this was presented along with other risks, it may substantially alter an individual's personal risk assessment.
Source: [Body Mass Index and Risk for COVID-19–Related Hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit Admission, Invasive Mechanical Ventilation, and Death — United States, March–December (12/2020)]
Are there any other indications that the CDC data overstates the risk for the average person?
Yes, but the analysis I've found is not "main" or "plain". So please do not consider this to be vetted truth, though this source does does reference CDC data. The linked source basically says that when you look at the death rate data by age/ethnicity, most of the deaths occur in the black community, followed by the Hispanic community. While the linked source posting does indicate some possible reasons for that finding, it also is consistent my other research.
According to the below study, Vitamin D levels differ based ethnicity. If you consider ethnicity, the death rate for white population groups, it is something like 5 people per 100k for people aged 30-49. And this analysis is broadly consistent with the prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency data by ethnicity, below.
African-American adults have the highest prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency (82.1%, 95% CI, 76.5%-86.5%) followed by Hispanic adults (62.9%; 95% CI, 53.2%-71.7%) (2012)
Sources: [COVID-19 mortality rates by race/ethnicity and age (2021), Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency and Associated Risk Factors in the US Population (2011-2012)]
If we look outside of the US, how does the data compare?
With approximately 5.5 million people, and approximately 10K SARS-CoV-2 deaths, Scotland is a modern western country with reasonably good data. However, in Scotland they provide age and co-morbidity data. One (1) Scot without preexisting conditions under 30 had died, while 21 under 50 have died. 20% of all deaths are in people over the age of 90 (circa February/March, 2021).
Sources:[Deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland, Alex Bernenson screenshot Tweet reference]
How did the infection fatality rate (IFR, or death rate) data hold up?
[Updated 1/2023] The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested.
For the sake of comparison, CDC estimates of flu IFR ranged from 0.1% to 0.17% from 2014 to 2019. The median IFR of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.034% for people aged 0–59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0–69 years, across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies.
“The median IFR considering available data from fully representative general population studies was 0.0009% at 0–19 years, 0.012% at 20–29 years, 0.035% at 30–39 years, 0.109% at 40–49 years, 0.34% at 50–59 years, and 1.07% at 60–69 years without accounting for seroreversion (loss of antibodies over time in previously infected individuals).”
Source: Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population
How are mRNA-based inoculations different than traditional vaccinations?
Traditional vaccines use a deactivated, or weakened pathogen to confer immunity on the inoculated population. This is phenomenon that has been understood, as least causally for a long time.
Researchers believe a vaccine via limited exposure was in use in approximately 200 BC. More "modern" vaccines trace back to 1796 when Edward Jenner conferred cowpox (a relative of small pox) immunity on target subjects in 1796.
mRNA-based "vaccines" contain genetic code (mRNA), which are instructions the body uses to create proteins. Your body manufacturers the protein which is representative of the protein expressed by the target pathogen, to "train" the immune system.
Sources: [various]
Are the new mRNA-based inoculations a vaccine?
Some scientists question whether they should be called vaccines, or whether they are more properly classified as gene therapies, since they temporarily insert foreign genetic material called mRNA into our cells. For this reason, some people will not refer to them as vaccines.
Whatever the outcome in the short-term, my expectation is that they will almost certainly have to be classified differently in the long-term as calling them "vaccines" has resulted in a regulatory peculiarity that appears to be transferring risk onto patients in a manner that traditional vaccines do not.
Sources: [Various including: Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeadon, Alex Berenson]
Have mRNA-based inoculations ever been permitted by drug regulators?
Until December 2020, drug regulators had never allowed the sale of any vaccine or drug based on mRNA technology. As recently as 2017, Moderna had not demonstrated that mRNA-based technology was safe and effective for disease treatment.
Sources: [Alex Berenson, Lavishly funded Moderna hit safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine (2017)]
Is there any legal recourse for an individual if something goes wrong with the vaccine?
The companies manufacturing the inoculations have no meaningful legal risk, as a result of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005, which will be active on the mRNA-based inoculations until 2024.
Sources: [Various, including]
Do the mRNA-based vaccines (e.g. Moderna, and Pfizer) reduce symptoms?
Pfizer and other vaccine makers all tested their shots in double-blinded, randomized clinical trials. In the Pfizer trial, about 20,000 people received the vaccine and the same number a placebo. For Moderna, each trial arm contained about 13,500 people. The vaccines seemed to have stopped SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Sources: [Alex Berenson]
Do the mRNA-based inoculations overall benefits outweigh the overall risks?
My understanding is that it’s not yet clear. The question turns out to be much more complicated than whether the vaccines cut the number of infections. That’s especially true for people under 50, who face a low risk of serious illness or death from COVID but often suffer severe short-term side effects after being vaccinated. People over 70 are at higher risk from the virus, and appear somewhat less likely to suffer severe side effects from the vaccines. For them, the most important caveat is how well the vaccines will actually protect them.
Sources: [Alex Berenson]
Do the vaccines work for people over 80?
March 5, 2020 a team of German researchers published their findings from a study that tested how well people over 80 responded to Pfizer’s vaccine compared to those under 60. Unfortunately, the researchers found that vaccines produced a markedly weaker immune response in older people than those under 60. Seventeen days after receiving their second dose, about one in three people over 80 had no detectable “neutralizing antibodies” to the coronavirus in their blood – a crucial measure of immunity. Only 1 percent of younger people had no neutralizing antibodies.
This is similar to our real-world experience with flu vaccines. The evidence that influenza vaccines reduce deaths in people over 65 is weak. In a study in 2020, in Britain they found that flu vaccines linked to slightly higher rates of deaths and hospitalizations in people over 65.
Sources:[Age-dependent immune response to the Biontech/Pfizer BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination (3/2021), The Effect of Influenza Vaccination for the Elderly on Hospitalization and Mortality: An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design (3/2020)]
During the Pfizer and Moderna trials, how many people died or were hospitalized that contracted SARS-CoV-2?
Serious illness from Covid in the trials was rare – not just among people who received the vaccine, but those who got the placebo. Out of the more than 13,000 people in the Moderna trial who received the placebo, only nine required hospitalization for Covid. For Pfizer, only nine placebo patients out of 20,000 became what the company defined as “severely” ill, compared to one vaccine recipient.
The trials also had almost exactly the same number of deaths in people who received the placebo or vaccine.
So the question in my mind actually remains - did they produce a meaningful benefit for the trial group?
Sources: [Alex Berenson, pages 3-4]
What are some simple pros/cons of mRNA-based technology?
mRNA-based technology is experimental from the perspective that it has not ever been approved by the FDA, and until 12/2020 had never been allowed in drug available for sale. There are two key problems with mRNA-technology...
It's hard to produce a large enough stable quantity because it degrades so quickly after produced or injected
It's hard to get it inside cells.
Because it's not natural for mRNA to arrive externally, your body has defenses to prevent foreign genetics from getting into your cellular machinery.
Dr. Michael Yedon is "Very surprised that multiple companies have developed this technology", and feels as though "it must be less safe than a traditional vaccine".
Sources: [Dr. Michael Yeadon, Alex Berenson]
Where do the spike proteins go, after your body builds them?
Data on this was not available at the on-set of the vaccination program, and was not part of the published testing data. The medical consensus seemed to be that the spike protein remained around the injection site in the deltoid, and in the lymph node associated with it.
In May 2021, a Harvard study found that the spike protein was circulating in the bloodstream in 11 of the 13 study participates, contradicting what was expected.
"SARS-CoV-2 proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. 11 of 13 participants showed detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein as early as day one after first vaccine injection. Clearance of detectable SARS-CoV-2 protein correlated with production of IgG and IgA. "
Moreover, according to a Pfizer bio-distribution study, produced for a Japanese regulatory agency and made available for public consumption in late May 2021, it indicated that the vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and and ovaries. The free-floating blood stream circulation was confirmed in the Harvard study. The Japanese source, and English translation are both provided.
While the Harvard study may have a small sample size, the fact that the spike protein was found in 84% of the study participants blood streams, each on more than 1 observation is a safety red flag.
Because your body manufactures the spike, the effective dose is not readily quantifiable for an individual at any point in time. Some people get a lot of the protein deposited somewhere that they're vulnerable (e.g. brain, placenta, heart, etc.).
All mRNA-based inoculations almost certainly have this risk because they don't have known quantities active. Even if you start with a standardized input of mRNA inoculation, it will differ based on an individual's body and how you manufacture it.
The risks are probably clinically significant, based on the bleeding incidents that are occurring, according to Dr. Michael Yeadon. If you were a healthy young woman with no special risks for blood clots, but you have blinding headaches, this would be atypical in the population, and the high incidence among the vaccinated are troubling.
Sources: [Dr. Michael Yeadon, Alex Berenson, Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients, Pfizer Biodistribution study]
Are the mRNA-based vaccines experimental?
Yes, this is still experimental in most countries where it is authorized. The current phase is basically a phase 3 trials, which is the big long-term safety trial.
Sources: [Various including: Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeadon, Alex Berenson]
Are there safe and effective alternative treatments?
We now know there are effective alternative treatments, including hydroxycholoriquine (HCQ), ivermectin, and Budesonide. It has been suggested that the FDA violated the law when they approved the mRNA-based inoculations under emergency use guidelines, as effective treatments were known to exist as early as April, 2020.
As of 5/10/2021, there have been 19 published studies of ivermectin with 177 authors covering 2,044 patients and 100% were positive with an average reduction in hospitalization of 80%.
There are 14 studies with 108 authors and 8,789 patients showing an average reduction of hospitalization/death of 85% by taking ivermectin as a prophylaxis to prevent getting infected. Once again 100% of these studies are positive. These results were replicated by AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences).
According to Dr. Peter McCullough, COVID-19 has always been a treatable illness. Per two studies that he cites in the linked interview, for patients over the age of 50 with other medical problems that get treatment, there is an over 85% reduction in death with a multi-drug treatment approach (4-6 drugs).
Sources: [Various including: Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeadon, Alex Berenson, AIIMS find ivermectin prophylaxis reduces infection in Covid-19 patients (11/2020), Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis, Dr. Peter McCullough]
Where is ivermectin being used, and what kind of results are they having?
Ivermectin works against lots of viruses. Outside of the US, they are doing trials with COVID. More generally, 4 billion people have taken ivermectin since the 1980s. Only 1-2 people (other sources indicated 12) have died in the entire history of taking it, and those deaths are suspect. Some doctors have been trying it in Texas, and Florida with COVID19. It's been said that people can safety tolerate more than the recommended dosage with no ill-effects, but a Medical Doctor should obviously should be consulted, and prescribe the dose. Ivermectin has been used widely in farm animals at the first sign of sickness. In COVID19 treatment studies it's resulted in 70-90% reduction in deaths in Texas. It's already been approved for general usage, and is being used overseas widely and effectively against COVID. Decreased death rate has been observed to be 75%, or 86% when given early or very early.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, https://c19ivermectin.com/]
Where can I get ivermectin - I've heard some states have made filling prescriptions illegal?
If your doctor wont prescribe it, or your local pharmacy wont fill it - Speak With an MD (or any number of US-based online tele-medicine providers) will prescribe it and have a partner/local pharmacy fill it, and ship it to you. Some people are getting it prescribed as a prophylactic (preventative) medication and keeping it on the shelf to make sure they can get treatment very early. You can also source both medications from India via one of the suppliers available through IndiaMart without a prescription, although lead times are several weeks.
I personally have used both SpeakWithanMD.com, as well as IndiaMart.com. The former more recently to have prophylactic prescriptions on-hand (HCQ, and ivermectin), and the latter during the summer when my state temporarily outlawed HCQ. I only mention these companies because I have first-hand experience with them. I am not in any way compensated by them. I personally feel more comfortable with SpeakWithanMD.com, as it’s US-based.
The most important thing about treatment seems to be getting it early, in order to prevent bad outcomes. It's been suggested that you should not wait to confirm you have COVID, and instead to treat first.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeadon,]
Are mRNA-based inoculations safe and effective?
Since no long-term safety data exists on the mRNA-based inoculations, it's impossible to objectively state their long-term safety or effectiveness. Short-term risks appear to be understated by the mainstream media, and the VAERS database.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeadon]
Are mRNA-based inoculations safe and effective in Children?
As children were not part of the limited trials, it's impossible to say. Anecdotally, the vaccine injuries seem higher in children than in the elderly. As children are at statistically no risk of from the virus, they should not receive the vaccine.
According to an interview with Dr. Andrew Bostom (5/12/2021), for each life that might be saved in children (extrapolating down from from the vaccinations in Israel which stopped at age 16) you could have 84 serious adverse events. As a clinical trialist, Dr. Bostom indicates that it is not a good benefit to risk ratio.
SARS2 is considerably more benign than seasonal flu in children.
For the children that have received a dose of the Pfizer vaccine in the latest round of emergency authorization (June, 2021), 86% experienced an adverse following the inoculation, while 0.4% of participants suffered a serious adverse event up to 30 days after dose 2.
Given that children aren't at risk from the virus, any serious adverse event associated with the vaccine is unacceptable.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeadon, https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download, Dr. Bostom interview]
What kinds of things are you worried about long-term?
The rapid engineering of the mRNA-based vaccines is unprecedented. For example, it took less than 1 month to identify the mRNA sequence from which the inoculation is derived. While the technology has been under development for some time, it was never allowed for sale to the public prior to 12/2020. There are fairly recent indications that suggest it was not a safe technology (e.g. 2017). I'm optimistic that it may eventually yield new tools to combat a range of illness. However, between then and now my concern is that the inoculations may cause a range conditions. These range from infertility, to auto-immune disorders, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), encephalitis and cognitive-delay/impairment, and new variants of the corona-virus.
Is there any indication that the mRNA-based inoculations may cause infertility?
This has been speculated variously. Some think it's extremely unlikely. That said, the there is no meaningful history to the vaccines, and there's no ethical way to make such a forward looking statement about infertility risk.
According to a Pfizer bio-distribution study, produced for a Japanese regulatory agency and made available for public consumption in late May 2021, that it can accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and and ovaries. A Harvard study indicated that the vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, Alex Berenson - page 27, https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075]
Is there any indication that the vaccinated may make covid more dangerous to unvaccinated people?
There's at least one indication in previous vaccines (Marek's disease in Chickens), that showed that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote emergence of more severe strains. As most human vaccines are perfect/sterilizing, they offer full immunity to almost everyone who receives them. The COVID vaccines are "leaky", and do not prevent transmission. Vaccinated individuals could potentially still get COVID and spread it to others.
In terms of so called asymptotic spread, it seems that the risk is greater in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, as the vaccine is designed to reduce symptoms, not prevent infection. I do not believe this can yet be stated conclusively, but we do know from studies that the unvaccinated do not spread the virus without symptoms, as indicated elsewhere in this document.
Sources: [Alex Berenson - page 28, https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198]
When will we know if they're safe, and effective?
Unfortunately, we won't be certain for a long time because we're essentially in the early stages of a phase 3 safety trial. I'm optimistic that we will have a "control" group that has not received the mRNA-based inoculations that will be meaningful. We may become aware they're unsafe sooner.
In the mRNA-based trials associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, was there any pregnancy risk warning signs? What have we learned since the trials?
The animal studies raised a worrying signal about pregnancy. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported that pregnant rats given their vaccines lost substantially more offspring than those given a placebo –twice as many for Pfizer, and more than 2.3 times as many for Moderna.
Pregnant women, women looking to become pregnant, and nursing mothers might be better served by avoiding an mRNA-based vaccine until more time has passed.
In the time that has since passed, clotting risks appear to have resulted in miscarriages, and Dr. Ryan Cole provides an anecdotal account that he considers likely be linked.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, Alex Berenson - page 17; https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf]
Do children spread the virus?
No. According to this study, there is no evidence for asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 in childcare facilities.
Sources:[Prevalence and Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Childcare Facilities: A Longitudinal Study, Clinical characteristics of children and young people admitted to hospital with covid-19 in United Kingdom: prospective multicentre observational cohort study,]
What about the children? Will kids die if they get the virus?
The only children in the referenced British study who have died from SARS-CoV-2 have had "profound co-morbidities.". Essentially no children appear to be dying from the virus.
Update 11/2021 - This continues to be the case - no children are dying from the virus. But children are being vaccine injured by the vaccine.
What do we know about previous coronavirus vaccine trials, and ADE risk?
ADE is known as the "Trojan Horse" pathway, which occurs when non-neutralizing antibodies generated by a past infection or vaccination, fail to stop the pathogen upon re-exposure. Instead, they act as a gateway allowing the virus to gain entry and replicate in cells they normally would not (e.g. macrophages). This scenario can lead to wide dissemination of the illness, and over-reactive immune reposes that cause more illness. There are several historical examples of this, including a measles candidate vaccine in the 1960s which lead to ADE and illness enhancement in the trial subjects. In the case of measles, the vaccine was ultimately replaced with a live atenuated measles virus to compensate for the ADE occurrence. As a result, we have a measles vaccine that essentially confers perfect immunity in the vaccinated population.
In terms of recent coronavirus research, we know that in the 2000s, there were a number of studies conducted on coronavirus vaccine candidates in animal populations, to address the SARS1 virus. In the studies that I reviewed, the long-term outcomes were not good for the test subjects. While many did develop immunity to the virus they were inoculated against, the animals tended to develop either unusual cancers, or an antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) when confronted with a "wild" virus 6-12 months later. This resulted in most of the animals dying from the enhanced immune response, or similar immune reaction. I have invested a noteworthy amount of time trying to determine what has changed between the SARS1 vaccine candidates, and SARS2 vaccines to nullify that risk, and have not been able to identify a study associated with it.
The only contrasting datapoint I've been able to locate that specifically addresses ADE risk in SARS2 vaccines, comes in an article from Dr. Veronica Hackethal in March, 2021. She reports that there have been no reports of ADE associated with the SARS2 vaccines as of yet, and indicates that it's pretty much a non-issue for the SARS2 vaccines. She reports that the reason for this is that scientists sought to target a SARS2 protein that was least likely to cause ADE. She reports that in the initial effort, scientists abandoned targeting the nucleoprotein of SARS2 that MIGHT cause ADE, and instead targeted the S2 subunit of the spike protein. According to Dr. Hackethal, they've looked for ADE risk in both animal and human trials, and have not found it. She indicates the opposite is happening, and that "vaccinated subjects show up with no severe coronavirus cases and no hospitalizations, which is the opposite of what you would expect if ASDE were happening". She goes on to indicate that ADE is an acute problem and would be very dramatic, and expects we would have spotted it by now.
Dr. Hackethal continues, that variants may change the situation, but at this point it is hypothetical.
I have not been able to independently verify the line of investigation in terms of minimizing the ADE risk. Nor have I been able to identify another resource that specifically corroborates Dr. Hackethal's opinion. That having been said, the failures to address ADE risk in all of the SARS1 vaccine candidate trials, remains a significant concern of mine.
At a high-level, we know that the SARS1 vaccine candidates generally had the luxury of time (e.g. they were investigated post-SARS1 outbreak and did not have an overt sense of urgency), but lacked the luxury of quasi-unlimited funding that the SARS2 candidates benefited from. We also know that coronaviruses drift or mutate, which is at least one reason why we've never seen a successful vaccine for cold viruses. Given the complexities involved in producing a vaccine for a virus like SARS2, it strikes me that on a reasoned basis, the luxury of time is of greater benefit than the luxury of funding for addressing this particular risk. Moreover, we know that SARS2 vaccines do not confer perfect immunity like the measles vaccines, as the benefit of the vaccine is primarmily diminishing the severity of the infection.
While breakthrough cases may be expected, the fact that SARS2 vaccines do not convey perfect immunity exacerbates the ADE risk as variants drift. Given the campaign to vaccinate as many as possible, the concern is that this "maximize the vaccinated" campaign, as opposed to "vaccinate only the most at risk", could create a situation which increases the evolutionary pressure on SARS2 variants and results in increasing ilness as the virus evolves around the vaccine measures, or creates a race condition in vaccine measures/counter-measures (e.g. boosters). This is notably observed with vaccines that convey imperfect immunity, so ominously in the case of Marek's Disease in Chicken populations. Beyond the article I referenced above, I have not been able to identify what changed between the SARS1 vaccine candidates, and the SARS2 vaccines that fundamentally addresses the risk of ADE. Given the 80% overlap between SARS1 and SARS2, the lack of published data remains a concern.
My take is that only time will tell. Hopefully, for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated like, the ADE risk is sufficiently blunted in the manner that Dr. Hackethal outlines. I remain optimistic that treatments outlined elsewhere would continue to be safe and effective for both populations.
Sources: [Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeadon, https://www.sinobiological.com/research/virus/coronavirus-vaccine (2005-2009), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592697/ (2006), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15507655/* (2004), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18522505/ (2008, 1976), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382 (2012), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27390007/ (2016), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018502/ (2014), Variants of concern are over-represented among post-vaccination breakthrough infections in SARS-CoV-2 in Washington State, COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27902909/, Why ADE Hasn't Been a Problem With COVID Vaccines]
What has changed since the coronavirus vaccine trials which would render the new mRNA-based inoculations "safe and effective"?
I have not been able to ascertain this. This is where I have invested a significant amount of time, as given the obvious risks of the earlier trials, it seemed to me that something significant must have changed in order to render these vaccines safe. I have not been able to determine what, if anything, has changed beyond the fact that the prior studies were of animal populations. Among the MDs and experts I've directly consulted, as well as the interviews and presentations I've reviewed, this remains an outstanding risk that has not been explained away by the mainstream media sources.
What does the SARS-CoV-2 variant risk look like? Is it more or less deadly?
In general, outbreak variants spread more rapidly and more easily than the original virus, but tend to be less lethal. This should be, and so far, appears to be the case with SARS-CoV-2, despite media protestations to the contrary.
According to Dr. Michael Yeadon… "To date, no robust scientific evidence proves that any variants exist that are more transmissible or deadly". By definition, variants are clinically identical to the original. In fact, variants are so similar, that your body will likely ignore the distinction if previously infected, and will go to work eliminating the threat. “
Sources: [various, including Dr. Michael Yeadon]
How different are the current (April, 2021) variants of the SARS-CoV-2 strain?
The original Wuhan virus is only 0.3% different in 16 months. All variants are 99.7% identical. It appears that there may have been multiple variants at the assumed start of the outbreak (12/2019), which implies that on-set was before late 2019. It’s possible that not all variants have yet to be identified.
Sources: [various, Dr. Michael Yeadon]
What does that 0.3% difference mean in terms of risk?
For contrast, SARS-CoV-2 is about 20% different than the SARS (2003) version. In a study of people who had been exposed to the original SARS strain, they took a blood sample from that group, extracted their T-cells and asked 2 questions:
Do the T-cells remember SARS still?
Yes, they all still reacted when exposed to the original SARS strain.
Did the T-Cells react when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus?
The T-Cells of all participants reacted when exposed to SARS-CoV-2. This indicates SARS exposure 17 years ago will cause an immune response to SARS-CoV-2, even though it's 20% different.
The takeaway, is that there is no credibility to claims that immunity from SARS-CoV-2 will not cover anticipated variants.
My understanding is that it seems reasonable to generalize the finding from the testing to imply some degree of cross-immunity based on the T-cell reaction. It is perhaps significant, and much longer lasting than has generally been reported.
Sources: [Dr. Michael Yeadon]
How do we know if people are being injured or having a negative reaction to the inoculations?
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a voluntary adverse reporting platform. The estimate of actual adverse events that get reported range from less than 1%, to 10%.
Based on the data I've collected, it seems to me that the < 1% reporting incidence is more credible than 10%, but it's not objectively true. Europe also has a similar reporting system. I base my characterization of the magnitude primarily the opinions of experts, as well as my understanding about the latency that can occur between the injection, and an adverse event.
Source: [various, Alex Berenson]
How many people have died from the mRNA-based inoculations?
According to VAERS, as of 6/4/2021, there have been 5,888 deaths, 284,801 total adverse events, and 28,441 serious injuries. This represents more deaths than the previous 23 years of recording vaccine deaths combined.
As of June 2021, over 10,570 people have died in Europe according to the European Medicines Agenca/EudroVigilance.
Objectively, these are the most deadly vaccines ever created.
Source: [VAERS, Alex Berenson, https://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html, https://vaers.hhs.gov/, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-data-deaths-reported-following-covid-vaccines/]
How do the reported side effects in 2021 compare to prior years?
By 3/2020, VAERS had received more then 30,000 reports of side effects from COVID-19 mRNA-based inoculations. This is as many as all other vaccines combined during the prior year.
Sources: [Alex Berenson; page 17]
Do you think that the mRNA-based vaccines under report the number of incidents?
It's believed that it's substantially under-reported, based on the voluntary nature as well as as the latency between injection and when the symptoms manifest. It's been estimated that it takes 4-6 weeks for the proteins to be fully translated from the injected mRNA. This means front-line doctors (initial reaction), and after that predominantly family will be the ones most likely to observe adverse events (if noticed).
Update 9/2022: According a peer-reviewed study published in January 2022, the mRNA and spike antigen is “… detectable up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases”. On day 60, lower but appreciable levels were identifiable in the germinal center. Chris Martensen did a deep dive into this paper and the finding in a video titled “Shocking! mRNA and Spike protein found 8 weeks after vaccination in some people”, where he explains the context related to this finding, along with the emergent risks associated with this finding. Furthermore, the biodistribution are still “incompletely understood be aare likley to be major determinates of immune responses”.
Sources:[Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination”, - page 3, Shocking! mRNA and Spike protein found 8 weeks after vaccination in some people]
There is concern that seemingly unrelated symptoms may manifest between the injection, and the time it takes for the proteins to be manufactured by your body.
Sources: [This has been expressed by a number of sources, including Alex Berenson. The estimates I've captured in terms of time to fully synthesis the protein spike range from 7 days to 42 days, though I did not find a conclusive answer. Based on the recommended time between shots of the Pfizer inoculations being 28 days, this seem reasonable, if conservative approximations]
How does the mRNA-based inoculation risk compare with flu vaccine risk data?
Based on the number of reports received (VAERS), people are more than 150 times as likely to die after receiving a COVID inoculation than the flu vaccine. But that difference underestimates the real ratio of death reports per vaccination, because people must receive two shots of most of the mRNA inoculations in order to be fully vaccinated. Fewer than 40 million people had received two doses in mid-March, meaning that death reports were roughly 500 times as likely to come in following COVID-19 vaccinations.
Sources: [Alex Berenson - page 18]
Is the AstraZeneca vaccine different? Is it not an mRNA-based vaccine?
AstraZeneca’s inoculation does not contain mRNA - unlike the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. But it is also not a traditional vaccine. Instead, AstraZeneca uses a cold virus to inject DNA into cells, where the DNA is converted into RNA. The RNA causes those cells to produce coronavirus spike proteins, as the Pfizer and Moderna shots do. In other words, like the mRNA vaccines, it is a novel vaccine that works by leveraging our own cells for production of the protein.
Sources: [Alex Berenson - page 20]
Are nursing mothers who receive the vaccine putting their infants at risk?
I have not been able to identify an answer that is objectively clear. There are several incidents of nursing babies dying of unusual complications, including low platelet counts, within days of their mother's receiving the SARS-CoV-2 inoculations. The only study I found on this (4/2021) had a stated conclusion of "Lactating individuals should continue breastfeeding in an uninterrupted manner after receiving mRNA vaccination for SARS-CoV-2.". However, my concern would be what level of novel mRNA-based inoculation is safe to transmit to my child? What are the long-term consequences?
Sources: [BNT162b2 vaccination induces SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody secretion into human milk with minimal transfer of vaccine mRNA, anecdotal supporting material: https://thecovidblog.com/2021/03/14/mary-voll-pediatric-nurse-has-stillborn-baby-eight-days-after-mrna-shot, https://republicreborn.com/2021/04/23/breastfeeding-infant-has-died-after-mom-gets-covid-vaccine/]
In terms of immunity, do the mRNA-based inoculations confer T-cell immunity comparable to a natural infection?
Based on the below source, natural T-cell response occurring as a result of a symptomatic infection is superior to asymptomatic infection. The source source study speculates that "proteins besides [the spike protein] could be incorporated into vaccines; this could boost neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibody responses by eliciting a more robust T-cell response".
I do not believe that you can objectively state that inoculation-derived immunity is inferior to naturally-derived immunity, but I believe that's a reasonable extrapolation.
Sources:[Immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infections]
Should people who have contracted SARS2 participate in the vaccination experiment?
This was not part of any of the SARS2 vaccination trials, and therefore cannot objectively be stated. While the linked study concludes that previously infected individuals should not participate in the two shot regime, the current (6/2021) trend in thinking is that a second shot probably isn't needed at all, irrespective of previous infection. There is enough anecdotal information to suggest that previously infected individuals are at a heightened risk of enhanced immune response to the vaccinations.
A separate study in the UK, the SIREN study found that infection and the development of an antibody response provides protection similar to or even better than currently used SARS2 vaccines.
American's Frontline Doctors recommend against immunizing the previously infected.
According to Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the leading doctors in treating COVID-19, previous infection provides "complete and durable" immunity to the virus, and "you can't vaccinate on-top of natural immunity to make it better. There's no scientific or safety rationale for ever vaccinating, or testing a COVID19 recovered patient", and in Texas we are at 80% herd immunity by 3/10/2021. There is a low-degree, if any, for asymptomatic spread. They cannot find it anywhere it looks.
Finally, a recent Cleveland Clinic study (6/5) of 52,238 employees, found 1359 of the previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated for the duration of the study. Importantly, not one of the 1359 had SARS2 re-infection for the 5-month duration of the study.
Sources:[https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1?, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00782-0/fulltext, https://frontlinefacts.com/blog/should-we-immunize-the-immune/?s=03, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2]
Section II - Commentary and Opinion
Below are my non-medical opinions. I’ve complied these after considerable effort consolidating data for the past year. While I attempt to be data-based, I've reasoned out and extrapolated takeaways beyond what is sourced in the first section. You should seek the opinion of a Physician you trust before you make a decision for yourself, or your family.
Is COVID19 a hoax?
SARS-CoV-2 is a real, highly communicable virus. However, it's primarily a threat to people over the age of 65, and individuals with medical vulnerabilities.
Who should receive the vaccines?
It's not obvious to me that anyone should receive them.
If you look at who is most at risk, based on the CDC's perhaps overstated death risk data, you could say folks over 65 might be appropriate. Or maybe with a bit more accuracy, you could say, a reasoned risk/reward argument could be made for black and Hispanic individuals over 60 or so, along with obese individuals, or those in that age group with some other significant health risks. To maximize impact of the vaccine, "connectors", front-line medical personnel, and frequent travelers would be the most effective population beyond those most at risk to vaccinate ("best" in terms of slowing the spread, not necessarily "best" for themselves).
Given the flu shot efficacy which is inconclusive (and perhaps dangerous) beyond age 65, it's not obvious who should receive them beyond this age group, but a case could perhaps be made that the risk/reward is sufficient to inoculate those over 65 who think they are at elevated risk. The lack of measurable neutralizing antibodies a few weeks after the second shot in the over 80 years of age population is not encouraging, though I believe a similar case (e.g. consider taking the inoculation) could be made for that population as well.
[Updated 1/2023]: *Checks notes*… “Pretty much no one”. Let’s stick with that.
Who should NOT receive the vaccines?
Unless an individual has a specific concern, it’s not clear to me that anyone should opt for these inoculations, unless you believe yourself to be at a specific heightened risk.
I cannot envision the circumstances under which pregnant women, women looking to become pregnant, nursing mothers, or children under 18 should opt for these these inoculations. The mainstream media can hand-waive away the VAERS reactions all they want, but MDs [Dr. Ryan Cole] have anecdotal indications that suggest the mRNA-based vaccines and miscarriages are linked. Also, in the animal trials, rats miscarried at a rate 2x - 2.3x more than the placebo group.
I do not believe that children should receive these vaccines. Essentially none of them are dying. You have to balance the vaccine toxicity risk, and unknown future risk against protecting them from something that almost certainly will not harm them, nor will harm people they interact with.
[Updated 1/2023]: “Pretty much no one” still seems like the right answer.
Is there some nefarious plot to downsize the global population?
This comes up a lot in my reading, and I have long-term health concerns, particularly for the vaccinated population. However, there's no hard evidence that this is the case. I've not been able to locate a complete ingredient list on the available vaccines, nor is it obvious why aspects of society are pushing for total vaccination for a virus that is something like 99.9% survivable (you must stratify by age, as referenced elsewhere).
If pushed, the best-spin I can put on this is an element of the situation could be attributed to legitimate on-going fear, while another could be the result of the hangover effect from the early reaction to the outbreak. In other words, they pushed so hard to prime the public to get the vaccine, that even now when it’s obvious the threat is limited, the momentum will take some time to run its course.
With less positive spin, you can draw your own conclusions about the motivations of those in, and seeking power. I am extremely concerned that "topper", or "booster" shots could side-step safety testing [per Dr. Michael Yeadon] to negative results for the boosted population.
Is social distancing, mask wearing, etc. meaningful?
I was supportive of optional mask-wearing, social distancing, and other similar practices during the earliest parts of 2020, as the risk was unknown and anecdotal indications suggested that it was highly communicable. I remain supportive of the same optional steps. However, as our knowledge level increases (e.g. comparable to flu in terms of spread, and this seems to be especially true in single-family households, perhaps less so in multi-tenant buildings), my personal views on the level of appropriate precautions have changed. While I've looked at some studies, I do not think it can be easily determined the degree to which mask-wearing is beneficial/harmful. As Dr. Ryan Cole, and others indicated, prophylactic options work, and early treatment works. Combined with the apparent risk for individuals below 65, it seems that from a risk management standpoint, it's up to the individual to calibrate to their personal risk tolerance... no government intervention is required.
From the perspective of reasoning the risk out, it would seem that masks disrupt airflow, and therefore on that basis alone, I think a case could be made that there is some degree of benefit, even if difficult to measure. I also believe in individual liberty, and that those who feel they are most at risk should take precautions to protect themselves (n95 masks, staying at home, etc.), while those who do not want to wear masks, should not be required to do so in public. Put differently, Grandma and I can make our own risk tolerance decisions.
I believe at this point in the outbreak, the risks to liberty are greater than whatever temporary benefit may be conferred by mask wearing for most segments of the population. I believe that social distancing where possible (e.g. in line at the store, but probably not at the ball game) will persist for a long time, even if it remains inconsistent to the point of irrelevance (as it anecdotally seems today).
What changed between March 2020 when vaccine development was ramping up, and March 2021?
When manufacturers were first getting started, the concern was that we would have between millions and hundreds of millions dead from the virus. In off the record conversations, some in higher-levels of government were concerned that a break-down in the supply-chain (and society), would eventuate. You may recall a hint of this with the meat processors all testing positive for COVID19 and shutting down operations, which lead to some supply chain disruption.
What we learned between then and now, is that that virus is nothing at all what we thought it was in March 2020, and that the risks from the infection are comparably low. That concern does hint at why operation Warp speed was approved and why extensive safety trials were not required, or are only now being conducted among the general population. The apparent moral calculus being that if an extinction level event can be thwarted at some smaller unintentional loss-of-life, that would be a "reasonable" trade-off. mRNA-based vaccines seem to kind of work, and probably most important they are what would be achievable given the timelines involved. Fortunately, a mass causality pandemic was not the case but the psychological impact, reinforced by media and government will sadly not be immediately blotted from society.
Are shutdowns appropriate?
The shutdowns of businesses and schools are irrational and without merit, and willfully maximize harm to individuals, and small/mid-sized businesses least able to absorb the shock. Moreover, this occurs to the benefit of large business (e.g. companies like Amazon, and Walmart) with off-shore interests, as well as government employees.
It is decidedly, anti-American.
36 million Americans were left unemployed, with countless small/mid sized businesses irrecoverably damaged. The number of deaths associated with the lock-downs will likely dwarf the actual COVID-related deaths. The degree of harm caused to apparently achieve both political, and financial outcomes is without precedent in the United States, and an unparalleled atrocity in a modern free country.
What do I think is going on here?
I think the most simple explanation is that the virus called COVID19 had been in circulation for some time prior to late 2019 in China. This perspective draws considerably on the writings of The Ethical Skeptic.
The number of variants of the virus at onset (15) indicates more drift in the virus than can be accounted for on the basis of a "late" 2019 outbreak in WuHan. Did China know about an earlier outbreak? Has anything about their response increased the level of trust the rest of the world should have in them?
Meanwhile, China's Co2 emissions (a proxy for industrial output), dropped precipitously and without precedent in early 2018, in a pattern repeated annually since. The pattern is the same that resulted after the late 2019 "outbreak" was officially announced. Moreover, some of the hardest hit COVID19 areas are China's closest trading partners (western/central Africa), and include some of the earliest wide-spread outbreaks (Iran, Italy). While this may be considered to be speculative, it is not without supporting data.
I think it's likely that the pandemic phase of this outbreak is over (like SARS in 2003/2004), that the vaccines are too early to credit, and this is the standard course of a virus becoming endemic. I'm more inclined to think that COVID19 prevalence will diminish, with seasonality remaining.
What about the outbreaks in XYZ that have occurred, and are occurring?
I think that COVID19 has seasonality to it, just like the flu, SARS, and other viruses. Indeed, outbreaks like the on-going Michigan outbreak (4/2021) appear to similar to the prior year. I believe that the road to heard-immunity is well underway, and probably already exists in many places, and if it weren't for intentionally misrepresenting the data in 2020, we'd know that the pandemic phase of this outbreak is largely over in many locations.
If VAERS is voluntary, is it credible?
The Medical Community, including FDA review boards have historically treated VAERS as though it has a high degree of credibility, and has been treated as such for the past 15 years. As outlined above, it's expected to underrepresented the actual number of vaccine injuries by 10x - 100x.
If the credibility were in doubt, it would have been called into question prior to 2021.
The Medical public "Medscape" has a running log of comments describing averse events in their "COVID-19 Resource Center". Medscape is "... the leading online global destination for physicians and healthcare professionals worldwide, offering the latest medical news and expert perspectives; essential point-of-care drug and disease information; and relevant professional education and CME."
Was SARS-CoV-2 a bioweapon?
I don't think there is evidence to conclude it was an intentionally released as a bio-weapon, at this point. Indeed, the industrial output data suggests that China may have struggled with earlier SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in 2018, and 2019 and they only notified the WHO when it was obvious that the rest of the world would soon also know (12/2019). This would be consistent with China's handling of "internal" disasters in the past.
If it was an unintentional leak from a bio-weapons facility, perhaps gain-of-function research that leaked out of a lab, or just natural... I don't have the ability to assess. I think it's clear that China weaponized the outbreak to their economic benefit (e.g. videos of people passing out and dying in the streets), and they planted the lock-down seed that western democracies then ran with. I think we have seen plenty to understand that leadership worldwide does not let a crisis go to waste, and that this was sadly, no exception.
Where is Ivermectin being used in the United States?
As of June 2021, it appears that it's increasingly being used within the US. At least 15 US Hospitals, as well as 23 assisted living facilities, 16 skilled nursing facilities, 10 multi-state telehealth operators, Urgent Care in the Florida Keys, and can be prescribed either in-clinic outpatient or via telemedicine in all 50 states.
Notable hospitals include Dayton Ohio VA, Univ. Tennessee Hospital, Los Robles Hospital, Lexington Medical Center in SC, and others.
Sources:[https://www.facebook.com/588426179/posts/10159504504201180/?d=n]
Could you expand on the ADE risk outlined in the earlier section?
There doesn't seem to be any technical reason that ADE will not pose a serious risk in the future. While I'm hopeful it will not, and Dr. Hackethal at least seems to think it's a non-issue based on the way the vaccine targets SARS2, the abundance of examples from SARS1 vaccine candidates that were not under schedule pressure to produce a vaccine, do not fill me with hope.
Some of Dr. Hackehal's language raises eyebrows when speaking of the ADE risk associated with the SARS2 vaccines. I observe the use of phrases such as "... at this point is hypothetical", "least likley to cause ADE risk", and "... would have spotted it by now". While I'm hesitant to read too far into those statements, they set off my alarms as a technical person. The caveat-ed nature of here phraseology I have often associated with deception. Or more generously, someone who wants to be right about whatever outcome occurs.
Furthermore, based on the SARS1 vaccine candidate trials, 3 months into the vaccination campaign, it seems like it would probably be too early to detect ADE risk which appears to contradicts her assertion that we would already be seeing ADE risk.
I directly take issue with her statement "vaccinated subjects show up with no severe coronavirus cases and no hospitalizations, which is the opposite of what you would expect if ADE were happening". While I presume that was true in March, at present, this does not appear to be the current reality. Vaccinated individuals are showing up in hospitals, and in some situations, they are reportedly comprising 60% of COVID-related hospitalizations (according to Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale University, 4/2021). A study in May 2021, indicated that in all 20 (100%) of the identified breakthrough cases at a hospital in Washington, all were described as variants of concern. As of May 24, 2021 the CDC reports 2,454 hospitalizations or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases, including 439 (18%) deaths.
What are the long-term risks of SARS-CoV-2?
Hopefully none. Although, the study linked below is concerning. The studied macaques were infected with SARS-CoV-2, but asymptomatic, and all (100%) exhibited lewy body formation in the brain during autopsy, while none in the control group did. As I understand it, the infection didn't cause this directly, but the T-cell reaction. Given that the vaccine has similar hallmarks (spike-protein), and the apparent mRNA concentration within lipid nano particles was high, and the time that it exists in the body is indeterminate, would the vaccine have similar hallmarks? I'm not sure that the lewy body presence in macaques guarantees a corresponding risk in humans, but this should be relatively easy to determine and indeed, I would expect it to already be in the process of study.
Sources: [SARS-CoV-2 causes brain inflammation and Lewy bodies]
Is there anything else to worry about?
In this study (January, 2021), they found that the interaction of antibodies (that were made against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) interacted with human tissue (28 of 55 tested types) in ways that were associated with various autoimmune diseases. Obviously that's troubling - this study focused on natural immune response. I'm curious, what implication might be for a synthetic immune response of the mRNA-based inoculations. For example, if the Pfizer inoculation injects 50 billion pieces of mRNA-(this is not objectively true, but a number I found referenced), and you have some similar order of magnitude spike proteins floating around in your blood stream, how does this compare with a natural immune response? Is it more, or less? Since you get two injections, what does that mean? Where might the spike protein go in the body, and how long might it last, and what is the implication for the anti-spike-antibodies that are manufactured? Is this an increase in risk of autoimmune disorders?
The study specifically speculates... "An insufficiently vetted vaccine might mean trading freedom from COVID-19 to an autoimmune assault in the future".
We have the definition of insufficiently vetted vaccines being injected into people right now.
Is there any additional prevention or treatment information?
Yes - please see the FLCC Prevention & Treatment protocols linked here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/. You may also want to check out NoJabForMe, which seems to be a good resource that I came across shortly before finishing this article.
What's the story with the Delta variant? Does it spread more easily than prior variants, and are we seeing a higher rate of death?
I’ve included this under opinion. While the UK study below suggests an attenuating virus, which would be a desirable development, there is not a consensus among the Doctors that I’ve interacted with, and more observation and studies are warranted. I will say, that anecdotally this is the first time in 2021 that I’ve personally known someone that has tested positive for the virus that was also showing symptoms (3 people; two households) - one household was vaccinated, and the other was not.
A recent (8/20/21) UK study shows that the Delta variant continues to appear less virulent than other variants. It's overall case fatality ratio (CFR) of 0.31% is only 29% that of Alpha. Delta CFR in the <50 age cohort, 0.03%, or about half that of Alpha. The percent of Delta cases that have been fully (19%) or partially vaccination (16%) is insufficient to explain the CFR difference between Alpha and Delta. Of particular note is that for Delta, in the <50 cohort, the unvaccinated have a CFR of about half that of the fully vaccinated.
Moreover the household transmission of Delta was observed to be 10.8%, vs. the baseline in Alpha of 16.6%, referenced elsewhere in this document.
The conclusion is that, in the UK at least, Delta seems to be less able to spread, and has a lower rate of death.
Sources: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33315116/, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201]
Should kids get the vaccine?
As referenced above under “What about the children? Will kids die if they get the virus?”
The only children in the referenced British study who have died from the SARS-CoV-2 virus have had "profound co-morbidities.". Essentially no children appear to be dying from the virus, and this continues to be the case in 11/2021 and with subsequent observation. As of 11/2021, deaths from COVID in Children are more rare flu-related deaths, death from lightning strike, drownings among kids, and similar extremely rare events.
Given the level of vaccine injury, which appears to increase as the age of the vaccine recipient decreases, it seems without merit and dangerous. Estimates of harm to benefit have ranged, with a commonly reported ratio being 117 deaths per 1 saved, as estimated by Dr. Toby Rogers. While Dr. Rogers isn’t among the 4 primary references that I use throughout this article, the data point he provides is certainly a red flag, and the linked assessment is below.
The expectation is that the vaccine will kill 117 children for every 1 that it saves.
Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with ∼80% occurring in males. Note that the italicized finding was from a study was “temporarily removed by the publisher”, and was first published 10/1/2021, with Peter A. McCullough being one of the authors (e.g. one of my Primary sources). The link below is to the placeholder article, but the original is still available here from Archive.org (a screen shot is below).
My personal takeaway, is that the vaccine appears to be dangerous and ineffective in Children. Furthermore, one of the most common vaccine injuries associated with the new mRNA-based vaccines is myocardidis. Viral myocarditis (e.g. myocarditis not related to the mRNA-vaccines) has a fatality rate of 50% in 5 years. The type of injury observed is dead heart cells, which effectively is a permanent injury. There is no reason to expect that vaccine-induced myocarditis will result in a different long-term outcome. For the children that are not killed directly from the vaccine, to what degree will their lives be shortened by the vaccine, if they experience myocarditis?
Sources: [Clinical characteristics of children and young people admitted to hospital with covid-19 in United Kingdom: prospective multicentre observational cohort study, For every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot, Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products]
Doesn’t COVID cause myocarditis too?
Myocarditis from COVID presents clinically different than vaccine induced myocarditis. Troponin levels are far lower in the viral occurrence, than in vaccine. Meaning, far less heart tissue inflammation. Furthermore, those that receive early treatment eliminate the inflammatory pathway. Put differently, the vaccine induced myocarditis is considerably more damaging in the vaccine, than in the virus.
As you can see from the below updates [11/2022], as characterized by Dr. Peter McCullough in this article, further studies since the initial release of this FAQ inform the original perspective. Essentially, cardiovascular abnormalities including myocarditas risk among COVID infected but unvaccinated are no more common than otherwise healthy individuals. Moreover, the large Israeli study of 196,992 adults concluded “Our data suggest that there is no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 recovered patients compared to uninfected matched controls.”
[Updated 11/2022] In 2021, a study of post-SARS2 infections among “1597 US competitive collegiate athletes undergoing comprehensive cardiovascular testing, the prevalence of clinical myocarditis based on a symptom-based screening strategy was only 0.31%. Screening with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging increased the prevalence of clinical and subclinical myocarditis by a factor of 7.4 to 2.3%.” After finding just a handful of suspected cases, and no hospitalizations or deaths the program was closed before the vaccine roll-out, preventing a meaningful analysis of pre/post vaccine injury.
[Update 11/2022] A 2021 study of cardiovascular abnormalities 6 months following mild COVID-19 in Healthcare workers concluded that “Cardiovascular abnormalities are no more common in seropositive versus seronegative otherwise healthy, workforce representative individuals 6 months post–mild severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection.”.
[Update 11/2022] The above study refutes the often repeated messaging that “COVID-19 causes more myocarditis than the vaccines.”. The basis for dangerous messaging appears to be a pre-print published in 2021 of studies of acute severe COVID-19 where troponin levels are commonly elevated due to critical illness without adjudicated myocarditis. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, this is very different from healthy individuals who take a vaccine and then develop chest pain, effort intolerance, ECG changes, dramatic troponin elevations, and have confirmation by MRI.
[Update 11/2022]. Finally, a 2022 study “The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study” in Israel concludes that “there is no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 recovered patients compared to uninfected matched controls.”
Sources:[Prevalence of Clinical and Subclinical Myocarditis in Competitive Athletes With Recent SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Prospective Case-Control Study of Cardiovascular Abnormalities 6 Months Following Mild COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers, Prospective Case-Control Study of Cardiovascular Abnormalities 6 Months Following Mild COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers, Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis, The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated ]
Can people get COVID more than once?
[Updated 1/2023]
According to recent studies, re-infection as a result of mutations does occur, and occurs with similar frequency among vaccinated, and unvaccinated.
Soures: [Acute and postacute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection]
The best answer I’ve been able to source is that it’s basically “no”.
This was outlined in the Joe Rogan - Peter McCullough interview in December, 2021 as well as other interviews with several of the core resources for this FAQ.
From other research that I’ve done, I’ve found at least 1 Doctor reports re-infection in a minority of cases. In those cases, they reportedly did not occur long after the initial infection (weeks to months), and so it wasn’t clear if the patients actually came down with a re-infection, or did not clear the original infection. There’s also some debate about how accurately infections are diagnosed with the error-prone PCR approach, and the similarity that cases have with other common cold, and flu variants. In other words, it’s possible that supposed “re-infections” may be caused by different flu or cold viruses, or didn’t fully clear the virus the first time.
With those caveats, my takeaway is that basically no one appears to be getting reinfected. Either there are no reinfections occurring, or there are so few infections as to be something that can be discounted or ignored. It seems that natural immunity, as outlined in the SARS1 example elsewhere in this FAQ, remains robust and durable.
Sources: [Joe Rogan - Peter McCullough Interview , https://rumble.com/vqsrv2-must-watch-dr.-peter-mccullough-talks-with-joe-rogan-about-covid-19.html]
Additional resources and interviews:
FLCC - Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance; Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
QCovid.org death/hospitalization risk
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
T-Detect COVID test kit
https://www.t-detect.com/
The insidious face of a pandemic of variants
Dr. Yeadon interview on 6/2 that reiterates prior video:
https://rumble.com/vhxy5n-former-pfizer-vp-dr.-yeadon-governments-lied-about-virus-vaccines-to-force-.html
A more recent interivew with Dr. Yeadon (6/2)
https://rumble.com/vhxy5n-former-pfizer-vp-dr.-yeadon-governments-lied-about-virus-vaccines-to-force-.html
Interview (6/11/21), 48 minutes long - with Dr. Peter McCullough interview with German Corona Invetigative Committee
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z2G0Ca4EKXpq/?s=03
HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts. We came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
https://www.hartgroup.org/
British Ivermectin Recommendation Development
https://bird-group.org/
Doctors for COVID Ethics
https://doctors4covidethics.org/
"Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV eatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Inf VID-19) Infection" (8/2020)
https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1620&context=cardiology_articles
Absolute Risk Reduction vs. Relative Risk Reduction explained (timestamped to summary)
"These Brave Doctors are Upholding Their Hippocratic Oath & Putting Patients—Not Profits—First". A range of Doctors with experience treating with ivermectin is urging it to be considered as a viable treatment.
Dr. Peter McCullough, MD testities to Texas Senate HHS Committee
"Most publihed Docotor in his field, Heart and Kidneys, in history"
Advocate for treatment using multi-drug regime, including ivermectin
Long-form interview:
https://rumble.com/vhp7y5-full-interview-world-renowned-doctor-blows-lid-off-of-covid-vaccine.html
Dr. Richard Urso, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committe
Webinar with Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson
Sources:
Sources:
COVID Infection Fatality Rates by Sex/Age (November, 2020)
https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/18/covid-infection-fatality-rates-sex-and-age-15163
COVID Deaths by Age (Public Health, 2/2021)
https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/
CDC Life Expectancy data for the US
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm
Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (December, 2020)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102
SARS-CoV-2 rates (2020)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326070/#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20in%20the%20present%20study,in%2034.8%25%20of%20the%20households.
Influenza transmission rates (2004)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326070/#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20in%20the%20present%20study,in%2034.8%25%20of%20the%20households.
Source: SARS-CoV-2 rates (2020)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102, (12/2020)
Household Transmission of Influenza (2015)
https://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/fulltext/S0966-842X(15)00251-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0966842X15002516%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Airborne route and bad use of ventilation systems as non-negligible factors in SARS-CoV-2 transmission (8/20)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7182754/
COVID-19: SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Probable Through Fecal Aerosols, (9/2020)
https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/topics/covid19/fecal-aerosol-transmission-sars-cov-2/
Probable Evidence of Fecal Aerosol Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a High-Rise Building, (12/2020)
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-0928
SARS-CoV-2: The Growing Case for Potential Transmission in a Building via Wastewater Plumbing Systems, (12/2020)
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6134
Mechanistic transmission modeling of COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess cruise ship demonstrates the importance of aerosol transmission, (2/21)
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6134, https://www.pnas.org/content/118/8/e2015482118
CDC Death Rate data
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
COVID-19 Mortality Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Age (2021)
https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/covid-19-mortality-rates-by-race-ethnicity-and-age/
African-American adults having the highest prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency (82.1%, 95% CI, 76.5%-86.5%) followed by Hispanic adults (62.9%; 95% CI, 53.2%-71.7%) (2012)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075634/#:~:text=Race%20was%20identified%20as%20a,%25%2D71.7%25)%20%5B3%5D.
Preexisting conditions of deaths involving COVID-19 (Scotland, 2021)
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/general-publications/weekly-and-monthly-data-on-births-and-deaths/deaths-involving-coronavirus-covid-19-in-scotland
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 17, 2020 / Notices
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-03-17/pdf/2020-05484.pd
Age-dependent immune response to the Biontech/Pfizer BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.03.21251066v1.full
The Effect of Influenza Vaccination for the Elderly on Hospitalization and Mortality: An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32120383/
Ivermectin treatment results on COVID-19
https://c19ivermectin.com/
COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified) via European Medicines Agency
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
SinoBiological Coronavirus Vaccine References (2005-2009)
https://www.sinobiological.com/research/virus/coronavirus-vaccine (2005-2009)
Emerging Respiratory Viruses: Challenges and Vaccine Strategies (2006)
Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets (2004)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15507655/*
Anti-ganglioside antibody induction by swine (A/NJ/1976/H1N1) and other influenza vaccines: insights into vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome (2008, 1976)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18522505
Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus (2012)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382
SARS-CoV-2 causes brain inflammation and Lewy bodies, a hallmark for Parkinson, after an asymptomatic infection in macaques.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.23.432474v1
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected
controls, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z_reference.pdf
Science Brief: SARS-CoV-2 and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html
BNT162b2 vaccination induces SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody secretion into human milk with minimal transfer of vaccine mRNA
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.27.21256151v1
Immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infections
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00923-3
Cannabidiol Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Replication and Promotes the Host Innate Immune Response
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.10.432967v1
Clinical characteristics of children and young people admitted to hospital with covid-19 in United Kingdom: prospective multicentre observational cohort study (8/2020)
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3249
Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23
Antibody-dependent infection of human macrophages by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018502/
Antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS coronavirus infection and its role in the pathogenesis of SARS
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27390007/
Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) (Biodistribution study - Japanese to English translation)
https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government-pdf, with explanation https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-spike-protein-travels-from-injection-site-organ-damage/, https://www.naturalnews.com/files/Pfizer-bio-distribution-confidential-document-translated-to-english.pdf
Why ADE Hasn't Been a Problem With COVID Vaccine
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91648
Varients of concern are overrepresented among post-vaccination breakthrough in fections in SARS-CoV-2 in Washington State https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.23.21257679v1.full-text
COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
Marek's Disease in Backyard Chickens, A Study of Pathologic Findings and Viral Loads in Tumorous and Nontumorous Birds
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27902909/
Survivors of 1918 flu pandemic protected with a lifetime immunity to virus (8/2008)
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/tmsh-so1081408.php
Alameda County Updates COVID-19 Death Calculation to Align with State Definitions (6/2021)
This update will show fewer residents died as a direct result of COVID-19.
https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/press/press-release-2021.06.04.pdf
Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1?
Correlates of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00782-0/fulltext
Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials (2/2021)
https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm
86% of children experienced an adverse event.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2
Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33315116/
Acute and postacute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02051-3
Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: technical briefings
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201
Joe Rogan - Peter McCullough Interview (12/2021)
(also, on Rumble - https://rumble.com/vqsrv2-must-watch-dr.-peter-mccullough-talks-with-joe-rogan-about-covid-19.html)
Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, page 3
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358098370_Immune_imprinting_breadth_of_variant_recognition_and_germinal_center_response_in_human_SARS-CoV-2_infection_and_vaccination
Shocking! mRNA and Spike protein found 8 weeks after vaccination in some people
Prospective Case-Control Study of Cardiovascular Abnormalities 6 Months Following Mild COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers, Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis
Age-stratified infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population