# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The forms below have been prepared to assist and empower an individual to make a fully informed choice as to whether they want to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. No guarantees are provided as to whether (1) any health professional will accept or sign the form (2) the form will be recognised by any organisation. The forms are not intended to give, nor do they give, any medical or legal advice. If an individual has any concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine or if they are being told or recommended to have the COVID-19 vaccine, they are encouraged to seek independent legal and medical advice.

Please download whichever form is most relevant for your purposes. The forms are electronically editable as PDF documents, or they may be printed as hard copies and completed by hand.

PROMIC does not take responsibility for identifying doctors or other healthcare professionals who will declare exemptions. This is because PROMIC cannot expose such health professionals that may otherwise be targeted by licensing boards. We strongly advise you approach health professionals in your locality. In the event that your doctor or health professional is not prepared to make a declaration, we recommend you self-declare, which is your legal or constitutional right in most parts of the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Professionals for Medical Informed Consent and Non-Discrimination (PROMIC) - Exemption Forms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The forms below have been prepared to assist and empower an individual to make a fully informed choice as to whether they want to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. No guarantees are provided as to whether (1) any health professional will accept or sign the form (2) the form will be recognised by any organisation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This fact sheet has been independently collated to provide information primarily to health workers who are facing action from their employer regarding the recent government decision to mandate vaccines for care staff and NHS workers.

Due to this change in direction from the government there is today limited public information available to support those workers who exercise their right to freedom by refusing the jab.

The author is a non-clinical HR professional who offers practical tips and guidance, this document in no way covers all aspects of employment law inside or outside of a clinical environment; it does however seek to provide information and guidance for those that need it.

For employees who work in a clinical setting it may be useful to review the following information which makes refence to risk assessment, duty of care and the Green book. This link is not pro-freedom of choice however it does state the legal facts as we know them today: https://bmalaw.co.uk/can-employers-force-the-vaccine/

The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide high level guidance should your employer act against your decision to refuse the jab. It is important to note that there is not a one size fits all approach here, and that employment contracts and workplace situations will vary between organisation to organisation as do individual sets of circumstances and therefore the information contained within this document should be applied where the situation allows.

Ultimately the legal system is very complex, and as a result this document has been split into two sections. Section 1 covers practical tips for you, and section 2 covers more detailed content, it's advisable to read both if you can, so that you have a broad understanding of your rights.
Section 1: Practical advice 1, I'm being asked at work if I want the jab, what do I say?
Simply thank your employer for their offer, however state that it is against your beliefs and that you trust that they will respect your decision. You can follow up in writing and confirm that you do not wish to be contacted again regarding this matter, and in doing so you thank them for respecting your right of free belief.

It is not necessary for you to substantiate your beliefs, and it is advisable that you do not enter into a dialogue which may be judged as implicitly being an "anti-vaxxer" The outcome here is to remove yourself from any further dialogues regarding mandatory jabs.

Later on, should you feel that you are being harassed or discriminated against based on your decision not to accept the mandatory jab then you can take action as per the policy that applies to bullying, harassment or discrimination. Please note that this factsheet focuses on employees who are facing disciplinary action because of their decision not to accept the jab and not on aspects of bullying or harassment. Further information on bullying and harassment in the workplace can be found here:
Discrimination, bullying and harassment | Acas 2, I'm being asked to complete a survey or form to state my intention about taking the jab, or if I have already had it, what do I do, I don't want to be labelled as an "anti-vaxxer"
The collection and use of your personal data changed a couple of years ago under the new GDPR act https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/

This act changes the way that employers handle, process and store your information. You are not obliged to complete the forms, answer any survey, or comply with the request for information. You absolutely should not sign any documentation stating your vaccination status, or your intentions toward the jab.

Failure to provide this information is not in any way a breach of contract. Should your manager or HR representative claim that the form or survey completion is "reasonable management request" it is not. If pushed, you can email your line manager to state that you are declining the jab and use the supporting information in the (1) above to help you in doing this.
3, If you find yourself in a position whereby your employer is proposing to take disciplinary action because of your decision to not receive the jab, then please take the following steps:
Importantly if you have less than two years continuous service then you have somewhat less employment rights and your employer may follow a different process, please read section 2 below in this scenario if this applies to you.

If you have already refused the jab and if you have more than 2 years continuous service your employer may invite you to a meeting, write to you, or call you. In each of these circumstances it is very important to ask for a written confirmation of their request, as getting the request in writing will form the basis of your response during and after the meeting together with providing the necessary paper trail should legal proceedings be required.

Before any disciplinary proceedings take place, it would be proper to expect you to formally or informally be requested to take the jab, and your refusal to do so should have been noted and confirmed back to you. A leaflet in the canteen or a pre-booked appointment requesting you take the jab is not enough.
4, I have refused the jab and HR have invited me to a disciplinary meeting, what should I do?
Should you decide not to comply with the request to take the jab, it must be made clear to you what impact this will have on your employment. Essentially you want to know on what grounds is the disciplinary action is being taken as you are upholding your beliefs for not taking the jab.

It's very important that you take the following steps:

make sure you have a copy of your employee handbook, your contract of employment and any policy documents that relate to dismissal, grievance procedure and you read these in full. Highlight relevant sections that apply.

it's highly unlikely that your contract of employment will spell out the jab as mandatory, although vaccinations may be cited, so you will need to check for your personal eligibility to this point. Never ever re-sign a contract of employment that introduces a mandatory jab clause. Your current contract of employment must always be honoured, and you cannot be dismissed for refusing to sign an updated contract.

gather any internal information that is available that states the requirement for taking the jab.

don't enter into debate or argument with your employer about being called forwards for the disciplinary hearing, read through this fact sheet to support you with the next steps that will take place

remain as calm and as collected as possible, you'll need to present yourself as rationale and credible throughout the process and most likely your resolve will be tested to the limits; which doesn't necessarily mean that you can't achieve the outcome that you are seeking to achieve

In order to successfully challenge the decision to be jabbed, it is extremely important to present that you are being directly discriminated against, and that you do not fall into the category of an "anit-vaxxer" your decision not to jab is based on your beliefs, which in an employment setting are not open to being challenged.

If your employer explains that they will take disciplinary action towards you will be invited to a series of disciplinary meetings, or hearings. These meetings must:

be arranged in good time e.g. with advance notice, and in writing

you must legally be advised of your right to be accompanied by a colleague, representative or trade union rep (they cannot answer questions on your behalf, however you are allowed to confer with them during the meeting, and you can call for a break in the meeting to do so, but don't overdue this)

follow the internal policy and guidelines - hence why it's important to have a copy of your employee handbook and any relevant policies so you know what to expect

5, What happens in the disciplinary meeting?
The first meeting will usually be with HR and your manager or person nominated to run the meeting. If you have chosen to be accompanied by a colleague, then they can also take notes. Prepare your questions in advance and tick them off as you go, you can take your own notes if you wish. You can also ask for a break if you need one.

During the first meeting HR or your employer will explain the basis for the disciplinary action, the meeting must have minutes, and you have the right to copies of these minutes following the meeting. After the meeting send an email to request copies and keep all written correspondence in a file as you may need to refer to it later.

During the meeting stay cool calm and collected throughout, this is easier said than done, but try your best. You will most likely be provided with information to argue the case for accepting the jab during the meeting, or asked why you are refusing it, and it's likely that pre-prepared statements will be put to you. Resist the urge to argue against these statements, as there are also pre-prepared counter arguments that will be communicated back to you and the conversation risks spiralling into a circular debate.

Try and stick to the below points and compliment these with input that you see relevant to your personal scenario.

For now, the following may be reasonable counter proposals:

Firstly, the jab is against my beliefs, and I believe that I am being directly discriminated against based on my beliefs. Can you please explain how this is not the case for the action being brought against me under this process?

The mandate to take the jab is an infringement of my Human rights. Everyone has human rights under the Human Rights Act. Can you please explain how this is not the case for the action being brought against me under this process?

Your life is as important as the lives of people that you are trying to protect, this is covered in article 2 of the Human Rights Act. Can you please explain how this is not the case for the action being brought against me under this process?

Article 9 of the Human Rights Act states that Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions. Staff in public services can't force you to change what you think or believe in. Can you please explain how this is not the case for the action being brought against me under this process?

Every one of us still has the right to autonomy (Article 8, Human Rights Act), to have a say over our body and life. We also all have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 9, Human Rights Act), to hold and express our own opinions and beliefs. Can you please explain how this is not the case for the action being brought against me under this process?

Currently there are no statutory provisions which would allow any UK government to force individuals to become vaccinated. The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 actually provides for the opposite, it specifically states that members of the public should not be compelled to undergo any mandatory medical treatment, including vaccinations. Why am I being directly discriminated against, based on my beliefs?

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects people from being interfered with physically or psychologically, which includes mandatory vaccinations. Any legislation compelling vaccination would therefore likely be deemed incompatible with Article 8. Why am I being directly discriminated against, based on my beliefs?

Once the meeting attendees have responded to your points, its fine to move on. The meeting is not about debating fact or logic, it's about moving a process along to an end conclusion.

It's likely that you will be heavily challenged during the meeting, and it's advisable not to cite external reference points available unless they form part of law or policy. Whilst external sources such as social media and other reports are absolutely important, they may not have legal standing and they may install the opinion that you are an "anit-vaxxer".

The above points that are being suggested to raise are not exhaustive, and those working in a clinical setting may have further points. The basis for raising these points is to ensure that you are being heard and responded to, and that you are being treated fairly and equally to others. You should expect full and clear responses. If you do not receive fair and clear responses please request in writing, a response to your request for information.

It's important that the reasons for action being taken against you by your employer are clear and your reasons for not agreeing with these actions are based on your beliefs and your rights. The meeting with your employer is not about convincing them to change their minds about the current Covid19 situation, it's about understanding the case against you and challenging this case by stating your rights, namely your rights as an employee, and your rights as a human.

The meeting will most likely be closed without an outcome being reached at that point. You can expect a timely follow up which includes the meeting notes and next meeting date.

If a conclusion is reached during the first meeting i.e. you are going to be dismissed because you refuse the jab and that's the policy, then the process would seem to have been rushed. You will need to refer to your internal policy to see if this is the case however and raise a complaint or follow the appeals procedure.
6, What happens after the initial disciplinary meeting?
Simply, your employer and HR will be trying to find a way to respond to your points, and work within their policy to take the disciplinary proceedings further i.e. termination of contract or redeployment.

It's likely that a series of meetings will be held, and that the later meetings (usually 2 or 3 in total) will attempt to come back to provide justification as to why your employer can terminate your contact. It's important that your employer responds to all the points you raise in relation to your rights. Again, as employment contracts and polices vary greatly, before the second meeting it's advisable to try and get some legal support and to share the meeting minutes, and the points being raised against you so that you have proper legal guidance. If you can't get legal support, check back against your contract of employment and employment polices to check that everything is being followed correctly. Ask the following questions, and have them noted:

Can you explain the steps in the disciplinary process?

Is this matter being brought against me in line with that process?

Can you run me through where it states in my contract of employment that the jab is mandatory?

Can you run me through the policy on discrimination, as I believe that I am being directly discriminated against due to my beliefs?

Where are we now in the process, what are the next steps?

What is the appeal process, please explain my right to appeal?

What is my right to make reasonable adjustments?

Reasonable adjustments are an obligation to make workplace adjustments based on your specific personal needs. These adjustments do differ vastly based on the employment setting. If the NHS are mandating the jab and saying that you cannot perform your role as a front-line nurse, for example you may wish to request to be redeployed to a desk job. It's acknowledged that this may absolutely not ideal, but if you have a mortgage to pay this may be your only option and your employer has a duty to explore this and to provide justification as to why, or why not your requested reasonable adjustments cannot be accommodated.

The disciplinary meetings may be repetitious and tough going for you, essentially you want to keep the meetings going for as long as they are required to ensure that you are satisfied that your beliefs are being upheld and that you are being treated equally and fairly, and in line with policy. The outcome of the process for you is that the disciplinary process is cancelled due to the evidence that you provide.
7, What do I do if I am served notice of termination?
If you haven't already sought legal support, and want to fight the termination decision, then this is the time to do so, follow the link below and try your best to get some free legal representation.

If through the course of the disciplinary proceedings (as this is most likely the process that your employer will decide to take) your employer gives you notice of termination then as unfortunate as this is you still have the right to appeal and you should invoke this right, again in writing and expect that your appeal should be heard in accordance with the appeal policy.

This is most likely going to mean that you will be asked to put your appeal in writing and that your appeal will be heard by someone who is independent to the disciplinary process. You may or may not be invited to a hearing meeting, you may only get a written response to your appeal.

You will need to gather evidence to support your appeal:

state how you do not agree with the decision first and foremost, and on what basis. This is where you will need to refer to the minutes from the disciplinary process, together with the policy and contractual information that you have.

were all your questions answered in full regarding the basis for your termination? You need to know what exactly the grounds for the decision that has being reached.

has policy been breached, is there a breach of contract i.e. you have been asked to do something that is not in your contract of employment?

have others who are also being terminated being treated the same way, is equity in place if challenged at a later date?

have you been directly discriminated against - you believe that you have been due to your beliefs not being respected or heard?

Finally, if your employer offers you a settlement agreement or a buyout please be aware that by paying you off, they are also requiring that you sign up to a set of specific legally binding terms. If this option is presented to you its vitally important that you instruct a legal advisor to inform you on exactly what you are agreeing to by entering into a settlement agreement with your employer.

Ultimately the processes described above are emotionally charged, time consuming and challenging. It's advisable to focus on your own personal set of circumstances and the outcome that you want to achieve. The more people that resist the mandatory jab, the greater the legal precedence grows, and this makes it harder for employers to force the jab onto others. By taking the first tough, bold steps now, and by being at the front line of exercising your rights you are in fact paving the way for others to follow. Hence why it absolutely crucial to maintain that your beliefs are your beliefs, and that your beliefs are supported by the Human Rights and Equality Acts and that you are being directly discriminated against because of your beliefs.

As more and more people are being pushed to accept the jab it's important that we share experiences and knowledge so that we can use these cases to build stronger arguments and share what works well. We encourage you to share your experiences and learnings so that we can develop more robust supporting information that can be more widely distributed.

Good luck everyone, you can do it.
Section 2 further information I need legal advice, but I can't afford it, what do I do?
There is a range of free legal advice out there. Citizens Advice are obliged to provide contacts for your specific needs, it may be in your favour to state that you have been unfairly dismissed, or are being called to a disciplinary hearing and keep the reasons for dismissal between yourself and your legal advisor, as per legal privilege
Getting free legal advice | The Law Society I want to take legal action, where to I start?
This recent article outlines how health care professionals have taken legal action, and it may be worthwhile seeing if the author of the article can refer you to the legal advisor involved.
More Than 100 Health Care Professionals and Staff Sue Hospital Over Vaccine Mandate, Warn Employees Are Not Human 'Guinea Pigs' - Unity News Network What about my Human Rights?
This document outlines Human Rights, it not absolutely supporting the freedom of your decision to refuse the jab, however it may be useful to read through as a summary of your Human Rights.
The Covid-19 Vaccine and Human Rights: A short guide | British Institute of Human Rights (bihr.org.uk) What are my employment rights should my employer take disciplinary action towards me for choosing not to receive the jab?
This will vary from situation to situation, broadly speaking if you have been under contract for less than 2 years you will have less employment rights, and it may be easier to be dismissed. In all cases, if you find yourself dismissed you should seek legal advice, the following is a brief summary however your legal advisor will provide much more information as part of their service to you.

Generally speaking, employees need two years' continuous employment before they can complain to an Employment Tribunal that their dismissal was unfair; being either procedurally unfair (e.g. lacked proper process) or substantively unfair (e.g. too severe a sanction) or both.

It is however vital that employers realise there are still claims that can be made in that first two-year period. Colloquially, these are referred to as 'day one claims'.
Automatically Unfair Dismissal
Claims for most types of automatically unfair dismissal can be made without two years' service including where a dismissal is:

in connection with an application for flexible working;

for a health and safety reason e.g. refusing to take the jab

related to the National Minimum Wage;

for a reason connected with rights under the Working Time Regulations; and / or

in connection with exercising the right to be accompanied to a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

Discrimination
If you have less than 2 years of continuous service, your biggest ally will be the Equality Act 2010 as this act protects employees with protected characteristics against discrimination regardless of their length of service. More information on exactly how the mandatory vaccine programme is a direct breach of the Equality Act 2010 follows.
Whistleblowing
Dismissing an employee for making a protected disclosure (commonly known as 'blowing the whistle') is unlawful.

An employer who responds to a whistle-blower by dismissing them, or even just treating them detrimentally, could all too easily find themselves on the wrong end of a whistleblowing claim irrespective of the whistle-blower's length of service. As such, that employee with less than two years' service, making their employer tear their hair out with their constant complaints about perceived health and safety risks, might not be the risk-free dismissal they seem to be at first glance.

For discrimination and whistleblowing claims, unlike with unfair dismissal claims (where the compensatory award is capped at the lesser of 52 weeks' gross pay or £88,519 (at the time of writing), compensation is uncapped.
Breach of contract
Any party to a contract can make a claim in response to a breach of contract from the point in time that the contract is in force.

The other thing to look out for is whether the Staff Handbook forms part of an employee's contract. If so, policies or procedures relevant to a dismissal, e.g. a disciplinary policy or a redundancy policy, may give rise to a breach of contract claim if not complied with.
If I refuse to allow my employer to mandate the jab for me, what might happen to my employment, can I be fired?
This is the most important question for many people, and the outcome will be different based on each case. In some cases, the outcome may be that your employment is terminated. In this case there is of course a personal impact to you as you have lost your job, however as a result of your termination you have the right to appeal the decision and take your case to an employment tribunal, and if successful you can be awarded a compensatory amount through legal proceedings. It is important to remember that should an NHS worker be successful in an employment tribunal then this may create impetus for legal professionals who represent workers who have been dismissed due to their refusal for the jab to successfully win future tribunal cases, and as such this might start the wheels turning in the right way for others who face themselves in similar situations. It's highly unlikely that employment will be reinstated, as the request from the employer remains the same i.e. take the jab, and the refusal from the employee remains the same. You may however keep your employment and be redeployed into another role.
Taking the jab is directly discriminating against my beliefs, right?
Discrimination claims are brought based on one of 9 protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. These characteristics include disability, age, sex, pregnancy/maternity and religion or belief. If you are challenged on your decision not to jab, its important to make it clear that it is your belief, and to not feel that you need to justify your beliefs. We wouldn't ask someone of another faith to enter into a debate about their religious beliefs, and you should not also be asked to further justify your beliefs, which may be beliefs that are not shared by others. Try not to get drawn into a discussion or a debate. Despite the array of evidence that we will have seen regarding the jabs, its important again to be seen as strong in your position and not defending your beliefs.

Therefore, the most likely protected characteristics to be relevant when looking at compulsory vaccines would be disability and religion or belief.

What about a disabled employee who argues that having a vaccine is dangerous to them because of their disability? Their refusal to be vaccinated would be for a reason associated with a disability. This is theoretically possible but in practice will arise only very rarely.

Or perhaps somebody claiming a vaccination was against their religion? One example might be a Muslim employee who refuses a vaccine on the grounds that it contains gelatine and therefore isn't Halal. Compulsory workplace vaccination here could be indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of religion.

Vaccine hesitancy may not fall into any protected characteristic under the Equality Act; but there has been some discussion as to whether refusal for the jab could come under the protected characteristic of "belief". Hence why the stance that if you refuse the jab, its because of your beliefs, again you don't need to justify how you developed your beliefs, they are your beliefs.

In order to be classed as a belief which affords protection under discrimination law, it would need to be shown that you hold a genuine, important, cohesive belief that relates to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life i.e. your freedom of choice and freedom of what you decide to put into your body. There was a recent tribunal case last year which held that ethical veganism was capable of protection. If your case reaches tribunal then you would need to convince a tribunal that your belief was "worthy of respect in a democratic society"
I work in a care home, and I'm being pressured due to the high-risk category of my patients, what can I do?
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers may have a duty to ensure a safe working environment by mandating vaccination of their employees in circumstances where they are engaged with and will have close contact with clinically vulnerable members of the public or other colleagues.

For example, it could be argued that a policy requiring a care home employee to have a vaccination, and disciplining them if they refuse, is reasonable due to the high-risk nature of their work and failure to vaccinate could create a serious and immediate health and safety risk to others, which ultimately justifies dismissal or disciplinary action.

However, it's not quite that simple, and any employer requiring a vaccine would need to balance the proportionality of interfering with an employee's human rights against the risk posed and the amount the risk is reduced by vaccination.

Essentially, does the vaccine reduce transmission or does it simply suppress symptoms in a carrier? It is this information that would inform an employment tribunal as to the reasonableness and proportionality of requiring vaccines in a high-risk workplace.

Given the high level of interference a vaccine policy has on Article 8 rights, a high standard of justification is needed for such action to be proportionate and therefore lawful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact sheet for employees who are facing employer action regarding mandatory vaccination refusal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This fact sheet has been independently collated to provide information primarily to health workers who are facing action from their employer regarding the recent government decision to mandate vaccines for care staff and NHS workers. Due to this change in direction from the government there is today limited public information available to support those workers who exercise their right to freedom by refusing the jab.

# data[].attributes.headline
David Adelman's Notice of Conditional Acceptance

# data[].attributes.subject
David Adelman's Notice of Conditional Acceptance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PUB’s Three Notice Process To Stop Employers Mandating Vaxxes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PUB’s Three Notice Process To Stop Employers Mandating Vaxxes | A three notice process to stop any UK employer from mandating the vaxx.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Employers can insist on workers having a vaccine.
Law:
The offence of 'battery' is the intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful force. For a doctor, nurse or any person to administer a vaccine without the 'informed consent' of the recipient is to commit a criminal offence. This is likely to be charged as 'assault and battery'. A person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of an offence is themselves guilty of an offence contrary to Section 44 of the Serious Offences Act 1997. If a worker rolls up their sleeve reluctantly, There are a number of employers who might read this article very nervously....

Consent is no defence

In a judgment still binding on Courts throughout the UK, the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) held that where people commit violence against each other, even if the violence is in private and by mutual consent, an offence may still be committed. Reasoning that "society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence", the Court held that consent is not a valid defence. ([1993] UKHL 19 (11 March 1993)

The facts concerned sadomasochistic practices of a group of men where the least serious offence charged and upheld was assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). ABH is a step up from battery in terms of seriousness. ABH is typically charged for scratches, bruises and bite marks. It may also embrace puncture of the flesh with a needle. Coming forward to 2020 and 2021, it would be difficult to imagine that puncture with a needle and injection of a foreign substance to the body, liable to cause adverse reaction to the recipient, is anything but very serious indeed.

Informed Consent and Criminality

In the medical context, it has always been essential for someone administering a vaccine to know that the patient is giving their informed consent to receive it. The requirement for informed consent is fundamental to medical practice. (For further information about informed consent, see section 8 of the letter Stop Testing in Schools.)

The criminality arising under threat of 'no jab no pay' arises by the following logical steps:

1. By definition, if agreement is coerced, it is not by consent; if access to the benefits of work is only given in return for consenting to a vaccine, that consent is not free

2. A nurse giving the vaccine is required to ensure the worker gives informed consent, current at the time of treatment

3. If a nurse knows that the worker's consent is not free but is given under threat of 'no jab no pay' (or any detriment or bribe), the nurse commits an offence by administering the vaccine

4. The employer who has encouraged or assisted that offence, by making the threat, or by facilitating (and thereby assisting) the vaccine appointment, is guilty of an offence under Section 44 (and/or section 45 and/or section 46) of the Serious Offences Act 1997

Further, and especially given public debate and publicity on the issue, it offers no defence for medical practices to turn their heads away from the circumstances in which any patient submits to a vaccine. Given the numbers of people being vaccinated, to take for granted that none are under threat, or that those who are will speak up of their own accord, is reckless. They will, after all, have shown submission to the threat just by turning up.

The doctor/nurse is therefore under a positive duty to ensure informed consent is given. That requires taking steps, which should be recorded prior to treatment if they wish to defend themselves against criminal prosecution, to ensure the patient is under no threat of 'no jab no pay' or similar. They will be reckless to conduct their practice otherwise.

The Courts can defend the people

We are unaware of this issue of criminality being raised before this post. However, most of us could not have imagined circumstances in which the freedom of society has been taken away by this Government. If ever there was a time for the Courts to exercise common law powers to stop this particular cult of violence, at least against large unwilling sections of the public, surely it is now.

If support were needed for the Courts in stepping up, they may look to Europe. The Right to Privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which still applies in the UK even after Brexit, includes the right to bodily integrity.

That right is reflected in the recent statement of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is one of 47 member states, whose focus is the promotion of respect for human rights under the ECHR. It reflects the moral compass of the European Union and on 27th January 2021 published and adopted the resolution of its members to:

7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake:

7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;

7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated

If there is to be any individual freedom left in this country, when asked are the Courts really going to permit coercion to vaccinate through denial of access to work? It is time for a prosecution by the CPS but, if necessary, by private prosecution.

Civil Protection of Employment Rights

If our analysis above is correct, then it also opens up remedy for any worker or applicant for work under threat, regardless of their length of service and without need to rely on disability or inability to have a vaccine. They may not, for example, have unfair dismissal rights before an Employment Tribunal, but they may still apply to the Courts for an injunction to restrain the employer from making any such threats.

Health workers

In passing, the analysis above applies to health workers as it does to anyone else. The argument is also relevant to 'fairness' in unfair dismissal claims and, regardless of the views of some legal commentators, any health worker is entitled to ask an Employment Tribunal to demand from the employer evidence as to why, in the particular circumstances of their job and their workplace, a vaccine is needed and has real benefit. Most lawyers seem to have paid little attention to evidence.

Evidence, perhaps, that the vulnerable are already protected, or that a worker has natural T-cell immunity already, or if other measures are available, or if the 'case' numbers are so low, or if the risk of adverse effect is comparatively greater than the risk from virus, or if the vaccine may be ineffective against transmission or against newly publicised variants or etc. etc. etc....

When it comes to evidence, scary headlines in mainstream media and press releases from No. 10 ought not to cut the mustard.

Whistleblowing

Any employee who raises the above with their employer and finds themselves subject to dismissed as a result may also be protected under whistleblower legislation and expert legal advice should be sought without delay. In seemingly strong cases, the Employment Tribunal has power to reverse the dismissal provided the application is made within 7 days.

If you are able and wish to support the work of this website, please use the donate button on the right.

Please also check out our other posts.

Warning: Law and circumstances can change very quickly. Please note the date of publication of any blog post and check for any updates on the issues addressed. In any event, we do not condone or encourage breaching the law and neither the above nor any information posted on this website constitutes legal advice. It must not be relied upon as such and specialist legal advice should be taken in relation to specific circumstances. Please read our disclaimer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Employers can insist on workers having a vaccine. Law: The offence of 'battery' is the intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful force. For a doctor, nurse or any person to administer a vaccine without the 'informed consent' of the recipient is to commit a criminal offence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No Jab No Job Employment Tribunal Claims

PJH Law Solicitors will advise on whether you have a claim to Employment Tribunal related to any dismissal or resignation caused by an employer having a no jab no job policy, including care home workers, NHS staff and other public and private sector employers.

To register your details please fill in the form below.

Should the firm be instructed by sufficient numbers of employees we will ask the Employment Tribunal to consolidate claims and request that there is a lead claim or claims.

Employment Tribunals have the power to consolidate claims where the facts are sufficiently similar. For example care home workers who are dismissed because of the care home worker regulations could have their cases combined where the facts are sufficiently similar.

The Employment Tribunal has the power to have lead or test cases for each sort of claim - for example unfair dismissal or a claim alleging the dismissal was discriminatory - with all claims decided by the outcome of the lead case.

Funding your claim will be by way of a no win no fee agreement or an agreed fee or a claim on your legal expenses insurance subject to meeting the terms.

We have an updated care home worker's letter here:

Word document - No Jab No Job letter

PDF document - No Jab No Job letter

This letter is available as a free download.

You should take legal advice before using the letter and check our website for updates before sending.

If you want PJH Law to send the letter on your behalf please call 01780 757589 to make an appointment.

For those instructing PJH Law Solicitors there will be a fee of £150 plus vat with a 50% discount for those carehome workers who are out of work.

If there is more than one employee who is about to be dismissed from a care home you can instruct us jointly to reduce your costs.

There may be a possibility of third party funding for any care home worker who applies to the High Court for a declaration or an injunction.

That funding will protect you against downside risk and will meet your legal costs including the court fee.

We have also written a letter covering vaccination in schools. Please see a PDF and a Word version below:

Word document - School letter

PDF document - School letter

This is a free legal resource, those who use it should take legal advice before using it. PJH Law can give you that legal advice for a fixed fee of £150 plus vat.

Our latest downloadable letter for Care Home Employees is below:

Word document - Care Home Employee Letter

This is a free legal resource, those who use it should take legal advice before using it. PJH Law can give you that legal advice for a fixed fee of £150 plus vat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No Jab No Job Employment Tribunal Claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PJH Law Solicitors will advise on whether you have a claim to Employment Tribunal related to any dismissal or resignation caused by an employer having a no jab no job policy, including care home workers, NHS staff and other public and private sector employers.To register your details please fill in the form below.Should the firm

# data[].attributes.headline
Anna De Buisseret’s Advice to Care Workers & NHS Staff: Don’t Quit

# data[].attributes.subject
Anna De Buisseret’s Advice to Care Workers & NHS Staff: Don’t Quit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[AUDIO-enhanced] Anna De Buisseret's Advice to Care Workers & NHS Staff: Don't Quit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Audio-enhanced version of 'Anna De Buisseret's Advice to Care Workers & NHS Staff: Don't Quit' Original: https://odysee.com/@ResistanceGB:f/Anna-Care-Workers Trying out a new software used for removi...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With this initiative, our goal is to be able to show people that they don’t need to doubt themselves. With access to the right resources, people can become empowered by their own abilities and gain the confidence to decline a vaccine, mask or situation that they felt coerced to be in.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Background and Aim:

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) public health policy has focused on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and its effects on human health while environmental factors have been largely ignored. In considering the epidemiological triad (agent-host-environment) applicable to all disease, we investigated a possible environmental factor in the COVID-19 pandemic: ambient radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication systems including microwaves and millimeter waves. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, surfaced in Wuhan, China shortly after the implementation of city-wide (fifth generation [5G] of wireless communications radiation [WCR]), and rapidly spread globally, initially demonstrating a statistical correlation to international communities with recently established 5G networks. In this study, we examined the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the detrimental bioeffects of WCR and identified several mechanisms by which WCR may have contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic as a toxic environmental cofactor. By crossing boundaries between the disciplines of biophysics and pathophysiology, we present evidence that WCR may: (1) cause morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that can contribute to hypercoagulation; (2) impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplify immune system dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increase cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals resulting in vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increase intracellular Ca ²⁺ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsen heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.

Relevance for Patients:

In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection, reduce their exposure to WCR as much as reasonably achievable until further research better clarifies the systemic health effects associated with chronic WCR exposure.

Keywords: COVID-19, Coronavirus, coronavirus disease-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome, coronavirus 2, electromagnetic stress, electromagnetic fields, environmental factor, microwave, millimeter wave, pandemic, public health, radio frequency, radiofrequency, wireless

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been the focus of international public health policy since 2020. Despite unprecedented public health protocols to quell the pandemic, the number of COVID-19 cases continues to rise. We propose a reassessment of our public health strategies.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the simplest model of disease causation is the epidemiological triad consisting of three interactive factors: the agent (pathogen), the environment, and the health status of the host [ 1]. Extensive research is being done on the agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Risk factors that make a host more likely to succumb to the disease have been elucidated. However, environmental factors have not been sufficiently explored. In this paper, we investigated the role of wireless communication radiation (WCR), a widespread environmental stressor.

We explore the scientific evidence suggesting a possible relationship between COVID-19 and radiofrequency radiation related to wireless communications technology including fifth generation (5G) of wireless communications technology, henceforth referred to as WCR. WCR has already been recognized as a form of environmental pollution and physiological stressor [ 2]. Assessing the potentially detrimental health effects of WCR may be crucial to develop an effective, rational public health policy that may help expedite eradication of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, because we are on the verge of worldwide 5G deployment, it is critical to consider the possible damaging health effects of WCR before the public is potentially harmed.

5G is a protocol that will use high frequency bands and extensive bandwidths of the electromagnetic spectrum in the vast radiofrequency range from 600 MHz to nearly 100 GHz, which includes millimeter waves (>20 GHz), in addition to the currently used third generation (3G) and fourth generation (4G) long-term evolution (LTE) microwave bands. 5G frequency spectrum allocations differ from country to country. Focused pulsed beams of radiation will emit from new base stations and phased array antennas placed close to buildings whenever persons access the 5G network. Because these high frequencies are strongly absorbed by the atmosphere and especially during rain, a transmitter's range is limited to 300 meters. Therefore, 5G requires base stations and antennas to be much more closely spaced than previous generations. Plus, satellites in space will emit 5G bands globally to create a wireless worldwide web. The new system therefore requires significant densification of 4G infrastructure as well as new 5G antennas that may dramatically increase the population's WCR exposure both inside structures and outdoors. Approximately 100,000 emitting satellites are planned to be launched into orbit. This infrastructure will significantly alter the world's electromagnetic environment to unprecedented levels and may cause unknown consequences to the entire biosphere, including humans. The new infrastructure will service the new 5G devices, including 5G mobile phones, routers, computers, tablets, self-driving vehicles, machine-to-machine communications, and the Internet of Things.

The global industry standard for 5G is set by the 3G Partnership Project (3GPP), which is an umbrella term for several organizations developing standard protocols for mobile telecommunications. The 5G standard specifies all key aspects of the technology, including frequency spectrum allocation, beam-forming, beam steering, multiplexing multiple in, multiple out schemes, as well as modulation schemes, among others. 5G will utilize from 64 to 256 antennas at short distances to serve virtually simultaneously a large number of devices within a cell. The latest finalized 5G standard, Release 16, is codified in the 3GPP published Technical Report TR 21.916 and may be downloaded from the 3GPP server at https://www.3gpp.org/specifications. Engineers claim that 5G will offer performance up to 10 times that of current 4G networks [ 3].

COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China in December 2019, shortly after city-wide 5G had "gone live," that is, become an operational system, on October 31, 2019. COVID-19 outbreaks soon followed in other areas where 5G had also been at least partially implemented, including South Korea, Northern Italy, New York City, Seattle, and Southern California. In May 2020, Mordachev [ 4] reported a statistically significant correlation between the intensity of radiofrequency radiation and the mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in 31 countries throughout the world. During the first pandemic wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were statistically higher in states and major cities with 5G infrastructure as compared with states and cities that did not yet have this technology [ 5].

There is a large body of peer reviewed literature, since before World War II, on the biological effects of WCR that impact many aspects of our health. In examining this literature, we found intersections between the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 and detrimental bioeffects of WCR exposure. Here, we present the evidence suggesting that WCR has been a possible contributing factor exacerbating COVID-19.

1.2. Overview on COVID-19

The clinical presentation of COVID-19 has proven to be highly variable, with a wide range of symptoms and variability from case to case. According to the CDC, early disease symptoms may include sore throat, headache, fever, cough, chills, among others. More severe symptoms including shortness of breath, high fever, and severe fatigue may occur in a later stage. The neurological sequela of taste and smell loss has also been described.

Ing et al. [ 6] determined 80% of those affected have mild symptoms or none, but older populations and those with comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, have a greater risk for severe disease [ 7]. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can rapidly occur [ 8] and cause severe shortness of breath as endothelial cells lining blood vessels and epithelial cells lining airways lose their integrity, and protein rich fluid leaks into adjacent air sacs. COVID-19 can cause insufficient oxygen levels (hypoxia) that have been seen in up to 80% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients [ 9] exhibiting respiratory distress. Decreased oxygenation and elevated carbon dioxide levels in patients' blood have been observed, although the etiology for these findings remains unclear.

Massive oxidative damage to the lungs has been observed in areas of airspace opacification documented on chest radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia [ 10]. This cellular stress may indicate a biochemical rather than a viral etiology [ 11].

Because disseminated virus can attach itself to cells containing an angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor; it can spread and damage organs and soft tissues throughout the body, including the lungs, heart, intestines, kidneys, blood vessels, fat, testes, and ovaries, among others. The disease can increase systemic inflammation and induce a hypercoagulable state. Without anticoagulation, intravascular blood clots can be devastating [ 12].

In COVID-19 patients referred to as "long-haulers," symptoms can wax and wane for months [ 13]. Shortness of breath, fatigue, joint pain, and chest pain can become persistent symptoms. Post-infectious brain fog, cardiac arrhythmia, and new onset hypertension have also been described. Long-term chronic complications of COVID-19 are being defined as epidemiological data are collected over time.

As our understanding of COVID-19 continues to evolve, environmental factors, particularly those of wireless communication electromagnetic fields, remain unexplored variables that may be contributing to the disease including its severity in some patients. Next, we summarize the bioeffects of WCR exposure from the peer reviewed scientific literature published over decades.

1.3. Overview on bioeffects of WCR exposure

Organisms are electrochemical beings. Low-level WCR from devices, including mobile telephony base antennas, wireless network protocols utilized for the local networking of devices and internet access, trademarked as Wi-Fi (officially IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence protocol; IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) by the Wi-Fi alliance, and mobile phones, among others, may disrupt regulation of numerous physiological functions. Non-thermal bioeffects (below the power density that causes tissue heating) from very low-level WCR exposure have been reported in numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications at power densities below the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) exposure guidelines [ 14]. Low-level WCR has been found to impact the organism at all levels of organization, from the molecular to the cellular, physiological, behavioral, and psychological levels. Moreover, it has been shown to cause systemic detrimental health effects including increased cancer risk [ 15], endocrine changes [ 16], increased free radical production [ 17], deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage [ 18], changes to the reproductive system [ 19], learning and memory defects [ 20], and neurological disorders [ 21]. Having evolved within Earth's extremely low-level natural radiofrequency background, organisms lack the ability to adapt to heightened levels of unnatural radiation of wireless communications technology with digital modulation that includes short intense pulses (bursts).

The peer-reviewed world scientific literature has documented evidence for detrimental bioeffects from WCR exposure including 5G frequencies over several decades. The Soviet and Eastern European literature from 1960 to 1970s demonstrates significant biological effects, even at exposure levels more than 1000 times below 1 mW/cm ², the current guideline for maximum public exposure in the US. Eastern studies on animal and human subjects were performed at low exposure levels (<1 mW/cm ²) for long durations (typically months). Adverse bioeffects from WCR exposure levels below 0.001 mW/cm ² have also been documented in the Western literature. Damage to human sperm viability including DNA fragmentation by internet-connected laptop computers at power densities from 0.0005 to 0.001 mW/cm ² has been reported [ 22]. Chronic human exposure to 0.000006 - 0.00001 mW/cm ² produced significant changes in human stress hormones following a mobile phone base station installation [ 23]. Human exposures to cell phone radiation at 0.00001 - 0.00005 mW/cm ² resulted in complaints of headache, neurological problems, sleep problems, and concentration problems, corresponding to "microwave sickness" [ 24, 25]. The effects of WCR on prenatal development in mice placed near an "antenna park" exposed to power densities from 0.000168 to 0.001053 mW/cm ² showed a progressive decrease in the number of newborns and ended in irreversible infertility [ 26]. Most US research has been performed over short durations of weeks or less. In recent years, there have been few long-term studies on animals or humans.

Illness from WCR exposure has been documented since the early use of radar. Prolonged exposure to microwaves and millimeter waves from radar was associated with various disorders termed "radio-wave sickness" decades ago by Russian scientists. A wide variety of bioeffects from nonthermal power densities of WCR were reported by Soviet research groups since the 1960s. A bibliography of over 3700 references on the reported biological effects in the world scientific literature was published in 1972 (revised 1976) by the US Naval Medical Research Institute [ 27, 28]. Several relevant Russian studies are summarized as follows. Research on Escherichia coli bacteria cultures show power density windows for microwave resonance effects for 51.755 GHz stimulation of bacterial growth, observed at extremely low power densities of 10 −13 mW/cm ² [ 29], illustrating an extremely low level bioeffect. More recently Russian studies confirmed earlier results of Soviet research groups on the effects of 2.45 GHz at 0.5 mW/cm ² on rats (30 days exposure for 7 h/day), demonstrating the formation of antibodies to the brain (autoimmune response) and stress reactions [ 30]. In a long-term (1 - 4 year) study comparing children who use mobile phones to a control group, functional changes, including greater fatigue, decreased voluntary attention, and weakening of semantic memory, among other adverse psychophysiological changes, were reported [ 31]. Key Russian research reports that underlie the scientific basis for Soviet and Russian WCR exposure guidelines to protect the public, which are much lower than the US guidelines, have been summarized [ 32].

By comparison to the exposure levels employed in these studies, we measured the ambient level of WCR from 100 MHz to 8 GHz in downtown San Francisco, California in December, 2020, and found an average power density of 0.0002 mW/cm ². This level is from the superposition of multiple WCR devices. It is approximately 2 × 10 ¹⁰ times above the natural background.

Pulsed radio-frequency radiation such as WCR exhibits substantially different bioeffects, both qualitatively and quantitatively (generally more pronounced) compared to continuous waves at similar time-averaged power densities [ 33- 36]. The specific interaction mechanisms are not well understood. All types of wireless communications employ extremely low frequency (ELFs) in the modulation of the radiofrequency carrier signals, typically pulses to increase the capacity of information transmitted. This combination of radiofrequency radiation with ELF modulation(s) is generally more bioactive, as it is surmised that organisms cannot readily adapt to such rapidly changing wave forms [ 37- 40]. Therefore, the presence of ELF components of radiofrequency waves from pulsing or other modulations must be considered in studies on the bioeffects of WCR. Unfortunately, the reporting of such modulations has been unreliable, especially in older studies [ 41].

The BioInitiative Report [ 42], authored by 29 experts from ten countries, and updated in 2020, provides a scholarly contemporary summary of the literature on the bioeffects and health consequences from WCR exposure, including a compendium of supporting research. Recent reviews have been published [ 43- 46]. Two comprehensive reviews on the bioeffects of millimeter waves report that even short-term exposures produce marked bioeffects [ 47, 48].

2. Methods

An ongoing literature study of the unfolding pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 was performed. To investigate a possible connection to bioeffects from WCR exposure, we examined over 250 peer-reviewed research reports from 1969 to 2021, including reviews and studies on cells, animals, and humans. We included the world literature in English and Russian reports translated to English, on radio frequencies from 600 MHz to 90 GHz, the carrier wave spectrum of WCR (2G to 5G inclusive), with particular emphasis on nonthermal, low power densities (<1 mW/cm ²), and long-term exposures. The following search terms were used in queries in MEDLINE ® and the Defense Technical Information Center (https://discover.dtic.mil) to find relevant study reports: radiofrequency radiation, microwave, millimeter wave, radar, MHz, GHz, blood, red blood cell, erythrocyte, hemoglobin, hemodynamic, oxygen, hypoxia, vascular, inflammation, pro-inflammatory, immune, lymphocyte, T cell, cytokine, intracellular calcium, sympathetic function, arrhythmia, heart, cardiovascular, oxidative stress, glutathione, reactive oxygen species (ROS), COVID-19, virus, and SARS-CoV-2. Occupational studies on WCR exposed workers were included in the study. Our approach is akin to Literature-Related Discovery, in which two concepts that have heretofore not been linked are explored in the literature searches to look for linkage(s) to produce novel, interesting, plausible, and intelligible knowledge, that is, potential discovery [ 49]. From analysis of these studies in comparison with new information unfolding on the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2, we identified several ways in which adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure intersect with COVID-19 manifestations and organized our findings into five categories.

3. Results

lists the manifestations common to COVID-19 including disease progression and the corresponding adverse bioeffects from WCR exposure. Although these effects are delineated into categories - blood changes, oxidative stress, immune system disruption and activation, increased intracellular calcium (Ca ²⁺), and cardiac effects - it must be emphasized that these effects are not independent of each other. For example, blood clotting and inflammation have overlapping mechanisms, and oxidative stress is implicated in erythrocyte morphological changes as well as in hypercoagulation, inflammation, and organ damage.

Table 1

Wireless communications radiation (WCR) exposure bioeffects

COVID-19 manifestations

Blood changes
Short-term: rouleaux, echinocytes
Long-term: reduced blood clotting time, reduced hemoglobin, hemodynamic disorders

Blood changes
Rouleaux, echinocytes
Hemoglobin effects; vascular effects
→Reduced hemoglobin in severe disease; autoimmune hemolytic anemia; hypoxemia and hypoxia
→Endothelial injury; impaired microcirculation; hypercoagulation; disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC); pulmonary embolism; stroke

Oxidative stress
Glutathione level decrease; free radicals and lipid peroxide increase; superoxide dismutase activity decrease; oxidative injury in tissues and organs

Oxidative stress
Glutathione level decrease; free radical increase and damage; apoptosis→Oxidative injury; organ damage in severe disease

Immune system disruption and activation
Immune suppression in some studies; immune hyperactivation in other studies
Long-term: suppression of T-lymphocytes; inflammatory biomarkers increased; autoimmunity; organ injury

Immune system disruption and activation
Decreased production of T-lymphocytes; elevated inflammatory biomarkers.
→Immune hyperactivation and inflammation; cytokine storm in severe disease; cytokine-induced hypo-perfusion with resulting hypoxia; organ injury; organ failure

Increased intracellular calcium
From activation of voltage-gated calcium channels on cell membranes, with numerous secondary effects

Increased intracellular calcium
→Increased virus entry, replication, and release
→Increased NF-κB, pro-inflammatory processes, coagulation, and thrombosis

Cardiac effects
Up-regulation of sympathetic nervous system; palpitations and arrhythmias

Cardiac effects
Arrhythmias
→Myocarditis; myocardial ischemia; cardiac injury; cardiac failure

3.1. Blood changes

WCR exposure can cause morphologic changes in blood readily seen through phase contrast or dark-field microscopy of live peripheral blood samples. In 2013, Havas observed erythrocyte aggregation including rouleaux (rolls of stacked red blood cells) in live peripheral blood samples following 10 min human exposure to a 2.4 GHz cordless phone [ 50]. Although not peer reviewed, one of us (Rubik) investigated the effect of 4G LTE mobile phone radiation on the peripheral blood of ten human subjects, each of whom had been exposed to cell phone radiation for two consecutive 45-min intervals [ 51]. Two types of effects were observed: increased stickiness and clumping of red blood cells with rouleaux formation, and subsequent formation of echinocytes (spiky red blood cells). Red blood cell clumping and aggregation are known to be actively involved in blood clotting [ 52]. The prevalence of this phenomenon on exposure to WCR in the human population has not yet been determined. Larger controlled studies should be performed to further investigate this phenomenon.

Similar red blood cell changes have been described in peripheral blood of COVID-19 patients [ 53]. Rouleaux formation has been observed in 1/3 of COVID-19 patients, whereas spherocytes and echinocyte formation is more variable. Spike protein engagement with ACE2 receptors on cells lining the blood vessels can lead to endothelial damage, even when isolated [ 54]. Rouleaux formation, particularly in the setting of underlying endothelial damage, can clog the microcirculation, impeding oxygen transport, contributing to hypoxia, and increasing the risk of thrombosis [ 52]. Thrombogenesis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection may also be caused by direct viral binding to ACE2 receptors on platelets [ 55].

Additional blood effects have been observed in both humans and animals exposed to WCR. In 1977, a Russian study reported that rodents irradiated with 5 - 8 mm waves (60 - 37 GHz) at 1 mW/cm ² for 15 min/day over 60 days developed hemodynamic disorders, suppressed red blood cell formation, reduced hemoglobin, and an inhibition of oxygen utilization (oxidative phosphorylation by the mitochondria) [ 56]. In 1978, a 3-year Russian study on 72 engineers exposed to millimeter wave generators emitting at 1 mW/cm ² or less showed a decrease in their hemoglobin levels and red blood cell counts, and a tendency toward hypercoagulation, whereas a control group showed no changes [ 57]. Such deleterious hematologic effects from WCR exposure may also contribute to the development of hypoxia and blood clotting observed in COVID-19 patients.

It has been proposed that the SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks erythrocytes and causes degradation of hemoglobin [ 11]. Viral proteins may attack the 1-beta chain of hemoglobin and capture the porphyrin, along with other proteins from the virus catalyzing the dissociation of iron from heme [ 58]. In principle this would reduce the number of functional erythrocytes and cause the release of free iron ions that could cause oxidative stress, tissue damage, and hypoxia. With hemoglobin partially destroyed and lung tissue damaged by inflammation, patients would be less able to exchange carbon dioxide (CO ₂) and oxygen (O ₂), and would become oxygen depleted. In fact, some COVID-19 patients show reduced hemoglobin levels, measuring 7.1 g/L and even as low as 5.9 g/L in severe cases [ 59]. Clinical studies of almost 100 patients from Wuhan revealed that the hemoglobin levels in the blood of most patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are significantly lowered resulting in compromised delivery of oxygen to tissues and organs [ 60]. In a meta-analysis of four studies with a total of 1210 patients and 224 with severe disease, hemoglobin values were reduced in COVID-19 patients with severe disease compared to those with milder forms [ 59]. In another study on 601 COVID-19 patients, 14.7% of anemic COVID-19 ICU patients and 9% of non-ICU COVID-19 patients had autoimmune hemolytic anemia [ 61]. In patients with severe COVID-19 disease, decreased hemoglobin along with elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin [ 62], serum ferritin [ 63], and low oxygen saturation [ 64] provide additional support for this hypothesis. In addition, packed red blood cell transfusion may promote recovery of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure [ 65].

In short, both WCR exposure and COVID-19 may cause deleterious effects on red blood cells and reduced hemoglobin levels contributing to hypoxia in COVID-19. Endothelial injury may further contribute to hypoxia and many of the vascular complications seen in COVID-19 [ 66] that are discussed in the next section.

3.2. Oxidative stress

Oxidative stress is a non-specific pathological condition reflecting an imbalance between an increased production of ROS and an inability of the organism to detoxify the ROS or to repair the damage they cause to biomolecules and tissues [ 67]. Oxidative stress can disrupt cell signaling, cause the formation of stress proteins, and generate highly reactive free radicals, which can cause DNA and cell membrane damage.

SARS-CoV-2 inhibits intrinsic pathways designed to reduce ROS levels, thereby increasing morbidity. Immune dysregulation, that is, the upregulation of interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) [ 68] and suppression of interferon (IFN) α and IFN β [ 69] have been identified in the cytokine storm accompanying severe COVID-19 infections and generates oxidative stress [ 10]. Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction may further perpetuate the cytokine storm, worsening tissue damage, and increasing the risk of severe illness and death.

Similarly low-level WCR generates ROS in cells that cause oxidative damage. In fact, oxidative stress is considered to be one of the primary mechanisms in which WCR exposure causes cellular damage. Among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies investigating oxidative effects of low-intensity WCR, 93 of these studies confirmed that WCR induces oxidative effects in biological systems [ 17]. WCR is an oxidative agent with a high pathogenic potential especially when exposure is continuous [ 70].

Oxidative stress is also an accepted mechanism causing endothelial damage [ 71]. This may manifest in patients with severe COVID-19 in addition to increasing the risk for blood clot formation and worsening hypoxemia [ 10]. Low levels of glutathione, the master antioxidant, have been observed in a small group of COVID-19 patients, with the lowest level found in the most severe cases [ 72]. The finding of low glutathione levels in these patients further supports oxidative stress as a component of this disease [ 72]. In fact, glutathione, the major source of sulfhydryl-based antioxidant activity in the human body, may be pivotal in COVID-19 [ 73]. Glutathione deficiency has been proposed as the most likely cause of serious manifestations in COVID-19 [ 72]. The most common co-morbidities, hypertension [ 74]; obesity [ 75]; diabetes [ 76]; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [ 74] support the concept that pre-existing conditions causing low levels of glutathione may work synergistically to create the "perfect storm" for both the respiratory and vascular complications of severe infection. Another paper citing two cases of COVID-19 pneumonia treated successfully with intravenous glutathione also supports this hypothesis [ 77].

Many studies report oxidative stress in humans exposed to WCR. Peraica et al. [ 78] found diminished blood levels of glutathione in workers exposed to WCR from radar equipment (0.01 mW/cm ² - 10 mW/cm ²; 1.5 - 10.9 GHz). Garaj-Vrhovac et al. [ 79] studied bioeffects following exposure to non-thermal pulsed microwaves from marine radar (3 GHz, 5.5 GHz, and 9.4 GHz) and reported reduced glutathione levels and increased malondialdehyde (marker for oxidative stress) in an occupationally exposed group [ 79]. Blood plasma of individuals residing near mobile phone base stations showed significantly reduced glutathione, catalase, and superoxide dismutase levels over unexposed controls [ 80]. In a study on human exposure to WCR from mobile phones, increased blood levels of lipid peroxide were reported, while enzymatic activities of superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase in the red blood cells decreased, indicating oxidative stress [ 81].

In a study on rats exposed to 2450 MHz (wireless router frequency), oxidative stress was implicated in causing red blood cell lysis (hemolysis) [ 82]. In another study, rats exposed to 945 MHz (base station frequency) at 0.367 mW/cm ² for 7 h/day, over 8 days, demonstrated low glutathione levels and increased malondialdehyde and superoxide dismutase enzyme activity, hallmarks for oxidative stress [ 83]. In a long-term controlled study on rats exposed to 900 MHz (mobile phone frequency) at 0.0782 mW/cm ² for 2 h/day for 10 months, there was a significant increase in malondialdehyde and total oxidant status over controls [ 84]. In another long-term controlled study on rats exposed to two mobile phone frequencies, 1800 MHz and 2100 MHz, at power densities 0.04 - 0.127 mW/cm ² for 2 h/day over 7 months, significant alterations in oxidant-antioxidant parameters, DNA strand breaks, and oxidative DNA damage were found [ 85].

There is a correlation between oxidative stress and thrombogenesis [ 86]. ROS can cause endothelial dysfunction and cellular damage. The endothelial lining of the vascular system contains ACE2 receptors that are targeted by SARS-CoV-2. The resulting endotheliitis can cause luminal narrowing and result in diminished blood flow to downstream structures. Thrombi in arterial structures can further obstruct blood flow causing ischemia and/or infarcts in involved organs, including pulmonary emboli and strokes. Abnormal blood coagulation leading to micro-emboli was a recognized complication early in the history of COVID-19 [ 87]. Out of 184 ICU COVID-19 patients, 31% showed thrombotic complications [ 88]. Cardiovascular clotting events are a common cause of COVID-19 deaths [ 12]. Pulmonary embolism, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), liver, cardiac, and renal failure have all been observed in COVID-19 patients [ 89].

Patients with the highest cardiovascular risk factors in COVID-19 includ males, the elderly, diabetics, and obese and hypertensive patients. However, increased incidence of strokes in younger patients with COVID-19 has also been described [ 90].

Oxidative stress is caused by WCR exposure and is known to be implicated in cardiovascular disease. Ubiquitous environmental exposure to WCR may contribute to cardiovascular disease by creating a chronic state of oxidative stress [ 91]. This would lead to oxidative damage to cellular constituents and alter signal transduction pathways. In addition, pulse-modulated WCR can cause oxidative injury in liver, lung, testis, and heart tissues mediated by lipid peroxidation, increased levels of nitric oxides, and suppression of the antioxidant defense mechanism [ 92].

In summary, oxidative stress is a major component in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 as well as in cellular damage caused by WCR exposure.

3.3. Immune system disruption and activation

When SARS-CoV-2 first infects the human body, it attacks cells lining the nose, throat, and upper airway harboring ACE2 receptors. Once the virus gains access to a host cell through one of its spike proteins, which are the multiple protuberances projecting from the viral envelope that bind to ACE2 receptors, it converts the cell into a virus self-replicating entity.

In response to COVID-19 infection, both an immediate systemic innate immune response as well as a delayed adaptive response has been shown to occur [ 93]. The virus can also cause a dysregulation of the immune response, particularly in the decreased production of T-lymphocytes. [ 94]. Severe cases tend to have lower lymphocyte counts, higher leukocyte counts and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios, as well as lower percentages of monocytes, eosinophils, and basophils [ 94]. Severe cases of COVID-19 show the greatest impairment in T-lymphocytes.

In comparison, low-level WCR studies on laboratory animals also show impaired immune function [ 95]. Findings include physical alterations in immune cells, a degradation of immunological responses, inflammation, and tissue damage. Baranski [ 96] exposed guinea pigs and rabbits to continuous or pulse-modulated 3000 MHz microwaves at an average power density of 3.5 mW/cm ² for 3 h/day over 3 months and found nonthermal changes in lymphocyte counts, abnormalities in nuclear structure, and mitosis in the erythroblastic cell series in the bone marrow and in lymphoid cells in lymph nodes and spleen. Other investigators have shown diminished T-lymphocytes or suppressed immune function in animals exposed to WCR. Rabbits exposed to 2.1 GHz at 5mW/cm ² for 3 h/day, 6 days/week, for 3 months, showed suppression of T-lymphocytes [ 97]. Rats exposed to 2.45 GHz and 9.7 GHz for 2 h/day, 7 days/week, for 21 months showed a significant decrease in the levels of lymphocytes and an increase in mortality at 25 months in the irradiated group [ 98]. Lymphocytes harvested from rabbits irradiated with 2.45 GHz for 23 h/day for 6 months show a significant suppression in immune response to a mitogen [ 99].

In 2009, Johansson conducted a literature review, which included the 2007 Bioinitiative Report. He concluded that electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure, including WCR, can disturb the immune system and cause allergic and inflammatory responses at exposure levels significantly less than current national and international safety limits and raise the risk for systemic disease [ 100]. A review conducted by Szmigielski in 2013 concluded that weak RF/microwave fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones, can affect various immune functions both in vitro and in vivo [ 101]. Although the effects are historically somewhat inconsistent, most research studies document alterations in the number and activity of immune cells from RF exposure. In general, short-term exposure to weak microwave radiation may temporarily stimulate an innate or adaptive immune response, but prolonged irradiation inhibits those same functions.

In the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, blood tests demonstrate elevated ESR, C-reactive protein, and other elevated inflammatory markers [ 102], typical of an innate immune response. Rapid viral replication can cause death of epithelial and endothelial cells and result in leaky blood vessels and pro-inflammatory cytokine release [ 103]. Cytokines, proteins, peptides, and proteoglycans that modulate the body's immune response, are modestly elevated in patients with mild-to-moderate disease severity [ 104]. In those with severe disease, an uncontrolled release of pro-inflammatory cytokines--a cytokine storm--can occur. Cytokine storms originate from an imbalance in T-cell activation with dysregulated release of IL-6, IL-17, and other cytokines. Programmed cell death (apoptosis), ARDS, DIC, and multi-organ system failure can all result from a cytokine storm and increase the risk of mortality.

By comparison, Soviet researchers found in the 1970s that radiofrequency radiation can damage the immune system of animals. Shandala [ 105] exposed rats to 0.5 mW/cm ² microwaves for 1 month, 7 h/day, and found impaired immune competence and induction of autoimmune disease. Rats irradiated with 2.45 GHz at 0.5 mW/cm ² for 7 h daily for 30 days produced autoimmune reactions, and 0.1 - 0.5 mW/cm ² produced persistent pathological immune reactions [ 106]. Exposure to microwave radiation, even at low levels (0.1 - 0.5 mW/cm ²), can impair immune function, causing physical alterations in the essential cells of the immune system and a degradation of immunologic responses [ 107]. Szabo et al. [ 108] examined the effects of 61.2 GHz exposure on epidermal keratinocytes and found an increase in IL-1b, a pro-inflammatory cytokine. Makar et al. [ 109] found that immunosuppressed mice irradiated 30 min/day for 3 days by 42.2 GHz showed increased levels of TNF-α, a cytokine produced by macrophages.

In short, COVID-19 can lead to immune dysregulation as well as cytokine storms. By comparison, exposure to low-level WCR as observed in animal studies can also compromise the immune system, with chronic daily exposure producing immunosuppression or immune dysregulation including hyperactivation.

3.4. Increased intracellular calcium

In 1992, Walleczek first suggested that ELF electromagnetic fields (<3000 Hz) may be affecting membrane-mediated Ca ²⁺ signaling and lead to increased intracellular Ca ²⁺ [ 110]. The mechanism of irregular gating of voltage-gated ion channels in cell membranes by polarized and coherent, oscillating electric or magnetic fields was first presented in 2000 and 2002 [ 40, 111]. Pall [ 112] in his review of WCR-induced bioeffects combined with use of calcium channel blockers (CCB) noted that voltage-gated calcium channels play a major role in WCR bioeffects. Increased intracellular Ca⁺² results from the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels, and this may be one of the primary mechanisms of action of WCR on organisms.

Intracellular Ca ²⁺ is essential for virus entry, replication, and release. It has been reported that some viruses can manipulate voltage-gated calcium channels to increase intracellular Ca ²⁺ thereby facilitating viral entry and replication [ 113]. Research has shown that the interaction between a virus and voltage-gated calcium channels promote virus entry at the virus-host cell fusion step [ 113]. Thus, after the virus binds to its receptor on a host cell and enters the cell through endocytosis, the virus takes over the host cell to manufacture its components. Certain viral proteins then manipulate calcium channels, thereby increasing intracellular Ca ²⁺, which facilitates further viral replication.

Even though direct evidence has not been reported, there is indirect evidence that increased intracellular Ca ²⁺ may be involved in COVID-19. In a recent study, elderly hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with CCBs, amlodipine or nifedipine, were more likely to survive and less likely to require intubation or mechanical ventilation than controls [ 114]. Furthermore, CCBs strongly limit SARS-CoV-2 entry and infection in cultured epithelial lung cells [ 115]. CCBs also block the increase of intracellular Ca ²⁺ caused by WCR exposure as well as exposure to other electromagnetic fields [ 112].

Intracellular Ca ²⁺ is a ubiquitous second messenger relaying signals received by cell surface receptors to effector proteins involved in numerous biochemical processes. Increased intracellular Ca ²⁺ is a significant factor in upregulation of transcription nuclear factor KB (NF-κB) [ 116], an important regulator of pro-inflammatory cytokine production as well as coagulation and thrombotic cascades. NF-κB is hypothesized to be a key factor underlying severe clinical manifestations of COVID-19 [ 117].

In short, WCR exposure, therefore, may enhance the infectivity of the virus by increasing intracellular Ca ²⁺ that may also indirectly contribute to inflammatory processes and thrombosis.

3.5. Cardiac effects

Cardiac arrhythmias are more commonly encountered in critically ill patients with COVID-19 [ 118]. The cause for arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients is multifactorial and includes cardiac and extra-cardiac processes [ 119]. Direct infection of the heart muscle by SARS-CoV-19 causing myocarditis, myocardial ischemia caused by a variety of etiologies, and heart strain secondary to pulmonary or systemic hypertension can result in cardiac arrhythmia. Hypoxemia caused by diffuse pneumonia, ARDS, or extensive pulmonary emboli represent extra-cardiac causes of arrhythmia. Electrolyte imbalances, intravascular fluid imbalance, and side effects from pharmacologic regimens can also result in arrhythmias in COVID-19 patients. Patients admitted to ICUs have been shown to have a higher increase in cardiac arrhythmias, 16.5% in one study [ 120]. Although no correlation between EMFs and arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients has been described in the literature, many ICUs are equipped with wireless patient monitoring equipment and communication devices producing a wide range of EMF pollution [ 121].

COVID-19 patients commonly show increased levels of cardiac troponin, indicating damage to the heart muscle [ 122]. Cardiac damage has been associated with arrhythmias and increased mortality. Cardiac injury is thought to be more often secondary to pulmonary emboli and viral sepsis, but direct infection of the heart, that is, myocarditis, can occur through direct viral binding to ACE2 receptors on cardiac pericytes, affecting local, and regional cardiac blood flow [ 60].

Immune system activation along with alterations in the immune system may result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and vulnerability, that is, presenting an increased risk for thrombus formation, and contributing to development of acute coronary events and cardiovascular disease in COVID-19.

Regarding WCR exposure bioeffects, in 1969 Christopher Dodge of the Biosciences Division, U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington DC, reviewed 54 papers and reported that radiofrequency radiation can adversely affect all major systems of the body, including impeding blood circulation; altering blood pressure and heart rate; affecting electrocardiograph readings; and causing chest pain and heart palpitations [ 123]. In the 1970s Glaser reviewed more than 2000 publications on radiofrequency radiation exposure bioeffects and concluded that microwave radiation can alter the electrocardiogram, cause chest pain, hypercoagulation, thrombosis, and hypertension in addition to myocardial infarction [ 27, 28]. Seizures, convulsions, and alteration of the autonomic nervous system response (increased sympathetic stress response) have also been observed.

Since then, many other researchers have concluded that WCR exposure can affect the cardiovascular system. Although the nature of the primary response to millimeter waves and consequent events are poorly understood, a possible role for receptor structures and neural pathways in the development of continuous millimeter wave-induced arrhythmia has been proposed [ 47]. In 1997, a review reported that some investigators discovered cardiovascular changes including arrhythmias in humans from long-term low-level exposure to WCR including microwaves [ 124]. However, the literature also shows some unconfirmed findings as well as some contradictory findings [ 125]. Havas et al. [ 126] reported that human subjects in a controlled, double-blinded study were hyper-reactive when exposed to 2.45 GHz, digitally pulsed (100 Hz) microwave radiation, developing either an arrhythmia or tachycardia and upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system, which is associated with the stress response. Saili et al. [ 127] found that exposure to Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz pulsed at 10 Hz) affects heart rhythm, blood pressure, and the efficacy of catecholamines on the cardiovascular system, indicating that WCR can act directly and/or indirectly on the cardiovascular system. Most recently, Bandara and Weller [ 91] present evidence that people who live near radar installations (millimeter waves: 5G frequencies) have a greater risk of developing cancer and experiencing heart attacks. Similarly, those occupationally exposed have a greater risk of coronary heart disease. Microwave radiation affects the heart, and some people are more vulnerable if they have an underlying heart abnormality [ 128]. More recent research suggests that millimeter waves may act directly on the pacemaker cells of the sinoatrial node of the heart to change the beat frequency, which may underlie arrhythmias and other cardiac issues [ 47].

In short, both COVID-19 and WCR exposure can affect the heart and cardiovascular system, directly and/or indirectly.

4. Discussion

Epidemiologists, including those at the CDC, consider multiple causal factors when evaluating the virulence of an agent and understanding its ability to spread and cause disease. Most importantly, these variables include environmental cofactors and the health status of the host. Evidence from the literature summarized here suggests a possible connection between several adverse health effects of WCR exposure and the clinical course of COVID-19 in that WCR may have worsened the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening the host and exacerbating COVID-19 disease. However, none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage. Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation. Clearly COVID-19 occurs in regions with little wireless communication. Furthermore, the relative morbidity caused by WCR exposure in COVID-19 is unknown.

We recognize that many factors have influenced the pandemic's course. Before restrictions were imposed, travel patterns facilitated the seeding of the virus, causing early rapid global spread. Population density, higher mean population age, and socioeconomic factors certainly influenced early viral spread. Air pollution, especially particulate matter PM 2.5 (2.5 micro-particulates), likely increased symptoms in patients with COVID-19 lung disease [ 129].

We postulate that WCR possibly contributed to the early spread and severity of COVID-19. Once an agent becomes established in a community, its virulence increases [ 130]. This premise can be applied to the COVID-19 pandemic. We surmise that "hot spots" of the disease that initially spread around the world were perhaps seeded by air travel, which in some areas were associated with 5G implementation. However, once the disease became established in those communities, it was able to spread more easily to neighboring regions where populations were less exposed to WCR. Second and third waves of the pandemic disseminated widely throughout communities with and without WCR, as might be expected.

The COVID-19 pandemic has offered us an opportunity to delve further into the potential adverse effects of WCR exposure on human health. Human exposure to ambient WCR significantly increased in 2020 as a "side effect" to the pandemic. Stay-at-home measures designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19 inadvertently resulted in greater public exposure to WCR, as people conducted more business and school related activities through wireless communications. Telemedicine created another source of WCR exposure. Even hospital inpatients, particular ICU patients, experienced increased WCR exposure as new monitoring devices utilized wireless communication systems that may exacerbate health disorders. It would potentially provide valuable information to measure ambient WCR power densities in home and work environments when comparing disease severity in patient populations with similar risk factors.

The question of causation could be investigated in future studies. For example, a clinical study could be conducted in COVID-19 patient populations with similar risk factors, to measure the WCR daily dose in COVID-19 patients and look for a correlation with disease severity and progression over time. As wireless device carrier frequencies and modulations may differ, and the power densities of WCR fluctuate constantly at a given location, this study would require patients to wear personal microwave dosimeters (monitoring badges). In addition, controlled laboratory studies could be conducted on animals, for example, humanized mice infected with SARS-CoV-2, in which groups of animals exposed to minimal WCR (control group) as well as medium and high power densities of WCR could be compared for disease severity and progression.

A major strength of this paper is that the evidence rests on a large body of scientific literature reported by many scientists worldwide and over several decades--experimental evidence of adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure at nonthermal levels on humans, animals, and cells. The Bioinitiative Report [ 42], updated in 2020, summarizes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting evidence of nonthermal effects from exposures ≤1 mW/cm ². Even so, some laboratory studies on the adverse health effects of WCR have sometimes utilized power densities exceeding 1mW/cm ². In this paper, almost all of the studies that we reviewed included experimental data at power densities ≤1 mW/cm ².

A potential criticism of this paper is that adverse bioeffects from nonthermal exposures are not yet universally accepted in science. Moreover, they are not yet considered in establishing public health policy in many nations. Decades ago, Russians and Eastern Europeans compiled considerable data on nonthermal bioeffects, and subsequently set guidelines at lower radiofrequency radiation exposure limits than the US and Canada, that is, below levels where nonthermal effects are observed. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, a US government entity) and ICNIRP guidelines operate on thermal limits based on outdated data from decades ago, allowing the public to be exposed to considerably higher radiofrequency radiation power densities. Regarding 5G, the telecommunication industry claims that it is safe because it complies with current radiofrequency radiation exposure guidelines of the FCC and ICNIRP. These guidelines were established in 1996 [ 131], are antiquated, and are not safety standards. Thus, there are no universally accepted safety standards for wireless communication radiation exposure. Recently international bodies, such as the EMF Working Group of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine, have proposed much lower guidelines, taking into account nonthermal bioeffects from WCR exposure in multiple sources [ 132].

Another weakness of this paper is that some of the bioeffects from WCR exposure are inconsistently reported in the literature. Replicated studies are often not true replications. Small differences in method, including unreported details, such as prior history of exposure of the organisms, non-uniform body exposure, and other variables can lead to inadvertent inconsistency. Moreover, not surprisingly, industry-sponsored studies tend to show less adverse bioeffects than studies conducted by independent researchers, suggesting industry bias [ 133]. Some experimental studies that are not industry-sponsored have also shown no evidence of harmful effects of WCR exposure. It is noteworthy, however, that studies employing real-life WCR exposures from commercially available devices have shown high consistency in revealing adverse effects [ 134].

WCR bioeffects depend on specific values of wave parameters including frequency, power density, polarization, exposure duration, modulation characteristics, as well as the cumulative history of exposure and background levels of electromagnetic, electric and magnetic fields. In laboratory studies, bioeffects observed also depend on genetic parameters and physiological parameters such as oxygen concentration [ 135]. The reproducibility of bioeffects of WCR exposure has sometimes been difficult due to failure to report and/or control all of these parameters. Similar to ionizing radiation, the bioeffects of WCR exposure can be subdivided into deterministic, that is, dose-dependent effects and stochastic effects that are seemingly random. Importantly, WCR bioeffects can also involve "response windows" of specific parameters whereby extremely low-level fields can have disproportionally detrimental effects [ 136]. This nonlinearity of WCR bioeffects can result in biphasic responses such as immune suppression from one range of parameters, and immune hyperactivation from another range of parameters, leading to variations that may appear inconsistent.

In gathering reports and examining existing data for this paper, we looked for outcomes providing evidence to support a proposed connection between the bioeffects of WCR exposure and COVID-19. We did not make an attempt to weigh the evidence. The radiofrequency radiation exposure literature is extensive and currently contains over 30,000 research reports dating back several decades. Inconsistencies in nomenclature, reporting of details, and cataloging of keywords make it difficult to navigate this enormous literature.

Another shortcoming of this paper is that we do not have access to experimental data on 5G exposures. In fact, little is known about population exposure from real-world WCR, which includes exposure to WCR infrastructure and the plethora of WCR emitting devices. In relation to this, it is difficult to accurately quantify the average power density at a given location, which varies greatly, depending on the time, specific location, time-averaging interval, frequency, and modulation scheme. For a specific municipality it depends on the antenna density, which network protocols are used, as, for example, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), DECT (Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications), and RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging). There is also WCR from ubiquitous radio wave transmitters, including antennas, base stations, smart meters, mobile phones, routers, satellites, and other wireless devices currently in use. All of these signals superimpose to yield the total average power density at a given location that typically fluctuates greatly over time. No experimental studies on adverse health effects or safety issues of 5G have been reported, and none are currently planned by the industry, although this is sorely needed.

Finally, there is an inherent complexity to WCR that makes it very difficult to fully characterize wireless signals in the real world that may be associated with adverse bioeffects. Real world digital communication signals, even from single wireless devices, have highly variable signals: variable power density, frequency, modulation, phase, and other parameters changing constantly and unpredictably each moment, as associated with the short, rapid pulsations used in digital wireless communication [ 137]. For example, in using a mobile phone during a typical phone conversation, the intensity of emitted radiation varies significantly each moment depending on signal reception, number of subscribers sharing the frequency band, location within the wireless infrastructure, presence of objects and metallic surfaces, and "speaking" versus "non-speaking" mode, among others. Such variations may reach 100% of the average signal intensity. The carrier radiofrequency constantly changes between different values within the available frequency band. The greater the amount of information (text, speech, internet, video, etc.), the more complex the communication signals become. Therefore, we cannot estimate accurately the values of these signal parameters including ELF components or predict their variability over time. Thus, studies on the bioeffects of WCR in the laboratory can only be representative of real-world exposures [ 137].

This paper points to the need for further research on nonthermal WCR exposure and its potential role in COVID-19. Moreover, some of the WCR exposure bioeffects that we discuss here - oxidative stress, inflammation, and immune system disruption - are common to many chronic diseases, including autoimmune disease and diabetes. Thus, we hypothesize that WCR exposure may also be a potential contributing factor in many chronic diseases.

When a course of action raises threats of harm to human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if clear causal relationships are not yet fully established. Therefore, we must apply the Precautionary Principle [ 138] regarding wireless 5G. The authors urge policymakers to execute an immediate worldwide moratorium on wireless 5G infrastructure until its safety can be assured.

Several unresolved safety issues should be addressed before wireless 5G is further implemented. Questions have been raised about 60 GHz, a key 5G frequency planned for extensive use, which is a resonant frequency of the oxygen molecule [ 139]. It is possible that adverse bioeffects might ensue from oxygen absorption of 60 GHz. In addition, water shows broad absorption in the GHz spectral region along with resonance peaks, for example, strong absorption at 2.45 GHz that is used in 4G Wi-Fi routers. This raises safety issues about GHz exposure of the biosphere, since organisms are comprised of mostly water, and changes in the structure of water due to GHz absorption have been reported that affect organisms [ 140]. Bioeffects from prolonged WCR exposure of the whole body need to be investigated in animal and human studies, and long-term exposure guidelines need to be considered. Independent scientists in particular should conduct concerted research to determine the biological effects of real-world exposure to WCR frequencies with digital modulation from the multiplicity of wireless communication devices. Testing could also include real-life exposures to multiple toxins (chemical and biological) [ 141], because multiple toxins may lead to synergistic effects. Environmental impact assessments are also needed. Once the long-term biological effects of wireless 5G are understood, we can set clear safety standards of public exposure limits and design an appropriate strategy for safe deployment.

5. Conclusion

There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and WCR exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by WCR exposure. Therefore, we propose a link between adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure from wireless devices and COVID-19.

Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca ²⁺ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.

WCR exposure is a widespread, yet often neglected, environmental stressor that can produce a wide range of adverse bioeffects. For decades, independent research scientists worldwide have emphasized the health risks and cumulative damage caused by WCR [ 42, 45]. The evidence presented here is consistent with a large body of established research. Healthcare workers and policymakers should consider WCR a potentially toxic environmental stressor. Methods for reducing WCR exposure should be provided to all patients and the general population.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge small contributions to early versions of this paper by Magda Havas and Lyn Patrick. We are grateful to Susan Clarke for helpful discussions and suggested edits of early drafts of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in preparing and publishing this manuscript. No competing financial interests exist.

References

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemiological Triad. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020. [ Google Scholar]

[5] Tsiang A, Havas M. COVID-19 Attributed Cases and Deaths are Statistically Higher in States and Counties with 5[ th Generation Millimeter Wave Wireless Telecommunications in the United States. Google Scholar]

[27] Glaser ZR. Project MF12.524.015-00043 Report No. 2. Bethesda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute; 1972. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena ('Effects') and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation Research Report; pp. 1-103. [ Google Scholar]

[29] Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov YD, Polunin VA. Resonance Effect of Millimeter Waves in the Power Range from 10(-19) to 3 x 10(-3) W/cm2 on [ Escherichia coli Cells at Different Concentrations. Bioelectromagnetics. 1996;17:312-21. [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

[33] Pakhomov A, Murphy M. A Comprehensive Review of the Research on Biological Effects of Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation in Russia and the Former Soviet Union. 2011 [ Google Scholar]

[42] Sage C, Carpenter DO. BioInitiative Working Group. BioInitiative Report:A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation. Updated 2014-2020. 2012. http://www.bioinitiative.org.

[48] Betskii OV, Lebedeva NN. In:Clinical Application of Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. New York: Marcel Decker; 2004. Low-intensity Millimeter Waves in Biology and Medicine; pp. 30-61. [ Google Scholar]

[106] Grigoriev YG, Ivanov AA, Lyaginskaya AM, Merkulov AV, Stepanov VS, Shagina NB. Autoimmune Processes after Long-term Low-level Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (Experimental Results) Part I. Mobile Communications and Changes in Electromagnetic Conditions for the Population. Need for Additional Substantiation of Existing Hygienic Standards. Biophysics. 2010:551041-5. [[ PubMed] Google Scholar]

[108] Szabo I, Rojavin MA, Rogers, TJ, Ziskin MC. Reactions of Keratinocytes to [ In Vitro Millimeter Wave Exposure. Bioelectromagnetics. 2001;22:358-64. [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

[116] Sen CK, Roy S, Packer L. Involvement of Intracellular Ca[ ²⁺ in Oxidant-Induced NF-κB Activation. FEBS Lett. 1996;385:58-62. [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

[129] Fiasca F, Minelli M, Maio D, Minelli M, Vergallo I, Necozione S, et al. Associations between COVID-19 Incidence Rates and the Exposure to PM2.5 and NO[[ ₂:A Nationwide Observational Study in Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:9318. PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

[135] Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov ED, Ushalov VD. Nonthermal Effects of Extremely High-frequency Microwaves on Chromatin Conformation in cells [ In Vitro Dependence on Physical, Physiological, and Genetic Factors. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Techn. 2000;48:2172-9. Google Scholar]

[140] Torgomyan H, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Low Intensity Electromagnetic Irradiation with 70.6 and 73 GHz Frequencies Affects [ Escherichia coli Growth and Changes Water Properties. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2011;60:275-81. [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) public health policy has focused on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and its effects on human health while environmental factors have been largely ignored. In considering the epidemiological triad (agent-host-environment) applicable to all disease, we investigated a possible environmental factor in the COVID-19 pandemic: ambient radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication systems including microwaves and millimeter waves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A very strong and passionate call to action by understanding that there is more to this than just words. That you need to study and learn the language and the oppositions state of mind. Thank you Chad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A very strong and passionate call to action by understanding that there is more to this than just words. That you need to study and learn the language and the oppositions state of mind. Thank you Chad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The forms below have been prepared to assist and empower an individual to make a fully informed choice as to whether they want to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. No guarantees are provided as to whether (1) any health professional will accept or sign the form (2) the form will be recognised by any organisation. The forms are not intended to give, nor do they give, any medical or legal advice. If an individual has any concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine or if they are being told or recommended to have the COVID-19 vaccine, they are encouraged to seek independent legal and medical advice.

Please download whichever form is most relevant for your purposes. The forms are electronically editable as PDF documents, or they may be printed as hard copies and completed by hand.

PROMIC does not take responsibility for identifying doctors or other healthcare professionals who will declare exemptions. This is because PROMIC cannot expose such health professionals that may otherwise be targeted by licensing boards. We strongly advise you approach health professionals in your locality. In the event that your doctor or health professional is not prepared to make a declaration, we recommend you self-declare, which is your legal or constitutional right in most parts of the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Professionals for Medical Informed Consent and Non-Discrimination (PROMIC) - Exemption Forms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The forms below have been prepared to assist and empower an individual to make a fully informed choice as to whether they want to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. No guarantees are provided as to whether (1) any health professional will accept or sign the form (2) the form will be recognised by any organisation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You have no rights unless you know what they are AND how to assert them. This talk will help all those who know that something is very wrong with how we are being controlled. It will give you tools and confidence to claim back your power and your li…

# data[].attributes.headline
MRNA v dramatically increase endothelial inflammatory markers

# data[].attributes.subject
MRNA v dramatically increase endothelial inflammatory markers

# data[].attributes.headline
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: guidance for healthcare professionals

# data[].attributes.subject
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: guidance for healthcare professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK Health Security Agency ( UKHSA), in partnership with the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), has produced this clinical guidance to support the detection and management of clinical cases of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with coronavirus ( COVID-19) vaccination.

It is a living document and will be reviewed and updated as further data becomes available.

Background

Background to myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination and guidelines:

Epidemiology

Myocarditis and pericarditis are both inflammatory conditions of the heart. The incidence of myocarditis is difficult to ascertain as most cases are mild and are often not well investigated. In one study from the UK, it was estimated that between 1998 and 2017, there were 36.5 per 100,000 NHS admissions with myocarditis, with the numbers increasing each year since 2004. In 2017, it was estimated that there were about 2,000 hospital admissions for myocarditis.

Overall, two-thirds of myocarditis cases were in men, and men were significantly younger (median age 33) compared to women. The most common type of myocarditis is an acute lymphocytic myocarditis, often caused by viral infection.

Pericarditis is a more benign condition and responds to treatment with anti-inflammatory medical treatment. In most cases, it has no long-term sequelae if treated promptly, but it can reoccur.

Post-COVID-19 vaccination

Reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines have been received by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ( MHRA).

As of 17 November 2021, there have been 432 reports of myocarditis and 332 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Pfizer vaccine. There have been 101 reports of myocarditis and 57 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Moderna vaccine. Some cases have been reported following the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, but given the extensive use of AstraZeneca in the UK, these are thought to reflect the expected background incidence rate of myocarditis and pericarditis conditions.

As of 17 November 2021, the overall reporting rate across all age groups for myocarditis following vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine is 10 per million doses; for pericarditis, it's 7 per million doses. For Moderna, the overall reporting rate for myocarditis is 36 per million doses; for pericarditis, it's 21 per million doses.

In those aged under 18 years, the reported rate for heart inflammation (myocarditis and pericarditis) is 10 per million doses (first dose or unknown dose) of the Pfizer vaccine. The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in this age group.

Recommendations in paediatric patients in the context of recent COVID-19 vaccination (within 10 days)

Presentation

If the patient is acutely unwell or unstable, has concerning features or if you have clinical concern, then they should be discussed with the emergency department ( ED) or medical team and referred to hospital for further investigation.

Suspected cases should be examined by a doctor or nurse practitioner.

Concerning features that may require further investigation:

significant chest pain (new onset and unexplained) - it can be difficult for children to localise chest pain

tachycardia or tachypnoea

dyspnoea (new onset and unexplained)

palpitations (new onset and unexplained)

dizziness or syncope (new onset and unexplained)

general clinical concern

Where appropriate the patient should be seen face to face and this assessment should include their vital signs.

Dependent upon the assessment and findings, clinical judgement should be used to determine if myocarditis or pericarditis remains a potential diagnosis of concern.

Where concern or doubt remains or there are findings that suggest an emergency assessment is required, then a discussion should take place with local paediatric services as to the most appropriate place and time for a further assessment to be made.

Clinicians should ensure they communicate with the young person or their family or carers that the condition is very rare, usually mild, often self-remitting and that long-term consequences are yet unknown.

If patients have mild symptoms, they do not require a referral to secondary care at this point.

Investigations

Hospital investigations should follow local myocarditis or pericarditis guidelines with the involvement of the regional paediatric cardiology team.

If there is a suspicion of myocarditis or pericarditis, initial investigations should be:

12 lead electrocardiogram (ECG)

inflammatory blood markers (C-reactive protein (CRP), full blood count (FBC) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR))

Troponin

If abnormal ECG or Troponin, discuss with the paediatric cardiology team for further management plan, including cardiac imaging (echocardiogram, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI)) and rhythm monitoring (24h Holter, stress ECG).

Further investigations and follow-up should be led by the regional paediatric cardiology team.

Recommendations in young people under 40 years of age in the context of recent COVID-19 vaccination (within 10 days)

Presentation

If the patient is acutely unwell or unstable, has concerning features or if you have clinical concern, then they should be discussed with the ED or medical team, and referred to hospital for further investigation.

Where appropriate the patient should be seen face to face and the assessment should include their vital signs.

Suspected cases should be examined by a doctor or nurse practitioner.

Concerning features that may require a referral for further investigation:

significant chest pain (new onset and unexplained)

tachycardia or tachypnoea

dyspnoea (new onset and unexplained)

palpitations (new onset and unexplained)

dizziness or syncope (new onset and unexplained)

general clinical concern

If patients have mild symptoms, they do not require a referral to secondary care at this point.

Dependent upon the assessment and findings, clinical judgement should be used to determine if myocarditis or pericarditis remains a potential diagnosis of concern.

Investigations in secondary care

If there is a suspicion of myocarditis or pericarditis, the initial investigations should be:

If abnormal ECG or troponin, discuss with the cardiology team for further management plan, which might include cardiac imaging (Echocardiogram, cardiac MRI) and rhythm monitoring (24h Holter, stress ECG).

Further investigations and follow-up should be led by the regional cardiology team.

Further follow-up

Patients that did not require referral to hospital on initial presentation or have normal initial investigations do not require further follow-up.

All patients that did not require referral to hospital in initial presentation should be:

given the following 'safety netting' advice: 'if symptoms persist or worsen within 5 days, then they should return to their GP for review'

referred for further investigation if, when seen later, have concerning features including general clinical concern

Patients requiring outpatient follow-up should be referred to cardiology and an assessment undertaken within 4 weeks.

Appendix: membership of the Expert Working Panel

Professor Guido Pieles (Chair) - Consultant Paediatric and Adult Congenital Cardiologist, Congenital Heart Unit, Bristol Heart Institute and University College London.

Professor Amedeo Chiribiri - Cardiovascular Imaging and Consultant Cardiologist, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.

Dr Paul Clift - Consultant Cardiologist, University Hospitals Birmingham.

Professor Adam Finn - Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol and Member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

Dr Mark Hamilton - Consultant Cardiac Radiologist, Bristol Heart Institute and Bristol Royal Hospital for Children.

Dr Katherine Henderson - Consultant Emergency Medicine, President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine.

Dr Maria Ilina - Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow.

Dr Tevfik Ismail - Consultant Cardiologist, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.

Dr Jonathan Leach - General Practitioner, NHS England Medical Director for COVID-19 Vaccination and Joint Honorary Secretary of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

Dr Conor McCann - Consultant Cardiologist, Belfast Trust.

Dr Rubin Minhas - General Practitioner.

Dr Eva Sammut - Academic Clinical Lecturer and Cardiology Registrar, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust.

Dr Nicholas Sargant - Consultant Paediatric Emergency Medicine, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust.

Dr Simon Stockley - General Practitioner and Senior Medical Lead, National COVID-19 Vaccination Programme and Royal College of General Practitioners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: guidance for healthcare professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Health Security Agency ( UKHSA), in partnership with the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), has produced this clinical guidance to support the detection and management of clinical cases of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with coronavirus ( COVID-19) vaccination.

# data[].attributes.headline
Murder? Just Hours After Publishing the Secret of the Vax the Doctor Is Dead (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Murder? Just Hours After Publishing the Secret of the Vax the Doctor Is Dead (Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This video is of This is Dr. Noack, a chemist and graphene expert unlike any under in the EU. He got attacked on a livestream months ago by special police for laughable reasons.

Now, just hours after publishing this work, the forces that be decided that he hit the mark so hard with uncovering their plans, that they decided to take him out.

Was this a hit by the elite to silence this good doctor for exposing their ugly truths? You decide!
https://www.themorganreport.net/
Before It's News® is a community of individuals who report on what's going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!

Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 888-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 888-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video) Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen! Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health. Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Murder? Just Hours After Publishing the Secret of the Vax the Doctor Is Dead (Video) | Alternative | Before It's News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by N.Morgan This video is of This is Dr. Noack, a chemist and graphene expert unlike any under in the EU. He got attacked on a livestream months ago by special police for laughable reasons. Now, just hours after publishing this work, the forces that be decided that he hit...

# data[].attributes.headline
Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou

At the beginning of the spread of the novel pathogen SARS-CoV-2, it was necessary to make far-reaching decisions even without available explicit scientific data. The initial assumption was that the pandemic emergency measures were set in place to reduce the acute threat of the public health system effectively and swiftly.

In April 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the use of masks only for symptomatic, ill individuals and health care workers and did not recommend its widespread use.

While maintaining a distance of at least one meter showed moderate evidence with regard to the spreading of SARS-CoV-2, only weak evidence at best could be found for masks alone in everyday use (non-medical setting) [ 3]. Another meta-analysis conducted in the same year confirmed the weak scientific evidence for masks [ 4].

Accordingly, the WHO did not recommend general or uncritical use of masks for the general population and expanded its risk and hazard list within just two months. While the April 2020 guideline highlighted the dangers of self-contamination, possible breathing difficulties and false sense of security, the June 2020 guideline found additional potential adverse effects such as headache, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis, acne or increased risk of contamination in public spaces due to improper mask disposal [ 1, 2].

However, under pressure from increasing absolute numbers of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, many prescribers further extended mask-wearing according to certain times and situations, always justified by the desire to limit the spread of the virus [ 5]. The media, numerous institutions and most of the population supported this approach.

A careful risk-benefit analysis is becoming increasingly relevant for patients and their practitioners regarding the potential long-term effects of masks. The lack of knowledge of legal legitimacy on the one hand and of the medical scientific facts on the other is a reason for uncertainty among clinically active colleagues.

The aim of this paper is to provide a first, rapid, scientific presentation of the risks of general mandatory mask use by focusing on the possible adverse medical effects of masks, especially in certain diagnostic, patient and user groups.

The objective was to search for documented adverse effects and risks of different types of mouth-nose-covering masks. Of interest here were, on the one hand, readymade and self-manufactured fabric masks, including so-called community masks and, on the other hand medical, surgical and N95 masks (FFP2 masks).

Our approach of limiting the focus to negative effects seems surprising at first glance. However, such an approach helps toprovide us with more information. This methodology is in line with the strategy of Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi, who also conducted a review exclusively on the negative effects [ 12].

For an analysis of the literature, we defined the risk of mouth-nose protection as the description of symptoms or the negative effects of masks. Reviews and expert presentations from which no measurable values could be extracted, but which clearly present the research situation and describe negative effects, also fulfill this criterion.

Additionally, we defined the quantifiable, negative effect of masks as the presentation of a measured, statistically significant change in a physiological parameter in a pathological direction (p < 0.05), a statistically significant detection of symptoms (p < 0.05) or the occurrence of symptoms in at least 50% of those examined in a sample (n ≥ 50%).

Up to and including 31 October 2020, we conducted a database search in PubMed/MEDLINE on scientific studies and publications on adverse effects and risks of different types of mouth-nose-covering masks according to the criteria mentioned above (see Figure 1: Review flowchart). Terms searched were "face masks", "surgical mask" and "N95" in combination with the terms "risk" and "adverse effects" as well as "side effects". The selection criteria of the papers were based on our above definition of risk and adverse effect of masks. Mainly English- and German-language publications of evidence levels I to III according to the recommendations of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHQR) that were not older than 20 years at the time of the review were considered. The evaluation also excluded level IV evidence, such as case reports and irrelevant letters to the editor that exclusively reflect opinions without scientific evidence.

After excluding 1113 papers that were irrelevant to the research question and did not meet the criteria mentioned (quantifiable, negative effects of masks, description of symptoms or the negative effects of masks), a total of 109 relevant publications were found for evaluation in the context of our scoping review (see Figure 1: Flow chart).

Sixty-five relevant publications concerning masks were considered being within the scope of the content-related evaluation. These included 14 reviews and 2 meta-analyses from the primary research. For the quantitative evaluation, 44 presentations of negative effects from the years 2004 to 2020 were eligible. Thirty-one of these studies were experimental (70%), and 13 studies were data collection studies in the sense of simple observational studies, especially in the dermatological field (30%). The observed study parameters and significant results from these 44 publications (p < 0.05 or n ≥ 50%) were compiled in an overall display ( Figure 2). Based on this data, a correlation analysis of the observed mask effects was performed. This included a correlation calculation of the recorded symptoms and physiological changes (for nominally scaled, dichotomous variables according to Fisher using R, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, version 4.0.2).

In addition, another 64 publications with a neighboring range of topics were consulted in connection with the mask effects we found. These included declarations, guidelines and legal principles. In order to expand the amount of data for the discussion, we proceeded according to the "snowball principle" by locating citations of selected papers in the bibliographies and including them where appropriate.

Since the findings from the topics presented for discussion were to an unexpected degree subject-related, we decided to divide the results according to the fields of medicine. Of course, there are overlaps between the respective fields, which we point out in detail.

A total of 65 scientific papers on masks qualified for a purely content-based evaluation. These included 14 reviews and two meta-analyses.

Of the mathematically evaluable, groundbreaking 44 papers with significant negative mask effects (p < 0.05 or n ≥ 50%), 22 were published in 2020 (50%), and 22 were published before the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these 44 publications, 31 (70%) were of experimental nature, and the remainder were observational studies (30%). Most of the publications in question were English (98%). Thirty papers referred to surgical masks (68%), 30 publications related to N95 masks (68%), and only 10 studies pertained to fabric masks (23%).

Despite the differences between the primary studies, we were able to demonstrate a statistically significant correlation in the quantitative analysis between the negative side effects of blood-oxygen depletion and fatigue in mask wearers with p = 0.0454.

In addition, we found a mathematically grouped common appearance of statistically significant confirmed effects of masks in the primary studies (p < 0.05 and n ≥ 50%) as shown in Figure 2. In nine of the 11 scientific papers (82%), we found a combined onset of N95 respiratory protection and carbon dioxide rise when wearing a mask. We found a similar result for the decrease in oxygen saturation and respiratory impairment with synchronous evidence in six of the nine relevant studies (67%). N95 masks were associated with headaches in six of the 10 studies (60%). For oxygen deprivation under N95 respiratory protectors, we found a common occurrence in eight of 11 primary studies (72%). Skin temperature rise under masks was associated with fatigue in 50% (three out of six primary studies). The dual occurrence of the physical parameter temperature rise and respiratory impairment was found in seven of the eight studies (88%). A combined occurrence of the physical parameters temperature rise and humidity/moisture under the mask was found in 100% within six of six studies, with significant readings of these parameters ( Figure 2).

The literature review confirms that relevant, undesired medical, organ and organ system-related phenomena accompanied by wearing masks occur in the fields of internal medicine (at least 11 publications, Section 3.2). The list covers neurology (seven publications, Section 3.3), psychology (more than 10 publications, Section 3.4), psychiatry (three publications, Section 3.5), gynecology (three publications, Section 3.6), dermatology (at least 10 publications, Section 3.7), ENT medicine (four publications, Section 3.8), dentistry (one publication, Section 3.8), sports medicine (four publications, Section 3.9), sociology (more than five publications, Section 3.10), occupational medicine (more than 14 publications, Section 3.11), microbiology (at least four publications, Section 3.12), epidemiology (more than 16 publications, Section 3.13), and pediatrics (four publications, Section 3.14) as well as environmental medicine (four publications, Section 3.15).

We will present the general physiological effects as a basis for all disciplines. This will be followed by a description of the results from the different medical fields of expertise and closing off with pediatrics the final paragraph.

3.1. General Physiological and Pathophysiological Effects for the Wearer

As early as 2005, an experimental dissertation (randomized crossover study) demonstrated that wearing surgical masks in healthy medical personnel (15 subjects, 18-40 years old) leads to measurable physical effects with elevated transcutaneous carbon dioxide values after 30 min [ 13]. The role of dead space volume and CO ₂ retention as a cause of the significant change (p < 0.05) in blood gases on the way to hypercapnia, which was still within the limits, was discussed in this article. Masks expand the natural dead space (nose, throat, trachea, bronchi) outwards and beyond the mouth and nose.

An experimental increase in the dead space volume during breathing increases carbon dioxide (CO ₂) retention at rest and under exertion and correspondingly the carbon dioxide partial pressure pCO ₂ in the blood (p < 0.05) [ 14].

As well as addressing the increased rebreathing of carbon dioxide (CO ₂) due to the dead space, scientists also debate the influence of the increased breathing resistance when using masks [ 15, 16, 17].

According to the scientific data, mask wearers as a whole show a striking frequency of typical, measurable, physiological changes associated with masks.

In a recent intervention study conducted on eight subjects, measurements of the gas content for oxygen (measured in O ₂ Vol%) and carbon dioxide (measured in CO ₂ ppm) in the air under a mask showed a lower oxygen availability even at rest than without a mask. A Multi-Rae gas analyzer was used for the measurements (RaeSystems ®) (Sunnyvale, California CA, United States). At the time of the study, the device was the most advanced portable multivariant real-time gas analyzer. It is also used in rescue medicine and operational emergencies. The absolute concentration of oxygen (O ₂ Vol%) in the air under the masks was significantly lower (minus 12.4 Vol% O ₂ in absolute terms, statistically significant with p < 0.001) at 18.3% compared to 20.9% room air concentration. Simultaneously, a health-critical value of carbon dioxide concentration (CO ₂ Vol%) increased by a factor of 30 compared to normal room air was measured (ppm with mask versus 464 ppm without mask, statistically significant with p < 0.001) [ 18].

These phenomena are responsible for a statistically significant increase in carbon dioxide (CO ₂) blood content in mask wearers [ 19, 20], on the one hand, measured transcutaneously via an increased PtcCO ₂ value [ 15, 17, 19, 21, 22], on the other hand, via end-expiratory partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PETCO ₂) [ 23, 24] or, respectively, the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO ₂) [ 25].

In addition to the increase in the wearer's blood carbon dioxide (CO ₂) levels (p < 0.05) [ 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28], another consequence of masks that has often been experimentally proven is a statistically significant drop in blood oxygen saturation (SpO ₂) (p < 0.05) [ 18, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. A drop in blood oxygen partial pressure (PaO ₂) with the effect of an accompanying increase in heart rate (p < 0.05) [ 15, 23, 29, 30, 34] as well as an increase in respiratory rate (p < 0.05) [ 15, 21, 23, 35, 36] have been proven.

A statistically significant measurable increase in pulse rate (p < 0.05) and decrease in oxygen saturation SpO ₂ after the first (p < 0.01) and second hour (p < 0.0001) under a disposable mask (surgical mask) were reported by researchers in a mask intervention study they conducted on 53 employed neurosurgeons [ 30].

In another experimental study (comparative study), surgical and N95 masks caused a significant increase in heart rate (p < 0.01) as well as a corresponding feeling of exhaustion (p < 0.05). These symptoms were accompanied by a sensation of heat (p < 0.0001) and itching (p < 0.01) due to moisture penetration of the masks (p < 0.0001) in 10 healthy volunteers of both sexes after only 90 min of physical activity [ 35]. Moisture penetration was determined via sensors by evaluating logs (SCXI-1461, National Instruments, Austin, TX, USA).

These phenomena were reproduced in another experiment on 20 healthy subjects wearing surgical masks. The masked subjects showed statistically significant increases in heart rate (p < 0.001) and respiratory rate (p < 0.02) accompanied by a significant measurable increase in transcutaneous carbon dioxide PtcCO ₂ (p < 0.0006). They also complained of breathing difficulties during the exercise [ 15].

The increased rebreathing of carbon dioxide (CO ₂) from the enlarged dead space volume in mask wearers can reflectively trigger increased respiratory activity with increased muscular work as well as the resulting additional oxygen demand and oxygen consumption [ 17]. This is a reaction to pathological changes in the sense of an adaptation effect. A mask-induced drop in blood oxygen saturation value (SpO ₂) [ 30] or the blood oxygen partial pressure (PaO ₂) [ 34] can in turn additionally intensify subjective chest complaints [ 25, 34].

The documented mask-induced changes in blood gases towards hypercapnia (in-creased carbon dioxide/CO ₂ blood levels) and hypoxia (decreased oxygen/O ₂ blood levels) may result in additional nonphysical effects such as confusion, decreased thinking ability and disorientation [ 23, 36, 37, 38, 39], including overall impaired cognitive abilities and decrease in psychomotoric abilities [ 19, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41]. This highlights the importance of changes in blood gas parameters (O ₂ and CO ₂) as a cause of clinically relevant psychological and neurological effects. The above parameters and effects (oxygen saturation, carbon dioxide content, cognitive abilities) were measured in a study on saturation sensors (Semi-Tec AG, Therwil, Switzerland), using a Borg Rating Scale, Frank Scale, Roberge Respirator Comfort Scale and Roberge Subjective Symptoms-during-Work Scale, as well as with a Likert scale [ 19]. In the other main study, conventional ECG, capnography and symptom questionnaires were used in measuring carbon dioxide levels, pulse and cognitive abilities [ 23]. Other physiological data collection was done with pulse oximeters (Allegiance, MCGaw, USA), subjective complaints were assessed with a 5-point Likert scale and motoric speed was recorded with linear-position transducers (Tendo-Fitrodyne, Sport Machins, Trencin, Slovakia) [ 32]. Some researchers used standardized, anonymized questionnaires to collect data on subjective complaints associated with masks [ 37].

In an experimental setting with different mask types (community, surgical, N95) a significant increase in heart rate (p < 0.04), a decrease in oxygen saturation SpO ₂ (p < 0.05) with an increase in skin temperature under the mask (face) and difficulty of breathing (p < 0.002) were recorded in 12 healthy young subjects (students). In addition, the investigators observed dizziness (p < 0.03), listlessness (p < 0.05), impaired thinking (p < 0.03) and concentration problems (p < 0.02), which were also statistically significant when wearing masks [ 29].

The above-mentioned measurable and qualitative physiological effects of masks can have implications in various areas of expertise in medicine.

For a better understanding of the side effects and dangers of masks presented in this literature review, it is possible to refer to well-known principles of respiratory physiology ( Figure 3).

In addition to the effect of increased dead space volume breathing, however, mask-related breathing resistance is also of exceptional importance ( Figure 3) [ 23, 36].

Experiments show an increase in airway resistance by a remarkable 126% on inhalation and 122% on exhalation with an N95 mask [ 60]. Experimental studies have also shown that moisturization of the mask (N95) increases the breathing resistance by a further 3% [ 61] and can, thus, increase the airway resistance up to 2.3 times the normal value.

This clearly shows the importance of the airway resistance of a mask. Here, the mask acts as a disturbance factor in breathing and makes the observed compensatory reactions with an increase in breathing frequency and simultaneous feeling of breathlessness plausible (increased work of the respiratory muscles). This extra strain due to the amplified work of breathing against bigger resistance caused by the masks also leads to intensified exhaustion with a rise in heart rate and increased CO ₂ production. Fittingly, in our review of the studies on side effects of masks ( Figure 2), we also found a percentage clustering of significant respiratory impairment and a significant drop in oxygen saturation (in about 75% of all study results).

In the evaluation of the primary papers, we also determined a statically significant correlation of the drop in oxygen saturation (SpO ₂) and fatigue with a common occurrence in 58% of the mask use studies with significant results ( Figure 2, p < 0.05).

3.2. Internistic Side Effects and Dangers

As early as 2012, an experiment showed that walking in the 20 masked subjects compared to the identical activity without masks significantly increased heart rates (average +9.4 beats per minute, p < 0.001) and breathing rates (p < 0.02). These physiological changes were accompanied by transcutaneous significantly measurable increased transcutaneous carbon dioxide (PtcCO ₂) levels (p < 0.0006) as well as respiratory difficulties in the mask wearers compared to the control group [ 15].

In a recent experimental comparative study from 2020, 12 healthy volunteers under surgical masks as well as under N95 masks experienced measurable impairments in the measured lung function parameters as well as cardiopulmonary capacity (lower maximum blood lactate response) during moderate to heavy physical exertion compared to exertion without masks (p < 0.001) [ 31]. The mask-induced increased airway resistance led to increased respiratory work with increased oxygen consumption and demand, both of the respiratory muscles and the heart. Breathing was significantly impeded (p < 0.001) and participants reported mild pain. The scientists concluded from their results that the cardiac compensation of the pulmonary, mask-induced restrictions, which still functioned in healthy people, was probably no longer possible in patients with reduced cardiac output [ 31].

In another recent study, researchers tested fabric masks (community masks), surgical masks and FFP2/N95 masks in 26 healthy people during exercise on a cycle ergometer. All masks also showed a measurable carbon dioxide (CO ₂) retention (PtcCO ₂) (statistically significant with p < 0.001) and, for N95 masks, a decrease in the oxygen saturation value SpO ₂ (statistically significant at 75 and 100 W with p < 0.02 and p < 0.005, respectively). The clinical relevance of these changes was shown in an increase in breathing frequency with fabric masks (p < 0.04) as well as in the occurrence of the previously described mask-specific complaints such as a feeling of heat, shortness of breath and headaches. The stress perception was recorded on a Borg scale from 1 to 20. During physical exertion under an N95 mask, the group with masks showed a significant increase in the feeling of exhaustion compared to the group without with 14.6 versus 11.9 on the scale of 20. During the exposure, 14 of the 24 subjects wearing masks complained of shortness of breath (58%), four of headaches and two of a feeling of heat. Most of the complaints concerned FFP2 masks (72%) [ 21].

The aforementioned physiological and subjective physical effects of masks on healthy people at rest and under exertion [ 21, 31] give an indication of the effect of masks on sick and elderly people even without exertion.

In an observational study of ten 20 to 50 year-old nurses wearing N95 masks during their shift work, side effects such as breathing difficulties ("I can't breathe"), feelings of exhaustion, headache (p < 0.001), drowsiness (p < 0.001) and a decrease in oxygen saturation SpO ₂ (p < 0.05) as well as an increase in heart rate (p < 0.001) were statistically significant in association with an increase in obesity (BMI) [ 19]. The occurrence of symptoms under masks was also associated with older age (statistically significant correlation of fatigue and drowsiness with p < 0.01 each, nausea with p < 0.05, an increase in blood pressure with p < 0.01, headache with p < 0.05, breathing difficulties with p < 0.001) [ 19].

In an intervention study involving 97 patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) the respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and exhaled carbon dioxide equivalents (capnometry) changed unfavorably and significantly after the use of N95 masks (FFP2 equivalent) with an initial 10-minute rest and subsequent 6-minute walking. Seven patients discontinued the experiment due to serious complaints with a decrease in the oxygen saturation value SpO ₂ and a pathological carbon dioxide (CO ₂) retention as well as increased end-expiratory partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PETCO ₂) [ 23]. In two patients, the PETCO ₂ exceeded the normal limits and reached values of >50 mmHg. An FEV1 < 30% and a modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale Score of ≥3, both indicators of advanced COPD, correlated with mask intolerance overall in this study. The most common symptom under mask was breathlessness at 86%. In the dropouts of the study, dizziness (57%) and headaches were also often recorded. In the mask-tolerant COPD patients, significant increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and end-expiratory carbon dioxide partial pressure PETCO ₂ could be objectified even at rest, after only 10 min of mask-wearing (p < 0.001), accompanied by a decrease in oxygen saturation SpO ₂ (p < 0.001) [ 23]. The results of this study with an evidence level IIa are indicative for COPD mask wearers.

In another retrospective comparative study on COPD and surgical masks, examiners were able to demonstrate statistically an increase in arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO ₂) of approximately +8 mmHg (p < 0.005) and a concomitant mask-related increase in systolic blood pressure of +11 mmHg (p < 0.02) [ 25]. This increase is relevant in hypertensive patients, but also in healthy people with borderline blood pressure values as pathological value range triggered by mask-wearing can be induced.

In 39 hemodialysis patients with end-stage renal disease, a type N95 mask (FFP2 equivalent) caused a significant drop in blood oxygen partial pressure (PaO ₂) in 70% of patients at rest (on hemodialysis) within only 4 h (p = 0.006). Despite a compensatory increased respiratory rate (p < 0.001), malaise with chest pain occurred (p < 0.001) and even resulted in hypoxemia (drop in oxygen below the normal limit) in 19% of the subjects [ 34]. The researchers concluded from their findings that elderly or patients with reduced cardiopulmonary function have a higher risk of developing a severe respiratory failure while wearing a mask [ 34].

In a review paper on the risks and benefits of masks worn during the COVID-19 crisis, other authors provide an equally critical assessment of mandatory mask use for patients with pneumonia, both with and without COVID-19 pneumonia disease [ 16].

3.3. Neurological Side Effects and Dangers

In a scientific evaluation of syncope in the operating theatre, 36 of 77 affected persons (47%) were associated with wearing a mask [ 62]. However, other factors could not be ruled out as contributory causes.

In their level III evidence review, neurologists from Israel, the UK and the USA state that a mask is unsuitable for epileptics because it can trigger hyperventilation [ 63]. The use of a mask significantly increases the respiratory rate by about plus 15 to 20% [ 15, 21, 23, 34, 64]. However, an increase in breathing frequency leading to hyperventilation is known to be used for provocation in the diagnosis of epilepsy and causes seizure-equivalent EEG changes in 80% of patients with generalized epilepsy and in up to 28% of focal epileptics [ 65].

Physicians from New York studied the effects of wearing masks of the surgical-type mask and N95 among medical personnel in a sample of 343 participants (surveyed using standardized, anonymized questionnaires). Wearing the masks caused detectable physical adverse effects such as impaired cognition (24% of wearers) and headaches in 71.4% of the participants. Of these, 28% persisted and required medication. Headache occurred in 15.2% under 1 h of wear, in 30.6% after 1 h of wear and in 29.7% after 3 h of wear. Thus, the effect intensified with increasing wearing time [ 37].

The scientists explain these neurological impairments with a mask-induced latent drop in blood gas oxygen levels O ₂ (towards hypoxia) or a latent increase in blood gas carbon dioxide levels CO ₂ (towards hypercapnia) [ 36]. In view of the scientific data, this connection also appears to be indisputable [ 38, 39, 40, 41].

In a mask experiment from 2020, significant impaired thinking (p < 0.03) and impaired concentration (p < 0.02) were found for all mask types used (fabric, surgical and N95 masks) after only 100 min of wearing the mask [ 29]. The thought disorders correlated significantly with a drop in oxygen saturation (p < 0.001) during mask use.

Initial headaches (p < 0.05) were experienced by up to 82% of 158, 21-35 year-old mask wearers in another study of N95 respiratory protection with one third (34%) experiencing headaches up to four times daily. Participants wore the mask for 18.3 days over a 30-day period with a mean of 5.9 h per day [ 66].

Significantly increased headache (p < 0.05) could be observed not only for N95 but also for surgical masks in participants of another observational study of health care workers [ 67].

In another study, the researchers classified 306 users with an average age of 43 years and wearing different types of masks, of whom 51% had an initial headache as a specific symptom related exclusively to increased surgical and N95 mask use (1 to 4 h, p = 0.008) [ 68].

Researchers from Singapore were able to demonstrate in a trial involving 154 healthy N95 health service mask wearers that a significant increase in mask-induced blood carbon dioxide levels (measured by end-expiratory partial pressure of carbon dioxide PETCO ₂) and a measurably greater vasodilatation with an increase in cerebral artery flow in the cerebri media resulted. This was associated with headaches in the trial group (p < 0.001) [ 27].

According to the researchers, the aforementioned changes also contribute to headaches during the prolonged use of masks with a shift towards hypoxia and hypercapnia. Furthermore, stress and mechanical factors such as the irritation of cervical nerves in the neck and head area caused by the tight mask straps pressuring the nerve strands also contribute to headaches [ 66].

In the analysis of the primary studies, we were able to detect an association between the N95 mask and headaches. In six out of 10 studies, the significant headache appeared in conjunction with the N95 mask (60% of all studies, Figure 2).

3.4. Psychological Side Effects and Dangers

According to an experimental study, wearing surgical masks and N95 masks can also lead to a reduced quality of life owing to reduced cardiopulmonary capacity [ 31]. Masks, along with causing physiological changes and discomfort with progressive length of use, can also lead to significant discomfort (p < 0.03 to p < 0.0001) and a feeling of exhaustion (p < 0.05 to 0.0001) [ 69].

Besides the shift in blood gases towards hypercapnia (increase in CO ₂) and hypoxia (decrease in O ₂), detailed under general physiological effects ( Section 3.1), masks also restrict the cognitive abilities of the individual (measured using a Likert scale survey) accompanied by a decline in psycho-motoric abilities and consequently a reduced responsiveness (measured using a linear position transducer) as well as an overall reduced performance capability (measured with the Roberge Subjective Symptoms-during-Work Scale) [ 29, 32, 38, 39, 41].

The mask also causes an impaired field of vision (especially affecting the ground and obstacles on the ground) and also presents an inhibition to habitual actions such as eating, drinking, touching, scratching and cleaning the otherwise uncovered part of the face, which is consciously and subconsciously perceived as a permanent disturbance, obstruction and restriction [ 36]. Wearing masks, thus, entails a feeling of deprivation of freedom and loss of autonomy and self-determination, which can lead to suppressed anger and subconscious constant distraction, especially as the wearing of masks is mostly dictated and ordered by others [ 70, 71]. These perceived interferences of integrity, self-determination and autonomy, coupled with discomfort, often contribute to substantial distraction and may ultimately be combined with the physiologically mask-related decline in psycho-motoric abilities, reduced responsiveness and an overall impaired cognitive performance. It leads to misjudging situations as well as delayed, incorrect and inappropriate behavior and a decline in the effectiveness of the mask wearer [ 36, 37, 39, 40, 41].

The mask, which originally served purely hygienic purpose, has been transformed into a symbol of conformity and pseudo-solidarity. The WHO, for example, lists the advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in public to include a potentially reduced stigmatization of mask wearers, a sense of contribution to preventing the spread of the virus and a reminder to comply with other measures [ 2].

3.5. Psychiatric Side Effects and Dangers

Interestingly, breath provocation tests by inhaling CO ₂ are used to differentiate anxiety states in panic disorders and premenstrual dysphoria from other psychiatric clinical pictures. Here, absolute concentrations of 5% CO ₂ already suffice to trigger panic reactions within 15-16 min [ 77]. The normal exhaled air content of CO ₂ is about 4%.

It is obvious from experimental studies on masked subjects that concentration changes in the respiratory gases in the above-mentioned range with values above 4% could occur during rebreathing with prolonged mask use [ 18, 23].

The activation of the locus coeruleus by CO ₂ is used to generate panic reactions via respiratory gases [ 78, 79]. This is because the locus coeruleus is an important part of the system of vegetative noradrenergic neurons, a control center in the brainstem, which reacts to an appropriate stimulus and changes in the gas concentrations in the blood by releasing the stress hormone noradrenaline [ 78].

From the physiological, neurological and psychological side effects and dangers described above ( Section 3.1, Section 3.3 and Section 3.4), additional problems can be derived for the use of masks in psychiatric cases. People undergoing treatment for dementia, paranoid schizophrenia, personality disorders with anxiety and panic attacks, but also panic disorders with claustrophobic components, are difficult to reconcile with a mask requirement, because even small increases in CO ₂ can cause and intensify panic attacks [ 44, 77, 78, 79].

According to a psychiatric study, patients with moderate to severe dementia have no understanding of COVID-19 protection measures and have to be persuaded to wear masks constantly [ 80].

According to a comparative study, patients with schizophrenia have a lower acceptance of mask-wearing (54.9% agreement) than ordinary practice patients (61.6%) [ 81]. The extent to which mask-wearing can lead to an exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms has not yet been researched in detail.

When wearing masks, confusion, impaired thinking, disorientation (standardized recording via special rating and Likert scales, p < 0.05) and in some cases a decrease in maximum speed and reaction time (measured with the linear-position transducer, p < 0.05) were observed [ 19, 32, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41]. Psychotropic drugs reduce psycho-motoric functions in psychiatric patients. This can become clinically relevant especially with regard to the further reduced ability to react and the additional increased susceptibility to accidents of such patients when wearing masks.

In order to avoid an unintentional CO ₂-triggered anesthesia [ 39], fixed and medically sedated patients, without the possibility of continuous monitoring, should not be masked according to the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA (CDC). This is because of the possible CO ₂ retention described above, as there is a risk of unconsciousness, aspiration and asphyxia [ 16, 17, 20, 38, 82, 83].

3.6. Gynaecological Side Effects and Dangers

As a critical variable, a low blood carbon dioxide level in pregnant women is maintained via an increased respiratory minute volume, stimulated by progesterone [ 22]. For a pregnant woman and her unborn child, there is a metabolic need for a fetal-maternal carbon dioxide (CO ₂) gradient. The mother's blood carbon dioxide level should always be lower than that of the unborn child in order to ensure the diffusion of CO ₂ from the fetal blood into the maternal circulation via the placenta.

Therefore, mask-related phenomena described above ( Section 3.1 and Section 3.2), such as the measurable changes in respiratory physiology with increased breathing resistance, increased dead space volume ( Figure 3) and the retention of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO ₂) are of importance. If CO ₂ is increasingly rebreathed under masks, this manifestation could, even with subliminal carbon dioxide increases, act as a disturbing variable of the fetal-maternal CO ₂ gradient increasing over time of exposure and, thus, develop clinical relevance, also with regard to a reduced compensation reserve of the expectant mothers [ 20, 22, 28].

In a comparative study, 22 pregnant women wearing N95 masks during 20 min of exercise showed significantly higher percutaneous CO ₂ values, with average PtcCO ₂ values of 33.3 mmHg compared to 31.3 mmHg than in 22 pregnant women without masks (p = 0.04) [ 22]. The heat sensation of the expectant mothers was also significantly increased with masks, with p < 0.001 [ 22].

Accordingly, in another intervention study, researchers demonstrated that breathing through an N95 mask (FFP2 equivalent) impeded gas exchange in 20 pregnant women at rest and during exercise, causing additional stress on their metabolic system [ 28]. Thus, under an N95 mask, 20 pregnant women showed a decrease in oxygen uptake capacity VO ₂ of about 14% (statistically significant, p = 0.013) and a decrease in carbon dioxide output capacity VCO ₂ of about 18% (statistically significant, p = 0.001). Corresponding significant changes in exhaled oxygen and carbon dioxide equivalents were also documented with increases in exhaled carbon dioxide (FeCO ₂) (p < 0.001) and decreases in exhaled oxygen (FeO ₂) (p < 0.001), which were explained by an altered metabolism due to respiratory mask obstruction [ 28].

In experiments with predominantly short mask application times, neither the mothers nor the fetuses showed statistically significant increases in heart rates or changes in respiratory rates and oxygen saturation values. However, the exact effects of prolonged mask use in pregnant women remain unclear overall. Therefore, in pregnant women, extended use of surgical and N95 masks is viewed critically [ 20].

In addition, it is unclear whether the substances contained in industrially manufactured masks that can be inhaled over longer periods of time (e.g., formaldehyde as an ingredient of the textile and thiram as an ingredient of the ear bands) are teratogenic [ 20, 84].

3.7. Dermatological Side Effects and Dangers

Unlike garments worn over closed skin, masks cover body areas close to the mouth and nose, i.e., body parts that are involved with respiration.

Inevitably, this leads not only to a measurable temperature rise [ 15, 44, 85], but also to a severe increase in humidity due to condensation of the exhaled air, which in turn changes the natural skin milieu considerably of perioral and perinasal areas [ 36, 61, 82]. It also increases the redness, pH-value, fluid loss through the skin epithelium, increased hydration and sebum production measurably [ 73]. Preexisting skin diseases are not only perpetuated by these changes, but also exacerbated. In general, the skin becomes more susceptible to infections and acne.

In addition, a region of the skin that is not evolutionarily adapted to such stimuli is subjected to increased mechanical stress. All in all, the above-mentioned facts cause the unfavorable dermatological effects with mask related adverse skin reactions like acne, rashes on the face and itch symptoms [ 91].

A Chinese research group reported skin irritation and itching when using N95 masks among 542 test participants and also a correlation between the skin damage that occurred and the time of exposure (68.9% at ≤6 h/day and 81.7% at >6 h/day) [ 92].

A New York study evaluated in a random sample of 343 participants the effects of frequent wearing of surgical mask type and N95 masks among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Wearing the masks caused headache in 71.4% of participants, in addition to drowsiness in 23.6%, detectable skin damage in 51% and acne in 53% of mask users [ 37].

On the one hand, direct mechanical skin lesions occur on the nose and cheekbones due to shear force, especially when masks are frequently put on and taken off [ 37, 92].

Other researchers examined 322 participants with N95 masks in an observational study and detected acne in up to 59.6% of them, itching in 51.4% and redness in 35.8% as side effects [ 72].

In up to 19.6% (273) of the 1393 wearers of different masks (community masks, surgical, N95 masks), itching could be objectified in one study, in 9% even severely. An atopic predisposition (allergy tendency) correlated with the risk of itching. The length of use was significantly related to the risk of itching (p < 0.0001) [ 93].

In another dermatological study from 2020, 96.9% of 876 users of all mask types (community masks, surgical masks, N95 masks) confirmed adverse problems with a significant increase in itching (7.7%), accompanied by fogging-up of glasses (21.3%), flushing (21.3%), slurred speech (12.3%) and difficulty breathing (35.9%) (p < 0.01) [ 71].

Even isolated permanent hyperpigmentation as a result of post-inflammatory or pigmented contact dermatitis has been described by dermatologists after prolonged mask use [ 72, 91].

3.8. ENT and Dental Side Effects and Dangers

There are reports from dental communities about negative effects of masks and are accordingly titled "mask mouth" [ 95]. Provocation of gingivitis (inflammation of the gums), halitosis (bad breath), candidiasis (fungal infestation of the mucous membranes with Candida albicans) and cheilitis (inflammation of the lips), especially of the corners of the mouth, and even plaque and caries are attributed to the excessive and improper use of masks. The main trigger of the oral diseases mentioned is an increased dry mouth due to a reduced saliva flow and increased breathing through the open mouth under the mask. Mouth breathing causes surface dehydration and reduced salivary flow rate (SFR) [ 95]. Dry mouth is scientifically proven due to mask wear [ 29]. The bad habit of breathing through the open mouth while wearing a mask seems plausible because such breathing pattern compensates for the increased breathing resistance, especially when inhaling through the masks [ 60, 61]. In turn, the outer skin moisture [ 71, 73, 85] with altered skin flora, which has already been described under dermatological side effects ( Section 3.7), is held responsible as an explanation for the inflammation of the lips and corners of the mouth (cheilitis) [ 95]. This clearly shows the disease-promoting reversal of the natural conditions caused by masks. The physiological internal moisture with external dryness in the oral cavity converts into internal dryness with external moisture.

ENT physicians recently discovered a new form of irritant rhinitis due to N95 mask use in 46 patients. They performed endoscopies and nasal irrigations on mask wearers, which were subsequently assessed pathologically. Clinical problems were recorded with standardized questionnaires. They found statistically significant evidence of mask-induced rhinitis and itching and swelling of the mucous membranes as well as increased sneezing (p < 0.01). Endoscopically, it showed an increased secretion and evidence of inhaled mask polypropylene fibers as the trigger of mucosal irritation [ 96].

In a study of 221 health care workers, ENT physicians objectified a voice disorder in 33% of mask users. The VHI-10 score of 1 to 10, which measures voice disorders, was on average 5.72 higher in these mask users (statistically significant with p < 0.001). The mask not only acted as an acoustic filter, provoking excessively loud speech, it also seems to trigger impaired vocal cord coordination because the mask compromises the pressure gradients required for undisturbed speech [ 43]. The researchers concluded from their findings that masks could pose a potential risk of triggering new voice disorders as well as exacerbating existing ones.

3.9. Sports Medicine Side Effects and Dangers

According to the literature, performance-enhancing effects of masks regarding cardiovascular optimization and improvement of oxygen uptake capacity cannot be proven.

For example, in an experimental reference study (12 subjects per group), the training mask that supposedly mimics altitude training (ETM: elevation training mask) only had training effects on the respiratory muscles. However, mask wearers showed significantly lower oxygen saturation values (SpO ₂%) during exercise (SpO ₂ of 94% for mask wearers versus 96% for mask-less, p < 0.05) [ 33], which can be explained by an increased dead space volume and increased resistance during breathing. The measured oxygen saturation values were significantly lower than the normal values in the group of mask wearers, which indicates a clinical relevance.

The proven adaptation effect of the respiratory muscles in healthy athletes [ 33] clearly suggests that masks have a disruptive effect on respiratory physiology.

In another intervention study on mask use in weightlifters, researchers documented statistically significant effects of reduced attention (questionnaire recording, Likert scale) and a slowed maximum speed of movement detectable by means of sensors (both significant at p < 0.001), leading the researchers to conclude that mask use in sport is not without risks. As a secondary finding, they also detected a significant decrease in oxygen saturation SpO ₂ when performing special weight-lifting exercises ("back squats") in the mask group after only 1 min of exercise compared to the mask-free group (p < 0.001) [ 32]. The proven tendency of the masks to shift the chemical parameter oxygen saturation SpO ₂ in a pathological direction (lower limit value 95%) may well have clinical relevance in untrained or sick individuals.

Sports medicine confirmed an increase in carbon dioxide (CO ₂) retention, with an elevation in CO ₂ partial pressure in the blood with larger respiratory dead space volumes [ 14].

In fact, dead space-induced CO ₂ retention while wearing a mask during exercise was also experimentally proven. The effects of a short aerobic exercise under N95 masks were tested on 16 healthy volunteers. A significantly increased end-expiratory partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PETCO ₂) with plus 8 mmHg (p < 0.001) was found [ 24]. The increase in blood carbon dioxide (CO ₂) in the mask wearers under maximum load was plus 14% CO ₂ for surgical masks and plus 23% CO ₂ for N95 masks, an effect that may well have clinical relevance in the pre-diseased, elderly and children, as these values strongly approached the pathological range [ 24].

In an interesting endurance study with eight middle-aged subjects (19-66), the gas content for O ₂ and CO ₂ under the masks was determined before and after exercise. Even at rest, the oxygen availability under the masks was 13% lower than without the masks and the carbon dioxide (CO ₂) concentration was 30 times higher. Under stress (Ruffier test), the oxygen concentration (% O ₂) below the mask dropped significantly by a further 3.7%, while the carbon dioxide concentration (% CO ₂) increased significantly by a further 20% (statistically significant with p < 0.001). Correspondingly, the oxygen saturation of the blood (SpO ₂) of the test persons also decreased significantly from 97.6 to 92.1% (p < 0.02) [ 18]. The drop in the oxygen saturation value (SpO ₂) to 92%, clearly below the normal limit of 95%, is to be classified as clinically relevant and detrimental to health.

These facts are an indication that the use of masks also triggers the effects described above leading to hypoxia and hypercapnia in sports. Accordingly, the WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, GA, USA (CDC) advise against wearing masks during physical exercise [ 82, 97].

3.10. Social and Sociological Side Effects and Dangers

The results of a Chilean study with health care workers show that masks act like an acoustic filter and provoke excessively loud speech. This causes a voice disorder [ 43]. The increased volume of speech also contributes to increased aerosol production by the mask wearer [ 98]. These experimental data measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS, TSI, model 332, TSI Incorporated, Minnesota, MI, USA) are highly relevant.

Moreover, mask wearers are prevented from interacting normally in everyday life due to impaired clarity of speech [ 45], which tempts them to get closer to each other.

This results in a distorted prioritization in the general public, which counteracts the recommended measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The WHO prioritizes social distancing and hand hygiene with moderate evidence and recommends wearing a mask with weak evidence, especially in situations where individuals are unable to maintain a physical distance of at least 1 m [ 3].

The disruption of non-verbal communication due to the loss of facial expression recognition under the mask can increase feelings of insecurity, discouragement and numbness as well as isolation, which can be extremely stressful for the mentally and hearing-impaired [ 16].

Experts point out that masks disrupt the basics of human communication (verbal and nonverbal). The limited facial recognition caused by masks leads to a suppression of emotional signals. Masks, therefore, disrupt social interaction, erasing the positive effect of smiles and laughter but at the same time greatly increasing the likelihood of misunderstandings because negative emotions are also less evident under masks [ 42].

A decrease in empathy perception through mask use with disruption of the doctor-patient relationship has already been scientifically proven on the basis of a randomized study (statistically significant, with p = 0.04) [ 99]. In this study, the Consultation Empathy Care Measury, the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) Score and a Satisfaction Rating Scale were assessed in 1030 patients. The 516 doctors, who wore masks throughout, conveyed reduced empathy towards the patients and, thus, nullified the positive health-promoting effects of a dynamic relationship. These results demonstrate a disruption of interpersonal interaction and relationship dynamics caused by masks.

The WHO guidance on the use of masks in children in the community, published in August 2020, points out that the benefits of mask use in children must be weighed up against the potential harms, including social and communicational concerns [ 100].

3.11. Social and Occupational Medicine Side Effects and Hazards

Shortness of breath during light exertion (6 min walking) under surgical masks has been recorded with statistical significance in 44 healthy subjects in a prospective experimental intervention study (p < 0.001) [ 101]. Here, the complaints were assessed using a subjective, visual analogue scale.

In another study from 2011, all tested masks caused a significantly measurable increase in discomfort and a feeling of exhaustion in the 27 subjects during prolonged usage (p < 0.0001) [ 69].

Other studies showed that the psychological and physical effects of the masks can lead to an additional reduction in work performance (measured with the Roberge Subjective Symptoms-during-Work Scale, a Likert scale of 1-5) via increased feelings of fatigue, dissatisfaction and anxiety [ 58, 102, 103].

In Section 3.7 on dermatology, we already mentioned a paper that demonstrated a significant temperature increase of 1.9 °C on average (to over 34.5 °C) in the mask-covered facial area (p < 0.05) [ 85]. Due to the relatively larger representation in the sensitive cerebral cortex (homunculus), the temperature sensation in the face is more decisive for the feeling of well-being than other body regions [ 36, 44]. The perception of discomfort when wearing a mask can, thus, be intensified. Interestingly, in our analysis, we found a combined occurrence of the physical variable temperature rise under the mask and the symptom respiratory impairment in seven of eight studies concerned, with a mutual significantly measured occurrence in 88%. We also detected a combined occurrence of significantly measured temperature rise under the mask and significantly measured fatigue in 50% of the relevant primary studies (three of six papers, Figure 2). These clustered associations of temperature rise with symptoms of respiratory impairment and fatigue suggest a clinical relevance of the detected temperature rise under masks. In the worst case scenario, the effects mentioned can reinforce each other and lead to decompensation, especially in the presence of COPD, heart failure and respiratory insufficiency.

The sum of the disturbances and discomforts that can be caused by a mask also contributes to distraction (see also psychological impairment). These, in conjunction with a decrease in psycho-motoric skills, reduced responsiveness and overall impaired cognitive performance (all of which are pathophysiological effects of wearing a mask) [ 19, 29, 32, 39, 40, 41] can lead to a failure to recognize hazards and, thus, to accidents or avoidable errors at work [ 19, 36, 37]. Of particular note here are mask-induced listlessness (p < 0.05), impaired thinking (p < 0.05) and concentration problems (p < 0.02) as measured by a Likert scale (1-5) [ 29]. Accordingly, occupational health regulations take action against such scenarios. The German Industrial Accident Insurance (DGUV) has precise and extensive regulations for respiratory protective equipment where they document the limitation of wearing time, levels of work intensity and defined instruction obligation [ 104].

3.12. Microbiological Consequences for Wearer and Environment: Foreign/Self-Contamination

From a microbiological and epidemiological point of view, masks in everyday use pose a risk of contamination. This can occur as foreign contamination but also as self-contamination. On the one hand, germs are sucked in or attach themselves to the masks through convection currents. On the other hand, potential infectious agents from the nasopharynx accumulate excessively on both the outside and inside of the mask during breathing [ 5, 88]. This is compounded by contact with contaminated hands. Since masks are constantly penetrated by germ-containing breath and the pathogen reproduction rate is higher outside mucous membranes, potential infectious pathogens accumulate excessively on the outside and inside of masks. On and in the masks, there are quite serious, potentially disease-causing bacteria and fungi such as E. coli (54% of all germs detected), Staphylococcus aureus (25% of all germs detected), Candida (6%), Klebsiella (5%), Enterococci (4%), Pseudomonads (3%), Enterobacter (2%) and Micrococcus (1%) even detectable in large quantities [ 88].

In another microbiological study, the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus (57% of all bacteria detected) and the fungus Aspergillus (31% of all fungi detected) were found to be the dominant germs on 230 surgical masks examined [ 86].

After more than six hours of use, the following viruses were found in descending order on 148 masks worn by medical personnel: adenovirus, bocavirus, respiratory syncytial virus and influenza viruses [ 87].

From this aspect, it is also problematic that moisture distributes these potential pathogens in the form of tiny droplets via capillary action on and in the mask, whereby further proliferation in the sense of self- and foreign contamination by the aerosols can then occur internally and externally with every breath [ 35]. In this regard, it is also known from the literature that masks are responsible for a proportionally disproportionate production of fine particles in the environment and, surprisingly, much more so than in people without masks [ 98].

It was shown that all mask-wearing subjects released significantly more smaller particles of size 0.3-0.5 μm into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing (fabric, surgical, N95 masks, measured with the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS, TS, model 3329) [ 98]. The increase in the detection of rhinoviruses in the sentinel studies of the German RKI from 2020 [ 90] could be a further indication of this phenomenon, as masks were consistently used by the general population in public spaces in that year.

3.13. Epidemiological Consequences

The possible side effects and dangers of masks described in this paper are based on studies of different types of masks. These include the professional masks of the surgical mask type and N95/KN95 (FFP2 equivalent) that are commonly used in everyday life, but also the community fabric masks that were initially used. In the case of N95, the N stands for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States (NIOSH), and 95 indicates the 95 per cent filtering capacity for fine particles up to at least 0.3 μm [ 82].

Decision makers in many countries informed their citizens early on in the pandemic in March 2020 that people without symptoms should not use a medical mask, as this created a false sense of security [ 113]. The recommendation was ultimately changed in many countries. At least Germany pointed out that wearers of certain types of masks such as the common fabric masks (community masks) cannot rely on them to protect them or others from transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [ 114].

In a laboratory experiment (evidence level IIa study), it was demonstrated that both surgical masks and N95 masks have deficits in protection against SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses using virus-free aerosols [ 118]. In this study, the FFP2-equivalent N95 mask performed significantly better in protection (8-12 times more effective) than the surgical mask, but neither mask type established reliable, hypothesis-generated protection against corona and influenza viruses. Both mask types could be penetrated unhindered by aerosol particles with a diameter of 0.08 to 0.2 μm. Both the SARS-CoV-2 pathogens with a size of 0.06 to 0.14 μm [ 119] and the influenza viruses with 0.08 to 0.12 μm are unfortunately well below the mask pore sizes [ 118].

A recent experimental study even demonstrated that all mask-wearing people (surgical, N95, fabric masks) release significantly and proportionately smaller particles of size 0.3 to 0.5 μm into the air than mask-less people, both when breathing, speaking and coughing [ 98]. According to this, the masks act like nebulizers and contribute to the production of very fine aerosols. Smaller particles, however, spread faster and further than large ones for physical reasons. Of particular interest in this experimental reference study was the finding that a test subject wearing a single-layer fabric mask was also able to release a total of 384% more particles (of various sizes) when breathing than a person without [ 98].

A recently published large prospective Danish comparative study comparing mask wearers and non-mask wearers in terms of their infection rates with SARS-CoV2 could not demonstrate any statistically significant differences between the groups [ 132].

3.14. Paediatric Side Effects and Hazards

Special attention must be paid to the respiration of children, which represents a critical and vulnerable physiological variable due to higher oxygen demand, increased hypoxia susceptibility of the CNS, lower respiratory reserve, smaller airways with a stronger increase in resistance when the lumen is narrowed. The diving reflex caused by stimulating the nose and upper lip can cause respiratory arrest to bradycardia in the event of oxygen deficiency.

The masks currently used for children are exclusively adult masks manufactured in smaller geometric dimensions and had neither been specially tested nor approved for this purpose [ 133].

In an experimental British research study, the masks frequently led to feelings of heat (p < 0.0001) and breathing problems (p < 0.03) in 100 school children between 8 and 11 years of age especially during physical exertion, which is why the protective equipment was taken off by 24% of the children during physical activity [ 133]. The exclusion criteria for this mask experiment were lung disease, cardiovascular impairment and claustrophobia [ 133].

Scientists from Singapore were able to demonstrate in their level Ib study published in the renowned journal "nature" that 106 children aged between 7 and 14 years who wore FFP2 masks for only 5 min showed an increase in the inspiratory and expiratory CO ₂ levels, indicating disturbed respiratory physiology [ 26].

However, a disturbed respiratory physiology in children can have long-term disease-relevant consequences. Slightly elevated CO ₂ levels are known to increase heart rate, blood pressure, headache, fatigue and concentration disorders [ 38].

Accordingly, the following conditions were listed as exclusion criteria for mask use [ 26]: any cardiopulmonary disease including but not limited to: asthma, bronchitis, cystic fibrosis, congenital heart disease, emphysema; any condition that may be aggravated by physical exertion, including but not limited to: exercise-induced asthma; lower respiratory tract infections (pneumonia, bronchitis within the last 2 weeks), anxiety disorders, diabetes, hypertension or epilepsy/attack disorder; any physical disability due to medical, orthopedic or neuromuscular disease; any acute upper respiratory illness or symptomatic rhinitis (nasal obstruction, runny nose or sneezing); any condition with deformity that affects the fit of the mask (e.g., increased facial hair, craniofacial deformities, etc.).

It is also important to emphasize the possible effects of masks in neurological diseases, as described earlier ( Section 3.3).

Both masks and face shields caused fear in 46% of children (37 out of 80) in a scientific study. If children are given the choice of whether the doctor examining them should wear a mask they reject this in 49% of the cases. Along with their parents, the children prefer the practitioner to wear a face visor (statistically significant with p < 0.0001) [ 134].

This can in turn lead to an increase in psychosomatic and stress-related illnesses [ 74, 75]. For example, according to an evaluation, 60% of mask wearers showed stress levels of the highest grade 10 on a scale of 1 to a maximum of 10. Less than 10% of the mask wearers surveyed had a stress level lower than 8 out of a possible 10 [ 74].

As children are considered a special group, the WHO also issued a separate guideline on the use of masks in children in the community in August 2020, explicitly advising policy makers and national authorities, given the limited evidence, that the benefits of mask use in children must be weighed up against the potential harms associated with mask use. This includes feasibility and discomfort, as well as social and communication concerns [ 100].

According to experts, masks block the foundation of human communication and the exchange of emotions and not only hinder learning but deprive children of the positive effects of smiling, laughing and emotional mimicry [ 42]. The effectiveness of masks in children as a viral protection is controversial, and there is a lack of evidence for their widespread use in children; this is also addressed in more detail by the scientists of the German University of Bremen in their thesis paper 2.0 and 3.0 [ 138].

3.15. Effects on the Environment

The potential drastic and undesirable effects found in multidisciplinary areas illustrate the general scope of global decisions on masks in general public in the light of combating the pandemic. According to the literature found, there are clear, scientifically recorded adverse effects for the mask wearer, both on a psychological and on a social and physical level.

From an infection epidemiological point of view, masks in everyday use offer the risk of self-contamination by the wearer from both inside and outside, including via contaminated hands [ 5, 16, 88]. In addition, masks are soaked by exhaled air, which potentially accumulates infectious agents from the nasopharynx and also from the ambient air on the outside and inside of the mask. In particular, serious infection-causing bacteria and fungi should be mentioned here [ 86, 88, 89], but also viruses [ 87]. The unusual increase in the detection of rhinoviruses in the sentinel studies of the German RKI from 2020 [ 90] could be an indication of this phenomenon. Clarification through further investigations would therefore be desirable.

Masks, when used by the general public, are considered by scientists to pose a risk of infection because the standardized hygiene rules of hospitals cannot be followed by the general public [ 5]. On top of that, mask wearers (surgical, N95, fabric masks) exhale relatively smaller particles (size 0.3 to 0.5 μm) than mask-less people and the louder speech under masks further amplifies this increased fine aerosol production by the mask wearer (nebulizer effect) [ 98].

The history of modern times shows that already in the influenza pandemics of 1918-1919, 1957-58, 1968, 2002, in SARS 2004-2005 as well as with the influenza in 2009, masks in everyday use could not achieve the hoped-for success in the fight against viral infection scenarios [ 67, 144]. The experiences led to scientific studies describing as early as 2009 that masks do not show any significant effect with regard to viruses in an everyday scenario [ 129, 145]. Even later, scientists and institutions rated the masks as unsuitable to protect the user safely from viral respiratory infections [ 137, 146, 147]. Even in hospital use, surgical masks lack strong evidence of protection against viruses [ 67].

Originally born out of the useful knowledge of protecting wounds from surgeons' breath and predominantly bacterial droplet contamination [ 144, 148, 149], the mask has been visibly misused with largely incorrect popular everyday use, particularly in Asia in recent years [ 150]. Significantly, the sociologist Beck described the mask as a cosmetic of risk as early as 1992 [ 151]. Unfortunately, the mask is inherent in a vicious circle: strictly speaking, it only protects symbolically and at the same time represents the fear of infection. This phenomenon is reinforced by the collective fear mongering, which is constantly nurtured by main stream media [ 137].

Nowadays, the mask represents a kind of psychological support for the general population during the virus pandemic, promising them additional anxiety-reduced freedom of movement. The recommendation to use masks in the sense of "source control" not out of self-protection but out of "altruism" [ 152] is also very popular with the regulators as well as the population of many countries. The WHO's recommendation of the mask in the current pandemic is not only a purely infectiological approach, but is also clear on the possible advantages for healthy people in the general public. In particular, a reduced potential stigmatization of mask wearers, the feeling of a contribution made to preventing the spread of the virus, as well as the reminder to adhere to other measures are mentioned [ 2].

It should not go unmentioned that very recent data suggest that the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to be directly related to popular mask use. The groups examined in a retrospective comparative study (infected with SARS-CoV-2 and not infected) did not differ in their habit of using masks: approximately 70% of the subjects in both groups always wore masks and another 14.4% of them frequently [ 143].

In a Danish prospective study on mask-wearing carried out on about 6000 participants and published in 2020, scientists found no statistically significant difference in the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection when comparing the group of 3030 mask wearers with the 2994 mask-less participants in the study (p = 0.38) [ 132].

Indeed, in the case of viral infections, masks appear to be not only less effective than expected, but also not free of undesirable biological, chemical, physical and psychological side effects [ 67]. Accordingly, some experts claim that well-intentioned unprofessionalism can be quite dangerous [ 6].

The dermatological colleagues were the first to describe common adverse effects of mask-wearing in larger collectives. Simple, direct physical, chemical and biological effects of the masks with increases in temperature, humidity and mechanical irritation caused acne in up to 60% of wearers [ 37, 71, 72, 73, 85]. Other significantly documented consequences were eczema, skin damage and overall impaired skin barrier function [ 37, 72, 73].

These direct effects of mask use are an important pointer to further detrimental effects affecting other organ systems.

In our work, we have identified scientifically validated and numerous statistically significant adverse effects of masks in various fields of medicine, especially with regard to a disruptive influence on the highly complex process of breathing and negative effects on the respiratory physiology and gas metabolism of the body (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The respiratory physiology and gas exchange play a key role in maintaining a health-sustaining balance in the human body [ 136, 153]. According to the studies we found, a dead space volume that is almost doubled by wearing a mask and a more than doubled breathing resistance ( Figure 3) [ 59, 60, 61] lead to a rebreathing of carbon dioxide with every breathing cycle [ 16, 17, 18, 39, 83] with-in healthy people mostly-a subthreshold but, in sick people, a partly pathological increase in the carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO ₂) in the blood [ 25, 34, 58]. According to the primary studies found, these changes contribute reflexively to an increase in respiratory frequency and depth [ 21, 23, 34, 36] with a corresponding increase in the work of the respiratory muscles via physiological feedback mechanisms [ 31, 36]. Thus, it is not, as initially assumed, purely positive training through mask use. This often increases the subliminal drop in oxygen saturation SpO ₂ in the blood [ 23, 28, 29, 30, 32], which is already reduced by increased dead space volume and increased breathing resistance [ 18, 31].

The overall possible resulting measurable drop in oxygen saturation O ₂ of the blood on the one hand [ 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 32] and the increase in carbon dioxide (CO ₂) on the other [ 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28] contribute to an increased noradrenergic stress response, with heart rate increase [ 29, 30, 35] and respiratory rate increase [ 15, 21, 23, 34], in some cases also to a significant blood pressure increase [ 25, 35].

In panic-prone individuals, stress-inducing noradrenergic sympathetic activation can be partly directly mediated via the carbon dioxide (CO ₂) mechanism at the locus coeruleus in the brainstem [ 39, 78, 79, 153], but also in the usual way via chemo-sensitive neurons of the nucleus solitarius in the medulla [ 136, 154]. The nucleus solitarius [ 136] is located in the deepest part of the brainstem, a gateway to neuronal respiratory and circulatory control [ 154]. A decreased oxygen (O ₂) blood level there causes the activation of the sympathetic axis via chemoreceptors in the carotids [ 155, 156].

A link between disturbed breathing and cardiorespiratory diseases such as hypertension, sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome has been scientifically proven [ 56, 57]. Interestingly, decreased oxygen/O ₂ blood levels and also increased carbon dioxide/CO ₂ blood levels are considered the main triggers for the sympathetic stress response [ 38, 136]. The aforementioned chemo-sensitive neurons of the nucleus solitarius in the medulla are considered to be the main responsible control centers [ 136, 154, 155]. Clinical effects of prolonged mask-wearing would, thus, be a conceivable intensification of chronic stress reactions and negative influences on the metabolism leading towards a metabolic syndrome. The mask studies we found show that such disease-relevant respiratory gas changes (O ₂ and CO ₂) [ 38, 136] are already achieved by wearing a mask [ 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34].

A connection between hypoxia, sympathetic reactions and leptin release is scientifically known [ 136].

Additionally important is the connection of breathing with the influence on other bodily functions [ 56, 57], including the psyche with the generation of positive emotions and drive [ 153]. The latest findings from neuro-psychobiological research indicate that respiration is not only a function regulated by physical variables to control them (feedback mechanism), but rather independently influences higher-level brain centers and, thus, also helps to shape psychological and other bodily functions and reactions [ 153, 157, 158]. Since masks impede the wearer's breathing and accelerate it, they work completely against the principles of health-promoting breathing [ 56, 57] used in holistic medicine and yoga. According to recent research, undisturbed breathing is essential for happiness and healthy drive [ 157, 159], but masks work against this.

The result of significant changes in blood gases in the direction of hypoxia (drop in oxygen saturation) and hypercapnia (increase in carbon dioxide concentration) through masks, thus, has the potential to have a clinically relevant influence on the human organism even without exceeding normal limits.

According to the latest scientific findings, blood-gas shifts towards hypoxia and hypercapnia not only have an influence on the described immediate, psychological and physiological reactions on a macroscopic and microscopic level, but additionally on gene expression and metabolism on a molecular cellular level in many different body cells. Through this, the drastic disruptive intervention of masks in the physiology of the body also becomes clear down to the cellular level, e.g., in the activation of hypoxia-induced factor (HIF) through both hypercapnia and hypoxia-like effects [ 160]. HIF is a transcription factor that regulates cellular oxygen supply and activates signaling pathways relevant to adaptive responses. e.g., HIF inhibits stem cells, promotes tumor cell growth and inflammatory processes [ 160]. Based on the hypoxia- and hypercapnia-promoting effects of masks, which have been comprehensively described for the first time in our study, potential disruptive influences down to the intracellular level (HIF-a) can be assumed, especially through the prolonged and excessive use of masks. Thus, in addition to the vegetative chronic stress reaction in mask wearers, which is channeled via brain centers, there is also likely to be an adverse influence on metabolism at the cellular level. With the prospect of continued mask use in everyday life, this also opens up an interesting field of research for the future.

The fact that prolonged exposure to latently elevated CO ₂ levels and unfavorable breathing air compositions has disease-promoting effects was recognized early on. As early as 1983, the WHO described "Sick Building Syndrome" (SBS) as a condition in which people living indoors experienced acute disease-relevant effects that increased with time of their stay, without specific causes or diseases [ 161, 162]. The syndrome affects people who spend most of their time indoors, often with subliminally elevated CO ₂ levels, and are prone to symptoms such as increased heart rate, rise in blood pressure, headaches, fatigue and difficulty concentrating [ 38, 162]. Some of the complaints described in the mask studies we found ( Figure 2) are surprisingly similar to those of Sick Building Syndrome [ 161]. Temperature, carbon dioxide content of the air, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness and itching also play a role in Sick Building Syndrome. On the one hand, masks could themselves be responsible for effects such as those described for Sick Building Syndrome when used for a longer period of time. On the other hand, they could additionally intensify these effects when worn in air-conditioned buildings, especially when masks are mandatory indoors. Nevertheless, there was a tendency towards higher systolic blood pressure values in mask wearers in some studies [ 21, 31, 34], but statistical significance was only found in two studies [ 25, 35]. However, we found more relevant and significant evidence of heart rate increase, headache, fatigue and concentration problems associated with mask wearers ( Figure 2) indicating the clinical relevance of wearing masks.

According to the scientific results and findings, masks have measurably harmful effects not only on healthy people, but also on sick people and their relevance is likely to increase with the duration of use [ 69]. Further research is needed here to shed light on the long-term consequences of widespread mask use with subthreshold hypoxia and hypercapnia in the general population, also regarding possible exacerbating effects on cardiorespiratory lifestyle diseases such as hypertension, sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. The already often elevated blood carbon dioxide (CO ₂) levels in overweight people, sleep apnea patients and patients with overlap-COPD could possibly increase even further with everyday masks. Not only a high body mass index (BMI) but also sleep apnea are associated with hypercapnia during the day in these patients (even without masks) [ 19, 163]. For such patients, hypercapnia means an increase in the risk of serious diseases with increased morbidity, which could then be further increased by excessive mask use [ 18, 38].

The hypercapnia-induced effects of sympathetic stress activation are even cycle phase-dependent in women. Controlled by a progesterone mechanism, the sympathetic reaction, measured by increased blood pressure in the luteal phase, is considerably stronger [ 164]. This may also result in different sensitivities for healthy and sick women to undesirable effects masks have, which are related to an increase in carbon dioxide (CO ₂).

In our review, negative physical and psychological changes caused by masks could be objectified even in younger and healthy individuals.

The physical and chemical parameters did not exceed the normal values in most cases but were statistically significantly measurable (p < 0.05) tending towards pathological ranges. They were accompanied by physical impairments (see Figure 2). It is well known that subthreshold stimuli are capable of causing pathological changes when exposed to them for a long time: not only a single high dose of a disturbance, but also a chronically persistent, subthreshold exposure to it often leads to illness [ 38, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54]. The scientifically repeatedly measurable physical and chemical mask effects were often accompanied by typical subjective complaints and pathophysiological phenomena. The fact that these frequently occur simultaneously and together indicates a syndrome under masks.

Figure 2 sums up the significant mask-dependent physiological, psychological, somatic and general pathological changes and their frequent occurrence together is striking. Within the framework of the quantitative evaluation of the experimental studies, we were actually able to prove a statistically significant correlation of the observed side effects of fatigue and oxygen depletion under mask use with p < 0.05. In addition, we found a frequent, simultaneous and joint occurrence of further undesirable effects in the scientific studies ( Figure 2). Statistically significant associations of such co-occurring, adverse effects have already been described in primary studies [ 21, 29]. We detected a combined occurrence of the physical parameter temperature rise under the mask with the symptom respiratory impairment in seven of the nine studies concerned (88%). We found a similar result for the decrease in oxygen saturation under mask and the symptom respiratory impairment with a simultaneous detection in six of the eight studies concerned (67%). We detected a combined occurrence of carbon dioxide rise under N95 mask use in nine of the 11 scientific papers (82%). We found a similar result for oxygen drop under N95 mask use with simultaneous co-occurrence in eight of 11 primary papers (72%). The use of N95 masks was also associated with headache in six of the 10 primary studies concerned (60%). A combined occurrence of the physical parameters temperature rise and humidity under masks was even found 100% within six of the six studies with significant measurements of these parameters ( Figure 2).

Since the symptoms were described in combination in mask wearers and were not observed in isolation in the majority of cases, we refer to them as general Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES) because of the consistent presentation in numerous papers from different disciplines. These include the following, predominantly statistically significantly (p < 0.05) proven pathophysiological changes and subjective complaints, which often occur in combination as described above (see also Section 3.1 to Section 3.11, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4):

- Increase in blood carbon dioxide [ 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28] ( Figure 2: Column 5).

- Decrease in blood oxygen saturation [ 18, 19, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34] ( Figure 2: Column 4).

- Difficulty breathing and shortness of breath [ 15, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, 71, 85, 101, 133] ( Figure 2: Column 13).

- Decrease in empathy perception [ 99] ( Figure 2: Column 19).

- Impaired skin barrier function with acne, itching and skin lesions [ 37, 72, 73] ( Figure 2: Column 20-22).

It can be deduced from the results that the effects described in healthy people are all more pronounced in sick people, since their compensatory mechanisms, depending on the severity of the illness, are reduced or even exhausted. Some existing studies on and with patients with measurable pathological effects of the masks support this assumption [ 19, 23, 25, 34]. In most scientific studies, the exposure time to masks in the context of the measurements/investigations was significantly less (in relation to the total wearing and duration of use) than is expected of the general public under the current pandemic regulations and ordinances.

The exposure time limits are little observed or knowingly disregarded in many areas today as already mentioned in Section 3.11 on occupational medicine. The above facts allow the conclusion that the described negative effects of masks, especially in some of our patients and the very elderly, may well be more severe and adverse with prolonged use than presented in some mask studies.

Elderly, high-risk patients with lung disease, cardiac patients, pregnant women or stroke patients are advised to consult a physician to discuss the safety of an N95 mask as their lung volume or cardiopulmonary performance may be reduced [ 23]. A correlation between age and the occurrence of the aforementioned symptoms while wearing a mask has been statistically proven [ 19]. Patients with reduced cardiopulmonary function are at increased risk of developing serious respiratory failure with mask use according to the referenced literature [ 34]. Without the possibility of continuous medical monitoring, it can be concluded that they should not wear masks without close monitoring. The American Asthma and Allergy Society has already advised caution in the use of masks with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic for people with moderate and severe lung disease [ 165]. Since the severely overweight, sleep apnea patients and overlap-COPD sufferers are known to be prone to hypercapnia, they also represent a risk group for serious adverse health effects under extensive mask use [ 163]. This is because the potential of masks to produce additional CO ₂ retention may not only have a disruptive effect on the blood gases and respiratory physiology of sufferers, but may also lead to further serious adverse health effects in the long term. Interestingly, in an animal experiment an increase in CO ₂ with hypercapnia leads to contraction of smooth airway muscles with constriction of bronchi [ 166]. This effect could explain the observed pulmonary decompensations of patients with lung disease under masks ( Section 3.2) [ 23, 34].

Patients with renal insufficiency requiring dialysis are, according to the literature available, further candidates for a possible exemption from the mask requirement [ 34]. According to the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, GA, USA (CDC), sick and helpless people who cannot remove a mask on their own should be exempted from the mask requirement [ 82].

Since it can be assumed that children react even more sensitively to masks, the literature suggests that masks are a contraindication for children with epilepsies (hyperventilation as a trigger for seizures) [ 63]. In the field of pediatrics, special attention should also be paid to the mask symptoms described under psychological, psychiatric and sociological effects with possible triggering of panic attacks by CO ₂ rebreathing in the case of predisposition and also reinforcement of claustrophobic fears [ 77, 78, 79, 167]. The mask-related disturbance of verbal [ 43, 45, 71] and non-verbal communication and, thus, of social interaction is particularly serious for children. Masks restrict social interaction and block positive perceptions (smiling and laughing) and emotional mimicry [ 42]. The proven mask-induced mild to moderate cognitive impairment with impaired thinking, decreased attention and dizziness [ 19, 23, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 69], as well as the psychological and neurological effects [ 135], should be additionally taken into account when masks are compulsory at school and in the vicinity of both public and non-public transport, also regarding the possibility of an increased risk of accidents (see also occupational health side effects and hazards) [ 19, 29, 32, 36, 37]. The exclusion criteria mentioned in pediatric studies on masks (see pediatric impairments, Section 3.14) [ 26, 133] should also apply to an exclusion of these children from the general mask obligation in accordance with the scientific findings for the protection of the sick children concerned. The long-term sociological, psychological and educational consequences of a comprehensive masking requirement extended to schools are also unpredictable with regard to the psychological and physical development of healthy children [ 42, 135]. Interestingly, according to the Corona Thesis Paper of the University of Bremen children "are infected less often, they become ill less often, the lethality is close to zero, and they also pass on the infection less often", according to the Thesis Paper 2.0 of the German University of Bremen on page 6 [ 138]. Studies conducted under real-life conditions with outcome endpoints showing hardly any infections, hardly any morbidity, hardly any mortality and only low contagiousness in children are clearly in the majority, according to Thesis Paper 3.0 of the German University of Bremen [ 138]. A recent German observational study (5600 reporting pediatricians) also showed a surprisingly low incidence of COVID-19 disease in children [ 168]. The infection of adults with SARS-CoV-2 by children has been considered in only one suspected case, but could not be proven with certainty, since the parents also had numerous contacts and exposure factors for viral infections due to their occupation. In this case, the circulating headlines in the public media that children contribute more to the incidence of infection are to be regarded as anecdotal.

In pregnant women, the use of masks during exertion or at rest over long periods of time is to be regarded as critical as little research has been done on this [ 20]. If there is clear scientific evidence of increased dead space ventilation with possible accumulation of CO ₂ in the mother's blood, the use of masks by pregnant women for more than 1 h, as well as under physical stress, should be avoided in order to protect the unborn child [ 20, 22]. The hypercapnia-promoting masks could act as a confounder of the fetal/maternal CO ₂ gradient in this case ( Section 3.6) [ 20, 22, 28].

According to the literature cited in the Section 3.5 on psychiatric side effects (personality disorders with anxiety and panic attacks, claustrophobia, dementia and schizophrenia), masking should only be done, if at all, with careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages. Attention should be paid to possible provocation of the number and severity of panic attacks [ 77, 78, 79].

In patients with headaches, a worsening of symptoms can be expected with prolonged mask use (see also Section 3.3., neurological side effects) [ 27, 66, 67, 68]. As a result of the increase in blood carbon dioxide (CO ₂) when the mask is used, vasodilatation occurs in the central nervous system and the pulsation of the blood vessels decreases [ 27]. In this connection, it is also interesting to note radiological experiments that demonstrate an increase in brain volume under subthreshold, but still within normal limits of CO ₂ increase in the blood by means of structural MRI. The blood carbon dioxide increase was produced in seven subjects via rebreathing with resulting median carbon dioxide concentration of 42 mmHg and an interquartile range of 39.44 mmHg, corresponding to only a subthreshold increase given the normal values of 32-45 mmHg. In the experiment, there was a significant increase in brain parenchymal volume measurable under increased arterial CO ₂ levels (p < 0.02), with a concomitant decrease in CSF spaces (p < 0.04), entirely in accordance with the Monroe-Kelly doctrine, according to which the total volume within the skull always remains the same. The authors interpreted the increase in brain volume as an expression of an increase in blood volume due to a CO ₂ increase-induced dilation of the cerebral vessels [ 169]. The consequences of such equally subthreshold carbon dioxide (CO ₂) increases even under masks [ 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25] are unclear for people with pathological changes inside the skull (aneurysms, tumors, etc.) with associated vascular changes [ 27] and brain volume shifts [ 169] especially due to longer exposure while wearing a mask, but could be of great relevance due to the blood gas-related volume shifts that take place.

In view of the increased dead space volume, the long-term and increased accumulation and rebreathing of other respiratory air components apart from CO ₂ is also unexplained, both in children and in old and sick people. Exhaled air contains over 250 substances, including irritant or toxic gases such as nitrogen oxides (NO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), isoprene and acetone [ 170]. For nitrogen oxides [ 47] and hydrogen sulfide [ 46], pathological effects relevant to disease have been described in environmental medicine even at a low but chronic exposure [ 46, 47, 48]. Among the volatile organic compounds in exhaled air, acetone and isoprene dominate in terms of quantity, but allyl methyl sulfide, propionic acid and ethanol (some of bacterial origin) should also be mentioned [ 171]. Whether such substances also react chemically with each other underneath masks and in the dead space volume created by masks ( Figure 3), and with the mask tissue itself, and in what quantities these and possible reaction products are rebreathed, has not yet been clarified. In addition to the blood gas changes described above (O ₂ drop and CO ₂ rise), these effects could also play a role with regard to undesirable mask effects. Further research is needed here and is of particular interest in the case of prolonged and ubiquitous use of masks.

The WHO sees the integration of individual companies and communities that produce their own fabric masks as a potential social and economic benefit. Due to the global shortage of surgical masks and personal protective equipment, it sees this as a source of income and points out that the reuse of fabric masks can reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability [ 2]. In addition to the question of certification procedures for such fabric masks, it should also be mentioned that due to the extensive mask obligation, textile (artificial) substances in the form of micro- and nanoparticles, some of which cannot be degraded in the body, are chronically absorbed into the body through inhalation to an unusual extent. In the case of medical masks, disposable polymers such as polypropylene, polyurethane, polyacrylonitrile, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene and polyester should be mentioned [ 140]. ENT physicians have already been able to detect such particles in the nasal mucosa of mask wearers with mucosal reactions in the sense of a foreign body reaction with rhinitis [ 96]. In the case of community masks, other substances from the textile industry are likely to be added to those mentioned above. The body will try to absorb these substances through macrophages and scavenger cells in the respiratory tract and alveoli as part of a foreign body reaction, whereby toxin release and corresponding local and generalized reactions may occur in an unsuccessful attempt to break them down [ 172]. Extensive respiratory protection in permanent long-term use (24/7), at least from a theoretical point of view, also potentially carries the risk of leading to a mask-related pulmonary [ 47] or even generalized disorder, as is already known from textile workers chronically exposed to organic dusts in the Third World (byssinosis) [ 172].

For the general public, from a scientific angle, it is necessary to draw on the long-standing knowledge of respiratory protection in occupational medicine in order to protect children in particular from harm caused by uncertified masks and improper use.

The universal undefined and extended mask requirement-without taking into account multiple predispositions and susceptibilities-contradicts the claim of an increasingly important individualized medicine with a focus on the unique characteristics of each individual [ 173].

A systematic review on the topic of masks is necessary according to the results of our scoping review. The primary studies often showed weaknesses in operationalization, especially in the evaluation of cognitive and neuropsychological parameters. Computerized test procedures will be useful here in the future. Mask research should also set itself the future goal of investigating and defining subgroups for whom respiratory protection use is particularly risky.

Our approach with a focus on negative effects is in line with Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi [ 12]. With the help of such selective questioning in the sense of dialectics, new insights can be gained that might otherwise have remained hidden. Our literature search focused on adverse negative effects of masks, in particular to point out risks especially for certain patient groups. Therefore, publications presenting only positive effects of masks were not considered in this review.

For a compilation of studies with harmless results when using masks, reference must, therefore, be made to reviews with a different research objective, whereby attention must be paid to possible conflicts of interest there. Some of the studies excluded by us lacking negative effects have shown methodological weaknesses (small, non-uniform experimental groups, missing control group even without masks due to corona constraints, etc.) [ 174]. In other words, if no negative concomitant effects were described in publications, it does not necessarily mean that masks have exclusively positive effects. It is quite possible that negative effects were simply not mentioned in the literature and the number of negative effects may well be higher than our review suggests.

We only searched one database, so the number of papers on negative mask effects may be higher than we reported.

In order to be able to describe characteristic effects for each mask type even more extensively, we did not have enough scientific data on the respective special designs of the masks. There is still a great need for research in this area due to the current pandemic situation with extensive mandatory masking.

In addition, the experiments evaluated in this paper do not always have uniform measurement parameters and study variables and, depending on the study, take into account the effect of masks at rest or under stress with subjects having different health conditions. Figure 2, therefore, represents a compromise. The results of the primary studies on mask use partially showed no natural variation in parameters, but often showed such clear correlations between symptoms and physiological changes, so that a statistical correlation analysis was not always necessary. We found a statistically significant correlation of oxygen deprivation and fatigue in 58% of the studies (p < 0.05). A statistically significant correlation evidence for other parameters has been previously demonstrated in primary studies [ 21, 29].

The most commonly used personal particulate matter protective equipment in the COVID-19 pandemic is the N95 mask [ 23]. Due to its characteristics (better filtering function, but greater airway resistance and more dead space volume than other masks), the N95 mask is able to highlight negative effects of such protective equipment more clearly than others ( Figure 3). Therefore, a relatively frequent consideration and evaluation of N95 masks within the studies found (30 of the 44 quantitatively evaluated studies, 68%) is even advantageous within the framework of our research question. Nevertheless, it remains to be noted that the community masks sold on the market are increasingly similar to the protective equipment that has been better investigated in scientific studies, such as surgical masks and N95 masks, since numerous manufacturers and users of community masks are striving to approximate the professional standard (surgical mask, N95/FFP2). Recent study results on community masks indicate similar effects for respiratory physiology as described for medical masks: in a recent publication, fabric masks (community masks) also provoked a measurable increase in carbon dioxide PtcCO ₂ in wearers during exertion and came very close to surgical masks in this effect [ 21].

On the other hand, the side effects of masks are clinically relevant.

In our work, we focused exclusively on the undesirable and negative side effects that can be produced by masks. Valid significant evidence of combined mask-related changes were objectified (p < 0.05, n ≥ 50%), and we found a clustered and common occurrence of the different adverse effects within the respective studies with significantly measured effects ( Figure 2). We were able to demonstrate a statistically significant correlation of the observed adverse effect of hypoxia and the symptom of fatigue with p < 0.05 in the quantitative evaluation of the primary studies. Our review of the literature shows that both healthy and sick people can experience Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES), with typical changes and symptoms that are often observed in combination, such as an increase in breathing dead space volume [ 22, 24, 58, 59], increase in breathing resistance [ 31, 35, 60, 61], increase in blood carbon dioxide [ 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35], decrease in blood oxygen saturation [ 18, 19, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34], increase in heart rate [ 23, 29, 30, 35], increase in blood pressure [ 25, 35], decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity [ 31], increase in respiratory rate [ 15, 21, 23, 34, 36], shortness of breath and difficulty breathing [ 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, 60, 71, 85, 101, 133], headache [ 19, 27, 29, 37, 66, 67, 68, 71, 83], dizziness [ 23, 29], feeling hot and clammy [ 17, 22, 29, 31, 35, 44, 71, 85, 133], decreased ability to concentrate [ 29], decreased ability to think [ 36, 37], drowsiness [ 19, 29, 32, 36, 37], decrease in empathy perception [ 99], impaired skin barrier function [ 37, 72, 73] with itching [ 31, 35, 67, 71, 72, 73, 91, 92, 93], acne, skin lesions and irritation [ 37, 72, 73], overall perceived fatigue and exhaustion [ 15, 19, 21, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 69] ( Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Wearing masks does not consistently cause clinical deviations from the norm of physiological parameters, but according to the scientific literature, a long-term pathological consequence with clinical relevance is to be expected owing to a longer-lasting effect with a subliminal impact and significant shift in the pathological direction. For changes that do not exceed normal values, but are persistently recurring, such as an increase in blood carbon dioxide [ 38, 160], an increase in heart rate [ 55] or an increase in respiratory rate [ 56, 57], which have been documented while wearing a mask [ 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35] ( Figure 2), a long-term generation of high blood pressure [ 25, 35], arteriosclerosis and coronary heart disease and of neurological diseases is scientifically obvious [ 38, 55, 56, 57, 160]. This pathogenetic damage principle with a chronic low-dose exposure with long-term effect, which leads to disease or disease-relevant conditions, has already been extensively studied and described in many areas of environmental medicine [ 38, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54]. Extended mask-wearing would have the potential, according to the facts and correlations we have found, to cause a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.

We not only found evidence in the reviewed mask literature of potential long-term effects, but also evidence of an increase in direct short-term effects with increased mask-wearing time in terms of cumulative effects for: carbon dioxide retention, drowsiness, headache, feeling of exhaustion, skin irritation (redness, itching) and microbiological contamination (germ colonization) [ 19, 22, 37, 66, 68, 69, 89, 91, 92].

Overall, the exact frequency of the described symptom constellation MIES in the mask-using populace remains unclear and cannot be estimated due to insufficient data.

Theoretically, the mask-induced effects of the drop in blood gas oxygen and increase in carbon dioxide extend to the cellular level with induction of the transcription factor HIF (hypoxia-induced factor) and increased inflammatory and cancer-promoting effects [ 160] and can, thus, also have a negative influence on pre-existing clinical pictures.

All the scientific facts found in our work expand the knowledge base for a differentiated view of the mask debate. This gain can be relevant for decision makers who have to deal with the issue of mandatory mask use during the pandemic under constant review of proportionality as well as for physicians who can advise their patients more appropriately on this basis. For certain diseases, taking into account the literature found in this study, it is also necessary for the attending physician to weigh up the benefits and risks with regard to a mask obligation. With an overall strictly scientific consideration, a recommendation for mask exemption can become justifiable within the framework of a medical appraisal ( Figure 5).

In addition to protecting the health of their patients, doctors should also base their actions on the guiding principle of the 1948 Geneva Declaration, as revised in 2017. According to this, every doctor vows to put the health and dignity of his patient first and, even under threat, not to use his medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties [ 9]. Within the framework of these findings, we, therefore, propagate an explicitly medically judicious, legally compliant action in consideration of scientific factual reality [ 2, 4, 5, 16, 130, 132, 143, 175, 176, 177] against a predominantly assumption-led claim to a general effectiveness of masks, always taking into account possible unwanted individual effects for the patient and mask wearer concerned, entirely in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine and the ethical guidelines of a physician.

For scientists, the prospect of continued mask use in everyday life suggests areas for further research. In our view, further research is particularly desirable in the gynecological (fetal and embryonic) and pediatric fields, as children are a vulnerable group that would face the longest and, thus, most profound consequences of a potentially risky mask use. Basic research at the cellular level regarding mask-induced triggering of the transcription factor HIF with potential promotion of immunosuppression and carcinogenicity also appears to be useful under this circumstance. Our scoping review shows the need for a systematic review.

The described mask-related changes in respiratory physiology can have an adverse effect on the wearer's blood gases sub-clinically and in some cases also clinically manifest and, therefore, have a negative effect on the basis of all aerobic life, external and internal respiration, with an influence on a wide variety of organ systems and metabolic processes with physical, psychological and social consequences for the individual human being.

Conceptualization, K.K. and O.H.; methodology, K.K. and O.H.; software, O.H.; formal analysis, K.K., O.H., P.G., A.P., B.K., D.G., S.F. and O.K.; investigation, K.K., O.H., P.G., A.P., B.K., D.G., S.F. and O.K.; writing-original draft preparation, K.K., O.H., P.G., A.P., B.K., D.G., S.F. and O.K.; writing-review and editing K.K., O.H., P.G., A.P., B.K., D.G., S.F. and O.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

We thank Bonita Blankart, for translation of the manuscript. For support in their special field we wish to thank: Tanja Boehnke (Psychology), Nicola Fels (Pediatrics), Michael Grönke (Anesthesiology), Basile Marcos (Psychiatry), Bartholomeus Maris (Gynecology) and Markus Veit (Pharmacist).

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

1. World Health Organization. WHO-Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19: Interim Guidance, 6 April 2020; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693 (accessed on 7 November 2020).

2. World Health Organization. WHO-Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19: Interim Guidance, 5 June 2020; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332293 (accessed on 7 November 2020).

3. De Brouwer, C. Wearing a Mask, a Universal Solution against COVID-19 or an Additional Health Risk? 2020. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676885 (accessed on 12 November 2020). [CrossRef]

4. Great Barrington Declaration Great Barrington Declaration and Petition. Available online: https://gbdeclaration.org/ (accessed on 9 November 2020).

5. WMA-The World Medical Association-WMA Declaration of Geneva. Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/ (accessed on 7 November 2020).

6. WMA-The World Medical Association-WMA Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/ (accessed on 7 November 2020).

7. WMA-The World Medical Association-WMA Declaration of Lisbon on the Rights of the Patient. Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-lisbon-on-the-rights-of-the-patient/ (accessed on 7 November 2020).

8. Butz, U. Rückatmung von Kohlendioxid bei Verwendung von Operationsmasken als hygienischer Mundschutz an medizinischem Fachpersonal. Ph.D. Thesis, Fakultät für Medizin der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]

9. Drechsler, M.; Morris, J. Carbon Dioxide Narcosis. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]

10. Fothergill, D.M.; Hedges, D.; Morrison, J.B. Effects of CO₂ and N₂ Partial Pressures on Cognitive and Psychomotor Performance. Undersea Biomed. Res. 1991, 18, 1-19. [Google Scholar]

11. Dominici, F.; Schwartz, J.; Di, Q.; Braun, D.; Choirat, C.; Zanobetti, A. Assessing Adverse Health Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollution: Phase 1 Research Report; Health Effects Institute: Boston, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 1-51. [Google Scholar]

12. Kosnett, M. Health Effects of Low Dose Lead Exposure in Adults and Children, and Preventable Risk Posed by the Consumption of Game Meat Harvested with Lead Ammunition. In Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans; The Peregrine Fund: Boise, ID, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

13. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 654-678. ISBN 978-1-59385-836-0. [Google Scholar]

14. COVID-19: Considerations for Wearing Masks|CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html (accessed on 12 November 2020).

15. Robert Koch-Institut. Influenza-Monatsbericht; Robert Koch-Institut: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]

16. Muley, P.; 'Mask Mouth'-a Novel Threat to Oral Health in the COVID Era-Dr Pooja Muley. Dental Tribune South Asia 2020. Available online: https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/mask-mouth-a-novel-threat-to-oral-health-in-the-covid-era/ (accessed on 12 November 2020).

17. COVID-19 Mythbusters-World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters (accessed on 28 January 2021).

18. World Health Organization; United Nations Children's Fund. WHO-Advice on the Use of Masks for Children in the Community in the Context of COVID-19: Annex to the Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19, 21 August 2020; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]

19. Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung. DGUV Grundsätze für Arbeitsmedizinische Vorsorgeuntersuchungen; Alfons, W., Ed.; Gentner Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2010; ISBN 978-3-87247-733-0. [Google Scholar]

20. Browse by Country-NATLEX. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.byCountry?p_lang=en (accessed on 28 January 2021).

21. BAuA-SARS-CoV-2 FAQ Und Weitere Informationen-Kennzeichnung von Masken Aus USA, Kanada, Australien/Neuseeland, Japan, China Und Korea-Bundesanstalt Für Arbeitsschutz Und Arbeitsmedizin. Available online: https://www.baua.de/DE/Themen/Arbeitsgestaltung-im-Betrieb/Coronavirus/pdf/Kennzeichnung-Masken.html (accessed on 28 January 2021).

22. Veit, M. Hauptsache Maske!? DAZ.Online. 2020, p. S26. Available online: https://www.deutsche-apotheker-zeitung.de/daz-az/2020/daz-33-2020/hauptsache-maske (accessed on 12 November 2020).

23. Luckman, A.; Zeitoun, H.; Isoni, A.; Loomes, G.; Vlaev, I.; Powdthavee, N.; Read, D. Risk Compensation during COVID-19: The Impact of Face Mask Usage on Social Distancing. OSF Preprints. 2020. Available online: https://osf.io/rb8he/ (accessed on 25 October 2020).

24. BfArM-Empfehlungen Des BfArM-Hinweise Des BfArM Zur Verwendung von Mund-Nasen-Bedeckungen (z.B. Selbst Hergestellten Masken, "Community-Oder DIY-Masken"), Medizinischen Gesichtsmasken Sowie Partikelfiltrierenden Halbmasken (FFP1, FFP2 Und FFP3) Im Zusammenhang Mit Dem Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19). Available online: https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Risikoinformationen/Medizinprodukte/DE/schutzmasken.html (accessed on 12 November 2020).

25. Labortest-Schutzmasken im Härtetest: Die Meisten Filtern Ungenügend. Available online: https://www.srf.ch/news/panorama/labortest-schutzmasken-im-haertetest-die-meisten-filtern-ungenuegend (accessed on 12 November 2020).

26. SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, Universität Bremen. Available online: https://www.socium.uni-bremen.de/ueber-das-socium/aktuelles/archiv/ (accessed on 28 January 2021).

27. Potluri, P.; Needham, P. Technical Textiles for Protection (Manchester EScholar-The University of Manchester); Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]

28. Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on Personal Protective Equipment for Healthcare Personnel to Prevent Transmission of Pandemic Influenza and Other Viral Respiratory Infections: Current Research Issues. In Preventing Transmission of Pandemic Influenza and Other Viral Respiratory Diseases: Personal Protective Equipment for Healthcare Personnel: Update 2010; Larson, E.L., Liverman, C.T., Eds.; National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-309-16254-8. [Google Scholar]

29. Beck, U. Risk Society, towards a New Modernity; SAGE Publications Ltd: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]

30. AAFA Community Services. What People with Asthma Need to Know about Face Masks and Coverings during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Available online: https://community.aafa.org/blog/what-people-with-asthma-need-to-know-about-face-masks-and-coverings-during-the-covid-19-pandemic (accessed on 29 January 2021).

31. van der Kleij, L.A.; De Vis, J.B.; de Bresser, J.; Hendrikse, J.; Siero, J.C.W. Arterial CO₂ Pressure Changes during Hypercapnia Are Associated with Changes in Brain Parenchymal Volume. Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2020, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

32. Executive Board: Special Session on the COVID-19 Response. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2020/10/05/default-calendar/executive-board-special-session-on-the-covid19-response (accessed on 13 November 2020).

Figure 1. Scoping review flow diagram according to the PRISMA scheme.

Figure 2. Overview including all 44 considered studies with quantified, significant adverse effects of masks (black dots and black rectangles). Not all studies examined each mentioned parameter, as focused or subject-related questions were often in the foreground. Gray fields correspond to a lack of coverage in the primary studies, white fields represent measured effects. We found an often combination of significant chemical, physical, physiological parameters and complaints. Drowsiness summarizes the symptom for any qualitative neurological deficits described in the scientific literature examined.

Figure 3. Pathophysiology of the mask (important physical and chemical effects): Illustration of the breathing resistance* and of the dead space volume of an N95 mask in an adult. When breathing, there is an overall significantly reduced possible gas exchange volume of the lungs of minus 37% caused by the mask (Lee 2011) [ 60] according to a decrease in breathing depth and volume due to the greater breathing resistance of plus128%* (exertion when inhaling greater than when exhaling) and due to the increased dead space volume of plus80%°, which does not participate directly in the gas exchange and is being only partially mixed with the environment. (* = averaged inspiration and expiration according to Lee 2011 [ 60] including moisture penetration according to Roberge 2010 [ 61], ** = averaged values according to Xu 2015 [ 59]).

Figure 4. Unfavorable mask effects as components of Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES). The chemical, physical and biological effects, as well as the organ system consequences mentioned, are all documented with statistically significant results in the scientific literature found ( Figure 2). The term drowsiness is used here to summarize any qualitative neurological deficits described in the examined scientific literature.

Figure 5. Diseases/predispositions with significant risks, according to the literature found, when using masks. Indications for weighing up medical mask exemption certificates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many countries introduced the requirement to wear masks in public spaces for containing SARS-CoV-2 making it commonplace in 2020. Up until now, there has been no comprehensive investigation as to the adverse health effects masks can cause. The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Oxford secretly used cell phone data to track millions as part of government-ordered vaccination study – media

# data[].attributes.subject
Oxford secretly used cell phone data to track millions as part of government-ordered vaccination study – media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK government has admitted it used phone data to analyse people's movement patterns without their knowledge as part of a vaccination study, a new report claims. Officials are said to have preserved the subjects' anonymity.

The Telegraph cited a report by the Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which said researchers from the University of Oxford discretely used data from mobile phones as part of their study into how vaccination affects people's lifestyles.

SPI-B advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which in turn advises the government. The University of Oxford, which developed the Covid-19 vaccine along with the British-Swedish pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca, conducted the study on SPI-B's behalf.

The scientists were said to have dug through the "cell phone mobility data for 10 per cent of the British population" in February and singled out 4,254 people that were vaccinated. They then monitored the group's movement patterns for the week before and the week after vaccination.

The researchers did "various robustness checks," sorted by age, and measured "distance from home to vaccination point," among other things, according to the Telegraph. By comparing the movement of the vaccinated people to a different group, the scientists found that their " average pre-vaccination mobility increased by 218 meters [sic]."

Privacy group Big Brother Watch says the findings are "deeply chilling and extremely damaging to public trust in medical confidentiality."

Between looming Covid passports and vaccine phone surveillance, this Government is turning Britain into a Big Brother state under the cover of Covid.

A government spokesperson told the Telegraph that the data using the research was "at cell tower rather than individual level" and had been properly "anonymised." The spokesperson added that the researchers were granted ethical approval from Oxford.

A government source further clarified to the paper that the data was "extensively anonymised by the company before it is used for research," and that only "a small group of pre-approved researchers" had access to it. The source stressed that the project was "not individual surveillance," because using only cell phone tower data would not make it possible to accurately identify individuals.
Also on rt.com Apple and Google block UK NHS Covid app update on privacy grounds
The source explained that people were given "a new token of identification" each month to preserve anonymity, and the only basic demographic data that was shared was age.

"It is not GPS tracing data which is commonly used by some large commercial companies for targeted advertising," the source said.

Privacy campaigners have been raising concerns over contact-tracing and other medical apps that were developed during the pandemic. Last month, Google and Apple refused to make an update for the NHS contact-tracing app available for download on their app stores. The app would have asked users to upload venue check-ins, and the US-based companies were against the collection of such information.

Last year, the UK's privacy watchdog, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), allowed the use of phone data in fighting the coronavirus. "Public bodies may require additional collection and sharing of personal data to protect against serious threats to public health," the ICO spokesperson said.
Also on rt.com Promoting Covid jabs on dating apps is both preposterous and proof that govt & Big Tech are a match made in hell Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oxford secretly used cell phone data to track millions as part of government-ordered vaccination study - media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK government has admitted it used phone data to analyse people's movement patterns without their knowledge as part of a vaccination study, a new report claims. Officials are said to have preserved the subjects' anonymity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
3rd June 2021

When COVID19 came along I was in the midst of writing my latest book on heart disease. What causes it - and what does not.

One section I was working on covers the wide range of conditions known as the vasculitis(es). I could immediately see a whole series of connections between COVID19, spike proteins, the immune system and blood clots. Some of which are deeply concerning, for reasons that should become apparent.

Before getting started, you can see an immediate problem here is there does not seem to be a plural form of vasculitis. A bit like octopus. You can have one octopus, but what happens then... two octupuses... or is it two octopi? Wars have been fought over less.

Anyway, a vasculitis is a condition whereby a factor, of some sort, causes damage to the vascular system. The vascular system being, essentially, the blood vessels and the heart. The suffix itis simplymeans inflammation. As in appendic itis, or tonsill itis. Or, in this case vascul itis.

There are many different vasculitis(es) or vasculiti? They range from Kawasaki's disease to antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, Sjogren's disease and suchlike. They are many, and varied, and quite fascinating. At least they are, to me.

In all of them you have two things in common... that are most relevant to this discussion. First, with any form of vasculitis, the body decides to attack the lining of the blood vessels - causing inflammation and damage. Second, the rate of death from cardiovascular disease goes up dramatically. In some cases, a fifty-fold increase. This was seen in young women with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) with additional antiphospholipid syndrome ¹.

Why does the body decide to attack itself? This is a good question that I cannot really answer. If I could, I would be claiming my Nobel prize, right now. However, I can say that, for various reasons, the immune system makes the decision that it doesn't like something about the lining of the blood vessels and believes it to have become 'alien' in some way. It then proceeds to attack. Which does not answer the question as to exactly why the attack happens? But it does tell you a bit about what happens.

Another major problem with vasculitis is that blood clots spring to life throughout the vascular system. This is because the blood is always ready to clot, at any time, and if you take away some of vital the anti-clotting mechanisms, the balance will be tilted firmly towards coagulation.

One of the most powerful anti-clotting mechanisms/systems is the protective layer that lines your entire vascular system, known as the glycocalyx. This is made up of glycoproteins (glucose and proteins stuck together). Under an electron microscope the glycocalyx looks like a tiny forest, or a badly mown lawn.

Many fish are covered with glycocalyx, which makes them very slippery, and difficult to get hold of. The glycocalyx also stops bacteria and viruses from gaining entry, in both fish and humans.

In your blood vessels, the glycocalyx protrudes out from endothelial cells, the cells that line all your blood vessels, and into the bloodstream. The layer of glycocalyx contains many, many, anticoagulant factors. Below is a short list of all the things the glycocalyx does:

The glycocalyx:

Forms the interface between the vessel wall and moving blood.

Acts as the exclusion zone between blood cells and the endothelium.

Acts as a barrier against leakage of fluid, proteins and lipids across the vascular wall.

Interacts dynamically with blood constituents.

Acts as the "molecular sieve" for plasma proteins.

Modulates adhesion of inflammatory cells and platelets to the endothelial surface.

Functions as a sensor and mechano-transducer of the fluid shear forces to which the endothelium is exposed; thus, the glycocalyx mediates shear-stress-dependent nitric oxide production.

Retains protective enzymes (e.g., superoxide dismutase).

Retains anticoagulation factors, e.g.: Tissue factor inhibitor, Protein C, Nitric Oxide (NO), Antithrombin.

Complicated stuff - that hardly anyone has ever heard of.

Anyway, if you damage the glycocalyx, or damage the underlying endothelial cells that synthesizes the glycocalyx layer, you will tip the balance very strongly towards the creation of blood clots. These can then then stick to the artery, or vein, wall. Sometimes they will fully block a blood vessel, leading to such things as a stroke or heart attack.

The interaction between vasculitis and thrombosis has been a relatively unexplored area of medicine. But it remains critically important in many diseases:
'The relationship between inflammation and thrombosis is not a recent concept, but it has been largely investigated only in recent years. Nowadays inflammation-induced thrombosis is considered to be a feature of systemic autoimmune diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), or Sjogren's Syndrome (SS)².
In super-short version. If you damage the lining of blood vessel walls, blood clots are far more likely to form. Very often, the damage is caused by the immune system going on the attack, damaging blood vessel walls, and removing several of the anti-clotting mechanisms.

Moving sideways for a moment. There are other things that can damage the blood vessel wall, leading to widespread blood clot formation. One of them is the condition known as sepsis. Which used to be called blood poisoning.

In sepsis, bacteria gain entry to the bloodstream through such things as a cut, an insect bite, a severe urine infection, and suchlike. When bacteria get into the blood, and start multiplying, they release exotoxins. Which are, effectively, the waste products of the bacteria.

These exotoxins then attack blood vessel walls, damaging the glycocalyx and endothelial cells. This drives the formation of blood clots throughout the body. The medical term for this is disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) = widespread blood clots in the vascular system.

The attacks not only cause clots, they can also cause the smaller blood vessels to weaken and burst. Which is why one sign of an infection with the meningococcal bacteria (the one that causes meningitis), is a rash. The rash is made up of dark, almost black, bruises. Once these start to appear, things are very bad. Potentially fatal, it means blood vessels are under severe attack and are breaking apart. Creating both bleeding and clots.

In truth, the 'rash' in meningitis is not really a rash at all. It is a sign of underlying, severe, vasculitis. The individual small bruises can also be called petechiae. Just to be scientific.

Another sign of widespread blood vessel damage, with the formation of multiple blood clots, is that the level of platelets in the bloodstream falls dramatically. For those who have never heard of such things, platelets are small cells that float about in the bloodstream. Their primary role is to co-ordinate the blood clotting system. If a red blood cell was the size of the Earth, a platelet would be about this size of the Moon.

If there is damage to blood vessels, platelets fling themselves at the area, and stick together to form a solid plug. They also release chemicals and enzymes that cause fibrin to be formed. Fibrin is the long sticky strand of protein that binds clots tightly together. Platelets also drag in red blood cells, and suchlike to make bigger and tougher clots. They have been called the conductors of the clotting orchestra.

In the process of doing all of these things, the number of platelets starts to fall. This is not surprising, as they are being used up to make blood clots/thrombi. Which means that one sign of widespread clot formation is a fall in the level of platelets (thrombocytopenia). This reliable sign of widespread coagulation, or disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC).

Time for a quick re-cap.
What do we know?
What we now know, on the journey towards COVID19, are three important things.

If you damage the endothelial cells/glycocalyx, blood clots will form and stick to the side of blood vessels.

Damage is often caused by immune system attack.

Falling platelet levels are a sign of widespread blood clotting.

What do we know about COVID19? First, it can only enter cells that have a receptor known as the angiotensin II receptor (ACE2 receptor). Cells with these receptors are mainly found in the lining of the lungs, and endothelial cells that line all blood vessels. Also, the epithelial /endothelial cells than line the intestines. If a cell does not have an ACE2 receptor, COVID19 simply cannot gain entry.

This was known years ago, when SARS-CoV was identified, the precursor of SARS-Cov2. Here from a paper in 2004:

'The most remarkable finding was the surface expression of ACE2 protein on lung alveolar epithelial cells and enterocytes of the small intestine. Furthermore, ACE2 was present in arterial and venous endothelial cells and arterial smooth muscle cells in all organs studied. In conclusion, ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, which might provide possible routes of entry for the SARS-CoV. This epithelial expression, together with the presence of ACE2 in vascular endothelium, also provides a first step in understanding the pathogenesis of the main SARS disease manifestations ³.'

So, SARS-CoV gets into the body through the lungs and bowels. These are the places where the virus can gain access because it is where ACE2 receptors can mainly be found. Of course, SARS-Cov2 gets into the body in exactly the same way.

What happens once SARS-Cov2 gets into cells? Well, it does what all viruses do. It takes over various cellular mechanisms and forces the cell to produce more SARS-CoV2 viruses. This then kills, or severely damages those cells. This mainly occurs when 'virions' start to escape from within the cell. This damages the cell membrane, and in some cases can cause the cell to burst apart.

Essentially, SARS-Cov2 starts by damaging endothelial cells in the lungs, because it usually arrives here first. Fluid is released, and there is the breakdown of small blood vessels in the lungs, and the small airways. In this situation, the lungs begin to fail, and oxygen levels in the blood can fall dramatically.

Infection can also cause diarrhoea, as the epithelial cells in the intestines are damaged. To quote from ' the COVID19 symptoms' study:
'We think COVID-19 causes diarrhoea because the virus can invade cells in the gut and disrupt its normal function ⁴.'
As far as I know, no-one has died of COVID19 diarrhoea. However, COVID19 can create such severe lung damage that people have died from respiratory failure or lung damage... call this form of disruption what you will. However, many/most people survive this phase.

It is what happens next that that kills the majority of people who become severely infected.

What happens next is that SARS-Cov2 gets into the bloodstream. It then invades endothelial cells, also pericytes and myocytes in the heart. Both of which have a high level of ACE2 receptors. Both of which are kind of vital for heart function 5,6.

Then...

What we now have is a major widespread vasculitis on our hands, with severe endothelial cell damage and disruption and damage to the glycocalyx. Blood clots, blood clots, blood clots, everywhere.
'Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes a spectrum of disease; some patients develop a severe proinflammatory state which can be associated with a unique coagulopathy and procoagulant endothelial phenotype. Initially, COVID-19 infection produces a prominent elevation of fibrinogen and D-dimer/fibrin(ogen) degradation products. This is associated with systemic hypercoagulability and frequent venous thromboembolic events. The degree of D-dimer elevation positively correlates with mortality in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 also leads to arterial thrombotic events (including strokes and ischemic limbs) as well as microvascular thrombotic disorders (as frequently documented at autopsy in the pulmonary vascular beds). COVID-19 patients often have mild thrombocytopenia* and appear to have increased platelet consumption, together with a corresponding increase in platelet production.⁷'
*a low level of platelets
The spike protein
Then, of course, we have the spike protein to consider. If this is the thing that the immune system recognises and attacks - which it almost certainly is - then cells which are growing SARS-Cov2 inside them, which then express the spike protein on their surface as the virions escape, will be identified as 'the enemy'.

At which point, the immune system will start to attack the endothelium (and glycocalyx) in an attempt to wipe out the virus. This will tend to happen two or three weeks after the initial infection (sometimes sooner). This is after the immune system has had a real chance to identify the spike protein, then properly wind itself up to produce antibodies against it. This is the time of maximum attack on the endothelium.

This moment is often referred to as a cytokine storm. A point where every system in the immune system gets revved up and charges into action. At one point I wasn't sure if I really believed in the cytokine storm. But I do now think it is a real thing. It is almost certainly why steroids (which very powerfully reduce the immune response) have been found to reduce mortality in severely ill patients.

All of which means it may well be the body's own infectious disease defence system that creates much of the damage to the cardiovascular system. Not necessarily the virus itself.

Alternatively, it may be that the spike protein itself creates most of the blood clots. Here from the paper ' SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 subunit induces hypercoagulability.'

'When whole blood was exposed to spike protein even at low concentrations, the erythrocytes (red blood cells) showed agglutination, hyperactivated platelets were seen, with membrane spreading and the formation of platelet-derived microparticles⁸.'

Translation. Introduce SARS-CoV2 spike proteins into bloodstream, and it makes it clot - fast. Which is a worry.

It is a worry because the entire purpose of vaccination against SARS-Cov2 is to force cells to manufacture the spike protein(s) and then send them out into the bloodstream.

So, quick recap again, what do we know?

We know that a very high percentage of the people who die following a COVID19 infection, die as result of blood clots. We also know that they can also suffer severe myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), and suchlike.

We know that the spike protein can stimulate blood clots all by itself.

We know that the immune system attack on 'alien' proteins, such as the spike protein, can cause vasculitis.

We know that vaccines are designed to drive the rapid production of spike proteins that will enter the blood stream specifically to encounter immune cells, in order to create a powerful response that will lead to 'immunity' against future SARS-CoV2 infection.

We know that a number of people have died from blood clots following vaccination. To quote from the European Medicines Agency website report on the AZ COVID19 vaccine:
'The PRAC (pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee) noted that the blood clots occurred in veins in the brain (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, CVST) and the abdomen (splanchnic vein thrombosis) and in arteries, together with low levels of blood platelets and sometimes bleeding ⁹.'
This was all pretty much predictable, if you understood what was going with SARS-CoV - nearly seventeen years ago.

My concern at this point is that, yes, we have identified very rare manifestations of blood clotting: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and splanchnic (relating to the internal organs or viscera) vein thrombosis (SVT). These are so rare that it is unlikely that anything else - other than a novel vaccine - could have caused them. I have never seen a case and I had never even heard of them before COVID19 came along. And I have spent years studying the blood coagulation system, and vasculitis, and suchlike.

So, if someone is vaccinated, then has a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, or a splanchnic vein thrombosis, this is almost certainly going to be noted and recorded - and associated with the vaccination. Fine.

However, if there is an increase in vanishingly rare blood clots, could there also be an increase in other, far more common blood clots at the same time. If this was the case, then it would be far more difficult to spot this happening.

Millions and millions of people suffer strokes and heart attacks every year. Millions more suffer deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli. In fact, around the world, tens of millions die each and every year as a result of a blood clots forming somewhere in the body.

That is a hell of a lot of background blood clotting noise. Which means that it could be extremely difficult to disentangle cause and effect, especially if you are not looking. If an elderly person is vaccinated, then dies of a stroke a couple of weeks later. What caused the blood clot that led to the stroke? It is unlikely that any doctor would record this as a post-vaccine adverse event.

To give you one example of the difficulty of disentangling cause and effect, when you are looking at very common events, a few years ago Merck launched a drug called Vioxx (an anti-inflammatory like ibuprofen, or naproxen but not exactly the same class of drug). It didn't go well. Here from the article ' Merck Manipulated the Science about the Drug Vioxx.'

'To increase the likelihood of FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval for its anti-inflammatory and arthritis drug Vioxx, the pharmaceutical giant Merck used flawed methodologies biased toward predetermined results to exaggerate the drug's positive effects. Internal documents made public in litigation revealed that a Merck marketing team had developed a strategy called ADVANTAGE (Assessment of Differences between Vioxx And Naproxen To Ascertain Gastrointestinal tolerability and Effectiveness) to skew the results of clinical trials in the drug's favor.
As part of the strategy, scientists manipulated the trial design by comparing the drug to naproxen, a pain reliever sold under brand names such as Aleve, rather than to a placebo.' The scientists highlighted the results that naproxen decreased the risk of heart attack by 80 percent, and downplayed results showing that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack by 400 percent. This misleading presentation of the evidence made it look like naproxen was protecting patients from heart attacks, and that Vioxx only looked risky by comparison. In fact, Vioxx has since been found to significantly increase cardiovascular risk, leading Merck to withdraw the product from the market in 2004. Tragically, Merck's manipulation of its data-and the FDA's resulting approval of Vioxx in 1999-led to thousands of avoidable premature deaths and 100,000 heart attacks.' https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck-manipulated-science-about-drug-vioxx
Yes, not exactly their finest hour. However, the point that I want to highlight from this sorry tale is that it is estimated that Vioxx caused 100,000 additional heart attacks, in the US alone, and nobody noticed. This figure was only worked out when researchers analysed the figures on increased risk, that had been seen in the clinical trials - at least the figures that were finally seen when Merck were forced to release the data.

You may think. How could one hundred thousand heart attacks simply be missed? Well, there are very nearly one million physicians in the US. If the heart attacks caused by Vioxx were evenly distributed, only one in five physicians would have seen anyone suffer because of taking Vioxx. In those physicians that did see one, or two, would they have made the connection? No, they would not. Not in a million years. There would not even be a record of any possible connection made.

Elderly person has a stroke, or heart attack. Elderly person took Vioxx. And...?

All of which means I am not gigantically concerned about CVST and SVT. Blood clots in these veins are rare, and remain rare, even after vaccination - and will never be missed, particularly when they happen in younger people. Because when younger people die, great efforts are made to establish the cause of death.

However, I can see no reason why these specific blood vessels would be targeted by blood clots. Perhaps there is some reason why clots only occur in the central venous sinus vein, or splanchnic vein following vaccination. If so, I have been unable to find out. I am more than willing to be educated on this.

Time to move on to the other worrying observation, that can be found within the report by the pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee (PRAC) - as mentioned above:

'The PRAC noted that the blood clots occurred in veins in the brain (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, CVST) and the abdomen (splanchnic vein thrombosis) and in arteries, together with low levels of blood platelets and sometimes bleeding.'

One blood clot, in one relatively small vein, is not going to cause a low platelet level. Nor will it cause bleeding - a sign of very low platelet levels. Which means that those unfortunate people who developed CVST and SVT almost certainly had widespread problems with other clots as well. Then, for reasons unknown, they triggered these forms of, vanishingly rare blood clot. The ones that killed them. The ones that were recognised - because they are so rare.

I shall finish here. You can join the dots yourself. Or not.

1: https://www.intechopen.com/books/pregnancy-thrombophilia-the-unsuspected-risk/thrombophilia-in-systemic-lupus-erythematosus-a-review-of-multiple-mechanisms-and-resultant-clinical

2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4399148/

3: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15141377/

4: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-symptoms-diarrhoea

5: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614534/

6: https://academic.oup.com/cardiovascres/article/116/6/1097/5813131

7: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/512007

8: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210310/SARS-CoV-2-spike-S1-subunit-induces-hypercoagulability.aspx

9: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-ema-finds-possible-link-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID19 - the spike protein and blood clotting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
3rd June 2021 When COVID19 came along I was in the midst of writing my latest book on heart disease. What causes it - and what does not. One section I was working on covers the wide range of condit...

# data[].attributes.headline
Slovak test sticks - evidence of genocide

# data[].attributes.subject
Slovak test sticks - evidence of genocide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis of test sticks from surface testing in the Slovak Republic -confirmation of genocide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analysis of test sticks from surface testing in the Slovak Republic - confirmation of genocide. key words - 1) nylon, 2) Darpa Hydrogel, 3) lithium, 4) pineal gland The analysis was performed in the months November 2020 to March 2021 on test sticks in sets.

# data[].attributes.headline
PINE TEA: Possible Antidote for Spike Protein Transmission

# data[].attributes.subject
PINE TEA: Possible Antidote for Spike Protein Transmission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Intro by Dr. Ariyana Love

(Updated: June 24, 2021)

Front line doctors and medical experts dropped a bombshell in late April, revealing matters of national security for all nation states. Transmission between the Covid-19 vaxxed and unvaxxed is causing Adverse Reactions in people who did not take the injection. Experts revealed that transmission is happening at a rapid rate and without skin to skin contact.

Covid shots are not vaccines but experimental bioweapons and this is expert consensus. It’s not just viral shedding as we thought but transmission potentially of spike protein that’s causing Adverse Reactions in the unvaxxed. The cells of the vaxxed are now coded to produce the synthetic pathogen they were injected with using lipid-nanoparticles. This is clearly gain-of-function weaponry.

It was also unanimous consensus of medical experts that the vaxxed should be quarantined because transmission is believed to be airborne.

Dr. Judy Mikovits mentioned the antidote in a video titled “Suramin” is the antidote to the bioweapons and transmission. You can obtain enough from pine needle tea (pine, spruce, cedar and fir)“.

The truth was censored by Youtube.

The possible antidote to transmission is called Suramin. But Suramin is the pharmaceutical version of Shikimic Acid called Shikimate. It’s found in Pine, Spruce, Fir and Cedar needles, according to Dr. Mikovits. She explained in this censored interview that you can get enough of the *antidote* by drinking pine tea.

Pine needle tea offers an inhibitory effect against components of the coagulation cascade and against the inappropriate replication and modification of RNA and DNA. It also offers an inhibitory effects against blood platelet aggregation and clotting.

We now know that the Covid-19 “spike protein” does not remain in the injection site but travels through the blood, entering and attacking first the vascular system. It coagulates the blood causing blood clots in the brain (embolisms), coronary thrombosis (heart strokes) and pulmonary embolisms (lung strokes). This “spike protein” is also collecting in ovaries and testes and rendering women and men infertile. Transmission is causing innocent bystanders to have adverse reactions of miscarriages, unusual heavy bleeding, uterus shedding and God knows what else will come.

Pine needle tea is one of the most potent anti-oxidants known to man and it’s a super food. You can pluck it right off the tree and eat the tips. Pine needle oil is known to treat cancer, inflammation, pain of all kinds and respiratory infections like pneumonia, influenza and Coronavirus’. Pine needle tea kills parasites an, energizes you from your first cup. Now you can enjoy this ancient, secrete elite elixir and the potential antidote, here.

Source

Possible Antidote for the V-Serum and the Current Spike Protein Contagion

Dr. Judy Mikovits (1 min. MP4 is attached) has revealed that the medical establishment has known all along about the antidote to the contagion – a contagion that is now being seen today by thousands of people who have not taken the serum, but have merely come in close proximity with others who have taken the jab.

(The word “serum” is being used here since, evidently, the way to avoid taking the jab is to say “I am allergic to the serum”.)

When the medical establishment and political promoters want to exempt themselves from taking inoculations, they always give themselves a legal way out, while pushing the “citizenry” to take the jabs.

“I am allergic to the serum” is one of their solutions.

Taking the serum is one thing. The spike protein contagion now being experienced in large numbers by those who did not take the serum, but just visited with a relative or friend who did, is entirely new and unprecedented.

What are the side effects being seen by this contagion?

massive headaches

micro-clots and sudden bruising throughout the body

exceptionally heavy menstrual cycles among both the young and post menopausal

miscarriages

reduction in breast milk

sterility among both women and men

household pets dying shortly after the owners get the serum.

Listen to 5 doctors discuss this unusual onset of symptoms being experienced now by thousands:
URGENT! 5 Doctors Agree that COVID-19 Injections are Bioweapons and Discuss What to do About It

The Antidote to the Contagion

This antidote to the contagion, that has been known of by the upper levels of the medical establishment and insiders of the elitist class for almost 100 years, is called Suramin, an isolated compound originally derived from an extract of pine needle oil.

It is only available by injection, and has been a closely guarded secret not made openly available to the masses during this “pandemic”, yet is an effective solution for parasites and viruses of several kinds, along with a large number of other conditions.

Yet anyone can now take advantage of this solution by tapping its root origin, pine needle tea, an antidote that is freely available today in evergreen forests and in many people’s backyards. (Sources for buying it are also listed below.)

Pine and Spruce needles

Editors note: Warning. Please know the trees in your environment before you harvest them yourself. Some pine is not edible.

The Trail from Suramin to Pine Needle Tea

Here is the trail of science and data that shows the derivative relationship between pine needles and Suramin (“the elist’s antidote” to microbial illnesses) – and which also provides a potential antidote for those affected by the spike protein contagion (for reasons explained within the following data):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suramin

Suramin is used for treatment of human sleeping sickness caused by trypanosomes.[1] [a parasite] Specifically, it is used for treatment of first-stage African trypanosomiasis caused by Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense and Trypanosoma brucei gambiense without involvement of central nervous system.[9][10] It is considered first-line treatment for Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense, and second-line treatment for early-stage Trypanosoma brucei gambiense, where pentamidine is recommended as first line.[10]

It has been used in the treatment of river blindness (onchocerciasis).[2]

Suramin has been available to the medical profession for almost 100 years. A summary of its antioxidant benefits are outlined in this report – 100 Years of Suramin (attached as a PDF).

The most relevant parts of the summary are outlined below with supportive evidence:

SURAMIN, THE FRUIT OF EARLY MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY

When suramin was introduced for the treatment of African sleeping sickness in 1922, it was one of the first anti-infective agents that had been developed in a medicinal chemistry program. Starting from the antitrypanosomal activity of the dye trypan blue, synthesized in 1904 by Paul Ehrlich, Bayer made a series of colorless and more potent derivatives. Molecule 205 was suramin (Fig. 1), synthesized by Oskar Dressel, Richard Kothe, and Bernhard Heymann in 1916. Sleeping sickness (also known as human African trypanosomiasis [HAT]) was at the forefront of research at that time, not a neglected disease as it is today, and the development of suramin was a breakthrough for the emerging field of chemotherapy.

Now read the following paragraph within the subtitle (Too) Many Targets in the 100 Years of Suramin PDF to understand its antidote properties to the spike protein contagion (derived from the mRNA that gives instructions to replicate a spike protein in other cells):

Suramin further decreases the activities of a large number of enzymes involved in DNA and RNA synthesis and modification: DNA polymerases (103, 104), RNA polymerases (103, 105, 106), reverse transcriptase (18, 103), telomerase (67), and enzymes involved in winding/ unwinding of DNA (107, 108) are inhibited by suramin, as well as histone- and chromatin-modifying enzymes like chromobox proteins (109), methyltransferases (110), and sirtuin histone deacetylases (111)

This is medical-speak for inhibiting the inappropriate replication and modification of RNA and DNA.

This comment in the PDF also reveals Suramin’s ability to inhibit micro-clots:

Suramin also showed inhibitory effects against components of the coagulation cascade (71, 130)…

Excessive coagulation causes blood clots, mini-clots, strokes, and unusually heavy menstrual cycles.

This is why so many people are dying today of blood clots after receiving the serum, and why others are now showing unexplained bruising after coming in contact with one that has taken the serum.

Something is being transferred from one to the other, likely through the breath, complemented by a type of sympathetic resonance, or pheromone emanation.

The method of transfer is unclear at this point, but is certainly happening.

This phenomenon is not an accident, these symptoms were known well in advance of unleashing this serum on the public. Vaccine trials have been going on for decades.

Why did they decide to test a completely new approach with the mRNA without animal trials, thus using humans as the first test case for their effectiveness?

US Center for Disease Control: 3,486 DEATHS – 86,080 Injured in the U.S. through April 17, 2021 Following COVID Injections in 4 Months: More Vaccine Deaths Recorded Than the Past 15 Years COMBINED

European Medicines Agency: 7,766 DEAD 330,218 Injuries: European Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 “Vaccines”

An Obvious Sham

Any natural medicine with 0.01% of these deaths and side effects would have been pulled from the market immediately. That our professionals and decision-makers have continued to allow this sham to continue reveals that this sham is intentional.

The upper echelon of the medical profession promote this program to the people, while they exempt themselves from it, and then take their personal antidote to prevent being affected by the transference contagion.

Since when is it acceptable to kill thousands of people and maim hundreds of thousands more with a “medicine”??? Why are we finding this OK? Why are we still trusting the media and the medical wizards that dreamed up this sham? When will enough be enough?

The People’s Antidote

Now the people have the antidote, and it is readily available in the form of pine needle tea. How do we know this? Because Suramin is a derivative of the oils in pine needles.

The whole herbal source (needles) is superior to the single compound extract (Suramin) – because the needles possess a full complement of phytonutrients providing numerous additional benefits that the extract is incapable of.

Now, here is the direct connection between Suramin and Pine Needle Tea:

Suramin is Derived from Trypan Blue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypan_blue

Trypan blue is derived from toluidine, that is, any of several isomeric bases, C₁₄H₁₆N₂, derived from toluene. Trypan blue is so-called because it can kill trypanosomes, the parasites that cause sleeping sickness. An analog of trypan blue, suramin, is used pharmacologically against trypanosomiasis. Trypan blue is also known as diamine blue and Niagara blue…

Trypan red and trypan blue were first synthesized by the German scientist Paul Ehrlich in 1904.

Trypan Blue is a derivative of toluene which is a derivative of pine oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toluene

The compound was first isolated in 1837 through a distillation of pine oil by the Polish chemist Filip Walter, who named it rétinnaphte.[10]

I personally recall many years ago one health professional was using a Pine Sol bath to rid the body of parasites.

Pine-Sol was based on pine oil when it was created in 1929 and during its rise to national popularity in the 1950s. However, as of 2016, Pine-Sol products sold in stores no longer contain pine oil to reduce costs.Wikipedia

Yet pine needle tea provides a similar, if not superior, benefit, due in part to the fact that it is a direct mild extract of the whole herb leaving many of its properties still intact that might be destroyed by excessive heat during distillation and further dissection of its many nutrient components.

I harvested some young Dougles Fir needles last fall and have been adding it to my morning tea blend for the last couple of months. It must have been an instinctive call. I discovered the Suramin info just last week.

The Douglas fir needle tea I have been drinking provides an energetic lift and a nice boost to the immune system.

Pine needles are high in vitamin C and A among numerous other compounds which provide a long list of benefits:

A 2011 Korean study demonstrated using pine needles in tea was the best way to access the antioxidant benefits from pine needles.
The study demonstrated that the hot water extract of pine needle proanthocyanidins and catechins offer the highest levels of antioxidant benefits compared with chemical extract processes.

There are other known benefits that pine needle tea and the tea made from other conifers share, which include:

Analgesic

Antibacterial

Antifungal

Anti-inflammatory

Antimicrobial

Antioxidant

Antiseptic

Antitumor

Antitussive

Antiviral

Aromatic

Astringent

Decongestant

Detoxifying

Disinfectant

Diuretic

Expectorant

Immuno-modulating

Improves circulation

Invigorating

Lymphatic

Relaxing

Relieves nervous exhaustion and fatigue

Relieves sore muscles

Restorative

Tonic

Herbalists the world over have known all along about the benefits of this simple natural tea. Pine needle tea has been used medicinally worldwide for thousands of years.

Pine Needle Tea Video (3 min)
https://youtu.be/MY4UNrjnoLA

Wild Food Foraging – Pine / Spruce / Cedar / Fir – Evergreen Teas
https://youtu.be/RdTcmexTBH0

A few notes of caution:
Be careful with the yew pine (which is not a true pine) and can be toxic, although it does have a few medicinal properties).

The cypress is not to be used as an essential oil in high doses, but normally safe otherwise.

The ponderosa pine is not good for cows mostly due to the observation when pregnant cattle eat the needles the loss of the calf has been observed, but has a long history of health benefits for humans for respiratory conditions, cuts, wounds, and burns, etc.
By far the vast majority of conifers have been used medicinally for thousands of years with an excellent track record. Get to know your trees. They may provide a medicine cabinet full of health benefits to you and your family.

Pine, spruce, cedar, and fir needle tea may end up being the easiest way to gain the numerous benefits of the evergreen trees, along with a natural protection against unhealthy replications of spike proteins today.

Combine with other herbs as desired to obtain further benefits and flavors.

Sources for Pine Needles

There is one primary American supplier (Etsy) for the pine needles (besides harvesting your own) that I am aware of at this point with 3 quality listings, each from a different East Coast wildcrafter:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/966522916/eastern-white-pine-needles-1-lb

https://www.etsy.com/listing/728484784/blue-ridge-mountains-pine-needles

https://www.etsy.com/listing/681617302/north-eastern-appalachian-white-pine-tea

Here is the main reference link for new wildcrafters when they post their harvests:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/235866986/pine-needles-fresh-cut-or-dried

Dosage: 3 cups per day or more of any desired strength (based on the quantity of needles added to a french press or teapot) with an approximate 1-3 tablespoons of needles per cup of near boiling water. This is a maintenance health-building dose.

Stronger amounts of needles to water can be used therapeutically. If it feels too acidic (due to the vitamin C) for your system, moderate the quantity and complement the tea with alkalizing food and dark green herbs or sea vegetables.

— — —

In order to grasp the seriousness of the situation we are in, and to understand why, we need to look back in history to the times in which this very day had been forecast, obviously planned for, and now created.

Here is one clear example:

“Jacques Attali was an advisor to François Mitterrand (former President of France) and wrote this in 1981:

“In the future it will be a question of finding a way to reduce the population. We will start with the old man, because once he is over 60-65 years old, man lives longer than he produces and it costs society dearly.

Then the weak and then the useless who do not contribute anything to society because there will be more and more, and especially finally the stupid.

Euthanasia directed at these groups; euthanasia must be an essential instrument of our future societies, in all cases.

Of course, we will not be able to execute people or organize camps. We will get rid of them by making them believe that it is for their own good.

Too large a population, and for the most part unnecessary, is something economically too expensive. Socially, it is also much better for the human machine to stop abruptly rather than gradually deteriorate.

We won’t be able to pass intelligence tests on millions and millions of people, you can imagine!

We will find something or cause it; a pandemic that targets certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that will affect the old or the elderly, it does not matter, the weak and the fearful will succumb.

The stupid will believe it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution.

The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself: they will go to the slaughterhouse alone. “  This fragment is excerpted from his book “Brief History of the Future”, published in France in 2006.”

Understand that we are smart enough to find our own solutions, and apply them. Those willing to take proactive protective measures, maintain their health, and become more self-reliant will rise from this period of change and transformation successfully.

We will be the ones to structure the world to come with a new focus on the common good of all life everywhere. The old mindset expressed by that limited soul above will not be tolerated. That mindset, and those that harbor it, will vanish like the darkness before the approaching dawn. It is true that many will go with the passing night, yet those that remain will then shine all the brighter. Do your part. Take care of yourself first, then look to assist any willing to listen and join in the reconstruction.

—————————————————————————————–

Editors note:

Pine Tea Recipe

For a strong immune booster I recommend simmering Pine needles with any other combination of Fir, Cedar or Spruce. I am using a combination of half Pine and one third Spruce needles because that’s what grows in the forest next to my home.

Pine and spruce needles

Take from the tips of the branches just like you see in the image above.

I use enough water to cover the needles. Bring water to a boil, remove it from the heat and deposit the needles into the hot water. Immediately cover your pan. Place your pan on a second burner which is already turned to low and let your tea simmer on lowest heat for 15-20 minutes.

Be sure to keep the lid on while it simmers and keep covered for three minutes until after removing your tea from the burner. You want to keep all essential Pine oil trapped inside your tea water so they do not evaporate out because this contains the most vital nutrients as well as the spike protein antidote.

Pine needle tea

Pine needles and Pine tea are a super food and super antioxidant when used in moderation. It’s safe for everyone and will give a tremendous boost to your immune system, lift your mood and increase your energy.

Everyone must avoid Ponderosa Pine, especially pregnant women because it is both abortifacient and toxic. Also avoid mistaking the Yew tree for Pine which looks similar and grows among Pine but is not in the same family of trees. Yew is known to cause abortions in 5-8% of cattle. All other Pine is edible.

Expectant mothers must be careful not to consume too much or too strong concentrates of the Pine needle tea to avoid excessive detoxifying. Spruce needles have been used for thousands of years in Finland, as a dietary supplement.

We are being hit with bioweapons so I suggest drinking at least 3 to 6 cups of Pine needle tea each day. Your body will crave this nutritious tea and will tell you how much to consume. If you have a strong detox reaction reduce your intake.

Please visit my website to order Dr. Love’s Pine and Spruce needle tea, hand picked from Finland.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is pine needle tea the answer to covid vaccine shedding / transmission? Learn about suramin, shikimic acid and how to make your own extracts

# data[].attributes.subject
Is pine needle tea the answer to covid vaccine shedding / transmission? Learn about suramin, shikimic acid and how to make your own extracts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article and podcast are for informational purposes only. Nothing present here is intended to diagnose or treat any disease, and there are no supplements or products offered for sale in relation to this information.
Word is spreading that pine needle tea may offer a solution against covid vaccine "shedding" or transmission, which appears to be a phenomenon where vaccinated people are spreading harmful particles or substances to others around them. See this article from a WordPress blog site called "Ambassador Love."

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

That article states:
There is a potential antidote to the current spike protein contagion which is called Suramin. It's found in many forests around the world, in Pine needles. Suramin has inhibitory effects against components of the coagulation cascade and against the inappropriate replication and modification of RNA and DNA. Excessive coagulation causes blood clots, mini-clots, strokes, and unusually heavy menstrual cycles. Pine needle tea is one of the most potent anti-oxidants there is and it's known to treat cancer, inflammation, stress and depression, pain and respiratory infections. Pine tea also kills parasites.
Below, find a full podcast and video that reveals two extraction methods, both of which are simple, low-tech, low-cost methods that can be used almost anywhere.

Fresh pine needles from appropriate trees have been used for centuries as sources of vitamin C and other phytochemicals that Native Americans used to treat respiratory infections and other ailments. Vitamin C is a known cure for scurvy, as scurvy is a disease of vitamin C deficiency. Pine needles contain many other substances that appear to reduce platelet aggregation in the blood, potentially preventing blood clots that lead to strokes, heart attacks and pulmonary embolism diagnoses. (See published science sources below.)

Pine needles have been used by indigenous populations around the world as both food and medicine for thousands of years. Many people now believe pine needles may be able to offer protection from covid spike proteins - which are engineered bioweapons found in covid vaccines - as well as covid vaccine "shedding" particles, which also appear to be biological weapons designed to achieve global depopulation.

Dr. Judy Mikovits asserts that globalists are well aware that pine needle tea is the answer to covid depopulation weapons, and they are secretly using pine needle tea to protect themselves from the very plague they have unleashed upon the world, Mikovitz explains.

Digging into the science behind pine needles and covid

As a published laboratory scientist, I decided to dig into this question with the help of my laboratory knowledge and experience. Boiling fresh pine needles in order to make a tea is an extraction method that's commonly used in food science as well as Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

Water acts as a solvent, and through heat and time, some phytochemicals in the pine needles are extracted into the water, making a pine needle tea. (This is how all tea is made.)

As I poured over the published science research on this topic, I had two primary questions:

1) What molecules are found in pine needles, and what are their functions in relation to halting blood clots or protecting the unvaccinated from covid vaccine shedding?

2) What is the best extraction method to pull these molecules out of pine needles? Is there a low-tech extraction method that almost anyone can use, without needing a laboratory?

Through research, I found that pine needles not only contain suramin, a large molecule that's touted for various medicinal effects, but also shikimic acid.

Shikimic acid is the basis for Tamiflu, and it's the molecule found in Chinese Medicine herb Star Anise, that cures plagues

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that pine needles contain shikimic acid, the same molecule found in Star Anise herb used in Traditional Chinese Medicine to treat plagues and respiratory illness.

The Boston Herald published a story in 2010 that revealed researchers were studying extraction techniques to harvest shikimic acid from pine needles in order to provide this raw material to the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture anti-viral, anti-flu, anti-pandemic prescription medicines. From that story:
Researchers at the University of Maine at Orono say they've found a new and relatively easy way to extract shikimic acid - a key ingredient in the drug Tamiflu - from pine tree needles. Shikimic acid can be removed from the needles of white pine, red pine and other conifer trees simply by boiling the needles in water, said chemistry professor Ray Fort Jr. But the extracted acid could be valuable because Tamiflu is the world's most widely used antiviral drug for treating swine flu, bird flu and seasonal influenza. The major source of shikimic acid now is the star anise, an unusual star-shaped fruit that grows on small trees native to China. The research has been funded from a variety of sources, including the Maine Technology Institute, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation and the university's chemistry department.
One study published in ResearchGate confirms that shikimic acid offers antiplatelet-aggregating activity, meaning it helps halt blood clots: Content Analysis of Shikimic Acid in the Masson Pine Needles and Antiplatelet-aggregating Activity.

From the study:
Shikimic acid, when separated by HPLC, exhibited a dose-dependent inhibitory effect on platelet aggregation induced by adenosine diphosphate and collagen in rabbits. Because of the relative high content and good antiplatelet-aggregating activity of shikimic acid, the Masson pine needles can be used as a potential source of shikimic acid. ...achieved about a 6% yield of shikimic acid from Masson pine needles, which is possibly the highest extracted yield from any pine species till now (Chen et al. 2014). Since pine needles are inexpensive and readily available in North Asia, North America, and Europe, there is a strong possibility to utilize them as a drug manufacturer against less available star anise species
That study found that pine needles provide about two-thirds the shikimic acid of star anise herb:

Masson pine needles = 5.71% shikimic acid
Star anise = 8.95% shikimic acid

So we know that pine needles, which are extremely common across North America, China and Europe, provide shikimic acid, a kind of "miracle" molecule that may prove incredibly useful for halting blood clots and defending people from respiratory infections.

Further research led me to a study that used neural networking research to optimize the extraction conditions in order to carry out a highly efficient extract from pine needles: 17 Optimization of Extraction Conditions of Shikimic Acid in Pine Needles Based on Artificial Neural Network.

That study offers the following recipe for extraction optimization:

Use roughly 75% alcohol (such as vodka) and 25% water

Use an ultrasonic cleaning machine with a stainless steel vessel

Set the temperature to 65 degrees C.

Use 280 mL of extraction solution for every 10 grams of pine needles

Use a duration of 25 minutes for the ultrasonic extraction

This finished "tea" should be filtered through a coffee filter or other paper filter in order to remove large particles. The resulting liquid will contain shikimic acid, suramin, pigments and various terpenes, and will typically show some coloration and have a rather pungent taste.

Watch this video to see how I used an ultrasonic cleaning machine to create a water extract of rosemary herb:

How to extract shikimic acid using a common espresso machine

The most exciting finding in this research was discovering a published science paper that describes using a common espresso machine to carry out a highly efficient extraction of shikimic acid from star anise herb.

That paper is published in Science Direct: Total quantification and extraction of shikimic acid from star anise (llicium verum) using solid-state NMR and cellulose-dissolving aqueous hydroxide solutions.

The paper was published in Organic Letters in 2015, and also appears as a PDF at the University of Oregon website. (This link may be problematic in some browsers because it contains spaces in the URL).
Read More @ NaturalNews.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is pine needle tea the answer to covid vaccine shedding / transmission? Learn about suramin, shikimic acid and how to make your own extracts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article and podcast are for informational purposes only. Nothing present here is intended to diagnose or treat any disease, and there are no supplements or products offered for sale in relation to this information.

# data[].attributes.headline
RESEARCH: Dandelion leaf extract blocks spike proteins from binding to the ACE2 cell surface receptor

# data[].attributes.subject
RESEARCH: Dandelion leaf extract blocks spike proteins from binding to the ACE2 cell surface receptor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bypass censorship by sharing this link:

( Natural News) The engineered spike proteins from SARS-CoV-2 can be STOPPED by a common "weed" that is exterminated from lawns every year. A German university study found that the common dandelion ( Taraxacum officinale) can block spike proteins from binding to the ACE2 cell surface receptors in human lung and kidney cells. The water-based dandelion extract, taken from the plant's dried leaves, was effective against spike protein D614 and a host of mutant strains, including D614G, N501Y, K417N and E484K.

Dandelion extract blocks SARS CoV-2 spike proteins and their variants

The researchers used high molecular weight compounds taken from a water-based dandelion extract and put them to the test in human HEK293-hACE2 kidney and A549-hACE2-TMPRSS2 lung cells. The dandelion blocked the protein-to-protein interactions between the S1 sub unit of the spike protein and the human ACE2 cell surface receptor. This effect was also true against the spike protein mutations from the predominant variants in circulation, including the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7), South African (B.1.351) and Brazilian (P.1) variant.

The dandelion extract stopped SARS-CoV-2 spike pseudotyped lentivirus particles from attaching to lung cells and stopped an inflammatory process called interleukin-6 secretion. Because the study was conducted in vitro, further clinical studies are needed to understand how the dandelion extract is absorbed and utilized in biological systems of the human body.

As vaccines weaken herd immunity, natural herbs promise true prevention, more substantial immunity

Even though tens of billions of public funds have been poured into experimental vaccine development and propaganda campaigns, the world continues to struggle with new respiratory infections, as SARS-CoV-2 is pressured to mutate into different variants. There is no evidence to suggest that coronaviruses can be eradicated from the Earth, so human adaptation will be essential going forward. Dandelion extract is one of many herbs that will assist in a healthy immune response. Better yet, dandelion extract could prove to prevent infections altogether, by blocking the precise channel by which the spike proteins attach and cause viral replication.

Other natural compounds have been investigated using molecular docking studies. Nobiletin is a flavonoid isolated from citrus peels. Neohesperidin, a derivative of hesperetin, is a flavanone glycoside also found in citrus fruits. Glycyrrhizin is a molecular compound extracted from licorice root. All three of these natural substances also block spike proteins from binding to ACE2 receptors. Hydroalcoholic pomegranate peel extract blocks the spike protein at the ACE2 receptor with 74 percent efficacy. When its principal constituents were tested separately, punicalagin was 64 percent effective, and ellagic acid was 36% percent effective.

These natural compounds (along with dandelion extract) can be readily mass produced, combined and deployed as preventative medicine for all future spike protein variants. These herbs are generally recognized as safe, and there are no known cases of overdose with dandelion leaf extract. According to the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy, the recommended dosage of dandelion leaf is 4-10 grams steeped in hot water, up to three times per day.

The study authors warn that reliance on vaccines is risky and dangerous, not just for individual health but also for herd immunity. Vaccine reliance only focuses on antibody augmentation and is proving to be a high-risk intervention with short term results. Vaccine injuries are frequently reported. Re-infections post vaccination are also common, as the vaccine puts pressure on the original engineered spike protein to mutate.

The authors conclude: "Thus, factors such as low toxicity in humans and effective binding inhibition of five relevant spike mutations to the human ACE2 receptor, as reported here in vitro, encourage for more in-depth analysis of T. officinales' effectiveness in SARS-CoV-2 prevention and now requires further confirmatory clinical evidence."
Sources include: Biorxiv.org NaturalNews.com ScienceDirect.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RESEARCH: Dandelion leaf extract blocks spike proteins from binding to the ACE2 cell surface receptor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The engineered spike proteins from SARS-CoV-2 can be STOPPED by a common "weed" that is exterminated from lawns every year. A German university study found that the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) can block spike proteins from binding to the ACE2 cell surface receptors in human lung and kidn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an open letter to the Health Secretary Matt Hancock, Dr John Lee, former professor of pathology at Hull York Medical School and Dr Clare Craig, who runs the Covid19 Assembly Covid Deaths Audit, call for the government to take steps in order to avoid any doubt regarding the future attribution of Covid deaths. The full text of the letter appears below:
An open letter to:
Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Copied to:
Humza Yousaf, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Scotland

Eluned Morgan, Minister for Health and Social Services, Wales

Robin Swann, Minister of Health, Northern Ireland

Dear Mr Hancock,
Re: Covid Deaths Recording
We call on you to change the way COVID deaths are recorded, so that the numbers can be clearly compared with previous years.

Every winter season has a wave of deaths above the summer baseline, the majority of which are attributable to respiratory viruses.

Unfortunately COVID deaths have been counted in a way that is not comparable to previous recording of respiratory deaths. There are at least five differences:

1. Figures from 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 have been added together to give a cumulative total. This has never been done before.

2. Deaths directly due to COVID and deaths that occurred with the virus detected in a patient have been merged. Despite assurances that the very real difference between these two categories is officially understood, the two groups are presented as one number.

3. The criterion of attributing a COVID death on the basis of a positive test in the previous 28 days, even in the absence of symptoms of respiratory infection, is clinically dubious and has never previously been used.

We acknowledge the NHS recently adjusted criteria to define a COVID case to reduce overdiagnosis. These changes must apply to all people equally and ultimately apply to any subsequent deaths

1. Mass testing for a respiratory virus has never previously been carried out on the scale used for COVID. It is well known that respiratory viruses are incidentally present in nearly half of all deaths, giving ample opportunity for misattribution of causes of death in a way which is not comparable to previous years.

2. Doctors deciding on a cause of death, knowing that a patient with a positive COVID test is already recorded by Government as a COVID death are inevitably under pressure to attribute death to COVID or mention it on the death certificate.

The inevitable exaggeration of deaths "due to" COVID has meant that all-cause mortality has to be analysed to give a true indication of the extent of the harm caused by the new coronavirus, rather than having a genuine direct measure of its impact. The gap between apparent COVID mortality and excess all-cause mortality since Autumn has been obvious.

In order to return to a measure that is comparable with respiratory virus deaths from previous years (e.g. due to influenza) it is important that the Government urgently takes the following steps:

1. Cease adding future COVID deaths to the historic tally, put aside the headline grabbing "COVID death toll", and separate the 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and subsequent cohorts.

2. Advise doctors not to record COVID as a cause of death without sufficient clinical and laboratory evidence to defend that decision at inqu est. A single positive test alone is not adequate evidence.

3. Ensure that post mortems are carried out for a significant sample of clinically and laboratory confirmed COVID deaths.

4. Remove the criterion of "deaths within 28 days of a positive test" from all future counting of COVID deaths.

Many members of the public, politicians, and even medical professionals have a distorted understanding of the deaths that COVID has caused.

This is due to poor data quality acknowledged by the government from the outset, but compounded by the idiosyncratic, never previously used, and non-comparable way in which COVID deaths have been attributed.

Successful reopening of society requires dialling-down the fear of COVID which has been so successfully generated.

Presenting the COVID death data in a way that is comparable to previous years will be an important part of that.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Clare Craig BM B

Dr John Lee BMBS PhD FRCPath

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AN OPEN LETTER FROM DR CLARE CRAIG AND DR JOHN LEE TO MATT HANCOCK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an open letter to the Health Secretary Matt Hancock, Dr John Lee, former professor of pathology at Hull York Medical School and Dr Clare Craig, who runs the Covid19 Assembly Covid Deaths Audit, call for the government to take steps in order to avoid any doubt regarding the future attribution of Covid deaths.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy preliminary report

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy preliminary report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The NHS just changed how they count Covid "cases"...here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kit Knightly The UK's National Health Service has received new instructions from the government on how it should record Covid19 "cases", separating those who are actually sick from those who just test positive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File

We've been told for well over a year that widespread forced public masking should be implemented because, even if only moderately to slightly to negligibly effective at curbing the spread of COVID-19, there are ZERO drawbacks.

"What's the harm?" they ask.

"It's only a minor inconvenience," they bleat.

"If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it!" they implore.

Meanwhile, we on Team Reality have not only continued to point to real-world data that shows masking to be entirely ineffective, we've also maintained that forced public masking, especially long-term, has negative societal and even health ramifications that the powers-that-be are all-too-happy to ignore in subservience to their newfound face mask god.

It only stands to reason that one of those health ramifications would be the fact that millions of people, particularly children, have been forced to wear and carry around pieces of cloth they've continually breathed through for hours on end. What lurking pathogens might be found on these disgusting contraptions being incessantly handled, stuck in pockets, and mindlessly tossed on books, tables, and desks? Well, one group of Florida parents sent a batch of masks worn by their children to a lab to find out. And yeah, you'll probably need to make sure you aren't eating dinner anytime soon before you digest THESE results.

Via press release:

Gainesville, FL (June 16, 2021) - A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, concerned about potential harms from masks, submitted six face masks to a lab for analysis. The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. No viruses were detected on the masks, although the test is capable of detecting viruses.

The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

* Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)

* Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)

* Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)

* Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)

* Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs- resistant to antibiotics)

* Escherichia coli (food poisoning)

* Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)

* Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)

* Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires' disease)

* Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections-high morbidity rates)

* Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.

The face masks studied were new or freshly-laundered before wearing and had been worn for 5 to 8 hours, most during in-person schooling by children aged 6 through 11. One was worn by an adult. A t-shirt worn by one of the children at school and unworn masks were tested as controls. No pathogens were found on the controls. Proteins found on the t-shirt, for example, are not pathogenic to humans and are commonly found in hair, skin, and soil.

A parent who participated in the study, Ms. Amanda Donoho, commented that this small sample points to a need for more research: "We need to know what we are putting on the faces of our children each day. Masks provide a warm, moist environment for bacteria to grow."

These local parents contracted with the lab because they were concerned about the potential of contaminants on masks that their children were forced to wear all day at school, taking them on and off, setting them on various surfaces, wearing them in the bathroom, etc. This prompted them to send the masks to the University of Florida's Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center for analysis.

The below chart, put together by the group of parents, shows the potential dangers from each pathogen:

Appetizing, eh? Of course, nothing above, or anything else, will deter the extremists in the masking cult, some of whom now want to see masking in schools forever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Group Of Parents Sent Their Kids' Face Masks to A Lab for Analysis. Here's What They Found

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File We've been told for well over a year that widespread forced public masking should be implemented because, even if only moderately to slightly to negligibly effective at curbing the spread of COVID-19, there are ZERO drawbacks. "What's the harm?" they ask. "It's only a minor inconvenience," they bleat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich | Brian Gerrish - U.K. Column News Interview

# data[].attributes.headline
Astrid Stuckelberger | Global Corruption | Planet Lockdown

# data[].attributes.subject
Astrid Stuckelberger | Global Corruption | Planet Lockdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This interview with WHO whistleblower Astrid Stuckelberger pprovides insight into the inner workings of the organization. She worked on the International Health Regulations in multiple countries which form part of the legalese of how the pandemic was declared world wide. Listen to her perspective on how the actions of the WHO violate their own regulations.

Please donate to the project. Your contribution makes a real difference.
https://planetlockdownfilm.com/donate/

Subscribe to the email list for updates on the film and interviews:
https://planetlockdownfilm.com/lists/?p=subscribe

Watch more full interviews and educate yourself!
https://planetlockdownfilm.com/full-interviews/

Share and enjoy!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Astrid Stuckelberger | Global Corruption | Planet Lockdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This interview with WHO whistleblower Astrid Stuckelberger pprovides insight into the inner workings of the organization. She worked on the International Health Regulations in multiple countries which form part of the legalese of how the pandemic was declared world wide. Listen to her perspective on how the actions of the WHO violate their own regulations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MASSIVE: WORLD RENOWNED DOCTOR BLOWS LID OFF OF COVID VACCINE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Addendum Notice
by DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

Description

The Department of Health and Social Care is tendering for a 4-year UK-wide Framework to cover Assisted Testing requirements for the Authority (DHSC and other Contracting Authorities). This Framework is for the provision of Assisted Testing Services to support the Authority with outbreaks of viruses or diseases that require a testing programme. As part of this Framework the Government's Test and Trace Programme aims to deliver a comprehensive Assisted Testing Services across all four nations. The fully managed Assisted Testing Services are for any type of test site or location across the UK allowing for any test devices or technologies. The Services incl. but are not limited to the provision of Assisted Testing Services, training of own workforce or third parties, support of pilots and service evaluation of test devices, SOP development and deployment of the different roles individually. For additional information please refer to Section 'VI.3.0.1 Additional Information'.

Ammendments to Previous Notice

2. VI.3.0.1
For additional information please refer to Attachment 'FTS Notice - OJEU-001988 -the following document links: Additional Information'. Information: https://atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/0O000000rwim/a/4J000000kUzX/h_CroAiLXTkBt7ZB_eVfv5j_J2Q00z.M4z7oYWhLew0 Participating Authorities: https://atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O000000rwim/a/4J000000kUzc/XUONJgskl31y_.dA.dLhIhBxT5joO1BDZxGDCXWhh90 Bidders should note that the estimated values per Lot are indicative only as the Authority cannot predict with any certainty which Lots may be used for requirements. The Authority therefore reserves the right to go beyond the estimated value of a Lot where there is underspend on another Lot(s) and provided always that the Authority remains within the overall Framework value.

3. I.3.0.2
http://health.atamis.co.uk https://health-family-contract-search.secure.force.com/ProSpend__CS_ContractPage?SearchType=Projects&uid=a074J000007Fb5xQAC&searchStr=&sortStr=Recently+Published&page=1&filters=

4. I.3.0.7
http://health.atamis.co.uk https://health-family-contract-search.secure.force.com/ProSpend__CS_ContractPage?SearchType=Projects&uid=a074J000007Fb5xQAC&searchStr=&sortStr=Recently+Published&page=1&filters=

5. I.3.0.11
http://health.atamis.co.uk https://health-family-contract-search.secure.force.com/ProSpend__CS_ContractPage?SearchType=Projects&uid=a074J000007Fb5xQAC&searchStr=&sortStr=Recently+Published&page=1&filters=

CPV Codes

75131100 - General personnel services for the government

Other Information

** PREVIEW NOTICE, please check Find a Tender for full details. **

Reference

ocds-h6vhtk-02ab62

FTS 009376-2021

Domains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Addendum Noticeby DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE Description The Department of Health and Social Care is tendering for a 4-year UK-wide Framework to cover Assisted Testing requirements for the Authority (DHSC and other Contracting Authorities). This Framework is for the provision of Assisted Testing Services to support the Authority with outbreaks of viruses or diseases that require a testing programme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conservative Headlines , Health & Medicine A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors and policy experts has released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current COVID-19 vaccines and are now calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programs. We urge you to read and share this damning report.
YES! TERRIBLE! LOVE FAKE NEWS YUGE!

209.1k Views

There are two certainties regarding the global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. The first is that governments and the vast majority of the mainstream media are pushing with all their might to get these experimental drugs into as many people as possible. The second is that those who are willing to face the scorn that comes with asking serious questions about vaccines are critical players in our ongoing effort to spread the truth.

You can read an advanced copy of this manuscript in preprint below. It has been prepared by nearly five dozen highly respected doctors, scientists, and public policy experts from across the globe to be urgently sent to world leaders as well as all who are associated with the production and distribution of the various Covid-19 vaccines in circulation today.

There are still far too many unanswered questions regarding the Covid-19 vaccines' safety, efficacy, and necessity. This study is a bombshell that should be heard by everyone, regardless of their views on vaccines. There aren't nearly enough citizens who are asking questions. Most people simply follow the orders of world governments, as if they have earned our complete trust. They haven't done so. This manuscript is a step forward in terms of accountability and the free flow of information on this crucial subject. Please take the time to read it and share it widely.

SARS-CoV-2 mass vaccination: Urgent questions on vaccine safety that demand answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers

Roxana Bruno ¹, Peter McCullough ², Teresa Forcades i Vila ³, Alexandra Henrion-Caude ⁴, Teresa García-Gasca ⁵, Galina P. Zaitzeva ⁶, Sally Priester ⁷, María J. Martínez Albarracín ⁸, Alejandro Sousa-Escandon ⁹, Fernando López Mirones ¹⁰, Bartomeu Payeras Cifre ¹¹, Almudena Zaragoza Velilla ¹⁰, Leopoldo M. Borini ¹, Mario Mas ¹, Ramiro Salazar ¹, Edgardo Schinder ¹, Eduardo A Yahbes ¹, Marcela Witt ¹, Mariana Salmeron ¹, Patricia Fernández ¹, Miriam M. Marchesini ¹, Alberto J. Kajihara ¹, Marisol V. de la Riva ¹, Patricia J. Chimeno ¹, Paola A. Grellet ¹, Matelda Lisdero ¹, Pamela Mas ¹, Abelardo J. Gatica Baudo ¹², Elisabeth Retamoza ¹², Oscar Botta ¹³, Chinda C. Brandolino ¹³, Javier Sciuto ¹⁴, Mario Cabrera Avivar ¹⁴, Mauricio Castillo ¹⁵, Patricio Villarroel ¹⁵, Emilia P. Poblete Rojas ¹⁵, Bárbara Aguayo ¹⁵, Dan I. Macías Flores ¹⁵, Jose V. Rossell ¹⁶, Julio C. Sarmiento ¹⁷, Victor Andrade-Sotomayor ¹⁷, Wilfredo R. Stokes Baltazar ¹⁸, Virna Cedeño Escobar ¹⁹, Ulises Arrúa ²⁰, Atilio Farina del Río ²¹, Tatiana Campos Esquivel ²², Patricia Callisperis ²³, María Eugenia Barrientos ²⁴, Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse ⁵,*

¹Epidemiólogos Argentinos Metadisciplinarios. República Argentina.
²Baylor University Medical Center. Dallas, Texas, USA.
³Monestir de Sant Benet de Montserrat, Montserrat, Spain
⁴INSERM U781 Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Cité, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
⁵School of Natural Sciences. Autonomous University of Querétaro, Querétaro, Mexico.
⁶Retired Professor of Medical Immunology. Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
⁷Médicos por la Verdad Puerto Rico. Ashford Medical Center. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
⁸Retired Professor of Clinical Diagnostic Processes. University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
⁹Urologist Hospital Comarcal de Monforte, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
¹⁰Biólogos por la Verdad, Spain.
¹¹Retired Biologist. University of Barcelona. Specialized in Microbiology. Barcelona, Spain.
¹²Center for Integrative Medicine MICAEL (Medicina Integrativa Centro Antroposófico Educando en Libertad). Mendoza, República Argentina.
¹³Médicos por la Verdad Argentina. República Argentina. ´
¹⁴Médicos por la Verdad Uruguay. República Oriental del Uruguay.
¹⁵Médicos por la Libertad Chile. República de Chile.
¹⁶Physician, orthopedic specialist. República de Chile.
¹⁷Médicos por la Verdad Perú. República del Perú.
¹⁸Médicos por la Verdad Guatemala. República de Guatemala.
¹⁹Concepto Azul S.A. Ecuador.
²⁰Médicos por la Verdad Brasil. Brasil.
²¹Médicos por la Verdad Paraguay.
²²Médicos por la Costa Rica.
²³Médicos por la Verdad Bolivia.
²⁴Médicos por la Verdad El Salvador.
* Correspondence: Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse, [email protected]

Abstract

Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the race for testing new platforms designed to confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2, has been rampant and unprecedented, leading to emergency authorization of various vaccines. Despite progress on early multidrug therapy for COVID-19 patients, the current mandate is to immunize the world population as quickly as possible. The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding the safety of these vaccines. The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Spike for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce the production of Spike glycoprotein in the recipients. Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects, and the wide range of types of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in the groups that were excluded in the clinical trials. Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. We appeal to the need for a pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.

Introduction

Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, over 150 million cases and 3 million deaths have been reported worldwide. Despite progress on early ambulatory, multidrug-therapy for high-risk patients, resulting in 85% reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and death [1], the current paradigm for control is mass-vaccination. While we recognize the effort involved in development, production and emergency authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, we are concerned that risks have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities, despite calls for caution [2-8].

Vaccines for other coronaviruses have never been approved for humans, and data generated in the development of coronavirus vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies show that they may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Th2 immunopathology, regardless of the vaccine platform and delivery method [9-11]. Vaccine-driven disease enhancement in animals vaccinated against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is known to occur following viral challenge, and has been attributed to immune complexes and Fc-mediated viral capture by macrophages, which augment T-cell activation and inflammation [11-13].

In March 2020, vaccine immunologists and coronavirus experts assessed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine risks based on SARS-CoV-vaccine trials in animal models. The expert group concluded that ADE and immunopathology were a real concern, but stated that their risk was insufficient to delay clinical trials, although continued monitoring would be necessary [14]. While there is no clear evidence of the occurrence of ADE and vaccine-related immunopathology in volunteers immunized with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines [15], safety trials to date have not specifically addressed these serious adverse effects (SAE). Given that the follow-up of volunteers did not exceed 2-3.5 months after the second dose [16-19], it is unlikely such SAE would have been observed. Despite92 errors in reporting, it cannot be ignored that even accounting for the number of vaccines administered, according to the US Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS), the number of deaths per million vaccine doses administered has increased more than 10-fold. We believe there is an urgent need for open scientific dialogue on vaccine safety in the context of large-scale immunization. In this paper, we describe some of the risks of mass vaccination in the context of phase 3 trial exclusion criteria and discuss the SAE reported in national and regional adverse effect registration systems. We highlight unanswered questions and draw attention to the need for a more cautious approach to mass vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 phase 3 trial exclusion criteria

With few exceptions, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials excluded the elderly [16-19], making it impossible to identify the occurrence of post-vaccination eosinophilia and enhanced inflammation in elderly people. Studies of SARS-CoV vaccines showed that immunized elderly mice were at particularly high risk of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology [9,20]. Despite this evidence and the extremely limited data on safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the elderly, mass-vaccination campaigns have focused on this age group from the start. Most trials also excluded pregnant and lactating volunteers, as well as those with chronic and serious conditions such as tuberculosis, hepatitis C, autoimmunity, coagulopathies, cancer, and immune suppression [16-29], although these recipients are now being offered the vaccine under the premise of safety.

Another criterion for exclusion from nearly all trials was prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. This is unfortunate as it denied the opportunity of obtaining extremely relevant information concerning post-vaccination ADE in people that already have anti-SARS-Cov-2 antibodies. To the best of our knowledge, ADE is not being monitored systematically for any age or medical condition group currently being administered the vaccine. Moreover, despite a substantial proportion of the population already having antibodies [21], tests to determine SARS-CoV-2-antibody status prior to administration of the vaccine are not conducted routinely.

Will serious adverse effects from the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines go unnoticed?

COVID-19 encompasses a wide clinical spectrum, ranging from very mild to severe pulmonary pathology and fatal multi-organ disease with inflammatory, cardiovascular, and blood coagulation dysregulation [22-24]. In this sense, cases of vaccine-related ADE or immunopathology would be clinically-indistinguishable from severe COVID-19 [25]. Furthermore, even in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 virus, Spike glycoprotein alone causes endothelial damage and hypertension in vitro and in vivo in Syrian hamsters by down-regulating angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and impairing mitochondrial function [26]. Although these findings need to be confirmed in humans, the implications of this finding are staggering, as all vaccines authorized for emergency use are based on the delivery or induction of Spike glycoprotein synthesis. In the case of mRNA vaccines and adenovirus-vectorized vaccines, not a single study has examined the duration of Spike production in humans following vaccination. Under the cautionary principle, it is parsimonious to consider vaccine-induced Spike synthesis could cause clinical signs of severe COVID-19, and erroneously be counted as new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections. If so, the true adverse effects of the current global vaccination strategy may never be recognized unless studies specifically examine this question. There is already non-causal evidence of temporary or sustained increases138 in COVID-19 deaths following vaccination in some countries (Fig. 1) and in light of Spike's pathogenicity, these deaths must be studied in depth to determine whether they are related to vaccination.

Unanticipated adverse reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Another critical issue to consider given the global scale of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is autoimmunity. SARS-CoV-2 has numerous immunogenic proteins, and all but one of its immunogenic epitopes have similarities to human proteins [27]. These may act as a source of antigens, leading to autoimmunity [28]. While it is true that the same effects could be observed during natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination is intended for most of the world population, while it is estimated that only 10% of the world population has been infected by SARS-CoV-2, according to Dr. Michael Ryan, head of emergencies at the World Health Organization. We have been unable to find evidence that any of the currently authorized vaccines screened and excluded homologous immunogenic epitopes to avoid potential autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming.

Some adverse reactions, including blood-clotting disorders, have already been reported in healthy and young vaccinated people. These cases led to the suspension or cancellation of the use of adenoviral vectorized ChAdOx1-nCov-19 and Janssen vaccinesin some countries. It has now been proposed that vaccination with ChAdOx1-nCov-19 can result in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against Platelet factor-4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia [29]. Unfortunately, the risk was overlooked when authorizing these vaccines, although adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia has been known for more than a decade, and has been a consistent event with adenoviral vectors [30]. The risk of VITT would presumably be higher in those already at risk of blood clots, including women who use oral contraceptives [31], making it imperative for clinicians to advise their patients accordingly.

At the population level, there could also be vaccine-related impacts. SARS-CoV-2 is a fast-evolving RNA virus that has so far produced more than 40,000 variants [32,33] some of which affect the antigenic domain of Spike glycoprotein [34,35]. Given the high mutation rates, vaccine-induced synthesis of high levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike antibodies could theoretically lead to suboptimal responses against subsequent infections by other variants in vaccinated individuals [36], a phenomenon known as "original antigenic sin" [37] or antigenic priming [38]. It is unknown to what extent mutations that affect SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity will become fixed during viral evolution [39], but vaccines could plausibly act as selective forces driving variants with higher infectivity or transmissibility. Considering the high similarity between known SARS-CoV-2 variants, this scenario is unlikely [32,34] but if future variants were to differ more in key epitopes, the global vaccination strategy might have helped shape an even more dangerous virus. This risk has recently been brought to the attention of the WHO as an open letter [40].

Discussion

The risks outlined here are a major obstacle to continuing global SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Evidence on the safety of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is needed before exposing more people to the184 risk of these experiments, since releasing a candidate vaccine without time to fully understand the resulting impact on health could lead to an exacerbation of the current global crisis [41]. Risk-stratification of vaccine recipients is essential. According to the UK government, people below 60 years of age have an extremely low risk of dying from COVID-191 187 . However, according to Eudravigillance, most of the serious adverse effects following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination occur in people aged 18-64. Of particular concern is the planned vaccination schedule for children aged 6 years and older in the United States and the UK. Dr. Anthony Fauci recently anticipated that teenagers across the country will be vaccinated in the autumn and younger children in early 2022, and the UK is awaiting trial results to commence vaccination of 11 million children under 18. There is a lack of scientific justification for subjecting healthy children to experimental vaccines, given that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that they have a 99.997% survival rate if infected with SARS-CoV-2. Not only is COVID-19 irrelevant as a threat to this age group, but there is no reliable evidence to support vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in this population or to rule out harmful side effects of these experimental vaccines. In this sense, when physicians advise patients on the elective administration of COVID-19 vaccination, there is a great need to better understand the benefits and risk of administration, particularly in understudied groups.

In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:

Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vaccination with COVID-19?

Has the specific risk of ADE, immunopathology, autoimmunity, and serious adverse reactions been clearly disclosed to vaccine recipients to meet the medical ethics standard of patient understanding for informed consent? If not, what are the reasons, and how could it be implemented?

What is the rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the elderly, children and frequent specific conditions?

What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?

In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers. This is the only way to bridge the current gap between scientific evidence and public health policy regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

1. McCullough PA, Alexander PE, Armstrong R, et al. Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Rev Cardiovasc Med (2020) 21:517-530. doi:10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264

2. Arvin AM, Fink K, Schmid MA, et al. A perspective on potential antibody- dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2. Nature (2020) 484:353-363. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2538-8

3. Coish JM, MacNeil AJ. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19. Microbes Infect (2020) 22(9):405-406. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006

4. Eroshenko N, Gill T, Keaveney ML, et al. Implications of antibody-dependent enhancement of infection for SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures. Nature Biotechnol (2020) 38:788-797. doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0577-1

5. Poland GA. Tortoises, hares, and vaccines: A cautionary note for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development. Vaccine (2020) 38:4219-4220. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.073

6. Shibo J. Don't rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees. Nature (2000) 579,321. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00751-9

7. Munoz FA, Cramer JP, Dekker CL, et al. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease: Case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.055

8. Cardozo T, Veazey R. Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. Int J Clin Pract (2020) 28:e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795

9. Bolles D, Long K, Adnihothram S, et al. A double-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine provides incomplete protection in mice and induces increased eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary response upon challenge. J Virol (2001) 85:12201-12215. doi:10.1128/JVI.06048-11

10. Weingartl H, Czub M, Czub S, et al. Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankarabased recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J Virol (2004) 78:12672-12676. doi:10.1128/JVI.78.22.12672-12676.2004272

11. Tseng CT, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One (2012) 7(4):e35421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035421

12. Iwasaki A, Yang Y. The potential danger of suboptimal antibody responses in COVID-19. Nat Rev Immunol (2020) 20:339-341. doi:10.1038/s41577-020-0321-6

13. Vennema H, de Groot RJ, Harbour DA, et al. Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. J Virol (1990) 64:1407-1409

14. Lambert PH, Ambrosino DM, Andersen SR, et al. Consensus summary report for CEPI/BC March 12-13, 2020 meeting: Assessment of risk of disease enhancement with COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine (2020) 38(31):4783-4791. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.064

15. de Alwis R, Chen S, Gan S, et al. Impact of immune enhancement on Covid-19 polyclonal hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine development. EbioMedicine (2020) 55:102768. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102768

16. Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV287 19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2020) 396:467-783. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31604-4

17. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med (2020) 383:2603-2615. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

18. Ramasamy MN, Minassian AM, Ewer KJ, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet (2021) 396:1979-93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32466-1

19. Chu L, McPhee R, Huang W, et al. mRNA-1273 Study Group. A preliminary report of a randomized controlled phase 2 trial of the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccine (2021) S0264-410X(21)00153-5. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.007

20. Liu L, Wei Q, Lin Q, et al. Anti-spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection. JCI Insight (2019) 4(4):e123158. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.123158.

21. Ioannidis PA. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull WHO (2021) 99:19-33F. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892

22. Martines RB, Ritter JM, Matkovic E, et al. Pathology and Pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Fatal Coronavirus Disease, United States Emerg Infect Dis (2020) 26:2005-2015. doi:10.3201/eid2609.202095

23. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA (2020) 323:1239-1242. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2648

24. Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, et al. Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respiratory Med (2020) 8:420-422 doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X

25. Negro F. Is antibody-dependent enhancement playing a role in COVID-19 pathogenesis? Swiss Medical Weekly (2020) 150:w20249. doi:10.4414/smw.2020.20249317

26. Lei Y, Zhang J, Schiavon CR et al., Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2. Circulation Res (2021) 128:1323-1326. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

27. Lyons-Weiler J. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity, J Translational Autoimmunity (2020) 3:100051. doi:10.1016/j.jtauto.2020.100051

28. An H, Park J. Molecular Mimicry Map (3M) of SARS-CoV-2: Prediction of potentially immunopathogenic SARS-CoV-2 epitopes via a novel immunoinformatic approach. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 12 November 2020 [cited 2020 April 19] https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.12.344424

29. Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, Weisser K, Kyrle PA, Eichinger S. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination. N Engl J Med (2021). doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104840

30. Othman M, Labelle A, Mazzetti I et al. Adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia: the role of von Willebrand factor and P-selectin in mediating accelerated platelet clearance. Blood (2007) 109:2832-2839. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-06-032524

31. Ortel TL. Acquired thrombotic risk factors in the critical care setting. Crit Care Med (2010) 38(2 Suppl):S43-50. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c9ccc8

32. Grubaugh ND, Petrone ME, Holmes EC. We shouldn't worry when a virus mutates during disease outbreaks. Nat Microbiol (2020) 5:529-530. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0690-4

33. Greaney AJ, Starr TN, Gilchuk P, et al. Complete Mapping of Mutations to the SARS-CoV339 2 Spike Receptor-Binding Domain that Escape Antibody Recognition. Cell Host Microbe (2021) 29:44-57.e9. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2020.11.007.

34. Lauring AS, Hodcroft EB. Genetic Variants of SARS-CoV-2-What Do They Mean? JAMA (2021) 325:529-531. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.27124

35. Zhang L, Jackson CB, Mou H, et al. The D614G mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces S1 shedding and increases infectivity. bioRxiv [Preprint]. June 12 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 19] https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.12.148726

36. Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S et al. Sheffield COVID-19 Genomics Group. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 spike: evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell (2020) 182:812-827.e19. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043

37. Francis T. On the doctrine of original antigenic sin. Proc Am Philos Soc (1960) 104:572-578.

38. Vibroud C, Epstein SL. First flu is forever. Science (2016) 354:706-707. doi:10.1126/science.aak9816

39. Weisblum Y, Schmidt F, Zhang F, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS354 CoV-2 spike protein variants. Elife (2020) 9:e61312. doi:10.7554/eLife.61312

40. Vanden Bossche G (March 6, 2021) https://dryburgh.com/wp-356content/uploads/2021/03/Geert_Vanden_Bossche_Open_Letter_WHO_March_6_2021.pdf

41. Coish JM, MacNeil AJ. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19. Microbes Infect (2020) 22(9):405-406. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006

Figure legends

Figure 1. Number of new COVID-19 deaths in relation to number of people that have received at least one vaccine dose for selected countries. Graph shows data from the start of vaccination to May 3rd 365 , 2021. A) India (9.25% of population vaccinated), B) Thailand (1.58% of population vaccinated), C) Colombia (6.79% of population vaccinated), D) Mongolia (31.65% of population vaccinated), E) Israel (62.47% of population vaccinated), F) Entire world (7.81% of population vaccinated). Graphs were built using data from Our World in Data (accessed 4 May 2021) https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/tree/master/public/data/vaccinations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
57 Top Scientists And Doctors Release Shocking Study On COVID Vaccines And Demand Immediate Stop to ALL Vaccinations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conservative Headlines , Health & Medicine A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors and policy experts has released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current COVID-19 vaccines and are now calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programs. We urge you to read and share this damning report.

# data[].attributes.headline
Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

# data[].attributes.subject
Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
a. Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, California 94305, United States of America.

Correspondence to John P A Ioannidis (email: [email protected] ).

(Submitted: 13 May 2020 - Revised version received: 13 September 2020 - Accepted: 15 September 2020 - Published online: 14 October 2020.)

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2021;99:19-33F. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892

Introduction

The infection fatality rate, the probability of dying for a person who is infected, is one of the most important features of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The expected total mortality burden of COVID-19 is directly related to the infection fatality rate. Moreover, justification for various non-pharmacological public health interventions depends on the infection fatality rate. Some stringent interventions that potentially also result in more noticeable collateral harms may be considered appropriate, if the infection fatality rate is high. Conversely, the same measures may fall short of acceptable risk-benefit thresholds, if the infection fatality rate is low.

Early data from China suggested a 3.4% case fatality rate and that asymptomatic infections were uncommon, thus the case fatality rate and infection fatality rate would be about the same. Mathematical models have suggested that 40-81% of the world population could be infected,, and have lowered the infection fatality rate to 1.0% or 0.9%., Since March 2020, many studies have estimated the spread of the virus causing COVID-19 - severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - in various locations by evaluating seroprevalence. I used the prevalence data from these studies to infer estimates of the COVID-19 infection fatality rate.

Methods

Seroprevalence studies

The input data for calculations of infection fatality rate were studies on the seroprevalence of COVID-19 done in the general population, or in samples that might approximately represent the general population (e.g. with proper reweighting), that had been published in peer-reviewed journals or as preprints (irrespective of language) as of 9 September 2020. I considered only studies with at least 500 assessed samples because smaller data sets would result in large uncertainty for any calculations based on these data. I included studies that made seroprevalence assessments at different time intervals if at least one time interval assessment had a sample size of at least 500 participants. If there were different eligible time intervals, I selected the one with the highest seroprevalence, since seroprevalence may decrease over time as antibody titres decrease. I excluded studies with data collected for more than a month that could not be broken into at least one eligible time interval less than one month duration because it would not be possible to estimate a point seroprevalence reliably. Studies were eligible regardless of the exact age range of participants included, but I excluded studies with only children.

I also examined results from national studies from preliminary press releases and reports whenever a country had no other data presented in published papers or preprints. This inclusion allowed these countries to be represented, but information was less complete than information in published papers or preprints and thus requires caution.

I included studies on blood donors, although they may underestimate seroprevalence and overestimate infection fatality rate because of the healthy volunteer effect. I excluded studies on health-care workers, since this group is at a potentially high exposure risk, which may result in seroprevalence estimates much higher than the general population and thus an improbably low infection fatality rate. Similarly, I also excluded studies on communities (e.g. shelters or religious or other shared-living communities). Studies were eligible regardless of whether they aimed to evaluate seroprevalence in large or small regions, provided that the population of reference in the region was at least 5000 people.

I searched PubMed® (LitCOVID), and medRxiv, bioRxiv and Research Square using the terms "seroprevalence" OR "antibodies" with continuous updates. I made the first search in early May and did monthly updates, with the last update on 9 September 2020. I contacted field experts to retrieve any important studies that may have been missed.

From each study, I extracted information on location, recruitment and sampling strategy, dates of sample collection, sample size, types of antibody measured (immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgM and IgA), the estimated crude seroprevalence (positive samples divided by all samples tested), adjusted seroprevalence and the factors that the authors considered for adjustment.

Inferred infection fatality rate

If a study did not cover an entire country, I collected information on the population of the relevant location from the paper or recent census data so as to approximate as much as possible the relevant catchment area (e.g. region(s) or county(ies)). Some studies targeted specific age groups (e.g. excluding elderly people and/or excluding children) and some estimated numbers of people infected in the population based on specific age groups. For consistency, I used the entire population (all ages) and, separately, the population 0-70 years to estimate numbers of infected people. I assumed that the seroprevalence would be similar in different age groups, but I also recorded any significant differences in seroprevalence across age strata so as to examine the validity of this assumption.

I calculated the number of infected people by multiplying the relevant population size and the adjusted estimate of seroprevalence. If a study did not give an adjusted seroprevalence estimate, I used the unadjusted seroprevalence instead. When seroprevalence estimates with different adjustments were available, I selected the analysis with largest adjustment. The factors adjusted for included COVID-19 test performance, sampling design, and other factors such as age, sex, clustering effects or socioeconomic factors. I did not adjust for specificity in test performance when positive antibody results were already validated by a different method.

For the number of COVID-19 deaths, I chose the number of deaths accumulated until the date 1 week after the midpoint of the study period (or the date closest to this that had available data) - unless the authors of the study had strong arguments to choose some other time point or approach. The 1-week lag accounts for different delays in developing antibodies versus dying from infection. The number of deaths is an approximation because it is not known when exactly each patient who died was infected. The 1-week cut-off after the study midpoint may underestimate deaths in places where patients are in hospital for a long time before death, and may overestimate deaths in places where patients die soon because of poor or even inappropriate care. Whether or not the health system became overloaded may also affect the number of deaths. Moreover, because of imperfect diagnostic documentation, COVID-19 deaths may have been both overcounted and undercounted in different locations and at different time points.

I calculated the inferred infection fatality rate by dividing the number of deaths by the number of infected people for the entire population, and separately for people younger than 70 years. I took the proportion of COVID-19 deaths that occurred in people younger than 70 years from situational reports for the respective locations that I retrieved at the time I identified the seroprevalence studies. I also calculated a corrected infection fatality rate to try and account for the fact that only one or two types of antibodies (among IgG, IgM, IgA) might have been used. I corrected seroprevalence upwards (and inferred infection fatality rate downwards) by one tenth of its value if a study did not measure IgM and similarly if IgA was not measured. This correction is reasonable based on some early evidence, although there is uncertainty about the exact correction factor.

Data synthesis

The estimates of the infection fatality rate across all locations showed great heterogeneity with I ² exceeding 99.9%; thus, a meta-analysis would be inappropriate to report across all locations. Quantitative synthesis with meta-analysis across all locations would also be misleading since locations with high COVID-19 seroprevalence would tend to carry more weight than locations with low seroprevalence. Furthermore, locations with more studies (typically those that have attracted more attention because of high death tolls and thus high infection fatality rates) would be represented multiple times in the calculations. In addition, poorly conducted studies with fewer adjustments would get more weight because of spuriously narrower confidence intervals than more rigorous studies with more careful adjustments which allow for more uncertainty. Finally, with a highly skewed distribution of the infection fatality rate and with large between-study heterogeneity, typical random effects models would produce an incorrectly high summary infection fatality rate that approximates the mean of the study-specific estimates (also strongly influenced by high-mortality locations where more studies have been done); for such a skewed distribution, the median is more appropriate.

Therefore, in a first step, I grouped estimates of the infection fatality rate from studies in the same country (or for the United States of America, the same state) together and calculated a single infection fatality rate for that location, weighting the study-specific infection fatality rates by the sample size of each study. This approach avoided inappropriately giving more weight to studies with higher seroprevalence estimates and those with seemingly narrower confidence intervals because of poor or no adjustments, while still giving more weight to larger studies. Then, I used the single summary estimate for each location to calculate the median of the distribution of location-specific infection fatality rate estimates. Finally, I explored whether the location-specific infection fatality rates were associated with the COVID-19 mortality rate in the population (COVID-19 deaths per million people) in each location as of 12 September 2020; this analysis allowed me to assess whether estimates of the infection fatality rate tended to be higher in locations with a higher burden of death from COVID-19.

Results

Seroprevalence studies

I retrieved 61 studies with 74 eligible estimates published either in the peer-reviewed literature or as preprints as of 9 September 2020. ⁻ Furthermore, I considered another eight preliminary national estimates. ⁻ This search yielded a total of 82 eligible estimates (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Flowchart for selection of seroprevalence studies on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, 2020

All the studies tested for IgG antibodies but only about half also assessed IgM and few assessed IgA. Only seven studies assessed all three types of antibodies and/or used pan-Ig antibodies. The ratio of people sampled versus the total population of the region was more than 1:1000 in 20 studies (Table 2; available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892).

Seroprevalence estimates

Seroprevalence for the infection ranged from 0.02% to 53.40% (58.40% in the slum sub-population in Mumbai; Table 3). Studies varied considerably depending on whether or not they tried to adjust their estimates for test performance, sampling (to get closer to a more representative sample), clustering (e.g. when including household members) and other factors. The adjusted seroprevalence occasionally differed substantially from the unadjusted value. In studies that used samples from multiple locations, between-location heterogeneity was seen (e.g. 0.00-25.00% across 133 Brazilian cities).

Inferred infection fatality rate

Inferred infection fatality rate estimates varied from 0.00% to 1.63% (Table 4). Corrected values also varied considerably (0.00-1.54%).

For 15 locations, more than one estimate of the infection fatality rate was available and thus I could compare the infection fatality rate from different studies evaluating the same location. The estimates of infection fatality rate tended to be more homogeneous within each location, while they differed markedly across locations (Fig. 2). Within the same location, infection fatality rate estimates tend to have only small differences, even though it is possible that different areas within the same location may also have real differences in infection fatality rate. France is one exception where differences are large, but both estimates come from population studies of outbreaks from schools and thus may not provide good estimates of population seroprevalence and may lead to an underestimated infection fatality rate.

Fig. 2. Estimates of infection fatality rates for COVID-19 in locations that had two or more estimates, 2020

I used summary estimates weighted for sample size to generate a single estimate for each location. Data were available for 51 different locations (including the inferred infection fatality rates from the eight preliminary additional national estimates in Table 5).

The median infection fatality rate across all 51 locations was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%). Most data came from locations with high death tolls from COVID-19 and 32 of the locations had a population mortality rate (COVID-19 deaths per million population) higher than the global average (118 deaths from COVID-19 per million as of 12 September 2020; Fig. 3). Uncorrected estimates of the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 ranged from 0.01% to 0.67% (median 0.10%) across the 19 locations with a population mortality rate for COVID-19 lower than the global average, from 0.07% to 0.73% (median 0.20%) across 17 locations with population mortality rate higher than the global average but lower than 500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and from 0.20% to 1.63% (median 0.71%) across 15 locations with more than 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. The corrected estimates of the median infection fatality rate were 0.09%, 0.20% and 0.57%, respectively, for the three location groups.

Fig. 3. Corrected estimates of COVID-19 infection fatality rate in each location plotted against COVID-19 cumulative deaths per million as of September 12 2020 in that location

For people younger than 70 years old, the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 across 40 locations with available data ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% (median 0.05%); the corrected values were similar.

Discussion

The infection fatality rate is not a fixed physical constant and it can vary substantially across locations, depending on the population structure, the case-mix of infected and deceased individuals and other, local factors. The studies analysed here represent 82 different estimates of the infection fatality rate of COVID-19, but they are not fully representative of all countries and locations around the world. Most of the studies are from locations with overall COVID-19 mortality rates that are higher than the global average. The inferred median infection fatality rate in locations with a COVID-19 mortality rate lower than the global average is low (0.09%). If one could sample equally from all locations globally, the median infection fatality rate might even be substantially lower than the 0.23% observed in my analysis.

COVID-19 has a very steep age gradient for risk of death. Moreover, in European countries that have had large numbers of cases and deaths, and in the USA, many, and in some cases most, deaths occurred in nursing homes. Locations with many nursing home deaths may have high estimates of the infection fatality rate, but the infection fatality rate would still be low among non-elderly, non-debilitated people.

Within China, the much higher infection fatality rate estimates in Wuhan compared with other areas of the country may reflect widespread nosocomial infections, as well as unfamiliarity with how to manage the infection as the first location that had to deal with COVID-19. The very many deaths in nursing homes, nosocomial infections and overwhelmed hospitals may also explain the high number of fatalities in specific locations in Italy and New York and neighbouring states.,,, Poor decisions (e.g. sending COVID-19 patients to nursing homes), poor management (e.g. unnecessary mechanical ventilation and hydroxychloroquine) may also have contributed to worse outcomes. High levels of congestion (e.g. in busy public transport systems) may also have exposed many people to high infectious loads and, thus, perhaps more severe disease. A more aggressive viral clade has also been speculated. The infection fatality rate may be very high among disadvantaged populations and in settings with a combination of factors predisposing to higher fatalities.

Positive controls for the antibody assays used were typically symptomatic patients with positive polymerase chain reaction tests. Symptomatic patients may be more likely to develop antibodies. ⁻ Since seroprevalence studies specifically try to reveal undiagnosed asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections, a lower sensitivity for these mild infections could lead to substantial underestimates of the number of infected people and overestimates of the inferred infection fatality rate.

A main issue with seroprevalence studies is whether they offer a representative picture of the population in the assessed region. A generic problem is that vulnerable people at high risk of infection and/or death may be more difficult to recruit in survey-type studies. COVID-19 infection is particularly widespread and/or lethal in nursing homes, in homeless people, in prisons and in disadvantaged minorities. Most of these populations are very difficult, or even impossible, to reach and sample and they are probably under-represented to various degrees (or even entirely missed) in surveys. This sampling obstacle would result in underestimating the seroprevalence and overestimating infection fatality rate.

In principle, adjusted seroprevalence values may be closer to the true estimate, but the adjustments show that each study alone may have unavoidable uncertainty and fluctuation, depending on the type of analysis chosen. Furthermore, my corrected infection fatality rate estimates try to account for undercounting of infected people when not all three antibodies (IgG, IgM and IgA) were assessed. However, the magnitude of the correction is uncertain and may vary in different circumstances. An unknown proportion of people may have responded to the virus using immune mechanisms (mucosal, innate, cellular) without generating any detectable serum antibodies. ⁻

Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September 2020, far more than the approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower.

Funding:

METRICS has been supported by a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Competing interests:

I am a co-author (not principal investigator) of one of the seroprevalence studies.

References

WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 3 March 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 [cited 2020 May 10].

Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 16-24 February 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail/report-of-the-who-china-joint-mission-on-coronavirus-disease-2019-(covid-19) [cited 2020 May 10].

McGinty JC. How many people might one person with coronavirus infect? Wall Street Journal. February 14, 2020. Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-person-with-coronavirus-infect-11581676200 [cited 2020 Feb 27].

Ferguson NM, Laydon D, Nedjati-Gilani G, Imai N, Ainslie K, Baguelin M, et al. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. London: Imperial College; 2020. Available from: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf [cited 2020 May 10].

Meyerowitz-Katz G, Merone L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates [online ahead of print]. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep 29;S1201(20):32180-9. pmid: 33007452

Shakiba M, Nazari S, Mehrabian F, Rezvani SM, Ghasempour Z, Heidarzadeh A. Seroprevalence of COVID-19 virus infection in Guilan province, Iran [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244

Doi A, Iwata K, Kuroda H, Hasuike T, Nasu S, Kanda A, et al. Estimation of seroprevalence of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using preserved serum at an outpatient setting in Kobe, Japan: a cross-sectional study [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822

Fontanet A, Tondeur L, Madec Y, Grant R, Besombes C, Jolly N, et al. Cluster of COVID-19 in northern France: a retrospective closed cohort study [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.18.20071134

Slot E, Hogema BM, Reusken CBEM, Reimerink JH, Molier M, Karregat HM, et al. Herd immunity is not a realistic exit strategy during a COVID-19 outbreak [preprint]. Durham: Research Square; 2020. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-25862/v1

Streeck H, Schulte B, Kümmerer BM, Richter E, Höller T, Fuhrmann C, et al. Infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a German community with a super-spreading event [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090076

Thompson C, Grayson N, Paton RS, Lourenco J, Penman BS, Lee L. Neutralising antibodies to SARS coronavirus 2 in Scottish blood donors - a pilot study of the value of serology to determine population exposure [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.13.20060467

Bendavid E, Mulaney B, Sood N, Shah S, Ling E, Bromley-Dulfano R, et al. COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463

Snoeck CJ, Vaillant M, Abdelrahman T, Satagopam VP, Turner JD, Beaumont K, et al. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Luxembourgish population: the CON-VINCE study [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.11.20092916

Kraehling V, Kern M, Halwe S, Mueller H, Rohde C, Savini M, et al. Epidemiological study to detect active SARS-CoV-2 infections and seropositive persons in a selected cohort of employees in the Frankfurt am Main metropolitan area [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.20.20107730

Ng D, Goldgof G, Shy B, Levine A, Balcerek J, Bapat SP, et al. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and neutralizing activity in donor and patient blood from the San Francisco Bay Area [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.19.20107482

Hallal PC, Hartwig FP, Horta BL, Victora GD, Silveira MF, Struchiner CJ, et al. Remarkable variability in SARS-CoV-2 antibodies across Brazilian regions: nationwide serological household survey in 27 states [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.30.20117531

Jerkovic I, Ljubic T, Basic Z, Kruzic I, Kunac N, Bezic J, et al. SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in industry workers in Split-Dalmatia and Sibenik-Knin County, Croatia [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.11.20095158

Reifer J, Hayum N, Heszkel B, Klagsbald I, Streva VA. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody responses in New York City [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.23.20111427

Emmenegger M, De Cecco E, Lamparter D, Jacquat RPB, Ebner D, Schneider MM, et al. Early plateau of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence identified by tripartite immunoassay in a large population [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.31.20118554

Crovetto F, Crispi F, Llurba E, Figueras F, Gomez-Roig MD, Gratacos E. Seroprevalence and clinical spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first versus third trimester of pregnancy [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.17

Ling R, Yu Y, He J, Zhang J, Xu S, Sun R, et al. Seroprevalence and epidemiological characteristics of immunoglobulin M and G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic people in Wuhan, China [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.16.20132423

Chamie G, Marquez C, Crawford E, Peng J, Petersen M, Schwab D, et al. SARS-CoV-2 community transmission during shelter-in-place in San Francisco [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.15.20132233

Gomes CC, Cerutti C, Zandonade E, Maciel EKN, Carvalho de Alencar FE, Almada GL, et al. A population-based study of the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in Espírito Santo, Brazil: methodology and results of the first stage [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.13.20130559

Herzog S, De Bie J, Abrams S, Wouters I, Ekinci E, Patteet L, et al. Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS coronavirus 2 in Belgium - a prospective cross sectional study of residual samples [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.08.20125179

Fontanet A, Grant R, Tondeur L, Madec Y, Grzelak L, Cailleau I, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection in primary schools in northern France: A retrospective cohort study in an area of high transmission [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.25.20140178

Amorim Filho L, Szwarcwald CL, Mateos SOG, Leon ACMP, Medronho RA, Veloso VG, et al.; Grupo Hemorio de Pesquisa em Covid-19. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2020;54:69. pmid: 32638883

Tess BH, Granato CFH, Alves MC, Pintao MC, Rizzatti E, Nunes MC, et al. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the municipality of São Paulo, Brazil, ten weeks after the first reported case [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.29.20142331

Nesbitt DJ, Jin D, Hogan JW, Chan PA, Simon MJ, Vargas M, et al. Low seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Rhode Island blood donors determined using multiple serological assay formats [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.20.20157743

McLaughlin CC, Doll MK, Morrison KT, McLaughlin WL, O'Connor T, Sholukh AM, et al. High community SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in a ski resort community, Blaine County, Idaho, US. preliminary results [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.19.20157198

Figar S, Pagotto V, Luna L, Salto J, Manslau MW, Mistchenko AS, et al. Community-level SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey in urban slum dwellers of Buenos Aires City, Argentina: a participatory research [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.20153858

Nawa N, Kuramochi J, Sonoda S, Yamaoka Y, Nukui Y, Miyazaki Y, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in Utsunomiya City, Greater Tokyo, after first pandemic in 2020 (U-CORONA): a household- and population-based study [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.20.20155945

Nisar I, Ansari N, Amin M, Khalid F, Hotwani A, Rehman N, et al. Serial population based serosurvey of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a low and high transmission area of Karachi, Pakistan [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.28.20163451

Skowronski DM, Sekirov I, Sabaiduc S, Zou M, Morshed M, Lawrence D, et al. Low SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence based on anonymized residual sero-survey before and after first wave measures in British Columbia, Canada, March-May 2020 [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.13.20153148

Abu Raddad LJ, Chemaitelly H, Ayoub HH, Al Kanaani Z, Al Khal A, Al Kuwari E, et al. Characterizing the Qatar advanced-phase SARS-CoV-2 epidemic [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155317

Chang L, Hou W, Zhao L, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wu L, et al. The prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in China [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.13.20153106

Meyers K, Liu L, Lin W-H, Luo Y, Yin M, Wu Y, et al. Antibody testing documents the silent spread of SARS-CoV-2 in New York prior to the first reported case [preprint]. Durham: Research Square; 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-39880/v1

Malani A, Shah D, Kang G, Lobo GN, Shastri J, Mohanan M, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in slums and non-slums of Mumbai, India, during June 29-July 19, 2020 [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.27.20182741

Feehan AK, Velasco C, Fort D, Burton JH, Price-Haywood E, Katzmarzyk PT, et al. Racial and workplace disparities in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 4 July 15-31, 2020 [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.26.20180968

Westerhuis BM, de Bruin E, Chandler FD, Ramakers CRB, Okba NMA, Li W, et al. Homologous and he 1 terologous antibodies to coronavirus 229E, NL63, OC43, HKU1, SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2 antigens in an age stratified cross-sectional serosurvey in a large tertiary hospital in The Netherlands [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.21.20177857

Ward H, Atchinson C, Whitaker M, Ainslie KED, Elliott J, Okell L, et al. Antibody prevalence for SARS-CoV-2 following the peak of the pandemic in England: REACT2 study in 100,000 adults [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173690

Javed W, Baqar J, Abidi SHB, Farooq W. Sero-prevalence findings from metropoles in Pakistan: implications for assessing COVID-19 prevalence and case-fatality within a dense, urban working population [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.13.20173914

Khan MS, Qurieshi MA, Haq I, Majid S, Akbar A. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies in District Srinagar, northern India - a cross-sectional study [preprint].Cold Spring Harbor: bioRxiv; 2020. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.04.282640

Da Silva A, Lima-Neto L, de Azevedo C, da Costa L, Braganca M, Filho A, et al. Population-based seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is more than halfway through the herd immunity threshold in the State of Maranhão, Brazil [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.28.20180463

[Weekly report of the population serology survey of the corona epidemic.] Helsinki: Finland Department of Health and Welfare; 2020. [Finnish]. Available from: https://www.thl.fi/roko/cov-vaestoserologia/sero_report_weekly.html [cited 2020 Jul 12].

[First results on antibodies after review of covid-19 in blood donors.] Solna: Swedish Public Health Agency; 2020. [Swedish]. Available from: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2020/juni/forsta-resultaten-om-antikroppar-efter-genomgangen-covid-19-hos-blodgivare/ [cited 2020 Jul 12].

[Studie SARS-CoV-2-CZ-Preval.] Prague: Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic; 2020. [Czech]. Available from: https://covid-imunita.uzis.cz/res/file/prezentace/20200506-dusek.pdf [cited 2020 Jul 12].

Jaffe-Hoffman M. Coronavirus herd immunity? Not in Israel, according to a serological study. Jerusalem Post. 2020 Jun 2. Available from: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/coronavirus-herd-immunity-not-in-israel-according-to-a-serological-study-630059 [cited 2020 Jul 12].

First study carried out on herd immunity of the population in the whole territory of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Republic of Slovenia; 2020. Available from: https://www.gov.si/en/news/2020-05-06-first-study-carried-out-on-herd-immunity-of-the-population-in-the-whole-territory-of-slovenia/ [cited 2020 Jul 12].

[Popova declared immunity to coronavirus in 14% of those tested]. Interfax. 2020 Jun 10. [Russian]. Available from: https://www.interfax.ru/russia/712617 [cited 2020 Aug 12].

Gul A. Ten million Afghans likely infected and recovered: COVID-19 survey. VOA. 2020 Aug 5. Available from: https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/10-million-afghans-likely-infected-and-recovered-covid-19-survey [cited 2020 Aug 12].

Preliminary results of seroprevalence study in Tbilisi: 10 out of 1068 residents have coronavirus antibodies. Agenda.ge. 2020 Jun 29. Available from: https://agenda.ge/en/news/2020/2055 [cited 2020 Aug 12].

Genot L. In Brazil, COVID-19 hitting young people harder. The Jakarta Post. 2020 May 22. Available from: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/05/22/in-brazil-covid-19-hitting-young-people-harder.html [cited 2020 Jul 12].

COVID-19 pandemic in Croatia [internet]. Wikipedia; 2020. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Croatia [cited 2020 Jul 12].

COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic [internet]. Dover: Worldometer; 2020. Available from: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [cited 2020 Sep 12].

Booth R. Half of coronavirus deaths happen in care homes, data from EU suggests. The Guardian. 2020 Apr 13. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/half-of-coronavirus-deaths-happen-in-care-homes-data-from-eu-suggests [cited 2020 Apr 27].

Rosado J, Cockram C, Merkling SH, Demeret C, Meola A, Kerneis S, et al. Serological signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection: implications for antibody-based diagnostics [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.07.20093963

Wu F, Wang A, Liu M, Wang Q, Chen J, Xia S, et al. Neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 recovered patient cohort and their implications [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047365

Seow J, Graham C, Merrick B, Acors S, Steel KJA, Hemmings O, et al. Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429

Edouard S, Colson P, Melenotte C, De Pinto F, Thomas L, La Scola B, et al. Evaluating the serological status of COVID-19 patients using an indirect immunofluorescent assay, France [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.05.20092064

Solbach W, Schiffner J, Backhaus I, Burger D, Staiger R, Tiemer B, et al. Antibody profiling of COVID-19 patients in an urban low-incidence region in northern Germany [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.30.20111393

Cervia C, Nilsson J, Zurbuchen Y, Valaperti A, Schreiner J, Wolfensberger A, et al. Systemic and mucosal antibody secretion specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19 [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: bioRxiv. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.21.108308

Gallais F, Velay A, Wendling M-J, Nazon C, Partisani M, Sibilia J, et al. Intrafamilial exposure to SARS-CoV-2 induces cellular immune response without seroconversion [preprint]. Cold Spring Harbor: medRxiv; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.21.20132449

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
a. Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, California 94305, United States of America. Correspondence to John P A Ioannidis (email: [email protected] ). (Submitted: 13 May 2020 - Revised version received: 13 September 2020 - Accepted: 15 September 2020 - Published online: 14 October 2020.)

# data[].attributes.headline
$52 Million Campaign to Push COVID Vaccinations

# data[].attributes.subject
$52 Million Campaign to Push COVID Vaccinations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feb. 25, 2021 -- The Ad Council and COVID Collaborative launched a campaign on Thursday to encourage Americans to get a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available for them, marking one of the largest public education efforts in the U.S.

More than 300 major brands, media companies, community-based groups, faith leaders and medical experts are championing the campaign. Adobe, Disney, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Snapchat, Spotify, Twitter, Verizon, and YouTube have put their support behind it, as well as the NAACP, NBCUniversal, Telemundo, UnidosUS, ViacomCBS, and the Black Information Network.

The campaign emphasizes the message "It's Up To You" to get vaccinated. Created in partnership with the CDC, the platforms at GetVaccineAnswers.org (and DeTiDepende.org in Spanish) provide the latest information about COVID-19 vaccines and answer frequent questions that people may have. Content is available in seven languages: English, Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, and Vietnamese.

"We're listening to America's top questions, understanding their concerns, and working to educate and empower people across the country -- particularly communities of color who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic -- so they can make an informed choice about vaccination for themselves and for their families," Lisa Sherman, president and CEO of the Ad Council, said in a statement.

The Ad Council has launched a series of national coronavirus public service announcements during the past year, including the Mask Up America campaign, and messages about social distancing and fighting loneliness during the pandemic.

The campaign, which is funded by $52 million in private donations, is aimed at building vaccine confidence and clearing up questions about how safe COVID-19 vaccines are and how well they work. About 71% of Americans say they're willing to get a vaccine, according to a Gallup poll done at the end of January, including 9% who said they already received at least one dose of a vaccine.

In partnership with @theCOVIDCollab, today we are proud to announce the creative platform for our COVID-19 vaccine education initiative, "It's Up To You," the largest and most critical communications effort in our nation's history. pic.twitter.com/KfSZAYufUY
- adcouncil (@AdCouncil) February 25, 2021

At the same time, about 40% of Americans still haven't made a firm decision about vaccination, according to an Ad Council/Ipsos Public Affairs poll done this month. The poll also showed that only 40% of people in Black and Hispanic communities said they have enough information to make a decision about getting a vaccine, as compared with 60% of the overall population. In addition, about 75% of people who are hesitant about getting a vaccine said they want more information to address their questions, even if they're not yet eligible to receive a vaccine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
$52 Million Campaign to Push COVID Vaccinations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Feb. 25, 2021 -- The Ad Council and COVID Collaborative launched a campaign on Thursday to encourage Americans to get a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available for them, marking one of the largest public education efforts in the U.S. More than 300 major brands, media companies, community-based groups, faith leaders and medical experts are championing the campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) with Seronegative Status [ Time Frame: 14 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Moderate defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate greater than or equal to (>=) 20 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

2. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) with Seronegative Status [ Time Frame: 28 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 29) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Moderate defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate greater than or equal to (>=) 20 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Severe/Critical Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) with Seronegative Status [ Time Frame: 14 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Severe defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate greater than or equal to (>=) 30 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

2. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Severe/Critical Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) with Seronegative Status [ Time Frame: 28 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 29) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Severe defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate greater than or equal to (>=) 30 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

3. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical COVID-19 Regardless of their Serostatus [ Time Frame: 1 Day after double-blind vaccination (Day 2) to end of study (2 years and 1 months) ]

Moderate defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate >= 20 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

4. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical COVID-19 Regardless of their Serostatus [ Time Frame: 14 days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) up to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Moderate defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate >= 20 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

5. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical COVID-19 Regardless of Their Serostatus [ Time Frame: 28 days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) up to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Moderate defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate greater than or equal to (>=) 20 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

6. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of COVID-19 Requiring Medical Intervention [ Time Frame: 14 days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) up to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Number of participants with first occurrence of COVID-19 requiring medical intervention (such as a composite endpoint of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), linked to objective measures such as decreased oxygenation, X-ray or CT findings) or linked to any molecularly confirmed, COVID-19 at least 14 days post vaccination will be reported.

7. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of COVID-19 Requiring Medical Intervention [ Time Frame: 28 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 29) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Number of participants with first occurrence of COVID-19 requiring medical intervention (such as a composite endpoint of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), linked to objective measures such as decreased oxygenation, X-ray or CT findings) or linked to any molecularly confirmed, COVID-19 at least 28 days post vaccination will be reported.

8. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load as Assessed by Quantitative Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in Participants with Molecularly Confirmed, Moderate to Severe/Critical COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 14 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

The viral load of SARS-CoV-2 will be assessed in confirmed COVID-19 cases using RT-PCR. Nasal swabs will be used to detect and/or quantify SARS-CoV-2.

9. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Mild COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 14 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Molecularly confirmed mild COVID-19 is defined as a SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR or molecular test result from any available respiratory tract sample (example, nasal swab sample, sputum sample, throat swab sample, saliva sample) or other sample. Mild COVID-19 includes: Fever, sore throat, malaise, headache, muscle pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, cough, chest congestion, runny nose, wheezing, skin rash, eye irritation or discharge, or chills, without shortness of breath or dyspnea.

10. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Mild COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 28 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 29) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Molecularly confirmed mild COVID-19 is defined as a SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR or molecular test result from any available respiratory tract sample (example, nasal swab sample, sputum sample, throat swab sample, saliva sample) or other sample. Mild COVID-19 includes: Fever, sore throat, malaise, headache, muscle pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, cough, chest congestion, runny nose, wheezing, skin rash, eye irritation or discharge, or chills, without shortness of breath or dyspnea.

11. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed COVID-19 Defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Harmonized case Definition [ Time Frame: 14 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Molecularly confirmed moderate and severe/critical COVID-19 defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR or molecular test result from any available respiratory tract sample (example, nasal swab sample, sputum sample, throat swab sample, saliva sample) or other sample; and COVID-19 symptoms consistent with those defined by the US FDA harmonized case Definition at the time of finalization of this protocol: fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, diarrhea.

12. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed COVID-19 Defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Harmonized case Definition [ Time Frame: 28 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 29) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Molecularly confirmed moderate and severe/critical COVID-19 defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR or molecular test result from any available respiratory tract sample (example, nasal swab sample, sputum sample, throat swab sample, saliva sample) or other sample; and COVID-19 symptoms consistent with those defined by the US FDA harmonized case Definition at the time of finalization of this protocol: fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, diarrhea.

13. Burden of Disease (BOD) Based on First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Symptomatic COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 14 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

BOD will be evaluated based on the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed COVID-19, including mild, moderate or severe/critical COVID-19 case.

14. BOD Based on First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Symptomatic COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 28 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 29) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

BOD will be evaluated based on the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed COVID-19, including mild, moderate or severe/critical COVID-19 case.

15. Serologic Conversions Between Baseline (Day 1; Pre-vaccination), and Day 28, between Day 28 and Day 71, between Day 71 and Month 6/Unblinding Visit and 18 Months After Double-blind vaccination using an Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) [ Time Frame: Between baseline (Day 1; pre-vaccination), and Day 28, between Day 28 and Day 71, between Day 71 and Month 6 and 18 Months after double-blind vaccination (up to 78 Weeks) ]

Serologic conversion between baseline (Day 1; Pre-vaccination), and Day 28, between Day 28 and Day 71, between Day 71 and Month 6/unblinding Visit and 18 Months after double-blind vaccination using an ELISA and/or SARS-CoV- 2 immunoglobulin assay that is dependent on the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein will be reported.

16. Number of Participants with Asymptomatic Infection Detected by RT-PCR at the Time of the Month 6/Unblinding visit [ Time Frame: Month 6 ]

Number of participants with asymptomatic infection detected by RT-PCR at the time of the Month 6/unblinding visit will be reported.

17. Number of Participants with First Occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (Serologically and/or Molecularly Confirmed) [ Time Frame: 28 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 29) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ]

Number of participants with first occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (serologically and/or molecularly confirmed) with onset at least 28 days after vaccination (Day 29) to end of Study (2 years and 1 month) will be reported.

18. Number of Participants with Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) [ Time Frame: Up to 104 Weeks ]

SAE is any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose may result in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, is a congenital anomaly/birth defect, is a suspected transmission of any infectious agent via a medicinal product.

19. Number of Participants with Medically-Attended Adverse Events (MAAEs) [ Time Frame: Day 1 after double-blind vaccination (Up to 6 months); at Month 6 after open-label vaccination (up to 6 months) ]

MAAEs are defined as AEs with medically-attended visits including hospital, emergency room, urgent care clinic, or other visits to or from medical personnel for any reason.

20. Number of Participants with Medically-Attended Adverse Events (MAAEs) Leading to Study Discontinuation [ Time Frame: Up to 104 Weeks ]

MAAEs are defined as AEs with medically-attended visits including hospital, emergency room, urgent care clinic, or other visits to or from medical personnel for any reason. Routine study visits will not be considered medically-attended visits. New onset of chronic diseases will be collected as part of the MAAEs.

21. Number of Participants with Solicited Local Adverse Events (AEs) During 7 Days Following Vaccination [ Time Frame: Up to Day 8 (7 Days after double-blind vaccination on Day 1) ]

Participants who will be enrolled in safety subset will be asked to note in the e-Diary occurrences of injection site pain/tenderness, erythema, and swelling at the study vaccine injection site daily for 7 days post-vaccination (day of vaccination and the subsequent 7 days).

22. Number of Participants with Solicited Systemic AEs During 7 Days Following Vaccination [ Time Frame: Up to Day 8 (7 Days after double-blind vaccination on Day 1) ]

Participants who will be enrolled in safety subset will be instructed on how to record daily temperature using a thermometer provided for home use. Participants should record the temperature in the e-Diary in the evening of the day of vaccination, and then daily for the next 7 days approximately at the same time each day. If more than 1 measurement is made on any given day, the highest temperature of that day will be recorded in the e-Diary. Fever is defined as endogenous elevation of body temperature >= 38.0 degree Celsius or >=100.4-degree Fahrenheit, as recorded in at least 1 measurement. Participants will also be instructed on how to note signs and symptoms in the e-Diary on a daily basis for 7 days post-vaccination (day of vaccination and the subsequent 7 days), for the following events: fatigue, headache, nausea, myalgia.

23. Number of Participants with Unsolicited Adverse Events (AEs) During 28 Days Post-vaccination [ Time Frame: Up to Day 29 (28 Days after double-blind vaccination on Day 1) ]

Unsolicited AEs are all AEs for which the participant is not specifically questioned in the participant diary.

24. SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Titers as Assessed by Virus Neutralization Assay (VNA) [ Time Frame: Up to 104 Weeks ]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody titers as assessed by VNA to measure the humoral immune responses will be reported

25. SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibodies Assessed by ELISA [ Time Frame: Up to 104 Weeks ]

SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies as assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to measure humoral immune response will be reported.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Study of Ad26.COV2.S for the Prevention of SARS-CoV-2-Mediated COVID-19 in Adult Participants - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Primary Outcome Measures : Number of Participants with First Occurrence of Molecularly Confirmed Moderate to Severe/Critical Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) with Seronegative Status [ Time Frame: 14 Days after double-blind vaccination (Day 15) to end of study (2 years and 1 month) ] Moderate defined as one sign or symptom from a list of signs and symptoms, such as respiratory rate greater than or equal to (>=) 20 breaths per minute and symptoms such as shortness of breath or two signs or symptoms from a list of sign and symptoms or severe COVID-19 defined in FDA guidance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Primary Outcome Measures :

1. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

A binary response, whereby a participant is defined as a COVID-19 case if their first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness occurs

≥ 15 days post second dose of study intervention. Otherwise, a participant is not defined as a COVID-19 case.

2. The safety and tolerability of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo [ Time Frame: a: 28 days post each dose of study Intervention. / b: from Day 1 post-treatment through Day 730. ]

1. Incidence of adverse events.

2. Incidence of serious adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and adverse events of special interest.

3. The reactogenicity of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo (Substudy only) [ Time Frame: 7 days post each dose of study intervention. ]

Incidence of local and systemic solicited adverse events.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared tosaline placebo for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

The incidence of the first post-treatment response (negative at baseline to positive post treatment with study intervention) for SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid antibodies occurring greater than or equal to 15 days post second dose of study intervention.

2. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 using CDC criteria [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

The incidence of the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness for a participant occurring at or after 15 days post second dose of study intervention using criteria from the CDC.

3. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of University of Oxford defined symptomatic COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

The incidence of the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive symptomatic illness occurring ≥ 15 days post second dose of study intervention using University of Oxford defined symptom criteria.

4. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD12222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of severe or critical symptomatic COVID-19. [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

The incidence of SARS-CoV-RT-PCR-positive severe or critical symptomatic illness occurring 15 days or more post second dose of study intervention. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive severe or critical symptomatic illness occurring post first dose of study intervention

5. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of COVID-19-related Emergency Department visits [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

The incidence of COVID-19-related Emergency Department visits occurring ≥ 15 days post second dose of study intervention

6. Antibody responses to AZD1222 S antigen following 2 IM doses of AZD1222 or saline placebo (Substudy and Illness Visits only) [ Time Frame: 28 days post each dose ]

Post-treatment GMTs and GMFRs in SARS-CoV-2 S, RBD antibodies (MSD serology assay); The proportion of participants who have a post-treatment seroresponse (≥ 4-fold rise in titers) to the S, RBD antigens of AZD1222 (MSD serology assay)

7. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels in serum following 2 IM doses of AZD1222 or saline placebo (Substudy and Illness Visits only) [ Time Frame: 28 days post each dose ]

Post-treatment GMTs and GMFRs in SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (wild-type assay or pseudo-neutralization assay); Proportion of participants who have a post-treatment seroresponse (≥ 4-fold rise in titers) to AZD1222 as measured by SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (wild-type assay or pseudo-neutralization assay)

8. The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo in the prevention of COVID-19 in all study participants, regardless of evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

The incidence of the first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness occurring ≥ 15 days post second dose of study intervention regardless of evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection

9. The efficacy of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of COVID-19 following the first dose [ Time Frame: 1 year ]

The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness occurring post first dose of study intervention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Phase III Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study of AZD1222 for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Adults - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Primary Outcome Measures : The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of COVID-19 [ Time Frame: 1 year ] A binary response, whereby a participant is defined as a COVID-19 case if their first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness occurs ≥ 15 days post second dose of study intervention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Efficacy: Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of COVID-19 Starting 14 Days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 [ Time Frame: Part A only: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

2. Safety: Number of Participants with Adverse Events (AEs) or Medically Attended AEs (MAAEs) Leading to Withdrawal [ Time Frame: Up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

3. Safety: Number of Participants with Solicited Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions (ARs) [ Time Frame: Part A only: Up to Day 8 (7 days after first dose) and up to Day 36 (7 days after second dose) ]

4. Safety: Number of Participants with Unsolicited AEs [ Time Frame: Up to Day 57 (28 days after each dose) ]

5. Safety: Number of Participants with Serious AEs (SAEs) [ Time Frame: Up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of Severe COVID-19 Starting 14 Days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 or Placebo [ Time Frame: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Clinical signs indicative of severe COVID-19 as predefined for the study.

2. Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of Either COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 Infection regardless of symptomatology or Severity Starting 14 Days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 or Placebo [ Time Frame: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Clinical signs indicative of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 Infection as predefined for the study.

3. Number of Participants with a Secondary Case Definition of COVID-19 Starting 14 days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 or Placebo [ Time Frame: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Clinical signs indicative of secondary case definition of COVID-19 as predefined for the study.

4. Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of COVID-19 Starting 14 days after First Dose of mRNA-1273 or Placebo [ Time Frame: Day 43 (14 days after first dose of the Blinded Phase) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Clinical signs indicative of COVID-19 as predefined for the study.

5. Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of COVID-19 Starting 14 days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 or Placebo Regardless of Evidence of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection [ Time Frame: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Clinical signs indicative of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection as predefined for the study.

6. Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Absence of Symptoms Defining COVID-19 Starting 14 days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 or Placebo [ Time Frame: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ]

Clinical signs indicative of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection as predefined for the study.

7. Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) of SARS-CoV-2 Specific Neutralizing Antibody (nAb) [ Time Frame: Day 1, Day 29, Day 57, Day 209, Day 394, and Day 759 ]

8. Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) of SARS-CoV-2 Specific nAb [ Time Frame: Day 1, Day 29, Day 57, Day 209, Day 394, and Day 759 ]

9. Quantified Levels or GMT of S Protein-Specific Binding Antibody (bAb) [ Time Frame: Day 1, Day 29, Day 57, Day 209, Day 394, and Day 759 ]

10. GMFR of S Protein Specific bAb [ Time Frame: Day 1, Day 29, Day 57, Day 209, Day 394, and Day 759 ]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Study to Evaluate Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older to Prevent COVID-19 - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Primary Outcome Measures : Efficacy: Number of Participants with a First Occurrence of COVID-19 Starting 14 Days after Second Dose of mRNA-1273 [ Time Frame: Part A only: Day 43 (14 days after second dose) up to Day 759 (2 years after second dose) ] Safety: Number of Participants with

# data[].attributes.body
Pfizer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Percentage of participants in Phase 1 reporting local reactions [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Pain at the injection site, redness, and swelling as self-reported on electronic diaries.

2. Percentage of participants in Phase 1 reporting systemic events [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as self-reported on electronic diaries.

3. Percentage of participants in Phase 1 reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 1 month after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

4. Percentage of participants in Phase 1 reporting serious adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 6 months after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

5. Percentage of Phase 1 participants with abnormal hematology and chemistry laboratory values [ Time Frame: 1 day after dose 1 ]

As measured at the central laboratory

6. Percentage of Phase 1 participants with abnormal hematology and chemistry laboratory values [ Time Frame: 7 days after dose 1 ]

As measured at the central laboratory

7. Percentage of Phase 1 participants with abnormal hematology and chemistry laboratory values [ Time Frame: 7 days after dose 2 ]

As measured at the central laboratory

8. Percentage of Phase 1 participants with grading shifts in hematology and chemistry laboratory assessments [ Time Frame: Between baseline and 1 day after dose 1 ]

As measured at the central laboratory

9. Percentage of Phase 1 participants with grading shifts in hematology and chemistry laboratory assessments [ Time Frame: Between baseline and 7 days after dose 1 ]

As measured at the central laboratory

10. Percentage of Phase 1 participants with grading shifts in hematology and chemistry laboratory assessments [ Time Frame: Between before dose 2 and 7 days after dose 2 ]

As measured at the central laboratory

11. In the first 360 participants randomized into Phase 2/3, percentage of participants reporting local reactions [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Pain at the injection site, redness, and swelling as self-reported on electronic diaries.

12. In the first 360 participants randomized into Phase 2/3, percentage of participants reporting systemic events [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as self-reported on electronic diaries.

13. In the first 360 participants randomized into Phase 2/3, percentage of participants reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 1 month after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

14. In the first 360 participants randomized into Phase 2/3, percentage of participants reporting serious adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 6 months after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

15. In a subset of at least 6000 participants randomized in Phase 2/3, percentage of participants reporting local reactions [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Pain at the injection site, redness, and swelling as self-reported on electronic diaries.

16. In a subset of at least 6000 participants randomized in Phase 2/3, percentage of participants reporting systemic events [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as self-reported on electronic diaries.

17. Percentage of participants in Phase 2/3 reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 1 month after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

18. Percentage of participants in Phase 2/3 reporting serious adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 6 months after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

19. Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

20. Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants with and without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

21. Percentage of participants 12-15 years of age in Phase 3 reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 1 month after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

22. Percentage of participants 12-15 years of age in Phase 3 reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 6 months after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

23. In participants 12-15 years of age randomized in Phase 3, percentage of participants reporting local reactions [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Pain at the injection site, redness, and swelling as self-reported on electronic diaries.

24. In participants 12-15 years of age randomized in Phase 3, percentage of participants reporting systemic events [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ]

Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as self-reported on electronic diaries.

25. In participants who receive BNT162b2SA given as 1 or 2 doses, percentage of participants reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 1 month after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

26. In participants who receive BNT162b2SA given as 1 or 2 doses, percentage of participants reporting serious adverse events [ Time Frame: From dose 1 through 5 or 6 months after the last dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

27. In participants, who receive BNT162b2SA given as 1 or 2 doses, percentage of participants reporting local reactions [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 (and dose 2) ]

Pain at the injection site, redness, and swelling as self-reported on electronic diaries.

28. In participants who receive BNT162b2SA given as 1 or 2 doses, percentage of participants reporting systemic events [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 (and dose 2) ]

Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as self-reported on electronic diaries.

29. In participants who receive a third dose of BNT162b2, percentage of participants reporting adverse events [ Time Frame: From the third dose through 1 month after the third dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

30. In participants who receive a third dose of BNT162b2, percentage of participants reporting serious adverse events [ Time Frame: From the third dose through 6 months after the third dose ]

As elicited by investigational site staff

31. In participants who receive a third dose of BNT162b2, percentage of participants reporting local reactions [ Time Frame: For 7 days after the third dose ]

Pain at the injection site, redness, and swelling as self-reported on electronic diaries.

32. In participants who receive a third dose of BNT162b2, percentage of participants reporting systemic events [ Time Frame: For 7 days after the third dose ]

Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, and new or worsened joint pain as self-reported on electronic diaries.

33. Noninferiority of the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain neutralizing titers after a third dose of BNT162b2 at 30 µg compared to after 2 doses of BNT162b2, in the same individuals [ Time Frame: 1 month after the third dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

34. Noninferiority of the SARS-CoV-2 SA strain neutralizing titers after one dose of BNT162b2SA compared to the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2, in the same individuals [ Time Frame: 1 month after the third dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

35. Noninferiority of the SARS-CoV-2 SA strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2SA compared to the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2 [ Time Frame: 1 month after the second dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. In Phase 1 participants, SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing antibody levels, expressed as GMTs [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

2. In Phase 1 participants, GMFR in SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing titers from before vaccination to each subsequent time point [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

3. Proportion of participants in Phase 1 achieving a greater than or equal to 4-fold rise from before vaccination in SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing antibody levels [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

4. In Phase 1 participants, SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 binding antibody levels and anti-RBD binding antibody levels, expressed as GMCs [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

5. Proportion of participants in Phase 1 achieving a greater than or equal to 4-fold rise from before vaccination in SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 binding antibody levels and anti-RBD binding antibody levels [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

6. In Phase 1 participants, GMFR in SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 binding antibody levels and anti-RBD binding antibody levels from before vaccination to each subsequent time point [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

7. In Phase 1 participants, GMR of the geometric mean of SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing titers to the geometric mean of SARS CoV 2 (anti-S1 and anti-RBD) binding antibody levels [ Time Frame: Through 2 years after the final dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

8. Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 14 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

9. Confirmed COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants with and without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 14 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

10. Confirmed severe COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

11. Confirmed severe COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 14 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

12. Confirmed severe COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants with and without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

13. Confirmed severe COVID-19 in Phase 2/3 participants with and without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 14 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

14. Confirmed COVID-19 (according to the CDC-defined symptoms) in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

15. Confirmed COVID-19 (according to the CDC-defined symptoms) in Phase 2/3 participants without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 14 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

16. Confirmed COVID-19 (according to the CDC-defined symptoms) in Phase 2/3 participants with and without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 7 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

17. Confirmed COVID-19 (according to the CDC-defined symptoms) in Phase 2/3 participants with and without evidence of infection before vaccination [ Time Frame: From 14 days after the second dose of study intervention to the end of the study, up to 2 years ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

18. GMR of SARS CoV 2 neutralizing titers in the 2 age groups (12-15 years of age to 16-25 years of age) [ Time Frame: 1 month after the second dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

19. Incidence of asymptomatic SARS CoV-2 infection based on N binding antibody seroconversion in participants with no serological or virological evidence of past SARS CoV-2 infection or confirmed COVID-19 prior to 1 month after receipt of the second dose [ Time Frame: Through 1 month after the second dose ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

20. Incidence of asymptomatic SARS CoV-2 infection based on central laboratory-confirmed NAAT in participants with no serological or virological evidence (up to the start of the asymptomatic surveillance period) of past SARS-CoV-2 infection [ Time Frame: Through 6 months after the second dose ]

Per 1000 person-years of follow-up

21. Noninferiority of the SARS-CoV-2 SA strain neutralizing titers after a third dose of BNT162b2 at 30 µg compared to the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2, in the same individuals [ Time Frame: 1 month after the third dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

22. Noninferiority of the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain neutralizing titers after one dose of BNT162b2SA compared to after 2 doses of BNT162b2, in the same individuals [ Time Frame: 1 month after the first dose of BNT162b2SA ]

As measured at the central laboratory

23. Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 SA strain neutralizing titers after 1 dose of BNT162b2SA to after a third dose of BNT162b2 at 30 µg [ Time Frame: 1 month after the first dose of BNT162b2SA/third dose of BNT162b2 ]

As measured at the central laboratory

24. Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 SA strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2SA to the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2, in the same individuals [ Time Frame: 1 month after the second dose of BNT162b2SA ]

As measured at the central laboratory

25. Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 SA strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2SA to after 2 doses of BNT162b2 [ Time Frame: 1 month after the second dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

26. Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain neutralizing titers after 2 doses of BNT162b2SA to after 2 doses of BNT162b2 [ Time Frame: 1 month after the second dose ]

As measured at the central laboratory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Primary Outcome Measures : Percentage of participants in Phase 1 reporting local reactions [ Time Frame: For 7 days after dose 1 and dose 2 ] Pain at the injection site, redness, and swelling as self-reported on electronic diaries.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/502111-bill-gates-johnson-twitter/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Follow RT on

Boris Johnson's effusive response to a tweet from Bill Gates, which the public couldn't comment on, and the draconian restrictions imposed on the UK without debate are indicative of the way democracy has been suspended in 2020.

Prime Minister Johnson (or at least the person operating his account), doesn't respond to ordinary members of the public raising issues with him on Twitter. He doesn't respond to them by letter either, if my friend's un-answered postal communication to him is anything to go by.

Johnson is there to tell us what to do, not to hear what we have to say. There was no greater example of this than the recent Twitter exchange he had with US billionaire and vaccine promoter Bill Gates. Gates tweeted that it was " great to see" the UK commit "vital funding" (£550m) to a global Covid-19 vaccine scheme, and said that BoJo's plan would improve "the way we prepare for future crises like this. "

I wonder how many tweets Johnson is copied into over the course of a day? But tellingly, the only one the British prime minister replied to was one from an American who has an estimated fortune of $100bn. " Fantastic to have your support Bill," he declared.

Fantastic to have your support Bill. We will work with our friends around the world to ensure vaccines reach the poorest and deliver our five point plan to protect humanity against another pandemic.
- Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) September 28, 2020

Bill and Boris, the Vaxx Brothers. High-fiving each other on social media in an orgy of mutual congratulation. 'You're fantastic, Boris!' 'Well, I think you're pretty fantastic too, Bill!'

If the exchange made you want to reach for the sick bucket, and then leave a comment on the Gates/Johnson lovefest - perhaps to ask quite reasonably if BoJo had consulted with the British taxpayer first, before pledging another huge amount to a vaccine scheme - then forget it.

Both Gates and Johnson turned off the 'open to all replies' to their tweets. How 'democratic' was that?
Also on rt.com Boris Johnson's £100bn Operation Moonshot needs to be shot down - fast
For me, the Gates-Johnson Twitter exchange demonstrates quite clearly where we are, democracy-wise, in 2020. An American multi-billionaire has better access to the UK prime minister than British citizens have. It's the American plutocrat who the PM rushes to respond to on social media, not Joe Public, who elected him, less than one year ago.

And no one is allowed to answer either man back. We're all a bunch of peasants, don't you see? Davos Man only ever engages with fellow Davos Man. Or, as George Carlin put it, " It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."

Looking back, I don't think there's been a prime minister in British history who has treated the people who voted for him with such contempt as Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

Consider this: the 'reward' for Red Wall working-class voters in the north of England for giving Bullingdon Boy Johnson the Christmas present of a parliamentary majority of 80 last December has been to be locked down, and their own family festive seasons threatened with the nightmare prospect of police gatecrashing Christmas dinner to make arrests.

On the day that Johnson was drooling over Gates, his Health Secretary Matt Hancock was banning two million people in the north-east from socialising anywhere indoors.

Throughout 2020, such dystopian, anti-human rules have regularly been announced, usually late at night, through leaks to the press. There has not been even the most cursory public debate.

To add insult to injury, regulations, when published, have included new powers which were not even made public beforehand. For example, the latest diktat from Johnson's increasingly authoritarian regime includes bans on singing (by customers in groups more than six) and dancing in pubs. People only knew about this once the statutory instrument was published online.
Also on rt.com With Covid-19 exposing Johnson's flaws, which BoJo will we see after his recovery: the Oxbridge or the Uxbridge one?
Part of the problem is where we are in the electoral cycle. Dr. Johnson - no relation to Boris, I'm pleased to say - famously said that when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully; by the same measure nothing concentrates a politician's mind more than the fact that he or she soon has to face re-election.

MPs are jolly nice to us when an election is looming, and they desperately need our vote to keep their £81,000 p.a. - plus generous allowances - gig. But when there isn't one due for another four-and-a-half years, they tend to show their true colours. That's what's happened in 2020.

' Bouncing Boris ', the cheerful, freedom-loving, Churchill-idolising libertarian has - with an 80-seat majority in the bag - morphed into Boris the dictator. They said we'd all be laughing when BoJo the Jester became prime minister: believe me, no one's laughing in Britain now.

After six months of seeing centuries-old freedoms taken away from us, some Tory backbenchers are, to their credit, finally stirring from their slumbers and trying to force a vote on an amendment to the Coronavirus Act, which would give MPs the right to debate any more restrictions.

But their cause, and our cause, would undoubtedly be stronger if all this was happening in 2019, the year before an election, rather than the year after one. This year has exposed a number of serious fault lines in the way Britain operates, not least the way the public has such little influence over its politicians just after a general election.

We urgently need better mechanisms, not just for recalling MPs who don't listen to their constituents, but for sacking prime ministers - and governments - who overstep the mark, too, and forget that they're only in power because voters put them there.

Or perhaps we all need to dress up as Gates to get Johnson and his clique to pay us any attention.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'No peasants, please': BoJo's love-in with Bill Gates on Twitter shows just how broken UK democracy really is

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Follow RT on Boris Johnson's effusive response to a tweet from Bill Gates, which the public couldn't comment on, and the draconian restrictions imposed on the UK without debate are indicative of the way democracy has been suspended in 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
YouTube Bans "White Rose Society" Video; Watch it on Odysee / LBRY!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, I outlined how we are decentralizing as many things as we can with the goal of removing any reliance on Big Tech. One of the things we've been doing in recent years is syncing all o...

# data[].attributes.headline
Bill Gates predicts 700,000 victims from corona vaccination

# data[].attributes.subject
Bill Gates predicts 700,000 victims from corona vaccination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US billionaire Bill Gates is a big player in the corona crisis and in the vaccination business in general, finances the WHO vaccination program to a large extent and wants to vaccinate all 7 billion people against COVID-19, including those already cured. In an interview with CNBC, Gates says that for every 10,000 people, permanent vaccination damage would occur and he expects 700,000 victims.

Towards the end of the short CNBC interview Bill Gates (1) says:

„We have ... you know ... one in ten thousand ... ah ... side effects. Thats ... you know ... way more. Seven hundred thousand ... ah ... you know ... people who will suffer from that. So, really understanding the safety at gigantic scale across all age ranges - you know - pregnant, male, female, undernourished and existing comorbidities. It's very, very hard and that actual decision of ‚OK, let's go and give this vaccine to the entire world'... ah ... governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that ... ah ... can be decided on."

He expects 700,000 victims. And he's the one who is massively promoting this vaccination, whereby "promoting" is extremely euphemistic. So one can speculate about even more victims. These numbers are much higher than the actual number of victims caused by the corona virus, whether dead by or with Corona or "other victims". Regardless of whether one takes the increased numbers of the RKI or numbers represented by numerous experts (2). According to Gates, this would mean 8,300 corona vaccination victims for Germany with its 83 million inhabitants. He calls this - death or permanent disability - "side effects".

The responsibility and costs of compensation (as if it were so easy to compensate) for the vaccination campaigns should be carried by the states. Bill Gates has obviously learned to protect himself better (3-8). The price for this is the naming of presumed numbers of victims, but multi-billionaire Gates is probably quite sure that he will not be blamed by the media and politicians.

(1) https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Gates-700000-Dead.mp4?_=1
(2) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/120-expertenstimmen-zu-corona
(3) http://blauerbote.com/2020/04/24/opfer-von-bill-gates-impf-experimenten-eine-halbe-million-gelaehmte-kinder-in-indien/
(4) https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/134836/Schadensverdacht-nach-Schweinegrippe-Impfung-Ein-Piks-mit-finanziellen-Folgen
(5) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-corona-korruption
(6) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/krieg-gegen-einen-joker
(7) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-neue-macht
(8) https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/auf-den-punkt
Thanks to the author for the right to publish. Image source: Frederic Legrand - COMEO / shutterstock This article was first published by Blauer Bote. KenFM strives for a broad spectrum of opinions. Opinion articles and guest contributions do not have to reflect the views of the editorial staff. KenFM now also available as a free app for Android and iOS devices! Via our homepage you can visit the stores of Apple and Google. Here is the link: https://kenfm.de/kenfm-app/ Support us with a subscription: https://www.patreon.com/KenFMde You like our program? Information about further support possibilities here: https://kenfm.de/support/kenfm-unterstuetzen/ Now you can also support us with Bitcoins.
BitCoin address: 18FpEnH1Dh83GXXGpRNqSoW5TL1z1PZgZK

Veröffentlicht am: 12. Mai 2020

Anzahl Kommentare: noch keine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Gates predicts 700,000 victims from corona vaccination | KenFM.de

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US billionaire Bill Gates is a big player in the corona crisis and in the vaccination business in general, finances the WHO vaccination program to a large extent and wants to vaccinate all 7 billion people against COVID-19, including those already cured.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
YouTube temporarily suspended video featuring former UK pathologist's criticism of lockdowns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The video was reinstated when YouTube was asked for comment on the censorship.

# data[].attributes.headline
BRILLIANT: Dr. John Lee, Prof of Pathology UK - Unlocked Documentary!

# data[].attributes.subject
BRILLIANT: Dr. John Lee, Prof of Pathology UK - Unlocked Documentary!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BRILLIANT: Dr. John Lee, Prof of Pathology UK - Unlocked Documentary!

# data[].attributes.headline
Possible Antidote for the V-Serum and the Current Spike Protein Contagion

# data[].attributes.subject
Possible Antidote for the V-Serum and the Current Spike Protein Contagion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Good news (for once)! There's an ANTIDOTE for the current "vaccine/spike protein contagion, and it's readily available - nfu@simplelists.com - List archives - Simplelists.com

# data[].attributes.headline
2017-2021 Bit Chute LimitedNEBULIZED PEROXIDE- INTERVIEW WITH DR. DAVID BROWNSTEIN

# data[].attributes.subject
2017-2021 Bit Chute LimitedNEBULIZED PEROXIDE- INTERVIEW WITH DR. DAVID BROWNSTEIN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. David Brownstein, who has a clinic just outside of Detroit, has successfully treated over a hundred patients with what has become my favorite intervention for COVID-19 and other upper respiratory infections, namely nebulized hydrogen peroxide. H...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nebulized Peroxide- Interview with Dr. David Brownstein

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. David Brownstein, who has a clinic just outside of Detroit, has successfully treated over a hundred patients with what has become my favorite intervention for COVID-19 and other upper respiratory infections, namely nebulized hydrogen peroxide. H...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Dr. Richard Cheng, Cheng Integrative Health Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following is from Thomas Levy, M.D, J.D., a board certified cardiolosit and a prolific medical writer of 13 books and a international speaker. Thomas is a good friend of mine and I trust him. Dr. Frank Shallenberger is also an internationally well known doctor whom I trust as well. Although I have not personally tested this, I will recommend to you just in case you need it. This method makes scientific sense and is safe, most definitely worth trying, especially now at this global covid-19 crisis. -Richard Cheng, M.D., Ph.D.
An At-Home Treatment That Can Cure Any Virus, Including Coronavirus
Originally Conceptualized, circa 1990, by Charles Farr, MD
Subsequently Researched and Prescribed by Frank Shallenberger, MD
Current Protocol Created by Thomas Levy, MD, JD

Although COVID-19, aka coronavirus, is deadly in some select cases, and it can spread rapidly, there is a simple, very inexpensive, and highly effective treatment that can treat and rapidly resolve coronavirus and virtually any other respiratory virus. While different individuals can be expected to have variable degrees of positive response, this intervention can be anticipated to eliminate eventual fatal disease outcomes in all but the most advanced cases.

As I hope you will eventually experience, the treatment works for all acute viral infections, and especially well for flu viruses of any variety. In fact, although we are constantly conditioned to not believe in anything "too good to be true," you will never have to worry about getting a cold or the flu again because you can cure it on your own.

The key ingredient in this treatment is common household 3% hydrogen peroxide, and this is the same substance that can be purchased in a 32-ounce plastic bottle at Walmart, for 88 cents, or at Walgreens for under a $1.00. Perhaps you have never heard of hydrogen peroxide therapy, but since the treatment was first championed by Dr. Charles Farr in about 1990, thousands of doctors have used this therapy for decades to conquer infections in many thousands of patients throughout the world.

How and Why Hydrogen Peroxide Works

Because hydrogen peroxide consists of a water molecule (H2O) with an extra oxygen atom (H2O2), it is this extra oxygen atom that makes it so deadly for viruses. In order to comprehend why H2O2 therapy works so well, you must first understand that viral infections are eradicated from the body not by killing the virus itself, but rather by killing the cells that produce them.

Technically, viruses are not alive, and so it is not possible to kill them. But some agents can physically break down the viral structure and render them inactive. Viruses are actually pieces of genetic code that, in and of themselves, can neither survive nor reproduce. Therefore, in order to replicate, viruses need to infect cells, which means that in the interior of cell, a virus uses the cell's own DNA and RNA in order to effectively reproduce. Essentially, therefore, the virus controls an infected cell and uses the cell to manufacture new viruses. Then, the new virus can exit the cell and proceed to infect other cells. As a result, the way to control any viral infection is not to kill the virus; rather, the infected cells that have been turned into viral factories must be killed. This is the role of the extra oxygen atom in hydrogen peroxide.

Under normal circumstances with a healthy immune system, one's immune cells produce their own hydrogen peroxide to kill the infected cells that propagate viruses. When one's immune cells are overwhelmed, such as the case with COVID-19, hydrogen peroxide therapy merely assists the immune cells in doing the job for which they were originally created.

One Disadvantage of Dr. Farr's Original H2O2 Therapy

From a patient and consumer perspective, the single main drawback to Dr. Farr's original therapy is/was that it is primarily an intravenous (IV) therapy. Under most circumstances, this means that you must either administer the IV needle yourself or depend upon another person to assist you. Unfortunately, this is beyond the logistical (and perhaps financial) capacity of most people, and it may be one reason why the original hydrogen peroxide therapy is not more widespread. Nevertheless, it should be realized that the proper intravenous application of hydrogen peroxide exerts a powerful anti-viral and general anti-pathogen effect.

Dr. Shallenberger's Ingenious Use of a Nebulizer

The great news is that there is a safe and simple way to avoid doctors and IV needles. This method developed by Dr. Frank Shallenberger is almost as effective as IV, can be performed at home, and is much less costly than IV.

The treatment is known as nebulized hydrogen peroxide, and Dr. Shallenberger began using the technique some years ago when he had a patient who was taking asthma medication that her doctor had been administering in a nebulizer. For those who are unfamiliar, a nebulizer is a device that is able to convert a liquid into tiny, microscopic bubbles. As a result, these extremely small bubbles, which appear as smoke escaping from the nebulizer, can be inhaled into the deepest regions of the lungs without any discomfort or irritation. Such a device has long been utilized for asthmatics to get medication to open their lungs, but Shallenberger further noticed that nebulizers have a systemic effect, which is delivery far beyond the lungs only. According to one of Dr. Shallenberger's patients, the inhalation of her prescribed drug in the nebulizer was "unbelievably strong," and "affected her entire body."

What Was Taking Place

It turns out that the tiny bubbles were not only providing medication to the patient's lungs, but the drug was being delivered to her entire body through her lungs. Based on Dr. Farr's prior research, Shallenberger reasoned that perhaps H2O2 could be delivered to the entire body with a nebulizer.

Dr. Shallenberger tried the nebulizer delivery system on himself, and he was delighted to discover that the treatment was extremely easy to administer, very comfortable like breathing extremely pure air, and the treatment was in no way irritating. Shallenberger's first actually ill test subject was his wife who had developed the initial symptoms of flu. She immediately began 10-minute treatments every waking hour, and within 72 hours, (three days), the flu was fully cured. Shallenberger was predictably amazed in that even IV hydrogen peroxide cannot resolve flu in much less time.

Since Mrs. Shallenberger's rapid recovery, Dr. Shallenberger has treated hundreds of cases of colds, flus, sinusitis, and bronchitis all with the same results. Indeed, Shallenberger has discovered that nebulizer treatments actually have an advantage over the IV therapy. Not only is the hydrogen peroxide disseminated into the entire body through the lungs, it is also going directly to the areas of the body that are most affected by viruses: the sinuses, throat, bronchial tract, and lungs. This is especially important since colds and flu viruses replicate to very high titers in these areas, serving to supply a continuous feed of virus to the rest of the body. Effective hydrogen peroxide nebulization quite literally, "chops the head off of the snake," and the virus present elsewhere in the body can then readily be mopped up when the new virus influx has been terminated.

It should be kept in mind that hydrogen peroxide kills all pathogens very readily upon contact in an open wound. It should, therefore, be understandable why putting a fine mist of hydrogen peroxide in all the areas of maximal viral replication promptly puts the body on a pathway to rapid healing.
Dr. Levy's Simple, Inexpensive, and Extremely Effective H2O2 Protocol

Early Onset and Treatment of Virus

Regular off-the shelf 3% hydrogen peroxide can be utilized. Preparations of greater pharmacological purity can be obtained if desired.

For most adults, the 3% concentration can be utilized in the nebulization chamber undiluted. This optimizes the degree and rapidity of anti-viral and anti-pathogen effect.

When a runny nose or slightly sore throat is already present, it is recommended that 10-to 15-minute nebulization sessions be undertaken roughly four times daily or until a symptomatic relief is realized. Many individuals report significant improvement only a few hours after the first one or two treatments. But it would be advisable to persist in these treatments several times daily for at least 24 to 48 hours after you feel everything is completely normal in your sinuses, nose, and throat.

For some, the 3% concentration results in too much stinging/burning in the nose. Such individuals can dilute with water until they find their highest tolerable concentration. Nearly everybody can tolerate a 50/50 combination of the 3% hydrogen peroxide and water. However, still lower concentrations can be utilized with clearly beneficial effect.

Prevention/Maintenance

As it is a completely non-toxic therapy, nebulization can be administered as often as desired. If done on a daily basis at least once, a very positive impact on bowel and gut function will often be realized as killing the chronic pathogen colonization present in most noses and throats stops the 24/7 swallowing of these pathogens and their associated toxins.

If daily prevention is not a practical option, the effectiveness of this treatment is optimized when somebody sneezes in your face or you finally get off of the plane after a trans-Atlantic flight. Don't wait for initial symptoms. Just nebulize at your first opportunity.

， run down and constantly require recharging or replacement.

Final Note: This fact and protocol sheet does not contain a copyright, and a patent has not been applied for. Therefore, I encourage the reader to disseminate the contents far and wide to as many people as possible. Because you now have a simple, inexpensive, and effective way to conquer virtually all viral infections, you do not have to live in fear of COVID-19 or any other pandemic.

Yours in good health,

Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD
www.PeakEnergy.com

March 18, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hydrogen peroxide nebulizer to treat Covid-19 infection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following is from Thomas Levy, M.D, J.D., a board certified cardiolosit and a prolific medical writer of 13 books and a international speaker. Thomas is a good friend of mine and I trust him. Dr. Frank Shallenberger is also an internationally well known doctor whom I trust as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With so many designs to choose from, You may want to grab a pen and paper before ordering...

Price per print, Print to order, feel free to mix and match

1 - The Idea That

2 - There is no pandemic

3 - Stay Free

4 - Hands, Face, Embrace

5 - Stop Saying Asymptomatic

6 - The only way to deal with

7 - R.I.P Flu

8 - Resist the New World Order

9 - The Media is the Virus

10 - There is a Spike

11 - No More Lockdowns

12 - My Freedom Doesn't End

13 - And Just like that

14 - Let's Play Pretend

15 - In a real pandemic

16 - Imagine, if you will

17 - Vaccinate This

18 - If you tell a lie enough

19 - It becomes covid 19

20 - Notice, Face masks

21 - You Look Ridiculous

22 - Is this person

23 - Thinking for yourself

24 - Ditch The Muzzle

25 - Rona TV

26 - All they had to do to strip

27 - Imagine a vaccine so safe

28 - Graw a pair

29 - Be Honest with yourself

30 - Birdcage

31 - Can you believe mask wearers

32 - Same man, Overpopulated

33 - 271 weeks to flatten the curve

34 - News at 6

35 - Report the people next door

36 - Fabricated Statistics

37 - If the situation was hopeless

38 - If you are afraid of breathing

39 - If you are afraid to live

40 - You have to be tested to know you have it

41 - In a real pandemic- real or not

42 - All part of a larger agenda

43 - Let's all stay inside

44 - Any business is essential

45 - If masks work

46 - Imagine still believing its about a virus

47 - Men in 1941

48 - Our forefathers gave thier lives

49 - Obedience / Resistance

50 - Resist the Great Reset

51 - Resist the new normal

52 - The world has 6.8 Billion People

53 - This only ends when you take off the muzzle

54 - Panic Button

55 - Your Obedience is Prolonging this nightmare

56 - Daddy, What were you doing

57 - We've Become a society of spineless

58 - A message to the Police

59 - When the Government

60 - Are you going to be able to look at your children

61 - Repeat after me

62 - Save lives, Stop Living

63 - Breathing Bacteria

64 - Security, Freedom

65 - Sick until proven healthy

66 - Look into her eyes, cant feed kids

67 - Look him in the eyes, homeless now

68 - Look her in the eyes, no future

69 - Look him in the eyes, Suicide

70 - Anti-Vaxxer

71 - A Genuinely deadly pandemic, 24/7

72 - Prescribed House arrest

73 - Ever feel you've been cheated

74 - How bad is it doc?

75 - According to the Government

76 - Always darkest before dawn

77 - Sleeping Giant

78 - Nothing can stop humanity

79 - Be Honest, Mask Useless

80 - Bacteria keeps me safe

81 - Paid crisis actor

82 - Fauci is a front man

83 - The Great DNA Reset

84 - We just don't know, Zuckerberg

85 - This is the greatest Hoax

86 - Faucism

87 - There is no curve

88 - The flu killed 665,000 last year

89 - You've had the power all along

90 - Government health advice

91 - Agenda 21/30

92 - It's about submission

93 - Plandemic is over

94 - Fauci doesn't know anything

95 - Danger, Killer clown at large

96 - Mediavirus, act like

97 - Tinfoil hat for Conspiracu Deniers

98 - Mummy, whats an immune system

99 - And, is this pandemic in the room

100 - Please wait here

101 - Please wait here, Governement Lying to you

102 - Please wait here, Media brainwashing you

103 - Please wait here, Media is lying to you

104 - When you ban holidays

105 - Did you know, vax trial until 2023

106 - Dad, Why do people give up freedom for security

107 - Everyone supports the white rose

108 - Tinfoil hat for normies

109 - Tinfoal hat for Sheeple

110 - Tinfoil Hat for statists

111 - Show me your covid vax card

112 - Stop the spread of dissent

113 - Why aren't you wearing a mask

114 - White rose has supporters everywhere

115 - The Media is the Virus

116 - By 2030 you will own nothing

117 - Operation Mockingbird

118 - Are you going to wear a mask all your life?

119 - Oh Look - The news is on

120 - Stop Scratching your head

121 - Not our prime minister but

122 - Asking you to think

123 - Sticker campaign in progress

124 - Covidiot

125 - Stop believing c19 propaganda

126 - If you don't sacrifice

127 - We are not buying covid lies

128 - We are not taking your Jab

129 - Covid Lies, How can I help you

130 - Hello Coronavirus, Howcan I help you

131 - Can't you see who he really is

132 - Never in the field of human conflict

133 - If you accept restrictions

134 - The Presstitutes

135 - Do not let them keep you blind and deaf

136 - Incase I have an accident

137 - Prevents getting laid

138 - No Thanks, keep your new normal

139 - Refusing vaccines does'nt threaten herd immunity

140 - If people are adversely affected

141 - If you really believe a bunch of

142 - covid 1984

143 - Whoever controls the media

144 - 5 step vaccine risk/benifit

145 - Finally get why these guys never run

146 - A dose of delivery

147 - Just say no to the prick

148 - Still waiting for mainstream to tell the truth

149 - Even the Police Support the white rose

150 - Work for the NHS?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
White Rose Selectable Designs (Price per print) | Unsigned-FM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With so many designs to choose from, You may want to grab a pen and paper before ordering...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The UK digital identity and attributes trust framework

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.headline
COVID-19: NHS SCUMBAGGERY EXPOSED [2021-04-14] - WAKEY WAKEY (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.subject
COVID-19: NHS SCUMBAGGERY EXPOSED [2021-04-14] - WAKEY WAKEY (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Published on 18 Apr 2021 / In Health

COVID-19: NHS SCUMBAGGERY EXPOSED [2021-04-14] - WAKEY WAKEY (VIDEO)

SERGEANT MAJOR'S TRUTHER INFO
[MeWe] https://mewe.com/join/sergeantmajorstrutherinfo
[Spreely] https://www.spreely.com/page/S....ergeantMajorsTruther
[Gab] https://gab.com/Sergeant_Major
[Bitchute] https://www.bitchute.com/channel/sergeant-major/
[Brighteon] https://www.brighteon.com/channels/sergeantmajor
[UGETube] https://videos.utahgunexchange.....com/@SERGEANT%20MAJ
[OurTube] https://ourtube.co.uk/@SGMs_Truther_Info
[NewTube] https://newtube.app/user/SGMs_TRUTHER_INFO
[BrandNewTube] https://brandnewtube.com/@SergeantMajor
[Odysee] https://odysee.com/$/invite/4d....CmT1hh84DFXxzRvUh2B8
[Lbry] https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@SergeantMajor'sTrutherInfo#21f9aff7cc7c7903e1554b8ca3134badae40e9eb

Wakey Wakey @ Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/c-575077

Note: The SERGEANT MAJOR'S TRUTHER INFO group with 33,500 members was deleted by FaceBook/Government on 01/24/20. The SERGEANT MAJOR'S TRUTHER INFO channel with 50,000 subscribers was deleted by YouTube/Government on 02/14/20.

"The 5 rules to AWAKENING: Rule #1 - Everything you were ever taught is a lie by design; Rule #2 - governments lie 100% of the time, they always have, and they always will; Rule #3 - the Illuminati controlled mainstream media is not reality, but rather is lies, disinformation, half-truths, and fake events carried out by gov/media hired crisis actors (aka role players); Rule #4 - Spirituality and Reincarnation are reality, whereas religions are simply government crowd control measures; and Rule #5 - this plane(t) called earth is a flat, motionless plane, it is not a spinning ball hurling through outer space. Furthermore, the 4 Sources of Disinformation that are ALWAYS FAKE: government, mainstream media news, matrix sciences, and religions." -- Sergeant Major (2010)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID-19: NHS SCUMBAGGERY EXPOSED [2021-04-14] - WAKEY WAKEY (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.headline
Press Release: Urgent open letter to EMA from doctors & scientists regarding vaccine safety concerns

# data[].attributes.subject
Press Release: Urgent open letter to EMA from doctors & scientists regarding vaccine safety concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BREAKING NEWS: Doctors and Scientists Write to European Medicines Agency Warning of COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers
10th March 2021

A group of scientists and doctors has today issued an open letter calling on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to answer urgent safety questions regarding COVID-19 vaccines, or withdraw the vaccines' authorisation.

The letter describes serious potential conseuences of COVID-19 vaccine technology, warning of possible autoimmune reactions, blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding, "including in the brain, spinal cord and heart". The authors request evidence that each medical danger outlined "was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA."
"Should all such evidence not be available", the authors write, "we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA."
The letter is addressed to Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the EMA, and was sent on Monday 1 March 2021. The letter was copied to the President of the Council of Europe and the President of the European Commission.

It states: "We are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions." However, "there are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute 'human experimentation', which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code."

Link to letter: https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

Video statement by Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene: https://lbry.tv/@Doctors4CovidEthics:d/Prof.-Sucharit-Bhakdi-statement-on-EMA-open-letter.ENG:0

For comment contact Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD: sucharit.bhakdi@gmx.de, or Associate Professor Michael Palmer MD:mpalmer@uwaterloo.ca

In a public statement the group said...

"No sooner did we deliver our letter than the Norwegian Medicines Agency warned that COVID-19 vaccines may be too risky for use in the frail elderly, the very group these vaccines are designed to protect. We would add that, by virtue of the mechanisms of action of the vaccines, to stimulate the production of spike protein, which has adverse pathophysiological properties, there may also be vulnerable people who are not old and already ill. New data shows that vaccine side effects are three times as common in those who have previously been infected with coronavirus, for example. None of the vaccines have undergone clinical testing for more than a few months, which is simply too short for establishing safety and efficacy.

"Therefore, as a starting point, we believe it is important to enumerate and evaluate all deaths which have occurred within 28 days of vaccination, and to compare the clinical pictures with those who have not been vaccinated.

"More broadly, with respect to the development of COVID-19 vaccines, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated in their Resolution 2361, on 27th January 2021, that member states must ensure all COVID-19 vaccines are supported by high quality trials that are sound and conducted in an ethical manner. EMA officials, and other regulatory bodies in EU countries, are bound by these criteria. They should be made aware that they may be violating Resolution 2361 by applying medical products still in phase 3 studies.

"Under Resolution 2361, member states must also inform citizens that vaccination is NOT mandatory and ensure that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to become vaccinated. States are further required to ensure that no one is discriminated against for not receiving the vaccine."

The letter comes as a petition against UK Government plans for vaccine passports passed 270,000 signatures, more than double that required to compel consideration for debate by MPs. The petition will be debated in the UK Parliament on 15th March 2021.

Doctors and scientists can sign the open letter by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to: Doctors4CovidEthics@protonmail.com.

END

###

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Press Release: Urgent open letter to EMA from doctors & scientists regarding vaccine safety...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BREAKING NEWS: Doctors and Scientists Write to European Medicines Agency Warning of COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers 10th March 2021 A group of scientists and doctors has today issued an open letter calling on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to answer urgent safety questions regarding COVID-19 vaccines, or withdraw the vaccines' authorisation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear Prime Minister,

Today we call upon you to pass a Medical Freedom Bill which actively protects the freedoms of every individual in this country and ensures that no individual can be discriminated against based on their vaccine status.

While we welcomed your previous statement which rejected the idea of making vaccinations compulsory, we believe it fails to effectively safeguard the individual's right to bodily autonomy, a right stipulated in Article 6 of UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005):

"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice."

As the leader of this country you are duty bound to protect the rights and freedoms of the people of this nation. We call upon you to heed your own libertarian instincts and pull the country away from a sinister 'new normal' where people must prove their medical status in order to access services.

Clearly, there are differing views from within your own Government about the idea of a vaccine passport. But it's now time for you, as Prime Minister, to take the decisive step of ensuring that no business or organisation can discriminate against anyone based on their vaccine status.

The right to bodily autonomy has long been an essential component of any meaningfully free and democratic state. But it's now under threat, as evidenced by the growing number of companies which are expressing an intent to override this inalienable right. We are in serious danger of entering a new public health surveillance economy where access to services will be dependant on medical status.

This approach is not only wrong, but entirely counter-productive. It's likely to only further fuel suspicion of the Government's motives. It might be wise to heed your colleague, Rt. Hon. Sir Desmond Swayne, Conservative MP for New Forest West's warning:

"The last thing you should contemplate is coercion of any kind. Nothing could be more calculated to play into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. It would end horribly with public disorder on a scale with which we have hitherto been relatively unfamiliar."

We once again call upon you to take the required action and pass a Medical Freedom Bill to ensure no individual is discriminated against as a result of their personal medical choices.

Yours sincerely,

Save Our Rights UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Prime Minister, Today we call upon you to pass a Medical Freedom Bill which actively protects the freedoms of every individual in this country and ensures that no individual can be discriminated against based on their vaccine status.

# data[].attributes.headline
Open Letter re Vaccine/Immunity Passports from UKMFA and Lawyers for Liberty to Government and MPs

# data[].attributes.subject
Open Letter re Vaccine/Immunity Passports from UKMFA and Lawyers for Liberty to Government and MPs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Open Letter re Vaccine/Immunity Passports from UKMFA and Lawyers for Liberty to Government and MPs

01/03/21

In this Open Letter we detail our grave legal, ethical, and medical concerns, in response to recent rhetoric from government and private businesses, regarding the introduction of Vaccine/Immunity passports.

We urge a return to individual responsibility for our own health and argue that it is disproportionate and unnecessary to go down the route of further restrictions and loss of freedoms that a Vaccine/Immunity Passport would entail.

We argue that Vaccine Passports represent a dangerous path which has no place in a democratic and free society, and which would be a profoundly illiberal, undemocratic, and un-British policy.

We are asking our supporters to send this letter to your MP and have created a Word Doc Template cover letter for you to use.
Download PDF Download Word Doc Template

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Open Letter re Vaccine/Immunity Passports from UKMFA and Lawyers for Liberty to Government and MPs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
01/03/21 In this Open Letter we detail our grave legal, ethical, and medical concerns, in response to recent rhetoric from government and private businesses, regarding the introduction of Vaccine/Immunity passports. We urge a return to individual responsibility for our own health and argue that it is disproportionate and unnecessary to go down the route of further restrictions and loss of freedoms that a Vaccine/Immunity Passport would entail.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vaccine passports are a con trick, whatever they are called

# data[].attributes.subject
Vaccine passports are a con trick, whatever they are called

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ON Thursday The Conservative Woman highlighted the government's proposal for 'Covid Status Certification' and the invitation to comment on it. Yesterday we published the responses of two readers, and you can read them here. Here is the submission of a third reader, Dr Duncan White, RMN* RGN* DMS MBA MA PhD FCMI MHFMA MRIPH, retired but on emergency practitioners list at the N&MC:
In response to your call for evidence reference Status Certification Scheme proposals I submit the following:
Question 1
Which of the following best describes the capacity in which you are responding to this call for evidence?

I am a:
h) Academic or researcher Question 2
In your view, what are the key considerations, including opportunities and risks, associated with a potential Covid-status certification scheme? We would welcome specific reference to:
a) clinical / medical considerations
The potential for misinformation and false testing results reduce the value of a Status Certification Scheme to an ineffective measure that will lull people into an entirely false sense of security about the presence and transmissibility of any viral infection.

The pathogenesis of any virus is such that - at the most optimistic - a Status Certification Scheme will be a snapshot that is out of date sixty seconds after the last test or vaccination someone has undertaken. Viral pathogens are ubiquitous and are omnipresent in every facet of our daily lives, they cannot be 'eradicated' and attempts to mechanically diminish their presence are the worst form of wishful thinking that will do nothing more than hoodwink the populace. As a footnote it is worth mentioning here that there are estimated to be a trillion trillion viruses in every cubic metre of the entire surface of the planet, up to the stratosphere. Attempts to eliminate the virus are a vain enterprise that is clinically impossible and medically pointless.

A Status Certification Scheme cannot possibly address the reality of viral spread and will do nothing to support measures to contain, control or contract the virus but will simply lull the population into a false understanding of the situation.

The UK Government has publicly stated that the vaccine will not stop you getting Covid; the manufacturers have stated that the vaccine cannot stop you getting Covid whilst the NHS has publicly stated that the vaccine cannot prevent you getting Covid. The government has publicly stated that the vaccine will not stop you spreading Covid; the manufacturers have stated that the vaccine cannot stop you spreading Covid and the NHS has also publicly stated that the vaccine cannot stop you spreading Covid.

Against this backdrop the Status Certification Scheme is an unwarranted exercise that lacks any clinical or medical relevance.
b) legal considerations
The potential for either a statutory or government sponsored discrimination between those who have been vaccinated and those who have achieved natural immunity is contrary to all legal, moral and ethical constraints on the exercise of State authority and should be rejected out of hand as a fallacious perversion of the long-established rights of citizens evolved over eight hundred years.

It is also important to exercise careful judgment due to the requirements of informed consent for medical procedures as per the Nuremberg Code 1947, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the European Charter on Human Rights and the Montgomery Judgement 2015.
c) operational / delivery considerations
The requirement to police Status Certification is disproportionate in both monetary costs, as well as the further deflection of the police from their role in resolving 'real' crimes and the weight of ever more bureaucracy to implement, deliver and sustain this wholly unjustified proposal is just plain ludicrous. The government needs to 'get a grip': SARS-Cov-2 is a transient, mild flu-like disease that has adversely affected less than 3 per cent of those who actually get it, the survival rate of those who actually get it is 99.73 per cent and the average death-age of those with SARS-Cov-2 is two years greater than the national average age of death. This proposal is unsustainable given the evidence of the impact of the disease and the costs of this ill-thought-through scheme.
d) considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential COVID-status certification scheme
In view of the facts raised in response to Question 1, the relevance of a Status Certification Scheme in the context of venues lacks any purposeful traction. Such a scheme will prove nothing other than someone at some point may have taken a vaccination and/or test where false positives and false negatives effectively cancel each other out. Proof of vaccination is not synonymous with an absolute guarantee of a lack of infection or an incapacity to infect others. To suggest otherwise is approaching sophistry.
e) considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential COVID-status certification scheme
The response to questions f) and g) below apply here. The additional burden on employers to police their staff for an infraction is risible.

The response to c) above equally applies here.
f) ethical considerations
SARS-Cov-2 is not a threat to society at large. From very early stages of the spread of the disease, certainly by mid-April 2020, it was known beyond all doubt that specific demographics were singularly vulnerable to this disease. To require people to carry State-authorised certification that they have been vaccinated against a disease that for 99.73 per cent of those who contract it is nothing more than a very mild irritant is a very low resolution understanding of pathogenesis. People who have contracted the disease are no more of a threat to society than those who have previously had coryza, any other coronavidae disease or any notifiable disease. All other infectious diseases pass through society routinely and regularly and we do not ostracise people or require that they should have a licence to fully participate in society: to suggest such a measure is an indicator of a lack of understanding of how populations are not wiped out by every seasonal infection.
g) equalities considerations
Without doubt discrimination against those who have not been vaccinated should be proscribed from the outset. People routinely are infected with various diseases and society at any given time has vast numbers of people with coryza, coronavidae cluster illnesses and a variety of notifiable diseases. We do not require people to carry licences to participate in society after they have contracted any other disease and SARS-Cov-2 should not have any elevated significance over any other disease in a way that leads to unfair, discriminatory consideration.
h) privacy considerations
That you need to enquire as to the impact on privacy clearly indicates it is a problem. Medical history and clinical status of anyone and everyone is a matter between the person and their medical practitioner: it is not for an employer, a police officer or a cafe owner to intrude into the personal medical status of anyone. This is an atrocious extension of State intrusion into the life and liberty of citizens.
Question 3
Are there any other comments you would like to make to inform the Covid-status certification review?

Yes:

if the vaccine 'works' why do we need further lockdowns?

if lockdowns 'work' why do we need vaccines?

if lockdowns and vaccines work why are we still under closure?

the vaccines do not meet the medical nor legal definition of a vaccine so why deploy a gene replacement therapy for a disease that 97 per cent of people don't have and never have had: why treat healthy people for a disease they have never had?

the vaccines have not undergone phase 3 safety studies and are therefore not fit for human use;

the possible side effects of the vaccines during Phase 1 and 2 safety studies have not been disclosed to the public which suggests there is something to hide;

a vaccine that does not stop you catching the virus, does not stop you spreading the virus and 'may' make the symptoms less serious is insufficient cause or justification for vaccinating an entire population, what data is being withheld to support this approach?

it has been reported that all the vaccine will do is 'might' or 'may' make your symptoms slightly less. What cost-benefit analysis has been conducted to validate the government's course of action?

Comments on the proposal will be accepted until tomorrow, Monday, March 29.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vaccine passports are a con trick, whatever they are called | The Conservative Woman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ON Thursday The Conservative Woman highlighted the government's proposal for 'Covid Status Certification' and the invitation to comment on it. Yesterday we published the responses of two readers, and you can read them here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Regulation 174 Information for UK healthcare professionals

This medicinal product has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It does not have a marketing authorisation, but this temporary authorisation grants permission for the medicine to be used for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged 16 years of age and over.

As with any new medicine in the UK, this product will be closely monitored to allow quick identification of new safety information. Healthcare professionals are asked to report any suspected adverse reactions. See section 4.8 for how to report adverse reactions.

1. Name of the medicinal product

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 concentrate for solution for injection

2. Qualitative and quantitative composition

This is a multidose vial and must be diluted before use. 1 vial (0.45 mL) contains 6 doses of 30 micrograms of BNT162b2 RNA (embedded in lipid nanoparticles), see section 4.2.

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is highly purified single-stranded, 5'-capped messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2.

Excipients with known effect: For the full list of excipients, see section 6.1.

3. Pharmaceutical form

Concentrate for solution for injection.

The vaccine is a white to off-white frozen solution.

4. Clinical particulars

4.1 Therapeutic indications

Active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, in individuals 16 years of age and older.

The use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should be in accordance with official guidance.

4.2 Posology and method of administration

Posology

Individuals 16 years of age and older:

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is administered intramuscularly after dilution as a series of two doses (0.3 mL each) at least 21 days apart (see section 5.1).

There are no data available on the interchangeability of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other COVID-19 vaccines to complete the vaccination series. Individuals who have received one dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should receive a second dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 to complete the vaccination series.

Individuals may not be maximally protected until at least 7 days after their second dose of the vaccine.

For further information on efficacy, see section 5.1.

Paediatric population

The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in children under 16 years of age have not yet been established.

Method of administration

Administer the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 vaccine intramuscularly in the deltoid muscle after dilution.

After dilution, vials of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 contain 6 doses of 0.3 mL of vaccine. In order to extract 6 doses from a single vial, low dead-volume syringes and/or needles should be used. If standard syringes and needles are used, there may not be sufficient volume to extract a sixth dose from a single vial. Irrespective of the type of syringe and needle:

Each dose must contain 0.3 mL of vaccine.

If the amount of vaccine remaining in the vial cannot provide a full dose of 0.3 mL, discard the vial and any excess volume.

Do not pool excess vaccine from multiple vials.

Do not inject the vaccine intravascularly, subcutaneously or intradermally.

Preparation: The multidose vial is stored frozen and must be thawed prior to dilution

Frozen vials should be transferred to 2 °C to 8 °C to thaw. Alternatively, frozen vials may also be thawed and kept at temperatures up to 25 °C for a maximum of two hours in preparation for dilution for use.

When removed from the freezer, the undiluted vaccine has a maximum shelf life of up to 5 days (120 hours) at 2 °C to 8 °C, and and additional 2 hours at temperatures up to 25 °C in preparation for dilution.

When the thawed vial is at room temperature gently invert 10 times prior to dilution. Do not shake. Prior to dilution, the thawed dispersion may contain white to off-white opaque amorphous particles.

The thawed vaccine must be diluted in its original vial with 1.8 mL sodium chloride 9 mg/mL (0.9%) solution for injection, using a 21 gauge or narrower needle and aseptic techniques.

Warning: Unpreserved sodium chloride 9 mg/mL (0.9%) solution for injection is the only diluent that should be used. This diluent is not provided in the vaccine carton.

Equalise vial pressure before removing the needle from the vial by withdrawing 1.8 mL air into the empty diluent syringe.

Gently invert the diluted solution 10 times. Do not shake.

The diluted vaccine should present as an offwhite solution with no particulates visible. Discard the diluted vaccine if particulates or discolouration are present.

The diluted vials should be marked with the dilution date and time and stored between 2 °C to 25 °C.

Use as soon as practically possible, and within 6 hours after dilution.

After dilution, the vial contains 6 doses of 0.3 mL. Withdraw the required 0.3 mL dose of diluted vaccine using a sterile needle and syringe and administer.

Low dead volume syringes and/or needles should be used in order to extract 6 doses from a single vial.

If standard syringes and needles are used, there may not be sufficient volume to extract a sixth dose from a single vial.

Each dose must contain 0.3 mL of vaccine.

If the amount of vaccine remaining in the vial cannot provide a full dose of 0.3 mL, discard the vial and any excess volume.

Any unused vaccine should be discarded 6 hours after dilution.

After dilution, the vaccine should not be shipped (transported) by motor vehicle away from the site of dilution. Any shipping (transportation) by motor vehicle after dilution of the vial is at the risk of the Health Care Professional.

For instructions on disposal see section 6.6.

4.3 Contraindications

Hypersensitivity to the active substance or to any of the excipients listed in section 6.1.

4.4 Special warnings and precautions for use

Hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis

Events of anaphylaxis have been reported. Appropriate medical treatment and supervision should always be readily available in case of an anaphylactic reaction following the administration of the vaccine.

Close observation for at least 15 minutes is recommended following vaccination. A second dose of the vaccine should not be given to those who have experienced anaphylaxis to the first dose of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.

Traceability

In order to improve the traceability of biological medicinal products, the name and the batch number of the administered product should be clearly recorded.

General recommendations

The administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should be postponed in individuals suffering from acute severe febrile illness.

Individuals receiving anticoagulant therapy or those with a bleeding disorder that would contraindicate intramuscular injection, should not be given the vaccine unless the potential benefit clearly outweighs the risk of administration.

Immunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressant therapy, may have a diminished immune response to the vaccine. No data are available about concomitant use of immunosuppressants.

As with any vaccine, vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 may not protect all vaccine recipients.

No data are available on the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in persons that have previously received a full or partial vaccine series with another COVID-19 vaccine.

Excipient information

This vaccine contains potassium, less than 1 mmol (39 mg) per dose, i.e. essentially 'potassium-free'.

This vaccine contains less than 1 mmol sodium (23 mg) per dose, i.e. essentially 'sodium‑free'.

4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction

No interaction studies have been performed.

Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).

Do not mix COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines/products in the same syringe.

4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation

Pregnancy

There is limited experience with use of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2in pregnant women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development (see section 5.3). Administration of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.

Breast-feeding

It is unknown whether the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk.

Fertility

Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to reproductive toxicity (see section 5.3).

4.7 Effects on ability to drive and use machines

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has no or negligible influence on the ability to drive and use machines. However, some of the adverse reactions mentioned under section 4.8 may temporarily affect the ability to drive or use machines.

4.8 Undesirable effects

Summary of safety profile

The safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 was evaluated in participants 16 years of age and older in two clinical studies conducted in the United States, Europe, Turkey, South Africa, and South America. Study BNT162-01 (Study 1) enrolled 60 participants, 18 through 55 years of age. Study C4591001 (Study 2) enrolled approximately 44,000 participants, 12 years of age or older. In Study 2, a total of 21,720 participants 16 years of age or older received at least one dose of COVID19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b and 21,728 participants 16 years of age or older received placebo. Out of these, at the time of the analysis, 19,067 (9531 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 and 9536 placebo) were evaluated for safety 2 months after the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.

Demographic characteristics were generally similar with regard to age, gender, race and ethnicity among participants who received COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine and those who received placebo. Overall, among the participants who received COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2, 51.5% were male and 48.5% were female, 82.1% were White, 9.6% were Black or African American, 26.1% were Hispanic/Latino, 4.3% were Asian and 0.7% were Native American/Alaskan native.

The most frequent adverse reactions in participants 16 years of age and older were pain at the injection site (> 80%), fatigue (> 60%), headache (> 50%), myalgia (> 30%), chills (> 30%), arthralgia (> 20%) and pyrexia (> 10%) and were usually mild or moderate in intensity and resolved within a few days after vaccination. If required, symptomatic treatment with analgesic and/or anti-pyretic medicinal products (e.g. paracetamol-containing products) may be used.

Adverse reactions from clinical studies

Adverse reactions reported in clinical studies are listed in this section per MedDRA system organ class, in decreasing order of frequency and seriousness. The frequency is defined as follows: very common (≥ 1/10), common (≥ 1/100 to < 1/10), uncommon (≥ 1/1,000 to < 1/100), rare (≥ 1/10,000 to < 1/1,000), very rare (< 1/10,000), not known (cannot be estimated from available data).

Blood and lymphatic system disorders

Uncommon: Lymphadenopathy

Immune system disorders

Not Known: Anaphylaxis; hypersensitivity

Nervous system disorders

Very common: Headache

Rare: Acute peripheral facial paralysis

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders

Very common: Arthralgia; myalgia

General disorders and administration site conditions

Very common: Injection-site pain; fatigue; chills; pyrexia

Common: Redness at injection site; injection site swelling

Uncommon: Malaise

Gastrointestinal disorders

Throughout the safety follow-up period to date, acute peripheral facial paralysis (or palsy) was reported by four participants in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine group. Onset was Day 37 after Dose 1 (participant did not receive Dose 2) and Days 3, 9, and 48 after Dose 2. No cases of acute peripheral facial paralysis (or palsy) were reported in the placebo group.

Post-authorisation reports of influenza-like illness

Some recipients have reported chills, shivering (in some cases rigors), and increased body temperature possibly with sweating, headache (including migraine-like headaches), nausea, myalgia and malaise, starting within a day of vaccination. These effects usually last for a day or two.

If a patient reports unusually high and prolonged fever, or other persistent symptoms, alternative causes should be considered and appropriate advice should be provided for diagnostic investigation and medical management as required.

Reporting of suspected adverse reactions

If you are concerned about an adverse event, it should be reported on a Yellow card. Reporting forms and information can be found at Coronavirus Yellow Card reporting site or search for MHRA Yellow Card in the Google Play. When reporting please include the vaccine brand and batch/Lot number if available.

Alternatively, adverse events of concern in association with Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT 162b2 can be reported to Pfizer Medical Information on 01304 616161 or via Pfizer Safety Reporting.

Please do not report the same adverse event(s) to both systems as all reports will be shared between Pfizer and MHRA (in an anonymised form) and dual reporting will create unnecessary duplicates.

4.9 Overdose

Participants who received 58 micrograms of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in clinical trials did not report an increase in reactogenicity or adverse events.

In the event of overdose, monitoring of vital functions and possible symptomatic treatment is recommended.

5. Pharmacodynamic properties

5.1 Pharmacodynamic properties

Pharmacotherapeutic group: vaccines, other viral vaccines, ATC code: J07BX03

Mechanism of action

The nucleoside-modified messenger RNA in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is formulated in lipid nanoparticles, which enable delivery of the RNA into host cells to allow expression of the SARSCoV-2 S antigen. The vaccine elicits both neutralizing antibody and cellular immune responses to the spike (S) antigen, which may contribute to protection against COVID-19 disease.

Efficacy in participants 16 years of age and older

The efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 was evaluated in participants 16 years of age and older in two clinical studies conducted in the United States, Europe, Turkey, South Africa and South America. Study 1 enrolled 60 participants, 18 through 55 years of age. Study 2 is a multicentre, placebo-controlled efficacy study in participants 12 years of age and older. Randomisation was stratified by age: 12 through 15 years of age, 16 through 55 years of age, or 56 years of age and older, with a minimum of 40% of participants in the ≥ 56-year stratum. The study excluded participants who were immunocompromised and those who had previous clinical or microbiological diagnosis of COVID-19 disease. Participants with pre-existing stable disease, defined as disease not requiring significant change in therapy or hospitalization for worsening disease during the 6 weeks before enrolment, were included as were participants with known stable infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) or hepatitis B virus (HBV). There was no requirement for prophylactic use of paracetamol or analgesics. Influenza vaccines could be administered outside a window ± 14 days of the vaccine doses.

In Study 2, approximately 44,000 participants 12 years of age and older were randomised equally and received 2 doses of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine or placebo with a planned interval of 21 days. The efficacy analyses included participants that received their second vaccination within 19 to 42 days after their first vaccination. Participants are planned to be followed for up to 24 months, for assessments of safety and efficacy against COVID-19 disease.

The population for the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint included, 36,621 participants 12 years of age and older (18,242 in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine group and 18,379 in the placebo group) who did not have evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 through 7 days after the second dose. Demographic characteristics were generally similar with regard to age, gender, race and ethnicity among participants who received COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine and those who received placebo. Overall, among the participants who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, 51.1% were male and 48.9% were female, 82.8% were White, 8.9% were Black or African American, 26.8% were Hispanic/Latino, 4.5% were Asian and 0.6% were Native American/Alaskan native. 57.2% were aged 16-55 years, 42.6% were aged > 55 years and 21.8% were ≥ 65 years.

Efficacy against COVID-19 disease

At the time of the analysis of Study 2, information presented is based on participants 16 years and older. Participants had been followed for symptomatic COVID-19 disease for at least 2,214 personyears for the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine and at least 2,222 personyears in the placebo group. There were 8 confirmed COVID-19 cases identified in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine group and 162 cases in the placebo group, respectively. In this analysis, efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in preventing first COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2 compared to placebo was 95.0% (95% credible interval of 90.3% to 97.6%) in participants 16 years of age and older without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2. In participants 65 years of age and older and 75 years of age and older without evidence of prior infections with SARS-CoV-2, efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 was 94.7% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of 66.7% to 99.9%) and 100% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of -13.1% to 100.0%) respectively.

In the second primary analysis, efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in preventing first COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2, compared to placebo was 94.6% (95% credible interval of 89.9% to 97.3%) in participants 16 years of age and older with or without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.

There were no meaningful clinical differences in overall vaccine efficacy in participants who were at risk of severe COVID-19 disease including those with one or more comorbidities that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 disease (e.g. asthma, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension).

Confirmed cases were determined by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and at least 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 disease.

Case definition (at least 1 of): fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath; chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting.

5.2 Pharmacokinetic properties

Not applicable.

5.3 Preclinical safety data

Non-clinical data reveal no special hazard for humans based on a conventional study of repeat dose toxicity.

Reproductive toxicity

Reproductive and developmental toxicity were investigated in rats in a combined fertility and developmental toxicity study where female rats were intramuscularly administered with the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 prior to mating and during gestation (receiving 4 full human doses that generate relatively higher levels in rat due to body weight differences, spanning between pre-mating day 21 and gestational day 20). SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody responses were present in maternal animals from prior to mating to the end of the study on postnatal day 21 as well as in foetuses and offspring. There were no vaccine-related effects on female fertility, pregnancy, or embryo-foetal or offspring development. No data on the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 are available on vaccine placental transfer or excretion in milk.

6. Pharmaceutical particulars

6.1 List of excipients

This vaccine contains polyethylene glycol/macrogol (PEG) as part of ALC-0159.

ALC-0315 = (4-hydroxybutyl) azanediyl)bis (hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)

ALC-0159 = 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide

1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine

cholesterol

potassium chloride

potassium dihydrogen phosphate

sodium chloride

disodium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate

sucrose

water for injections

6.2 Incompatibilities

In the absence of compatibility studies, this medicinal product must not be mixed with other medicinal products.

6.3 Shelf life

6 months at -80 °C to -60 °C.

6.4 Special precautions for storage

Store in a freezer at -80 °C to -60 °C.

Store in the thermal container at -90 ºC to -60 ºC.

Store in the original package in order to protect from light.

Once removed from the freezer, the undiluted vaccine can be stored for up to 5 days at 2 °C to 8 °C, and up to 2 hours at temperatures up to 25 °C, prior to use. During storage, minimise exposure to room light, and avoid exposure to direct sunlight and ultraviolet light. Thawed vials can be handled in room light conditions.

After dilution, store the vaccine at 2 °C to 25 °C and use as soon as practically possible and within 6 hours. The vaccine does not contain a preservative. Discard any unused vaccine.

Once diluted, the vials should be marked with the dilution time and discarded within 6 hours of dilution.

Once thawed, the vaccine cannot be re-frozen.

6.5 Nature and contents of container

Concentrate for solution for injection for 6 doses in a 2 mL clear vial (type I glass) with a stopper (bromobutyl) and a flip-off plastic cap with aluminium seal. See section 4.2 for more information.

Pack size: 195 vials

6.6 Special precautions for disposal and other handling

When removed from the freezer, the vaccine has a maximum possible shelf life of up to 5 days when stored at 2-8 ºC (label to be added once box removed from freezer). A 195 vial pack may take 3 hours to thaw at 2-8oC.

The product can alternatively be defrosted and kept for up to 2 hours at up to 25 ºC before being diluted for use. This facilitates immediate thaw and use when removed directly from the freezer to 25 ºC. In this instance the product is to be diluted within 2 hours of removing from the freezer.

Once thawed, the vaccine cannot be refrozen.

After dilution the vaccine should be used as soon as is practically possible and within 6 hours of dilution; it can be stored at 2-25 ºC during this period. From a microbiological point of view, it would not normally be considered good practice to store diluted product for 6 hours at 25ºC before being administered. The product would ideally be used as soon as practically possible after dilution.

The vaccine does not contain a preservative. Discard any unused vaccine

Any unused medicinal product or waste material should be disposed of in accordance with local requirements.

For instructions on dose preparation of the medicinal product before administration, see section 4.2.

7. Marketing authorisation holder

Not applicable.

8. Marketing authorisation number(s)

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

March 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Information for Healthcare Professionals on Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This medicinal product has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It does not have a marketing authorisation, but this temporary authorisation grants permission for the medicine to be used for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged 16 years of age and over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Health Act 2016 (WA) - Instrument of Authorisation - Authorisation to Supply or Administer a Poison [SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) VACCINE - Australian Defence Force] (No.2) 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An authorisation by the Chief Health Office under the s. 197 and s.198 Public Health Act 2016 (WA) to authorise relevant Australian Defence Force employees to supply and administer the COVID-19 Vaccine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LISTING OF HELPING HANDS GROUP SUPPORT FREE TEMPLATE LETTERS
Here are a list of all our current Template Letters available for various issues. Check here to find the letter you need and make a note of the Letter Number, as this is the number letter you will need. Go back to our HOME PAGE and using the cursor SCROLL DOWN THE HOME PAGE, you will see that you will eventually come to Letter No. 1, then 1A, 1B, 1C, 2 and so on, keep scrolling until you reach the number letter you require. You have a choice of either copy and pasting the letter (ODF/Microsoft) or you can DOWNLOAD the letter either at the start of the letter or at the end of the letter. You will require a PDF editor to edit the PDF download letter, if you do not have a PDF editor then we suggest you copy and paste the letter. *PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COPYING THE LETTER, EACH LETTER HAS INSTRUCTIONS ON WHEN TO USE IT AND HOW TO USE IT, SOME STATE WHERE TO SEND THE LETTER. ALL OUR LETTERS ARE FREE TO USE AS ARE ALL OUR SERVICES. THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR WEBSITE. *NB: There are no links to the template letters. You are required to scroll down the home page and highlight, copy and paste all our letters.
We have a link here to a company who is willing to write anonymously to your child's school if they are enforcing mask wearing and testing, this company will remind the school that they cannot in law enforce mask wearing and testing to the children and will send a FREE letter to your child's school informing them that they are breaking the human rights and laws and more importantly abusing the children. If you would like them to send a letter to your child's school please go to: https://democracydeclaration.com/lawyers-for-liberty they will have a form for you to complete and they will contact your child's school anonymously thereby not causing any repercussions on your child as a result, this is an excellent service and one I would highly recommend to ALL parents who are concerned about their school enforcing masks and testing illegally.

1. School - Covid Testing & Mask Wearing

1A: New - Child refusal of Covid Testing in School
1B: New - Child refusal of wearing Face Masks in School
1C - Child - Complaint to LEA for discrimination shown towards child after refusal of testing

1. Children in Cold Classrooms

2. Children - Flu Mist Vaccinations

3. Children - Non-disabled Children refusing Testing & Vaccinations

4. Pregnant ladies refusing Covid Testing & Vaccinations

5. Adults/Students refusing Covid Testing in the workplace 6A: Formal Complaint to LEA for refusal of education due to discrimination on mask wearing

6. Adults refusal of Covid Testing and Vaccinations in the Workplace

7. Refusal of Medical Treatment based on exemption to Mask Wearing

8. Refusal of Medical Treatment based on refusal to Covid Testing
9A: Refusal of Medical Treatment to Child based on refusal of Covid Testing

9. Stage 1 - Complaint to local health board for Refusal of Medical Treatment by NHS

10. Stage 2 - Complaint to Local Government Ombudsman for refusal of medical treatment

11. Stage 3 - Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman for refusal of medical treatment

12. Complaint to the Local Health Board for refusal of medical treatment via GP/Hospital

13. Adults - Refusal of forced mask wearing in the workplace

14. Complaint against intimidation due to refusal/exemption of mask wearing

15. Dental Treatment - Refusal of treatment due to forced mask wearing

16. Declaration of 'Living Will' refusing all Covid Testing and Covid Vaccinations
17A: GP - Refusal of vaccine following repeated calls to receive it

17. Requesting Right of Access to Information

18. Legal Notice to withdraw Right of Access to private property

19. Letter to MP - Return to School

20. Child - Refusal of Infrared Temperature taking in the School

21. Adult - Refusal of Infrared Temperature taking in the workplace

22. Letter to MP - No Faith in Conservative Party

23. Exemptions notices to Mask Wearing

24. T.V Licensing

25. Life Insurance Policy to confirm cover on death by Covid

26. Parents - Mask Wearing in the School yard

27. Adult - Refusal of Vaccination in a Care Home

28. Adult - Refusal of Vaccination in the Workplace

29. Child - Refusal of Covid Vaccination in School

30. Freedom of Information Request

31. Pfizer Vaccination - Government Information

32. Parent of Young Adult with Special Needs - Refusal of testing/vaccinations

33. G.P Letter to express concern over the Covid Vaccinations

34. Refusal of Vaccine of loved one in residential care with Lasting Power of Attorney

35. Service Providers - Letters for refusal of service due to mask wearing

36. Covid 19 - G.P Vaccination Consent Form

37. Employees - Appealing against Disciplinary outcome

38. Employees - Appealing against Grievance outcome

39. Indemnity - Contract for Employers demanding Testing/Vaccinations in the Workplace

40. Indemnity - Contract for Local Authorities/G.P's/Schools other lifestyle providers demanding Testing/Vaccinations

41. Refusal of Second Dose of Vaccine due to adverse reactions to the first dose of Covid Vaccination

42. Employee - Refusing Mask Wearing due to disability - Softer Approach letter to Employer

43. Employee - Refusing PCR Testing due to adverse reactions - Softer Approach letter to Employer
44A: Employees - Refusing Covid Testing in the Workplace - Softer Approach letter from Employees to Employer

44. Pre-Court Action Letter to CEO of Supermarket/Shop/Store for Mask discrimination in the store

45. Letter to MP - Concerns over government considering Covid passports

46. UK Medical Freedom Alliance Group - Vaccine Passports

47A UK Medical Freedom Alliance Group - Vaccine Passports Cover Letter
47B UK Medical Freedom Alliance Group - Workers Union Employers vaccinations
47C UK Medical Freedom Alliance Group - Links regarding vaccines
47DUK Medical Freedom Alliance Group - Covid Testing in Schools
48 Refusal of any vaccination being requested
49. Harassment letter to a company/GP/bailiffs
50. Business owners refusal of mask wearing in own premises - complaints by customers

Whilst our countries government, various businesses, shops, schools, colleges etc are committing the most cruel crimes to the people of the United Kingdom in the name of 'Covid 19' which includes so many of our group members being fired from jobs, threatened in the work place by fellow work colleagues, bullied, intimidated and their disabilities being discriminated and persecuted against, all of which is to obtain control of the people/pupils/employees/patients and until these crimes are brought rightly to justice, we at Helping Hands Group Support have put together a list of other sites and contacts that may be able to offer you crucial support at this difficult time. Please be aware that many, if not run by the government are following guidelines which shall we say may not be as helpful as they could be given the current circumstances, however; if you have no luck with these sites, then do not feel despondent, you have not been abandoned as Helping Hands is always here for you and we will always do our very utmost to assist you or put you in contact with others that can.

Here are some helpful supportive sites which I hope will offer the assistance they should be offering at this time.
FEELING LIFE IS UNBEARABLE & SUICIDAL? If you just need to talk, any time of day or night
Free listening services
If you're under 19, you can also call 0800 1111 to talk to Childline. The number will not appear on your phone bill.
T hese services offer confidential advice from trained volunteers. You can talk about anything that's troubling you, no matter how difficult:
Samaritans

Samaritans are available round the clock, every single day of the year, providing a safe place for anyone who is struggling to cope.

Please call 116 123, email jo@samaritans.org, or visit www.samaritans.org to find details of the nearest branch.

Link: www. samaritans.org/how-we-can-help/contact- samaritan
MENTAL HEALTH HELPLINE
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

www.nhs.uk/using-the- nhs/ nhs-services/ mental...you need help urgently for your mental health, but it's not an emergency; you're not sure what to do; 111 will tell you the right place to get help if you need to see someone. Use the NHS 111 online service, or call 111. You may be able to speak to a nurse, or mental health nurse, over the phone.
ANXIETY STRESS Is lockdown causing you unmentionable amounts of anxiety stress? Then meet Linda Hamilton-Ross A lovely lady who is offering assistance to all our Helping Hands Members. Linda offers daily online sessions. To contact Linda linda@hamilton-ross.co.uk Or phone/text to 07779647642 Website is being updated but is Lindahamiltonross.com ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DOMESTIC ABUSE IN THE HOME/LOCKDOWNS
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Contact the National Domestic Abuse Helpline. Call us, 24-hours a day, for free and in confidence. 0808 2000 247.

Website: www.nationalda helpline.org.uk

We understand it can be difficult to pick up the phone. You can now chat to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline online, live: Monday - Friday, 3pm - 10pm. Chat to them live don't put it off, it will not get better.
PROBLEMS WITH EMPLOYERS - EMPLOYEES & WORK ISSUES
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. www.equalityadvisoryservice.comThe Helpline advises and assists individuals on issues relating to equality and human rights, across England, Scotland and Wales. We can also accept referrals from organisations which, due to capacity or funding issues, are unable to provide face to face advice to local users of their services.

2. www.gov.uk/equality-advisory-support-serviceEquality Advisory Support Service (EASS) Information and advice about discrimination and human rights issues. EASS helpline. Online contact form. Telephone: 0808 800 0082. Textphone: 0808 800 0084...

If you have a workplace problem you want to talk with us about, you can call the ACAS helpline. We can help talk through your options. You do not have to give any personal details.

1. www.acas.org.uk/contactAcas helpline

2. www.gov.uk/pay-and-work-rightsAcas provides free and confidential advice to employers, employees and their representatives on employment rights, best practice and policies, and resolving workplace conflict.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ BEING REFUSED MEDICAL TREATMENT DUE TO COVID & NEED TO CONTACT YOUR LOCAL HEALTH BOARD? Do you need to know the contact details for your local health board to make a complaint - Follow the link, enter your postcode in the box provided and it will inform you who to contact. https://www.gov.uk/health-protection-team _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU Need assistance with applications and information regarding debt and other issues www.citizensadvice.org.uK (Check on the website & enter which area you live in and it will offer you options. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF WORK & PENSIONS For issues relating to welfare and benefits dwpcontactnumber.co.uk DWP Contact Guide - 0843 487 1819 For Universal Credit enquiries: Contact the Universal Credit team on their general enquiries phone number 0345 600 0723 www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence...Personal Independence Payment New Claims Post Handling Site B Wolverhampton WV99 1AH. Claim line (UK except Northern Ireland) Telephone: 0800 917 2222 Textphone: 0800 917 7777. Monday - Friday 8am-6pm www.gov.uk/pip/how-to-claim . Ongoing claims and enquiries (UK except Northern Ireland) Telephone: 0800 121 4433 Textphone: 0800 121 4493 www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/employment-and-support...Northern Ireland ESA Centre. To make a new claim for contribution-based ESA, income-related ESA and new-style ESA. Telephone: 0800 085 6318. Textphone: 0800 328 3419. Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm. www.nidirect.gov.uk/contacts/contacts-az/employment-and-support-allowance-centre. www.gov.uk/universal-credit/contact-universal-creditUniversal Credit helpline Telephone: 0800 328 5644 Textphone: 0800 328 1344 Relay UK (if you cannot hear or speak on the phone): 18001 then 0800 328 5644 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you being discriminated against in the workplace due to hidden disabilities - is your job being threatened due to employers not following the laws and Coronavirus Act 2020 then contact:

DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR YOUR DISABILITIES - UNABLE TO WEAR MASKS?

Contact Kester Disability Services - A brilliant business that offers FREE advice and a NO WIN< NO FEE Service to all disabled who are being discriminated against due to being unable to wear face coverings.

Website: https://disabilityrights.org.uk/ Contact Tel: 07722 004337

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We highly recommend this company of lawyers who will write to your child's school anonymously to remind the school that they are acting illegally and in breach of Health & Safety. We have a selection of letters which can be personalised from parent to Headteacher, however; many children are being persecuted or prejudiced against for refusing mask wearing and Covid testing, which is illegal - this service addresses the school as a whole and does not mention your child's name and so reduces any possibility of prejudicial treatment from teachers. They will send a FREE Anonymous letter to the School reminding them of the laws and human rights of its pupils: Contact https://democracydeclaration.com/lawyers-for-liberty ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IS YOUR CHILD BEING FORCED TO WEAR A MASK AND/OR RECEIVE REGULAR COVID TESTING IN SCHOOL?

USEFUL NUMBERS

Universal Credit 0843 455 0032

Budgeting Loans 0843 455 0031

Jobcentre Plus 0843 455 0081

PIP Number New 0843 455 0087

PIP Existing 0843 455 0065

Tax Credits 0843 455 0127

JSA New Claims 0843 455 0081
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
JSA Existing Claims 0843 455 0034

If you have any queries or require support & information, please message me here.

Hello.... my name is Kerry and I would like to offer you a big welcome to our FREE Helping Hands Group Support website. I hope you find this website useful and informative together with empowering and supportive during the current times.

I first began with a 'Helping Hands Group Support' page on Facebook as I found I was being increasingly contacted by scores of friends and friends of friends, all people asking my advice on how to deal with 'injustices' caused by such government departments as; DWP, TV Licensing, DVLA, Councils etc., and the actions of companies i.e. Bailiffs, Debt Collectors etc. I have always made it a mission of mine to know my way around these particular departments as I have always been at the back of the queue when it comes to being dealt 'Luck', so when you cannot be lucky, I guess you have to learn pretty quickly how to swim rather than sink.

My personal Facebook page was becoming inundated with requests for assistance and support, so I opened a 'Helping Hands Support Page' (see link https://www.facebook.com/Helpinghandsgroupsupport) to ease the pressure from my private Facebook page, however; as soon as 'Covid' hit our shores in 2019 my inbox became inundated with requests for help and support and this has led to where I am now.

I felt I could perhaps, since losing my own business thanks totally to the government Covid Lockdowns, I put my time, knowledge gained and experience into helping others whose lives are also being traumatically affected by the current situation. Seeing how the government and all other agencies which people had put their lives, livelihoods and trust in has sadly and devastatingly deserted them in their time of need there was an urgent need for an unbiased source of assistance where all other assistance either came with a heavy price or a heavily government lined pocket.

The horror stories I hear every single day from hardworking professionals including Carers, Nurses, employees working in government and privately run companies all contacting me with their heart breaking descriptions of the most abhorrent atrocities being perpetrated upon them, the like that has not been seen or heard of in this country EVER! is now being committed to innocent civilians in the United Kingdom in 2021 all so-called in the name of 'Covid'. It is heart breaking to say the least. It was clear that people required tools and information in order to fight their corners, to fight for their human rights which are being stripped away every hour of every day here in the UK and which we all have the born right to live a life which offers us justice and freedom, both of which have now been taken away from us and so; I realised that I needed to offer help in some way however small, to all those being discriminated, persecuted, intimidated, bullied, coerced and prejudiced by the government run agencies, offices, Schools, Colleges, NHS and privately run companies who are all using this situation to their advantage whilst lining their pockets and causing as much distress and hardship as they can to all UK citizens. This is an unprecedented time in history, never before have we ever witnessed such oppression not even during the two World Wars.

This group now has over 5,000 followers and increases daily. We have in addition to this website, our groups on Facebook, Telegram, Parler, and Twitter whereby we are now becoming a growing, friendly and supportive community who impart knowledge, information and support to anyone who needs it. Helping Hands Group Support offers FREE template letters, FREE support, FREE Services and guidance to everyone. This Group is about 'People Helping People'.

This Group may have started out as just me but now this group is 'WE' - this is your group, our group - we help each other to deal with what life is bringing and taking from us. Our Group is now an ever increasing group of people whose main aim is to help and support other people in their day to day fights, injustices and general support if only someone to talk to when things get difficult. This situation is making more and more people feel totally isolated, separated from their families that they love and as a result so very many are taking their lives due to these restrictions. Poverty and mental illness are vastly increasing together with domestic and child abuse being rife as abusers and victims are locked up together with no way of escaping their torture, it is so very important that we are not left feeling isolated, helpless and alone.

I have brought onboard Steve who is a fully qualified senior electronics engineer who has over forty years experience in all and anything to do with electronics engineering and his expertise includes EMF, Communications etc., what he doesn't know about electronic engineering is not worth knowing and so anyone with concerns about 5G, RFID, EMF etc then we have that expertise available at Helping Hands Group Support. Steve is well versed in human rights and laws, he is also a qualified NEBOSH Health & Safety so we can offer a wide range of support.

Helping Hands Group Support is not a 'qualified legal' group such as a solicitors etc., I do however know the British Laws, Human Rights and many courts and as such I am able to offer people FREE support and direction enabling people the tools to fight for their own personal rights and gain support from new and old friends alike. Helping Hands Group Support is NOT a Political or Action Group, it is an empathic group and is solely here to support anyone and everyone who requires assistance or just a listening ear at this time. Everyone is WELCOME.

I hope you will join our jolly band of supporters, there is no official joining, you simply join in with the groups, we value your opinions, your blogs, your advice and experience but most of all we value you taking time out from your day to help others. We are stronger when we become a group, knowing that your battles are not being fought alone, it may be as simple as sending a virtual hug or a sympathetic comment to someone who desperately needs it, it all helps during these current times when so many people are being discriminated against, bullied and so many atrocities are being committed in the name of 'Covid' when companies, employers, teachers start using 'Covid' as an excuse to bully, intimidate and persecute adults and children alike there is something very seriously wrong in this country and Helping Hands wants to address the balance by showing that not all people are financially driven and not all of us discriminate or bully others. We like to think we are 'old school' here and we show support and respect to everyone regardless of colour, religion, creed, political views we are all equals only here, some are not more equal than others.

I hope you will all treat our members and this site with respect and kindness and trust you will not under any circumstances 'bully or troll' other people on this site or any of our sites, I will state that I have Zero tolerance for bullying,& trolling on our sites - Please feel free to blog, to download our letter templates on here, everything on this site is FREE - We are People Helping People.

.Thank you for visiting our website, I hope you find it useful and will visit us again soon.
Stay strong, stay positive everyone.
Kerry

Most of us don't have access to any "Surviving Lockdown" manuals so we have put together some basic rules to helping you survive our strict lockdowns.

INTRODUCTION
Thank you for visiting my Helping Hands Support Group website. I am increasingly becoming inundated with members requiring assistance and advice due to the current situation happening in the world today which has superseded my normal member's intake of services. I have decided due to the urgent need from members requiring to access assistance, that I have put a Self Help Guide on the website so that any member's requiring assistance can help themselves to the information and services they need in order to fight for their human rights, equality and protect themselves and their loved ones.

Increasingly reports of human rights and equality being breached by service providers, retailers (supermarkets, shops), employers, G.P's, care homes, schools etc., are becoming extremely disturbing in light of today's human rights and equality acts which are there to safeguard everyone. The aim of this "Self Help" Page is to offer you all the guidance and resources at your finger tips in order to allow you to help yourself and not have to rely on Helping Hands Support Group of which the office Admin is 'me'. We are a totally FREE support group & ask nothing in return for the resources offered,. As much as I wish I had numerous pairs of hands which would undoubtedly aid me assisting members quicker, I am unfortunately only one person running this group and as such my one pair of arthritic hands are now becoming increasingly stretched beyond recognition and as a result, sadly resulting in delays in getting to all your messages requiring assistance. This 'Self Help' Page will hopefully be of assistance to both the members and myself allowing everyone the information and resources required to fight yours and your loved ones corners against the tyranny currently being perpetrated in the name of a virus against the people.
SELF HELP GUIDE
Everyone of us - adults, children, babies & even the unborn have Human Rights (despite the scare mongering by the government & media to state otherwise). These human rights cannot be removed, (regardless of how much any government wishes they were able to) so please, do not be intimidated, bullied, harassed or threatened into believing that Human Rights & Equality has been removed, they haven't and neither will they be removed regardless of what you hear in the media. You need to use these rights to defend yourself and your loved ones against all corruption, our template letters are pre-written ready to inform the receiver of your Human Rights and Equality Rights. I have listed the Template Letter number with each subject for easy reference when using this Website. **PLEASE NOTE OUR TEMPLATE LETTERS ARE NOT CLICKABLE/LINKED, THEY ARE SIMPLY COPY AND PASTE LETTERS - HIGHLIGHT THE LETTER, COPY IT AND PASTE IT. WE HAVE A DOWNLOADABLE PDF VERSION AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE A PDF EDITOR SOFTWARE.
SERVICE PROVIDERS & RETAILERS - REFUSAL OF SERVICE TO NON-MASK WEARERS
Any private business be it a Service Provider or a retailer has a complete right to refuse anyone access to their private property/retail premises or refuse their custom. This is the right of any private business and/or individual, however; they cannot show discrimination, racism, ageism, gender or religious discrimination. If a place of business has a blanket ban (blanketban = all persons of a set group) then they can refuse entry or service, this does not become discrimination until they allow 'one' person of that blanket ban group on their premises but insist on stopping others of the same group, this is then' discrimination' being committed against the one/many being refused entry or service. for eg. If they ban all 'non-mask wearing customers' from their premises, then allow one member of staff or customer on their premises without a mask, then they are discriminating against those who wish to enter and are of the same group. Many believe that' non-mask wearers' automatically come under disabled groups - this only applies if the 'non-mask wearer' is disabled with hidden disabilities and unable to wear a mask for whatever reason and not just those individuals who refuse to wear a mask out of principle. This is why not all non-mask wearers are disabled and so this cannot be used as a protected group. If however; you are a disabled non-mask wearer where you have the right to exemption, then you come under the protected group of 'Disabled'. Should the matter go to court you are then able to prove your disability which those who are not wearing out of principle cannot prove, this is why non-mask wearing is not automatically meaning 'protected disabled'.

If they allow non-mask wearers in their premises but then for some reason single you out, this is a matter of discrimination (providing you are not causing any unsocial behaviour in the shop/premises) and you can use our complaint letter to The Manager of the service provider/retailer to complain about the treatment you received instore.
FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 38
FOR SUPERMARKETS/SHOPS - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 45 - simply scroll down on our Home Page until you reach letter 38 AND OR letter No. 45- copy and paste (PDF download also available) fill in your details in the (Italic areas) and sign the letter. If this letter does not provide you with a reasonable solution to your grievance, then we have a more forthright letter to use - please note: when using this letter be aware that you have made the choice to take this matter to its ultimate conclusion which could mean court action. YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 36
EMPLOYERS INSISTING ON WEARING MASKS, TESTS AND/OR VACCINATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE
It is becoming increasingly prevalent that unscrupulous employers are forcing their disabled staff to wear face coverings in the workplace. Firstly, no employer can insist you wear a face covering of any type, (THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS ARE THOSE WHO ARE EXPECTED TO WEAR A SAFETY FACE COVERING FOR THEIR ROLE & WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THEIR WORK CONTRACT) to force you to wear a face covering purely for the Covid virus or prejudice against you due to your hidden disabilities is against the law and employment laws.
If your employer is not corrupt and unscrupulous; they should take on board your 'hidden disabilities', by carrying out a 'Risk Assessment' and provide you with adequate working conditions to allow you to conduct your work unheeded in a safe environment and ensure that you are not forced or 'prejudiced' into wearing a face covering. Unfortunately it is increasingly prevalent that many employers are breaking the laws protecting their employees and are using the current situation as an excuse to control and intimidate their staff regardless of their human and employment rights.
If you have such an employer then I can only advise you that the outcome is going to be of mixed blessings - this will include you losing your job but very expensive for your employer as they will be forced to pay you considerable damages and compensation for discrimination and breaching the employment laws and Human Rights and equality laws. In many cases, once the decision has been made by either party to sever the working relationship, you as the victim will be entitled to claim from your employer, wages in the form of compensation for a period of time that you will be made unemployed. In some cases, especially during this current time when jobs are scarce, judges have been known to offer up to a year's full wages in compensation for the loss of work and inability to gain new employment during the current situation. This will be an extremely expensive error by your employer to not follow the laws in which you are protected. So let us start from the beginning - when your employer begins to force face coverings, Covid tests and/or Covid vaccinations your employer is breaking lots of laws - I will list the relevant letters you will require for each case.
Simply copy and paste the letter, put your details into the letter, print and send (Tracked) or email to the person it states on the letter usually the 'Top' CEO / Manager of the business for whom you are employed.

EMPLOYERS REFUSING RIGHTS TO NON-MASK WEARING - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 14
EMPLOYERS INSISTING ON COVID TESTING - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 7
EMPLOYERS INSISTING ON COVID VACCINATIONS - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 29
EMPLOYEES REFUSING MASK WEARING DUE TO DISABILITY - SOFTER APPROACH - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 43
EMPLOYEES REFUSING PCR TESTING DUE TO SIDE EFFECTS - SOFTER APPROACH - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 44

SCHOOL CHILDREN & ADULT STUDENTS BEING FORCED TO WEAR MASKS, TESTS AND/OR VACCINATIONS
There are no circumstances anywhere where you as a parent can be forced to make your child wear a mask/face covering, be Covid Tested, Covid Vaccinated or any other vaccination. Any school enforcing this is breaching your child's human rights and as such can be prosecuted. If any child is touched, tested, vaccinated without a parent's consent they are also guilty of assault upon your child which is a very serious crime and can see depending on the severity see the teacher concerned imprisoned.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (EXEMPT) RIGHTS TO NOT WEAR A MASK - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 1
SCHOOL CHILDREN RIGHTS NOT TO BE COVID TESTED - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 1
SCHOOL CHILDREN RIGHTS NOT TO BE COVID VACCINATED - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 30
SCHOOL CHILDREN (NON-EXEMPT) - RIGHTS NOT TO BE COVID TESTED - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 4
SCHOOL CHILDREN RIGHTS TO REFUSE THE FLU MIST VACCINATION - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 3
ADULT STUDENTS (Colleges/Universities) - RIGHTS NOT TO BE TESTED OR VACCINATED - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 6
SCHOOL CHILDREN/ADULT STUDENTS BEING FORCED TO STUDY IN OPEN WINDOW/COLD CLASSROOMS
Many schools are forcing their pupils/students to study in classrooms whereby the classroom windows are wide open during these winter months, causing the temperature in the classrooms to drop below unacceptable safe temperatures. Despite the schools stating it is to' protect the children from contracting Covid', it is, in fact, being perpetrated across the UK to cause the low temperatures in the classrooms to reduce the children's/pupils inbuilt natural immune systems. Low temperatures on the human body reduces the body's immune system substantially and this results in making the children more vulnerable and susceptible to contracting the Covid virus and any other common virus's. It is a well known fact, that the SARS-CoV-2 virus only becomes inactive when subjected to low temperatures of minus 70 degrees. This temperature is basically deep freeze and for obvious reasons, people cannot work or survive in conditions of this low temperature to safeguard themselves. No classroom is allowed to fall below 16 degrees celsius, (Health & Safety) - clearly no matter how low a school tries to lower a classroom temperature it will not affect the virus, it will however; affect the person's being subjected to cold temperatures, whereby significant lowering of the bodies immune system leaves those affected more susceptible to illness and contracting virus's. if any workplace falls below this temperature of 16 degrees celsius then the workplace or school should send all children home as per their Health & Safety laws, as it is seriously detrimental to the child's health. SCHOOL/ADULT STUDENTS TO REFUSE TO STUDY IN COLD CLASSROOMS - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 2 BEING REFUSED MEDICAL TREATMENT BASED ON INABILITY TO WEAR A MASK, NOT WANTING TO BE TESTED OR VACCINATED IN HOSPITAL/GP SURGERIES It is a sad fact that the NHS are breaking not only our Human Rights and Equality Rights but also the NHS Constitution which is a serious matter. As many are being refused life saving medical treatment and general duty of care to the public, I have a number of letters for different stages of complaint against NHS/Medical Authorities who are denying your right to medical treatment due to disabled not being able to wear a mask, not be tested and not be vaccinated. For those that do want to be vaccinated we offer a GP Consent form on the website to discuss with your GP and allow you some come-back of damages should you be affected by adverse reactions after the vaccination. If a doctor refuses to sign the form then clearly they are aware of the risks associated with the Covid Vaccines and are not willing to practice what they preach meaning they are clearly lying to you and unable to put their trust in the vaccination and this should act as a warning to you as the government or pharmaceutical companies have EXEMPTED themselves from any responsibility or compensation for any serious adverse reactions or death associated with receiving the untested Covid vaccination. They provide access to compensation for other vaccines but not the Covid vaccine? If you choose to accept the vaccination that is your right but be aware if you suffer adverse reactions or death as a result neither you or your family are entitled to receive any compensation. If you get the GP to sign the consent form you have at least the GP medical practice to fall back on should you require financial assistance i.e. long term health care, burials etc. REFUSED MEDICAL TREATMENT BASED ON INABILITY TO WEAR A MASK - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 8 LIVING WILL LETTER TO GP AND HEALTH BOARD
REFUSED MEDICAL TREATMENT BASED ON REFUSAL OF COVID TESTING &/OR VACCINATIONS - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 9
FORMAL COMPLAINT - STAGE 1 AGAINST HEALTH BOARD FOR REFUSAL OF TREATMENT - YOU REQUIRE LETTER 10
ELDERLY & SPECIAL NEEDS REFUSING THE COVID TESTING - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 28 WE ALSO HAVE TEMPLATE LETTERS FOR T.V. LICENCE, RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND MANY OTHERS WHICH CAN BE FOUND BY SIMPLY SCROLLING DOWN THE HOME PAGE. ALL LETTERS WHERE SPECIFIED SHOULD ALSO BE SIGNED AND CO-SIGNED BY A WITNESS OVER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS. WE ALSO HAVE TWO COMPANIES WHO ARE OFFERING FREE ADVICE ON DISCRIMINATION AND LAWS - PLEASE VISIT: Please feel free to contact me (Kerry) should we not have on our website, what you are looking for.
Stay Strong Everyone
Take care

The groups are: Kester Disability Rights (No Win, No Fee) - they offer FREE advice:
https://disabilityrights.org.uk/contact-kester
Telephone: 07722 004337

Thrive Law: (These are solicitors, fees are payable in advance) but they offer FREE advice:
Email: <enquiries@thrivelaw.co.uk
Online Live Messenger: https://www.thrivelaw.co.uk/
Telephone: Speak to an expert on 0113 869 8101

Mention to them that you have been referred from Helping Hands Support Group, that informs them that you have followed up the basic Self-Help assistance available to you and that you may require more in depth assistance.
PARENT OF YOUNG ADULT WITH SPECIAL NEEDS - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 33
ELDERLY & SPECIAL NEEDS REFUSING THE COVID VACCINATIONS - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 35 FORMAL COMPLAINT - STAGE 2 AGAINST HEALTH OMBUDSMAN FOR REFUSAL OF TREATMENT - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 11
FORMAL COMPLAINT - STAGE 3 AGAINST THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN FOR REFUSAL OF NHS TREATMENT - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 12
Many parents are now increasingly choosing to home school their children, due to the risks to health and welfare of children in schools during this pandemic, anyone can apply to home school their children at this time by contacting their local education office.
We have a letter which explains clearly the risks to your child's health by studying in very cold classrooms/study rooms - Copy & paste, put in your child's details (or if over 16 yrs put their own details) and send to the Head of the Teaching facility ie. school, college or university.
I have a template letter which is called a LIVING WILL this can be sent to your health authority to put on your medical file should in the event you be unable to voice your non-consent to testing or vaccinations, then you can send this letter now to The Medical Records Manager to your Local Health Board and a copy to your GP to keep on file, should they ignore this Living Will letter and continue to assault you by forcing testing or vaccinations on you without consent you can prosecute them for breaking your human rights, NHS Constitution and for grievous bodily harm and assault.

LIVING WILL LETTER TO KEEP ON HEALTH FILES - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 17

G.P CONSENT FORM PRE-DISCUSSION OF VACCINE INFORMATION AND CONSENT

This consent form will allow you to fully discuss the facts as per your rights on information relating to the Covid Vaccinations, the side effects, adverse affects and concerns regarding the Covid Vaccination programmes prior to consent - this also provides GP cover and compensation should you be affected by adverse reactions. If your GP refuses to sign this form, this in itself indicates your GP do not believe that the vaccine is safe or they would have no problem putting their name to the safety of this vaccine.

G.P VACCINATION CONSENT FORM - YOU REQUIRE LETTER 37
G.P VACCINATION DISCUSSION ON CONCERNS - YOU REQUIRE LETTER NO. 34

O.A.P'S - SPECIAL NEEDS - DEMENTIA - ALZHEIMER'S - CARE HOME RESIDENTS & POWERS OF ATTORNEY

All our elderly should be protected with their human rights to choose whether they want to wear masks, be routinely tested and/or vaccinated. They are by law protected however many are suffering from dementia, Alzheimer's and as such are being taken advantage of in care homes by the homes and also their GP's. If you hold a Power of Attorney over your elderly relative for Health & Welfare, the care home and GP are obligated by the laws pertaining to 'LPA's' to ask your permission before undertaking any medical procedures i.e. testing and vaccinations. Many GP's believe they are untouchable and can do whatever they please and are in many cases vaccinating care home residents without seeking the Power of Attorney's consent. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME AND THE G.P CAN BE PROSECUTED & HIS LICENCE SUSPENDED. Every person has the right to consent - if they are unable to consent themselves for medical reasons or special needs, then the parent, guardian, relative who holds the consent, their consent MUST be sought and no treatment carried out without the full consent.
We have a list of template letters to send for these occasions - Copy and paste, fill in the details of who you have consent for, their date of birth, sign and witness sign it (anyone over the age of 18 years can witness sign the documents).

We are sadly witnessing so many of our aged & special needs who are residing in care homes being tested, forced to wear masks and vaccinated without the person's consent. In some instances, we have witnessed GP's over-riding Power of Attorney over those suffering dementia/alzheimer's etc., this is nothing short of GBH and are breaking the human rights of the resident along with laws pertaining to the Powers of Attorney which over-rides any such consent by the patient/resident or that of the GP. We have a selection of letters to send to care homes and GP's who are intending to break the law by force vaccination and those who are deliberately ignoring Health and Welfare Power of Attorney's over their loved ones.

Here is a link to a company who are willing to send a FREE anonymous letter to your child's school to remind the school concerned that they cannot enforce mask wearing or Covid Testing in the school or college. Many have used our template letters specifically naming the child and this has had in some instances repercussions on the child i.e. being isolated and/or prejudiced against, which although can be also addressed as this behaviour is illegal, it can target the child by the teacher's unlawful behaviour. This company will send an anonymous letter to your child's school informing the school that they are breaching human rights and laws and will not name your child thereby avoiding prejudice towards the child.

Helping Hands highly recommendeds this service to all parents. The letters are professionally written and incorporate all the necessary laws and rights each child has to a free education without the hindrance of unlawful behaviour by the schools.

Click on this link and complete the form available whereby these lawyers will send an anonymous free letter to your child's school informing them that mask wearing and covid testing cannot be made mandatory.

Click here: https://democracydeclaration.com/lawyers-for-liberty

ADULT MASK WEARING IN THE SCHOOL YARD

Increasingly we are seeing parents being forced to wear masks in the school yard when collecting their children and also when dropping the child off at the school gates. Schools are still legally bound by rules and human rights and every parent has the human right to refuse to wear a mask due to hidden disabilities. We have included a template letter for parents to send to the Headmaster/Governors/Local Education Authority demanding they acknowledge and work within the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the Equality Rights 2010.

Copy letter in PDF format bottom of the page.

Copy & paste the letter here:

Date: (Today's Date)

For the urgent attention of The Headteacher/Governors Name of School To whom it may concern Re: Parental Exemption from wearing a Mask due to hidden disabilities - Equality Act 2010 - Discrimination (Section 13 & Section 15) I understand that I am now required to wear a mask when taking and collecting my child to and from school. I wish to inform you that I hold a Government Exemption Card in accordance with the 'Coronavirus Act 2020' this card issued by the Government guarantees me full exemption from wearing any mask or shield in accordance with my disability and in conjunction with the Equality Act 2010 (Section 13 & Section 15) in which it is illegal to show discrimination or question persons on the particulars of their said disability (Maximum fine is £9,000 Nine thousand pounds) against anyone who suffers from hidden disabilities which prevents them from wearing a mask or shield. I am unable to wear a mask/splashback shield due to hidden disabilities and by law this must be accepted any such refusal to accept the Government Exemption Card is breaching my human rights (UNESCO Bioethics & Human Rights 2005: Article 6.1 UK Law) by forcing my consent (insisting I wear a mask) i.e. making conditions which affect the health, safety of myself as a parent and endangering the safety of my child in your care if I am refused access to take or collect my child to/from the school. The school have a responsibility in law to safeguard my child whilst in their care & by refusing a parent from collecting a child, means the child is left alone in the school yard this is totally unacceptable. If the school are unable to respect the law & act within the confines of the Coronavirus Act 2020 whereby my exemption to wearing a mask is lawful and in accordance with the Act, then I will be forced to take the matter further and to the Health & Safety Executive team. I trust the school will not wish this matter to escalate further and will in accordance with the law respect my disability and allow me to take/collect my child unhindered.

Yours faithfully

'YOUR NAME & SIGNATURE

Witness Name & Signature

In view of the new Covid 19 Vaccination being introduced, the Government have stated clearly that this is not mandatory, however; many employers are taking it a step too far & using it as a excuse for dismissing staff that do not abide by their new rules this includes, mask wearing, testing and now vaccinations. Be assured that your employer is breaking the law if he coerces, pressurises, threatens or prejudices your employment with the company on the basis of receiving the Covid vaccination. You have human rights, no person can prejudice, pressure, coerce you to be vaccinated against your will, this is punishable by law. This letter clearly states to your employer that you are not giving consent for the vaccination and should they alter, prejudice you in any way for not having the vaccine or at worse threaten your job within the company, you can prosecute them for breaking your human rights and UK laws. Simply copy and paste this letter, fill in your details where necessary, sign the letter and have someone over the age of 18 years to witness the letter and then send to the person concerned. There is a copy and paste version also a PDF downloadable version of this letter at the bottom of this page. Please note this letter is 2 pages long as the human rights are given on a second page which should be sent along with the letter.

Copy & paste letter here:

Your Address
Dated: (Today's Date)

For the attention of: (Employer's Name) (Workplace Address)

To Whom it may concern
Re: Withdrawal of Consent for the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid 19) Vaccine
Iwish it to be known and understood that as from the date appearing on this document and in the event that I am expected to receive the new SARS-CoV-2 (Covid 19) vaccine in the near future in line with my employment, I wish to make it known that: "In accordance with my Human rights UNESCO Bioethics & Human Rights 2005 & NHS Constitution 2015 (Article 3. - Human Dignity & Human Rights - (Article 6 - Consent - see overleaf for full written articles for your information) (NHS Constitution 2015 - Consent & Human Rights
I wish it to be known and understood from this day forward that I DO NOT give consent and I refuse to allow any form of SARS Cov2 (Covid 19) vaccinations to be conducted or performed either internally or externally on any part of my body in accordance with my Human Rights and that any prejudice or discriminatory actions are taken to influence my employment with your company due to my withdrawal of consent is in contravention of my employment contract and human rights and is punishable by law.
Any such attempt in contravention of my wishes will be treated as common assault and in contravention of my human rights (full list of human rights overleaf) and will should my human rights be disregarded, be the subject of prosecution in law of those involved in this action.

Signed

Your Name

Witness Name

Page 2.

UNESCO BIOETHICS & HUMAN RIGHTS 2005 NHS CONSTITUTION 2015

UNESCO BIOETHICS & HUMAN RIGHTS 2005
Article 3 - Human dignity and human rights 1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected. 2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 6 - Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research / medical intervention should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include the modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual's informed consent.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONSTITUTION
The NHS Constitution for England ("the Constitution") (last updated 2015) states, under the heading 1. "Respect, consent and confidentiality" that every person has the right to: (a) be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with their human rights. (b) accept or refuse treatment that is offered, and not to be given any physical examination or treatment unless they have given valid consent. (c) be given information about the test and treatment options available, what they involve and their risks and benefits. (d) be involved in planning and making decisions about their health and care with their care provider or providers.

As parents are aware the new Covid 19 Vaccination is being introduced in the UK. At the present time it is not recommended for children under 16 years of age, however incase things change and schools begin to introduce the vaccination programme into the school environment. Every parent has the right to refuse on behalf of any child the consent and refusal for the child to receive the new vaccine. Here is a template letter which can be sent to the Headteacher, Governing Body and Local Education Authority refusing permission for your child to be vaccinated. Children over the age of 16 years can decide for themselves as long as they are mentally capable and in full knowledge of all risks to any medical intervention (vaccine). For children who are over the age of 16 years and have learning difficulties, it is to be discussed with the person whether they are capable of understanding the risks and information on any medical intervention. For those under 16 years, parental consent is necessary. Copy and paste the letter with the childs name and date of birth in the relevant areas, the parent signs the letter (please note: separated parents, the parent with right to responsibility by law is the only person to sign the letter). Please obtain a witness over the age of 18 years to witness the signed letter, keep a copy and send to relevant person. You can download a PDF version at the bottom of the page. This is a 2-page letter send both pages.

Copy & Paste letter here:

Your Address
Dated: (Today's Date)

For the attention of Headteacher/Governing Body/Local Education Authority (Address of School here)

To Headteacher et al.
Re: Withdrawal of Consent for the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid 19) Vaccine Childs Name: Child's Date of Birth:
Iwish it to be known and understood that as from the date appearing on this document and in the event that my child is expected to receive the new SARS-CoV-2 (Covid 19) vaccine in the near future I wish to make it known that: "In accordance with my Human rights UNESCO Bioethics & Human Rights 2005 & NHS Constitution 2015 (Article 3. - Human Dignity & Human Rights - (Article 6 - Consent - see overleaf for full written articles for your information) (NHS Constitution 2015 - Consent & Human Rights
I wish it to be known and understood from this day forward that I DO NOT give consent and I refuse to allow any form of SARS Cov2 (Covid 19) vaccinations to be conducted or performed either internally or externally on any part of my child's body in accordance with my child's Human Rights.
Any such attempt in contravention of my wishes will be treated as common assault and in contravention of my child's human rights mentioned above and will be the subject of prosecution in law of those involved in this action.

Signed

Your Name

Witness Name

Page 2.

UNESCO BIOETHICS & HUMAN RIGHTS 2005 NHS CONSTITUTION 2015

UNESCO BIOETHICS & HUMAN RIGHTS 2005
Article 3 - Human dignity and human rights 1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected. 2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 6 - Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research / medical intervention should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include the modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual's informed consent.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONSTITUTION
The NHS Constitution for England ("the Constitution") (last updated 2015) states, under the heading 1. "Respect, consent and confidentiality" that every person has the right to: (a) be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with their human rights. (b) accept or refuse treatment that is offered, and not to be given any physical examination or treatment unless they have given valid consent. (c) be given information about the test and treatment options available, what they involve and their risks and benefits. (d) be involved in planning and making decisions about their health and care with their care provider or providers.

We are in an unprecedented time when pharmaceutical companies are bringing out temporary licensed vaccines (this means vaccines that have not undergone the full period of time in testing) and are basically asking people to take the vaccine and they will monitor its effects over the years to come, many feel happy to volunteer to be a test subject for the vaccine in the hope it will protect them from SARS-CoV-2 virus - however; everyone has the right to know what the vaccinations and programme consist of, these have been produced by the government for individuals who intend to receive the vaccine. These PDF's information sheets at least offers some degree of informed choice.

We have two of the government's PDF's one for individuals and one for healthcare professionals, simply choose which/both and click the download button.

PDF Downloads available here:

APPEALING A DISCIPLINARY OR GRIEVANCE OUTCOME

Increasingly employees are being discriminated against due to their hidden disabilities being unable to wear masks, refusal of tests and/or vaccinations. If you wish to appeal a Disciplinary or Grievance outcome .... please visit https://www.acas.org.uk/appealing-a-disciplinary-or-grievance-outcome

How to appeal
Your workplace discipline and grievance policy should tell you how to appeal. If not, you should raise your appeal in writing to your employer.

Write in a letter or email:

why you think your outcome was wrong or unfair (for example, if you felt the person investigating your case did not get enough evidence)

what you would like to happen next (for example, you could ask if your employer can carry out another investigation or look at the new evidence you have found)

Start to Copy & Paste letter here: [Address] Tel: [ ]
Email: [ ]

Dated: (Insert Date)

For the attention of (Head/CEO)

(Address of CEO/Head office)

Dear ......[your employer/manager/HR manager name],

I am writing to formally appeal against the disciplinary penalty you imposed on me on me on ......[date]. My reasons for appeal are as follows: [set out basis for your appeal. For example, you disagree with the way disciplinary action was taken, you feel the outcome was too harsh, or you have new evidence that you feel should be considered]. I would be grateful if you would let me know when and where we can meet to discuss my appeal. I would like to be accompanied at the meeting by ......[name].

Yours sincerely,

......[your name]

OUR HUMAN RIGHTS - UNESCO BIOETHICS & HUMAN RIGHTS 2005
In October 2005, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted by acclamation the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The Declaration addresses ethical issues related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as applied to human beings, taking into account their social, legal and environmental dimensions, and states fundamental principles that are relevant from a global perspective. It is the first time in the history of bioethics that Member States committed themselves and the international community to respect and apply such fundamental principles. Since its adoption, the Declaration has very quickly become a reference text. A growing number of scholarly and popular publications are discussing and examining the Declaration. Several books have been published in various languages analysing the provisions of the Declaration. The text of the Declaration has been translated into approximately 30 national languages. The Declaration is also increasingly used as a resource and as teaching material in educational programmes for young scientists and health care professionals. UNESCO is currently developing a proposal for a bioethics course based on the principles set out in the Declaration. The Declaration has furthermore inspired Member States to establish national bioethics committees and to take legislative measures to give effect to the principles included in the Declaration. The present book provides a new impetus to the promotion and dissemination of the Declaration and is part of the continuous effort of the Organization to provide information on the Declaration worldwide and to contribute to the understanding of its principles. Presenting an article by article commentary, each chapter highlights the discussion of the relevant article during the process of drafting and elaborating the Declaration so that the historical background of the adopted text is clarified. It also provides suggestions for the use and application of the relevant article in considerations and debates concerning salient bioethical issues and questions. In doing so, 10 The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights * * * * fifth proofs * * * * each chapter promotes opportunities for informed pluralistic public debate, as requested in the Declaration itself. The chapters have been written by authors who, with a few exceptions, have themselves been involved in the drafting and elaboration of the text of the Declaration, as members of the International Bioethics Committees, the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee or as governmental representatives in expert meetings, the Executive Board and the General Conference. It is obvious that what they present is not the official view of UNESCO as regards the interpretation of the Declaration. But the authors' involvement in the development of the Declaration in its various stages assures well-informed and high-level contributions to the promotion of the Declaration.

PRIVACY & DATA PROTECTION

1. Introduction Helping Hands Support Group provides a confidential support service to enable those who are experiencing personal conflicts with organisations can obtain information about your Human Rights in which you can use to fight your corners. At Helping Hands Support Group the privacy and security of our members and the data they process with us is essential. Helping Hands Support Group are committed to protecting the data you share with us and this privacy policy explains how Helping Hands Support Group processes information. All information stored by Helping Hands Support Group is treated as strictly confidential and is stored securely and accessed by authorised personnel only. Helping Hands Support Group maintains the technical, security and organisational measures to protect personal data against unlawful use, accidental loss, damage or disclosure.

2. Retention of data Helping Hands Support Group will not retain data longer than is necessary to fulfil the purposes for which it was collected. Data obtained by Helping Hands Support Group for means of communication will be kept for 30 days for queries and a maximum of 120 days for requested information. From there, this data will be deleted.

3. Acceptance of these conditions We assume that all users of Helping Hands Support Group website have carefully read this document and agree to its contents. We reserve the right to change our privacy policy at any time.

4. Our legal obligation to disclose personal data We will reveal a user's personal information without his/her consent if we believe that the disclosure of this information is legally required due to fraud etc

. 5. For further information If you have any questions regarding the data Helping Hands holds, then please feel free to contact us via email at:: Helpinghandsgroupuk@gmail.com or contact us on Facebook page at www.facebook.com/helpinghandsgroupsupport

Can anyone join Helping Hands Group Support?

Do you offer financial support and assistance?

What kind of support can you offer?

Do you only assist people living in the United Kingdom?

Can I be forced to wear a mask, to test or to vaccinate due to Covid 19?

Do we still have human rights since leaving the EU (Brexit) and the removal of EU Human rights?

Is the Covid 19 (Coronavirus Act 2020) Law?

If my employer insists I be vaccinated, do I have the right to refuse?

If I have a Zero Hour contract do I still have the right to refuse testing and vaccination?

If a loved one has special needs or dementia and is unable to decide if they want to be vaccinated or not, can I simply refuse on their behalf?

I have more than one issue, can I download more than one letter from the website?

Can I send a personal message to you to request guidance and support?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Helping Hands Group Support - Welcome To Helping Hands Self-Help Group Support

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LISTING OF HELPING HANDS GROUP SUPPORT FREE TEMPLATE LETTERS Here are a list of all our current Template Letters available for various issues. Check here to find the letter you need and make a note of the Letter Number, as this is the number letter you will need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The novel coronavirus' spike protein plays additional key role in illness
Salk researchers and collaborators show how the protein damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease
LA JOLLA-Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2's distinctive "spike" proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that they also play a key role in the disease itself.

The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19's wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.

"A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it's really a vascular disease," says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. "That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings."

Salk researchers collaborated with scientists at the University of California San Diego on the paper, including co-first author Jiao Zhang and co-senior author John Shyy, among others.

While the findings themselves aren't entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There's been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

In the new study, the researchers created a "pseudovirus" that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model-proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2's molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.

"If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID," Manor explains. "Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses."

The researchers next hope to take a closer look at the mechanism by which the disrupted ACE2 protein damages mitochondria and causes them to change shape.

Other authors on the study are Yuyang Lei and Zu-Yi Yuan of Jiaotong University in Xi'an, China; Cara R. Schiavon, Leonardo Andrade, and Gerald S. Shadel of Salk; Ming He, Hui Shen, Yichi Zhang, Yoshitake Cho, Mark Hepokoski, Jason X.-J. Yuan, Atul Malhotra, Jin Zhang of the University of California San Diego; Lili Chen, Qian Yin, Ting Lei, Hongliang Wang and Shengpeng Wang of Xi'an Jiatong University Health Science Center in Xi'an, China.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Shaanxi Natural Science Fund, the National Key Research and Development Program, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University; and Xi'an Jiaotong University.

DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The novel coronavirus' spike protein plays additional key role in illness - Salk Institute for Biological Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LA JOLLA-Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2's distinctive "spike" proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that they also play a key role in the disease itself.

# data[].attributes.headline
CANADIAN DOCTORS SPEAK OUT: TOP REASONS WHY NOT TO BE AFRAID OF COVID

# data[].attributes.subject
CANADIAN DOCTORS SPEAK OUT: TOP REASONS WHY NOT TO BE AFRAID OF COVID

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canadian Doctors Speak Out: Top Reasons Why Not to be Afraid of COVID

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canadian Doctors Speak Out: Top Reasons Why Not to be Afraid of COVID https://www.trumpseason.com/starblazer.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series 
Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series

# data[].attributes.subject
Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series 
Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Rheumatology key messages

Herpes zoster reactivation following COVID-19 vaccination is reported in six patients with stable AIIRD.

COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine might provoke reactivation of herpes zoster in patients with AIIRD.

Epidemiologic studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with AIIRD are warranted.

Introduction

Since the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the prevention of the rapidly spreading infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become of paramount importance. Two mRNA-based vaccines, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, have demonstrated a high efficacy rate with an acceptable safety profile [ 1, 2], leading to their expedited authorization by the regulatory authorities. A nationwide mass BNT162b2 vaccination campaign has been launched in Israel with an exceptionally rapid pace and high uptake of vaccination, with 62.1% ( n = 5,452,195) and 58.5% ( n = 5,134,020) of the population vaccinated with the first and second vaccine dose, respectively, as at 1 June 2021. Immunosuppressed patients, including patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD), have been prioritized for urgent vaccination, consistent with the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force recommending vaccination in most patients with AIIRD [ 3].

To date, there is no data available on the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in AIIRD patients, as immunosuppressed patients were excluded from the vaccines' clinical trials. Therefore, safety monitoring and surveillance of vaccinated patients is especially warranted in this population.

In this report, we present a series of six patients with AIIRD who developed a first episode of herpes zoster (HZ) closely after vaccination with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. We further discuss potential mechanisms for this clinical observation and a potential causal link between the vaccination and reactivation of zoster infection.

Methods

The safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination was assessed in a two-centre observational study monitoring post-vaccination adverse effects in patients with AIIRD ( n = 491) and controls ( n  = 99). The study has been conducted since December 2020 and is presently ongoing at the rheumatology departments of the Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv and Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. Consecutive patients with AIIRD, including RA, spondyloarthropathies, connective tissue diseases (CTD), vasculitis and myositis followed at both departments were offered to enrol into the observational study monitoring potential adverse effects following the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination provided as a standard of care. The study has been approved by the Institutional Board Review of both institutions, TLV-1055-20 and CMC-0238-20, respectively. All participants signed a written informed consent to be participate in the study. The present case series is based on the interim analysis of the safety results collected within the initial six-week post-vaccination period.

Case summaries

Demographic, clinical and treatment-related characteristics of each of the six patients are reported in Table 1.

Case 1

A 44-year-old woman with a history of Sjogren's syndrome treated with HCQ presented with the first episode of HZ after COVID-19 vaccination. She had a history of varicella and was not vaccinated against HZ. She received the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on 27 December 2020 and three days later developed headache, low back pain, vesicular skin rash and pruritus, consistent with HZ affecting the dermatome L5. She did not receive any treatment for HZ with a spontaneous resolution of symptoms within 3 weeks. She received the second vaccine dose 4 weeks apart from the first one, without other adverse effects. No flare of rheumatic disease was reported during that period.

Case 2

A 56-year-old woman with a history of a longstanding seropositive RA presented with the first episode of HZ ophthalmicus (HZO) following COVID-19 vaccination. The patient was treated with multiple biologics and achieved a low disease activity under tofacitinib initiated in 2014. She had a history of varicella and was not vaccinated against HZ. She received the first dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on 4 January 2021, followed by development of malaise, intense headache, and sensation of cold at the left hemicranium. She had no fever. Four days after vaccination, left-sided severe pain of the left eye and forehead appeared, accompanied by a typical rash of HZ at the distribution of the ophthalmic division (V1) of the V cranial nerve. On the eye examination, she had hyperemic conjunctivitis, without corneal involvement. She was treated with acyclovir for 14 days, lubricant eye drops, and analgesics with a gradual resolution of symptoms within 6 weeks. The treatment with tofacitinib was temporarily discontinued for two weeks. During that time, she did not experience any flare of arthritis. Due to concern of further complications, she declined the second dose of the vaccine.

Case 3

A 59-year-old woman with seropositive RA presented with the first episode of HZ following COVID-19 vaccination. The patient was resistant to multiple biologics and baricitinib. Since June 2020, she has been treated with upadacitinib and prednisone 5 mg/day with a partial response. She had a history of varicella and received a live-attenuated zoster vaccine (Zostavax ®) prior to initiation of baricitinib in February 2019. She uneventfully received the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on 28 December 2020 followed by the second dose on 18 January 2021. Two days later, she presented with pain and typical HZ vesicular skin rash at the low abdomen, inguinal area, upper thigh, and buttock, without systemic symptoms. She was treated with valacyclovir for three days that was discontinued due to side effects. Upadacitinib was discontinued with a subsequent severe polyarticular flare of RA. The disease course was characterized by a slow healing of skin lesions within 6 weeks. Her anti-rheumatic therapy was switched to etanercept.

Case 4

A 36-year-old woman with a history of a longstanding seropositive RA complicated by interstitial lung disease presented with the first episode of HZ following COVID-19 vaccination. Her anti-rheumatic treatment was stable for the last 2 years and included mycophenolate mofetil 2 g/day, rituximab provided in July 2020 and prednisone 7 mg/day. She had a history of varicella and was not vaccinated for HZ. She received the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on 28 December 2020. Ten days later, she developed pain and typical vesicular skin rash at the abdomen and back at the distribution of T10 dermatome. She was treated with acyclovir for one week with a resolution of symptoms within 6 weeks. She received the second dose of vaccine 4 weeks apart from the first vaccine dose, without other adverse effects. No flare of rheumatic disease was reported during that period.

Case 5

A 38-year-old woman with a longstanding history of undifferentiated CTD and anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS), treated with HCQ and aspirin, presented with the first episode of HZ following COVID-19 vaccination. She had a history of varicella and was not vaccinated against HZ. The patient received the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on 28 December 2020 and two weeks later developed tingling, itching followed by vesicular skin rash typical for HZ at the right breast, without systemic symptoms. She was prescribed acyclovir for one week with a consequent resolution of symptoms in 3 weeks. She received the second dose of the vaccine 4 weeks apart from the first vaccine dose, without other adverse effects. She did not experience any flare of her baseline disease during that period.

Case 6

A 61-year-old woman with a longstanding seropositive RA treated with tocilizumab and prednisone 5 mg/day presented with the first episode of HZ following COVID-19 vaccination. She had a history of varicella in childhood and was not vaccinated for HZ. She received the first of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on 11 January 2021. Two weeks later, a typical HZ rash appeared at the distribution of T6 dermatome, without systemic symptoms. She was treated with valacyclovir for one week with a complete recovery within 10 days. In addition, she experienced a mild flare of arthritis and increased the dose of prednisone to 7.5 mg/day. She received the second vaccine dose three weeks apart from the first one as scheduled, without other adverse effects.

Discussion

We present a case series of six patients with AIIRD who developed the first episode of HZ closely following the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination against COVID-19. In our study, the prevalence of HZ corresponded to 1.2% in patients with AIIRD compared with none in controls. All but one patient presented with HZ after the first dose of the vaccine. HZ reactivation was reported following trivalent influenza, hepatitis A and rabies vaccines, suggesting vaccine-modulated immunomodulation [ 4]. To our knowledge, there were no reports of varicella-like skin rash or HZ in the mRNA-based vaccines COVID-19 clinical trials [ 1, 2] and our case series is the first one to report this observation in patients with AIIRD. Our study sample included female patients within a relatively young age range: 36-61, average age 49 ± 11 years. In all cases, the baseline rheumatic disease was either mild (cases 1, 5) or stable under medical treatment (cases 2-4, 6), three patients were currently treated with low dose (<10 mg) prednisone, two with biologic DMARDS and two with JAK inhibitors. The severity of HZ was mild with the involvement of one or two dermatomes in all but one patient (case 2) who developed HZO, without corneal involvement. None of the patients developed disseminated disease or post-herpetic neuralgia. Notably, one patient developed HZ despite being vaccinated for HZ two years prior to the reported event. Five patients received an oral anti-viral therapy with a good clinical result. The close temporal association between COVID-19 vaccination and the first reactivation of the latent zoster infection poses a question of a potential causality between both events vs a pure coincidence.

Cell-mediated immunity plays an important role in the prevention of VZV reactivation. Declining cell-mediated immunity with age or disease is associated with a reduction in VZV-specific T cells, disrupting immune surveillance and increasing the risk of reactivation, with age being the major risk factor for 90% of cases of HZ [ 5].

The risk of HZ infection in the AIIRD population is increased compared with the general population [ 6-8], with a pooled incidence rate ratio of 2.9, 95% confidence interval 2.4-3.3 [ 9]. Among patients with RA, the risk of HZ infection is estimated to be 2-fold compared with the healthy population within the same age range [ 6]. Risk factors for HZ infection in RA include old age, high disease activity and dose-related use of glucocorticoids [ 10], which were absent in RA patients with HZ in our case series. Treatment with JAK inhibitors doubles the risk of HZ in RA compared with other biologics [ 11, 12]. Indeed, in our report, two RA patients were treated with JAK inhibitors but for a substantial amount of time, with one of the patients previously vaccinated for HZ, suggesting vaccination as a potential trigger for HZ. Another RA patient (case 4) was significantly immunosuppressed, which indeed may explain HZ reactivation at any time point.

Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, varicella-like exanthem [ 13] and HZ [ 14-21] have been globally reported in the context of COVID-19 infection. The suggested pathogenetic mechanism relates to an observation that SARS-CoV-2 infection can damage the function of CD4+ T cells and promote excessive activation and possibly subsequent exhaustion of CD8+ T cells [ 22]. Together, these perturbations of T cell subsets may eventually diminish host antiviral immunity [ 23].

Potential mechanisms that might explain the pathogenetic link between mRNA-COVID19 vaccination and HZ reactivation are related to stimulation of innate immunity through toll-like receptors (TLRs) 3,7 by mRNA-based vaccines [ 24]. TLR signalling has been implicated during reactivation of herpesviruses, a process essential for these viruses to maintain themselves in the host [ 25]. Defects in TLR expression in patients suffering from diseases caused directly by herpesvirus infection highlight the importance of these signalling pathways during infection and eventual disease progression [ 25]. The vaccine stimulates induction of type I INFs and potent inflammatory cytokines, which instigate T and B immune responses but may negatively affect antigen expression potentially contributing to HZ reactivation.

Our report has a number of limitations. First, the study design is not structured to determine a causal relationship between vaccination and HZ, as non-vaccinated patients with AIIRD were not included in the study. Second, HZ diagnosis was based solely on clinical grounds, without histologic or molecular confirmation. We also acknowledge that the real number of HZ cases following COVID-19 vaccination may be under reported in both general and AIIRD populations.

In summary, the presented cases raise awareness to a potential causal link between COVID-19 vaccination as a trigger of HZ reactivation in relatively young patients with stable AIIRD. While the causality between both events cannot be proved based on a small number of cases, further vigilance and safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination side effects is warranted. Clinical registry of safety of COVID19 vaccination among patients with AIIRD will provide further insight into this open question.

Acknowledgements

The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki approved by the Tel Aviv Medical Center and Carmel Medical Center committees: TLV-1055-20 and CMC-0238-20, respectively. Informed consent has been obtained from all the participants

Funding: No specific funding was received from any bodies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors to carry out the work described in this article.

Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement

The data underlying this article are available in the article.

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a case series

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rheumatology key messages Herpes zoster reactivation following COVID-19 vaccination is reported in six patients with stable AIIRD. COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine might provoke reactivation of herpes zoster in patients with AIIRD. Epidemiologic studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with AIIRD are warranted.

# data[].attributes.headline
UK deaths in 2020: how do they compare with previous years?

# data[].attributes.subject
UK deaths in 2020: how do they compare with previous years?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John Appleby turns to historical records for a long view of deaths in 2020

The covid-19 pandemic caused huge loss of life last year. The attribution of deaths to covid-19 will have changed within countries over the course of the pandemic, partly as a result of changes in testing and under-recording of covid-19 as a cause early on in the pandemic 1; there is also variation between countries because of differences in the practice of recording deaths. Globally, an estimated 1.83 million people died from confirmed covid-19 in 2020. 2 In England and Wales, the number of deaths with covid-19 mentioned on the death certificate in 2020 was 80 830 3-an average of 221 a day. 3

How does 2020 compare with previous years? Provisional figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show 608 002 registered deaths in England and Wales in 2020. 4 This was the second highest number of deaths in a year since 1838. The most deaths in the past 183 years occurred in 1918-a year also notable for a pandemic ( fig 1). These figures exclude deaths not registered in England and Wales, which means the huge loss of military lives in the two world wars (about 888 000 over the four years of the first world war and 384 000 over the six years of the second world war 5) are largely excluded.

Since 1838 the population of England and Wales has grown nearly fourfold, from 15.2 million to 59.8 million. We would expect more deaths in a larger population. But even taking into account population changes, deaths per 100 000 population were higher in 2020 than in any year since 2003 ( fig 2). Comparing year-on-year changes in crude death rate shows just how out of line 2020 is with historical trends. On this measure 2020 had the fifth highest increase (13.8%) historically ( fig 3).

But it's not just the size of the population that has increased over the years. The proportion of older people in the population has also grown. And as with a larger population we would expect the number of deaths to increase as the population ages. The ONS provides age standardised mortality rates per 100 000 back to 1942, which take account of changes in the age structure of the population.

These show huge improvements in death rates since the second world war, with age standardised mortality rates more than halving between 1942 and 2019 ( fig 4). But last year bucked the almost straight downward trend to record the highest death rate since 2008 and the highest year-on-year increase since 1943 ( fig 5).

While covid-19 vaccines, improved treatment, and immunity by infection have started to reduce deaths this year, the pandemic is by no means over. Globally, the number of covid-19 deaths in the first three months of 2021 (up to 30 March) was around 980 000, over 50% more than in the whole of 2020. 2 And in just the first 10 weeks of this year (to the week ending 12 March), covid-19 deaths had increased by 67% over last year's total, to 134 597 in England and Wales. 3 6

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK deaths in 2020: how do they compare with previous years?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Appleby turns to historical records for a long view of deaths in 2020 The covid-19 pandemic caused huge loss of life last year. The attribution of deaths to covid-19 will have changed within countries over the course of the pandemic, partly as a result of changes in testing and under-recording of covid-19 as a cause early on in the pandemic1; there is also variation between countries because of differences in the practice of recording deaths.

# data[].attributes.headline
UK NURSES BLOW WHISTLE ON CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF COVID

# data[].attributes.subject
UK NURSES BLOW WHISTLE ON CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF COVID

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK Nurses Blow Whistle On Crimes Committed In The Name Of COVID

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MIRROR SOURCE: Sons of Liberty: https://sonsoflibertymedia.com/uk-nurses-blow-whistle-on-crimes-committed-in-the-name-of-covid-video/ Just a couple of weeks ago, Kirsty Miller, left her post as a nurse and made a viral video of what she saw during...

# data[].attributes.headline
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

# data[].attributes.subject
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

² Division of Comparative Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, Tulane National Primate Research Center, Covington, LA, USA.

Free PMC article

Free PMC article

doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

² Division of Comparative Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, Tulane National Primate Research Center, Covington, LA, USA.

Abstract

Aims of the study: Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Methods used to conduct the study: Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID-19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.

Results of the study: COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

Similar articles

Role of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 and its mitigation strategies for the development of vaccines and immunotherapies to counter COVID-19.

Karthik K, Senthilkumar TMA, Udhayavel S, Raj GD. Karthik K, et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 Dec 1;16(12):3055-3060. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1796425. Epub 2020 Aug 26. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020. PMID: 32845733 Free PMC article. Review.

[The Challenges of Vaccine Development Against Betacoronaviruses: Antibody Dependent Enhancement and Sendai Virus as a Possible Vaccine Vector].

Zaichuk TA, Nechipurenko YD, Adzhubey AA, Onikienko SB, Chereshnev VA, Zainutdinov SS, Kochneva GV, Netesov SV, Matveeva OV. Zaichuk TA, et al. Mol Biol (Mosk). 2020 Nov-Dec;54(6):922-938. doi: 10.31857/S0026898420060154. Mol Biol (Mosk). 2020. PMID: 33276356 Review. Russian.

References

REFERENCES

Huisman W, Martina BE, Rimmelzwaan GF, Gruters RA, Osterhaus AD. Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections. Vaccine. 2009;27:505-512.

Boyoglu-Barnum S, Chirkova T, Anderson LJ. Biology of infection and disease pathogenesis to guide RSV vaccine development. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1675.

Chen WH, Hotez PJ, Bottazzi ME. Potential for developing a SARS-CoV receptor-binding domain (RBD) recombinant protein as a heterologous human vaccine against coronavirus infectious disease (COVID)-19. Human Vacc Immunother. 2020;16:1239-1242.

Jiang S, He Y, Liu S. SARS vaccine development. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:1016-1020.

Tseng CT, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One. 2012;7:e35421.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national center for biotechnology information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics s ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Human rights laws

1. Wearing a mask can cause a reduction in Oxygen and increases Carbon dioxide to the lungs harming the brain, vital organs as well as increasing Bacterial pneumonia symptoms. Oxygen reduction can detrimentally effect the immune systems function while increasing fungus infection in and around the mouth, nasal passages as Oxygen has reactive properties to attack pathogens. There is a heightened possibility that the legionella bacteria found in the mouth may enter the lung and this can prove to be life threatening especially due to recent do not resuscitate protocols in hospitals. (DNR)

2. If your company or authority have requested you to wear a mask, ask them for the actual written directive as we have lots of evidence that common purpose agents are driving these agenda's without any confirmed written protocol. You will require confirmed company policy documents as evidence for future legal actions of the symbolic Satanist mask wearing agenda. Make sure your company or authority have an actual written protocol and it's not just word of mouth instructions.

3. If you have any medical reason not to wear a mask then you should not wear one until you seek medical advice from a registered Doctor make sure you show the Doctor this document.

4. You will need to request what the mask is made of and its country of origin, some masks are contaminated and some of the materials they are made from are toxic. We currently have no data on these certain fibres & materials entering the lung over long periods of time, we didn't know about asbestos until it was too late either and which is further reason to confirm what entity is either mandating or coercing you to wear a mask as this could constitute an assault on your person.

5. Recent scientific evidence shows that those who have been victims to corona virus, gain immunity and as the science shows this is as good as getting the untested uninsurable for harm vaccine that carries all of the life threatening side effects and deaths that are now emerging from this illegal unlawful government experiment. Mask wearing could actually stop a healthy person getting the virus and building their own immunity to the corona virus leaving them at significant risk to more virulent strains.

The fact that the mask wearing is Satanic in its origin, it could be stated that under human rights legislation due to your belief that you are been coerced into a Satanic ritual against your will, which is a breach Article 9. A number of scientific facts that the mask wearing has no scientific or health benefit to the wearer or the community at large and could not stop any virus if it was proven there was a virus would suggest that the real reason is either to breach Article 3 to degrade and humiliate the population on behalf of an elite who know and are driving the real hidden agenda.

Make sure your company directors and executives have this document sent to them. Make sure you keep all records of this either by e mail or other in the event that they want to carry on with the mask wearing charade. Get responses to confirm receipt of this document as they will prove to be crucial.

The fact that you have sent this document to them will reduce their defence in any later court case brought by you and others due to any harm caused by wearing their masks as the scientific evidence grows and shows that continuous mask wearing is harmful, degrading and extending the current outbreak as well as causing more sickness across the population at large.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human rights laws Wearing a mask can cause a reduction in Oxygen and increases Carbon dioxide to the lungs harming the brain, vital organs as well as increasing Bacterial pneumonia symptoms. Oxygen reduction can detrimentally effect the immune systems function while increasing fungus infection in and around the mouth, nasal passages as Oxygen has reactive properties to attack pathogens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Every person charged under new coronavirus law wrongly prosecuted after CPS admits powers used incorrectly

# data[].attributes.subject
Every person charged under new coronavirus law wrongly prosecuted after CPS admits powers used incorrectly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ozens of people in England and Wales have been wrongly charged during the Covid-19 outbreak after it emerged that all prosecutions brought under the new Coronavirus Act were incorrect.

A total of 44 charges have been brought under the new law since it was introduced on March 27. But the Crown Prosecution Service has now revealed that all of those charges were incorrect, including 13 wrongful convictions.

The legislation allows officers to remove or detain a "suspected infectious person" for screening and assessment.

Twelve charges brought under the Health Protection Regulations 2020 - which give powers to break up gatherings and fine people breaching restriction of movement rules - were also wrong, although the CPS said the majority had been correct.

It comes after the CPS launched a review of all 231 police charges under coronavirus legislation in England and Wales, where the prosecution has either been stopped or ended in a conviction, following errors highlighted by journalists, lawyers and campaigners.

Of the 231 charges, 175 were correct and 56 were incorrect.

Service director of legal services, Gregor McGill said 175 out of the 187 charges under the regulations had been rightly applied, with errors coming when Welsh regulations were used in England or vice versa.

"These included people driving from London to Leicester for a party, groups drinking and misbehaving in the park, and other groups hanging around the town centre after being asked to go home by police on several occasions," he said. "Where mistakes were made, it was usually because Welsh regulations were used in England, or vice versa."

He added: "Under the [Coronavirus] Act, all 44 charges were incorrect because they did not cover potentially infectious people, which is what the legislation is intended for."

Mr McGill said 38 of the 44 charges had been brought alongside other offences, including assaults on emergency workers, theft and burglary, while 31 of the wrongful charges were withdrawn in court.

Some 13 resulted in wrongful convictions, said to have typically been dealt with by "financial penalties".

Those have been returned to court to be withdrawn, with 11 of the 13 substituted with charges under the regulations.

Martin Hewitt, National Police Chiefs' Council chair, said: "These were unprecedented circumstances in which officers were presented with new powers within days of them being announced.

"This has all been done at pace and everyone in the Criminal Justice System has had to deal with a new body of legislation, which has undoubtedly led to some confusion.

"We apologise for the mistakes but all parties have worked hard to manage this new legislation as effectively as they can and to keep the public safe."

It comes as the National Police Chiefs' Council said more than 14,000 fines have been issued for flouting Covid-19 lockdown rules.

Provisional data released on Friday shows 13,445 fixed penalty notices (FPNs) have been recorded by forces in England between March 27 and May 11, while 799 were issued in Wales in the same period - a total of 14,244.

The fines were all handed out before lockdown regulations were relaxed in England from Wednesday, with penalties set at £60, reduced to £30 if paid within two weeks, with the fine doubled for each repeat offence up to a £960 maximum.

Higher fines can now be imposed in England - £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days, and rising to a maximum of £3,200 for subsequent offences.

Of the 43 regional police forces in England and Wales, the Metropolitan Police has recorded the highest number of fines, with 906, followed by Thames Valley Police, with 866, and North Yorkshire, with 843.

Warwickshire issued the fewest, with just 31.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every person charged under new virus law wrongly prosecuted - CPS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ozens of people in England and Wales have been wrongly charged during the Covid-19 outbreak after it emerged that all prosecutions brought under the new Coronavirus Act were incorrect. A total of 44 charges have been brought under the new law since it was introduced on March 27.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Prof. Alan Whiteside is a South African academic, researcher and professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs and professor emeritus at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. In this interview with BizNews founder Alec Hogg, he lets us know his thoughts on the AstraZeneca vaccine. Professor Alan Whiteside on his background:

I am a professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs based in Waterloo, Canada. Effectively, I'm just looking at Covid and what an impact it is having on our society - and what impact it will have in the future. I think that's where the major effects are going to be felt with unemployment, poverty and all the rest of the sequelae of this awful virus.

My area of interest, for 30 years, was on the social, economic and other causes and consequences of the HIV/AIDS epidemic - which was and is the worst in the world in Southern Africa. It seemed quite logical to start looking at another infectious disease which had leapt from animals to mankind, because both HIV and Covid have done that.

On why South Africa decided to give the AstraZeneca vaccine away:

I think the short answer is that whoever made that decision was extremely short-sighted and stupid. There have been concerns around the Astra Zeneca vaccine in Europe - and also in the United States - or at least they have been presented to the populace through the media as concerns. The question was, did it cause bleeding in the brain? The answer is no. So effectively what we have is, sadly, the management of vaccine rollout [and] vaccine availability by press release, which is completely the wrong way to do it.

Effectively, what you had was the press in the UK - I can't speak for South Africa - and in parts of Europe saying that the AstraZeneca could only be used for under 55's. Then they said it could only be used for over 65's. Then they said there'd been a few cases where people had had adverse effects after they've had the AstraZeneca shot, which was bleeding in the brain. In actual fact, when you dig into these stories - as a number of people do - what you find is that there were no more brain bleeds than you would expect in a normal population. But what I fear is we have the media for whom there is a fantastic story - which is the success of the vaccine rollout - looking for the bad news stories, because that's what they see as selling in the papers.

On the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK:

One of the things we saw with the AstraZeneca was people saying (in the United States) that the data come out of the trials was not entirely clear. They were bits missing etc. That was 32,000 people. Well, you know what? Nearly 30 million people have had the AstraZeneca first jab in the UK. So you'd think that if there were problems, they would be showing up among those 30 million people?

So far, I have seen nothing about serious, adverse effects among the 30 million Britons who've received the AstraZeneca jab, which would seem to indicate it's probably okay. That is not to say that there might not be problems. And one of the vaccine manufacturers, to their credit, pulled a batch because they discovered there was a small problem in the manufacturing process. I'm not going to say which one, but we can expect there to be the occasional problem. And if you catch it, then it isn't a problem.

On the decision to not use the AstraZeneca vaccine in SA:

Another [decision I've seen on the news] is that Professor Salim Abdool Karim is no longer going to be involved with the organisation as he has been in the past. Then the question you have to ask is, did he jumped or was he pushed? There's all sorts of things going on there. I think one of the things we don't take into account - and I'm not saying this is the case in South Africa - is that there's an awful lot of money to be made from vaccines.

But not from AstraZeneca at the moment because it's the cheapest of the lot. As I said, I'm not suggesting that is the case in South Africa, but I am suggesting we need to watch globally, to see whether there is profiteering going on in provision of this lifesaving vaccine. The other issue, of course, is just ownership and standing up, saying something which might be right [or] might be wrong. But you appear as though you doing something to your populace. I think that also happens quite often in South Africa.

On the price of the AstraZeneca vaccine compared to other shots:

AstraZeneca is being delivered at about £3 a dose and the others are coming in at £14 to £29, I think. But it is cheaper than the nearest dose. And the other thing about AstraZeneca, of course, is that it doesn't need major refrigeration, which is the case with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

Read more:
(Visited 1,537 times, 41 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prof. Whiteside's views on the AstraZeneca vaccine decision - 'short-sighted and stupid' - BizNews.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prof. Alan Whiteside is a South African academic, researcher and professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs and professor emeritus at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. In this interview with BizNews founder Alec Hogg, he lets us know his thoughts on the AstraZeneca vaccine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Human rights laws

1. Wearing a mask can cause a reduction in Oxygen and increases Carbon dioxide to the lungs harming the brain, vital organs as well as increasing Bacterial pneumonia symptoms. Oxygen reduction can detrimentally effect the immune systems function while increasing fungus infection in and around the mouth, nasal passages as Oxygen has reactive properties to attack pathogens. There is a heightened possibility that the legionella bacteria found in the mouth may enter the lung and this can prove to be life threatening especially due to recent do not resuscitate protocols in hospitals. (DNR)

2. If your company or authority have requested you to wear a mask, ask them for the actual written directive as we have lots of evidence that common purpose agents are driving these agenda's without any confirmed written protocol. You will require confirmed company policy documents as evidence for future legal actions of the symbolic Satanist mask wearing agenda. Make sure your company or authority have an actual written protocol and it's not just word of mouth instructions.

3. If you have any medical reason not to wear a mask then you should not wear one until you seek medical advice from a registered Doctor make sure you show the Doctor this document.

4. You will need to request what the mask is made of and its country of origin, some masks are contaminated and some of the materials they are made from are toxic. We currently have no data on these certain fibres & materials entering the lung over long periods of time, we didn't know about asbestos until it was too late either and which is further reason to confirm what entity is either mandating or coercing you to wear a mask as this could constitute an assault on your person.

5. Recent scientific evidence shows that those who have been victims to corona virus, gain immunity and as the science shows this is as good as getting the untested uninsurable for harm vaccine that carries all of the life threatening side effects and deaths that are now emerging from this illegal unlawful government experiment. Mask wearing could actually stop a healthy person getting the virus and building their own immunity to the corona virus leaving them at significant risk to more virulent strains.

The fact that the mask wearing is Satanic in its origin, it could be stated that under human rights legislation due to your belief that you are been coerced into a Satanic ritual against your will, which is a breach Article 9. A number of scientific facts that the mask wearing has no scientific or health benefit to the wearer or the community at large and could not stop any virus if it was proven there was a virus would suggest that the real reason is either to breach Article 3 to degrade and humiliate the population on behalf of an elite who know and are driving the real hidden agenda.

Make sure your company directors and executives have this document sent to them. Make sure you keep all records of this either by e mail or other in the event that they want to carry on with the mask wearing charade. Get responses to confirm receipt of this document as they will prove to be crucial.

The fact that you have sent this document to them will reduce their defence in any later court case brought by you and others due to any harm caused by wearing their masks as the scientific evidence grows and shows that continuous mask wearing is harmful, degrading and extending the current outbreak as well as causing more sickness across the population at large.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human rights laws Wearing a mask can cause a reduction in Oxygen and increases Carbon dioxide to the lungs harming the brain, vital organs as well as increasing Bacterial pneumonia symptoms. Oxygen reduction can detrimentally effect the immune systems function while increasing fungus infection in and around the mouth, nasal passages as Oxygen has reactive properties to attack pathogens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Medical Doctor Warns that "Bacterial Pneumonias Are on the Rise" from Mask Wearing

Important article by John C. A Manley. First published in October 2020
"A group is suing Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum and Tulsa Health Department Executive Director Bruce Dart, saying the city's mask mandate is harmful to healthy people," reports Activist Post. The group includes business owners and two doctors who "are asking the city to immediately repeal the mask mandate which was passed by city council last month."
At a press conference, optometrist Robert Zoellner said:

"...the fear factor has got to step back. This idea that I don't want to give you something that I don't even know that I have is almost at the point of ridiculous. Let's use some common sense."

Dr. James Meehan, MD followed by warning that mask wearing has "well-known risks that have been well-studied and they're not being discussed in the risk analysis.

"I'm seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.

"Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly... in a non-sterile fashion... They're becoming contaminated. They're pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they're reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time."

Dr. Meehan adds:

"New research is showing that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARS-COV-2 virus into the environment causing an increased transmission of the disease..."

In conclusion, Dr. Meehan states:

"In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn't change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It's not about science... Our opposition is using low-level retrospective observational studies that should not be the basis for making a medical decision of this nature."

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, as well as naturopaths, chiropractors and Ayurvedic physicians. He publishes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Briefs - an email-based newsletter dedicated to preventing the governments of the world from using an exaggerated pandemic as an excuse to violate our freedom, health, privacy, livelihood and humanity. He is also writing a novel, Brave New Normal: A Dystopian Love Story . Visit his website at: MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Medical Doctor Warns that "Bacterial Pneumonias Are on the Rise" from Mask Wearing - Global Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important article by John C. A Manley. First published in October 2020 "A group is suing Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum and Tulsa Health Department Executive Director Bruce Dart, saying the city's mask mandate is harmful to healthy people," reports Activist Post. The group includes business owners and two doctors who "are asking the city to immediately ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CJ Hopkins

So, the New Normals are discussing the Unvaccinated Question. What is to be done with us? No, not those who haven't been "vaccinated" yet. Us. The "Covidiots." The "Covid deniers." The "science deniers." The "reality deniers." Those who refuse to get "vaccinated," ever.

There is no place for us in New Normal society. The New Normals know this and so do we. To them, we are a suspicious, alien tribe of people. We do not share their ideological beliefs. We do not perform their loyalty rituals, or we do so only grudgingly, because they force us to do so.

We traffic in arcane "conspiracy theories," like "pre-March-2020 science," "natural herd immunity," "population-adjusted death rates," "Sweden," "Florida," and other heresies.

They do not trust us. We are strangers among them. They suspect we feel superior to them. They believe we are conspiring against them, that we want to deceive them, confuse them, cheat them, pervert their culture, abuse their children, contaminate their precious bodily fluids, and perpetrate God knows what other horrors.

So they are discussing the need to segregate us, how to segregate us, when to segregate us, in order to protect society from us. In their eyes, we are no more than criminals, or, worse, a plague, an infestation.

In the words of someone (I can't quite recall who), "getting rid of the Unvaccinated is not a question of ideology. It is a question of cleanliness," or something like that. (I'll have to hunt down and fact-check that quote. I might have taken it out of context.)

In Israel, Estonia, Denmark, Germany, the USA, and other New Normal countries, they have already begun the segregation process.

In the UK, it's just a matter of time. The WEF, WHO, EU, and other transnational entities are helping to streamline the new segregation system, which, according to the WEF,

will need to be harmonized by a normative body, such as the WHO, to ensure that is ethical."

Here in Germany, the government is considering banning us from working outside our homes. We are already banned from flying on commercial airlines. (We can still use the trains, if we dress up like New Normals.)

In the village of Potsdam, just down the road from Wannsee (which name you might recall from your 20th-Century history lessons), we are banned from entering shops and restaurants. (I'm not sure whether we can still use the sidewalks, or whether we have to walk in the gutters.)

In Saxony, we are forbidden from attending schools. At the Berliner Ensemble (the theater founded by Bertolt Brecht and Helene Weigel, lifelong opponents of totalitarianism and fascism), we are banned from attending New Normal performances.

In the USA, we are being banned by universities. Our children are being banned from public schools.

In New York, the new "Excelsior Pass" will allow New Normals to attend cultural and sports events (and patronize bars and restaurants, eventually) secure in the knowledge that the Unvaccinated have been prevented from entering or segregated in an "Unvaccinated Only" section.

The pass system, designed by IBM, which, if history is any guide, is pretty good at designing such systems (OK, technically, it was Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, IBM's Nazi-Germany subsidiary), was launched this past weekend to considerable fanfare.

And this is only the very beginning.

Israel's "Green Pass" is the model for the future, which makes sense, in a sick, fascistic kind of way. When you're already an apartheid state, what's a little more apartheid? Here's a peek at what that looks like...

OK, I know what the New Normals are thinking. They're thinking I'm "misleading" people again. That I'm exaggerating. That this isn't really segregation, and certainly nothing like "medical apartheid."

After all (as the New Normals will sternly remind me), no one is forcing us to get "vaccinated." If we choose not to, or can't for medical reasons, all we have to do is submit to a "test" - you know, the one where they ram that 9-inch swab up into your sinus cavities - within 24 hours before we want to go out to dinner, or attend the theater or a sports event, or visit a museum, or attend a university, or take our children to school or a playground, and our test results will serve as our "vaccine passports!"

We just present them to the appropriate Covid Compliance Officer, and (assuming the results are negative, of course) we will be allowed to take part in New Normal society just as if we'd been "vaccinated."

Either way, "vaccine" or "test," the New Normal officials will be satisfied, because the tests and passes are really just stage props. The point is the display of mindless obedience.

Even if you take the New Normals at their word, if you are under 65 and in relatively good health, getting "vaccinated" is more or less pointless, except as a public display of compliance and belief in the official Covid-19 narrative (the foundation stone of the New Normal ideology).

Even the high priests of their "Science" confess that it doesn't prevent you spreading the "plague." And the PCR tests are virtually meaningless, as even the WHO finally admitted. (You can positive-PCR-test a pawpaw fruit...but you might want to be careful who you tell if you do that.)

In contrast to the "vaccine" and the "test" themselves, the forced choice between them is not at all meaningless. It is no accident that both alternatives involve the violation of our bodies, literally the penetration of our bodies. It doesn't really matter what is in the "vaccines" or what "results" the "tests" produce. The ritual is a demonstration of power, the power of the New Normals (i.e., global capitalism's new face) to control our bodies, to dominate them, to violate them, psychologically and physically.

Now, don't get all excited, my "conspiracy theorist" friends. I haven't gone full QAnon just yet. Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are not sitting around together, sipping adrenochrome on George Soros' yacht, dreaming up ways to rape people's noses. This stuff is built into the structure of the system. It is a standard feature of totalitarian societies, cults, churches, self-help groups, and...well, human society, generally.

Being forced to repeat a physical action which only makes sense within a specific ideology reifies that ideology within us. There is nothing inherently diabolical about this. It is a basic socialization technology. It is how we socialize our children. It is why we conduct weddings, baptisms, and bar mitzvahs. It is how we turn young men and women into soldiers. It is how actors learn their blocking and their lines. It is why the Nazis held all those rallies. It is why our "democracies" hold elections.

It is also basic ceremonial magic...but that's a topic for a different column.

The issue, at the moment, is the Unvaccinated Question, and the public rituals that are being performed to make the New Normal ideology "reality," and what to do about those of us who refuse to participate in those rituals, who refuse to forswear "old normal" reality and convert to New Normalism so that we can function in society without being segregated, criminalized, or "diagnosed" as "sociopathic" or otherwise psychiatrically disordered.

For us "conspiracy-theorizing reality deniers," there is no getting around this dilemma. This isn't Europe in the 1930s. There isn't anywhere to emigrate to ... OK, there is, temporarily, in some of the US states that have been staging rebellions, and other such "old normal" oases, but how long do you think that will last?

They're already rolling out the " mutant variants," and God only knows what will happen when the long-term effects of the "vaccines" kick in.

No, for most of us denizens of the global capitalist empire, it looks like the New Normal is here to stay. So, unless we are prepared to become New Normals, we are going to have to stand and fight. It is going to get rather ugly, and personal, but there isn't any way to avoid that.

Given that many New Normals are our friends and colleagues, or even members of our families, it is tempting to believe that they will "come to their senses," that "this is all just a hysterical overreaction," and that "everything will go back to normal soon."

This would be a monumental error on our parts...very possibly a fatal error.

Totalitarian movements, when they reach this stage, do not simply stop on their own. They continue to advance toward their full expressions, ultimately transforming entire societies into monstrous mirror-images of themselves, unless they are opposed by serious resistance. There is a window at the beginning when such resistance has a chance. That window is still open, but it is closing, fast.

I can't tell you how best to resist, but I can tell you it starts with seeing things clearly, and calling things, and people, exactly what they are.

Let's not make the same mistake that other minorities have made throughout history when confronted with a new totalitarian ideology. See the New Normals for what they are, maybe not deep down in their hearts, but what they have collectively become a part of, because it is the movement that is in control now, not the rational individuals they used to be.

Above all, recognize where this is headed, where totalitarian movements are always headed. (See. e.g., Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45.)

No, the Unvaccinated are not the Jews and the New Normals are not flying big Swastika flags, but totalitarianism is totalitarianism, regardless of which Goebbelsian Big Lies, and ideology, and official enemies it is selling. The historical context and costumes change, but its ruthless trajectory remains the same.

Today, the New Normals are presenting us with a "choice," (a) conform to their New Normal ideology or (b) social segregation. What do you imagine they have planned for us tomorrow?

CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CJ Hopkins So, the New Normals are discussing the Unvaccinated Question. What is to be done with us? No, not those who haven't been "vaccinated" yet. Us. The "Covidiots." The "Covid deniers." The "science deniers." The "reality deniers." Those who refuse to get "vaccinated," ever. There is no place for us in New Normal society.

# data[].attributes.headline
Loss of Sight, Brain Damage & Death – Adverse Reaction rate to Covid Vaccines increases to 1 in 200

# data[].attributes.subject
Loss of Sight, Brain Damage & Death – Adverse Reaction rate to Covid Vaccines increases to 1 in 200

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK Government have released a fourth update highlighting adverse reactions to both the Pfizer and Oxford / Astrazeneca vaccines that have occurred since the rollout began on the 8th December and things have got much worse.
The report has collated data inputted up to the 14th February 2021 via the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme and shows that the Oxford jab has now overtaken the Pfizer jab for reported adverse effects, even though there have been more doses of the Pfizer jab administered.

As of the 14th February there have been 8.3 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine administered with the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine over 1 million doses administered behind with just 6.9 million doses administered.

But the Oxford Jab has received 33,427 Yellow Card reports whilst the Pfizer Jab has received 26,823. And in the week since the 3rd UK Gov./MHRA report was released which included data inputted up to the 7th February there has been an increase of 2,616 Yellow Card reports for the Pfizer vaccine and a whopping 10,999 reports for the Oxford vaccine, but each report can include several different adverse reactions to the jabs.

The Government's own summary ( whichyou can read here) states that 'usage of the Astrazeneca (Oxford) vaccine has increased rapidly and as such, so has reporting of fatal events.'

They're not wrong as the data now shows a total of 197 reports of adverse reactions to the Pfizer jab resulting in death and 205 reports of adverse reactions to the Oxford jab resulting in death, even though the Pfizer jab has been administered to over 1 million more people.

In the first released report, which included reports of adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines up to the 24th January 2021, the Government confirmed a rate of 1 in every 333 people suffering from an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccines. Sadly this rate has now increased to 1 in every 200 people suffering from an adverse reaction to either the Pfizer or Oxford Jab.

At the current rate if every man, woman and child was to receive just a single dose of a Covid vaccine, as is the authorities plan, there could be a total of 335,000 people suffering a serious adverse reaction. The worrying thing about this is that the rate has increased over time and still may increase further.

When compared to an alleged total of 120,000 "Covid" deaths occurring in the UK does it seem worth it? We think not as we've proven the Covid deaths have been greatly overstated - you can see the evidence here, and .

As many will know, but very many who blindly take the vaccine without thought will not, the Pfizer jab is MRNA Technology and it is the first time it has ever been authorised for use in humans, and even now it has only been authorised for emergency use - meaning the manufacturer is not liable for any injury that may result from the vaccine being administered.

But we imagine a lot of people will be thinking that the Oxford jab is safe and effective as it uses the same methods as previous vaccines, such as the flu shot? Well you're wrong.

The oxford jab is also a new method of "vaccine" known as a 'viral vectored vaccine'. The genetic information inside a viral vectored vaccine like ChAdOx1 is DNA rather than RNA. This DNA is a short linear piece of double stranded DNA which contains the viral genes along with the gene for the spike protein. The viral vector first infects the cell and then delivers this DNA to the cell nucleus. The cell can then translate the viral genes (DNA) into mRNA using the same RNA polymerase it uses for our own genes. After translation, the mRNA gets tagged so it can leave the nucleus and be made into spike protein by the cell machinery.

So if you thought the oxford jab wasn't also using mRNA technology then you were mistaken.

Armed with the knowledge that the Oxford vaccine is now statistically proving to be more dangerous than the Pfizer vaccine we decided to take a look at some of the reported adverse reactions to the Oxford jab as of the 14th February 2021, and this is what we found...

The Yellow Card Scheme has so far received 18 reports of people going completely deaf, 17 reports of hypoacusis which is partial loss of hearing, and 5 reports of sudden hearing loss straight after vaccination. Does that sound like a safe and effective treatment to you?

The Oxford jab has also caused 134 people to suffer from blurred vision, 50 people to suffer from visual impairment and a further 16 people to lose their sight completely, with one report of instant visual loss at the point of administration of the jab.

That means that within just two weeks the number of people going blind has doubled and the number of people suffering from visual impairment has tripled. The number of reported eye disorders has also nearly tripled increasing from 456 reports as of the 31st January to 1157 reports as of the 14th February. None of these resulted in deaths, But is this a fate worse than death when these people have not seen their grandchildren for nearly a year and will now never see their faces again thanks to an experimental vaccine?

Administration of the Oxford jab has resulted in a total of 2306 cases of vomiting being reported to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme, with 2 of these cases sadly resulting in death. Would we be seeing this if Ivermectin was being used as a treatment instead? Ivermectin treatment isn't going to line the pockets of MP's and SAGE advisors though is it? As they are all heavily invested in the Vaccine industry as we revealed in our report which you can see here.

The Oxford jab has also resulted in 734 people suffering from Asthenia and 1996 people suffering from Malaise. The former has sadly resulted in 3 deaths, whilst the latter has sadly resulted in 2 deaths. Asthenia is an abnormal physical weakness or lack of energy. Whilst Malaise is a general feeling of discomfort and illness where the exact cause is difficult to identify. It can't be that difficult as the cause has been the Oxford vaccine.

There have also been 505 reported cases of chest pain with 1 report of this resulting in death.

Next we come to cases of nervous system disorders which have been reported to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme as adverse reactions to the Oxford vaccine. As of the 14th February 2021 there have been a total of 25,251 reports of nervous system disorders due to administration of the Oxford/Astrazeneca jab, with 14 of these sadly resulting in death.

Of the 25,251 there has been a total of 5 reported cases of Multiple Sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a condition that can affect the brain and spinal cord, causing a wide range of potential symptoms, including problems with vision, arm or leg movement, sensation or balance. Multiple sclerosis cannot be cured, but medicines and other treatments can help ease some of the symptoms.

The Oxford jab has also caused 137 people to go into seizure, which has resulted in 1 person sadly dying.

Thirty-two cases of cerebrovascular accidents due to the Oxford jab have also been reported, with 6 of these sadly resulting in death.

A cerebrovascular accident is the sudden death of some brain cells due to lack of oxygen when the blood flow to the brain is impaired by blockage or rupture of an artery to the brain.

Finally we come to deaths due to the Oxford jab. There has been 1 reported case of cardiac death reported thus far, 111 cases of death reported thus far and 8 reported cases of sudden death. That's 8 people who have died at the point the Oxford vaccine was administered.

All in all there have been 31,427 Yellow Card reports of adverse reactions to the Oxford jab, a total of 114,625 actual adverse reactions to the Oxford jab and sadly a total of 205 deaths as a result of receiving the Oxford jab. The scary thing about this is that experts think around only 1% of actual adverse reactions are reported to the Yellow Card Scheme.

Does the Oxford vaccine sound like a safe and effective treatment to you?

Will you be having the jab? - please comment below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
APPALLING! - Loss of Sight, Brain Damage & Death - Adverse Reaction rate to Covid Vaccines increases to 1 in 200!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government have released a fourth update highlighting adverse reactions to both the Pfizer and Oxford / Astrazeneca vaccines that have occurred since the rollout began on the 8th December and things have got much worse. The report has collated data inputted up to the 14th February 2021 via the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they're exposed to the virus.

The study, "Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease," published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, October 28, 2020, points out that "COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated."

"Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)," the paper states.

"This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent."
What Is Antibody-Dependent Enhancement?
How the Immune System ... Sompayrac, Lauren M. Best Price: $38.31 Buy New $32.28 (as of 08:42 EST - Details) As noted by the authors of that International Journal of Clinical Practice paper, previous coronavirus vaccine efforts - for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) - have revealed a serious concern: The vaccines have a tendency to trigger antibody-dependent enhancement.

What exactly does that mean? In a nutshell, it means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus' ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.

This is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do, and a significant problem that has been pointed out from the very beginning of this push for a COVID-19 vaccine. The 2003 review paper "Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease" explains it this way:

"In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.

The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.

This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance. These viruses share some common features such as preferential replication in macrophages, ability to establish persistence, and antigenic diversity. For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination."
Previous Coronavirus Vaccine Efforts Have All Failed
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.

Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video below, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next. While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died.

The same thing happened when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses. At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials.

"They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened," Kennedy said. "The children developed a champion antibody response - robust, durable. It looked perfect [but when] the children were exposed to the wild virus, they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH."

Neutralizing Versus Binding Antibodies
Coronaviruses produce not just one but two different types of antibodies:

Neutralizing antibodies, also referred to as immoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, that fight the infection

Binding antibodies (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection

Instead of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies trigger an abnormal immune response known as "paradoxical immune enhancement." Another way to look at this is your immune system is actually backfiring and not functioning to protect you but actually making you worse.

Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in the running are using mRNA to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S protein). The spike protein, which is what attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell, is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.

The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will commence production of antibodies, without making you sick in the process. The key question is, which of the two types of antibodies are being produced through this process?
Without Neutralizing Antibodies, Expect More Severe Illness
In an April 2020 Twitter thread, The Immunologist noted: "While developing vaccines ... and considering immunity passports, we must first understand the complex role of antibodies in SARS, MERS and COVID-19." He goes on to list several coronavirus vaccine studies that have raised concerns about ADE.

The first is a 2017 study in PLOS Pathogens, "Enhanced Inflammation in New Zealand White Rabbits When MERS-CoV Reinfection Occurs in the Absence of Neutralizing Antibody," which investigated whether getting infected with MERS would protect the subject against reinfection, as is typically the case with many viral illnesses. (Meaning, once you recover from a viral infection, say measles, you're immune and won't contract the illness again.)

To determine how MERS affects the immune system, the researchers infected white rabbits with the virus. The rabbits got sick and developed antibodies, but those antibodies were not the neutralizing kind, meaning the kind of antibodies that block infection. As a result, they were not protected from reinfection, and when exposed to MERS for a second time, they became ill again, and more severely so.

"In fact, reinfection resulted in enhanced pulmonary inflammation, without an associated increase in viral RNA titers," the authors noted. Interestingly, neutralizing antibodies were elicited during this second infection, preventing the animals from being infected a third time. According to the authors:

"Our data from the rabbit model suggests that people exposed to MERS-CoV who fail to develop a neutralizing antibody response, or persons whose neutralizing antibody titers have waned, may be at risk for severe lung disease on re-exposure to MERS-CoV."

In other words, if the vaccine does not result in a robust response in neutralizing antibodies, you might be at risk for more severe lung disease if you're infected with the virus.

And here's an important point: COVID-19 vaccines are NOT designed to prevent infection. As detailed in " How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged," a "successful" vaccine merely needs to reduce the severity of the symptoms. They're not even looking at reducing infection, hospitalization or death rates.
ADE in Dengue Infections
The Dengue virus is also known to cause ADE. As explained in a Swiss Medical Weekly paper published in April 2020:

"The pathogenesis of COVID-19 is currently believed to proceed via both directly cytotoxic and immune-mediated mechanisms. An additional mechanism facilitating viral cell entry and subsequent damage may involve the so-called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).

ADE is a very well-known cascade of events whereby viruses may infect susceptible cells via interaction between virions complexed with antibodies or complement components and, respectively, Fc or complement receptors, leading to the amplification of their replication.

This phenomenon is of enormous relevance not only for the understanding of viral pathogenesis, but also for developing antiviral strategies, notably vaccines ...

There are four serotypes of Dengue virus, all eliciting protective immunity. However, although homotypic protection is long-lasting, cross-neutralizing antibodies against different serotypes are short-lived and may last only up to 2 years.

In Dengue fever, reinfection with a different serotype runs a more severe course when the protective antibody titer wanes. Here, non-neutralizing antibodies take over neutralizing ones, bind to Dengue virions, and these complexes mediate the infection of phagocytic cells via interaction with the Fc receptor, in a typical ADE.

In other words, heterotypic antibodies at subneutralizing titres account for ADE in persons infected with a serotype of Dengue virus that is different from the first infection.

Cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies are associated with decreased odds of symptomatic secondary infection, and the higher the titer of such antibodies following the primary infection, the longer the delay to symptomatic secondary infection ..."

The paper goes on to detail results from follow-up investigations into the Dengue vaccine, which revealed the hospitalization rate for Dengue among vaccinated children under the age of 9 was greater than the rate among controls. The explanation for this appears to be that the vaccine mimicked a primary infection, and as that immunity waned, the children became susceptible to ADE when they encountered the virus a second time. The author explains: Doctoring Data: How to... Dr Malcolm Kendrick Best Price: $17.00 Buy New $16.99 (as of 07:45 EST - Details)

"A post hoc analysis of efficacy trials, using an anti-nonstructural protein 1 immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to distinguish antibodies elicited by wild-type infection from those following vaccination, showed that the vaccine was able to protect against severe Dengue [in] those who had been exposed to the natural infection before vaccination, and that the risk of severe clinical outcome was increased among seronegative persons.

Based on this, a Strategic Advisor Group of Experts convened by World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that only Dengue seropositive persons should be vaccinated whenever Dengue control programs are planned that include vaccination."
ADE in Coronavirus Infections
This could end up being important for the COVID-19 vaccine. Hypothetically speaking, if SARS-CoV-2 works like Dengue, which is also caused by an RNA virus, then anyone who has not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 might actually be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 after vaccination, and only those who have already recovered from a bout of COVID-19 would be protected against severe illness by the vaccine.

To be clear, we do not know whether that is the case or not, but these are important areas of inquiry and the current vaccine trials will simply not be able to answer this important question.

The Swiss Medical Weekly paper also reviews the evidence of ADE in coronavirus infections, citing research showing inoculating cats against the feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) - a feline coronavirus - increases the severity of the disease when challenged with the same FIPV serotype as that in the vaccine.

Experiments have shown immunization with a variety of SARS vaccines resulted in pulmonary immunophathology once challenged with the SARS virus.

The paper also cites research showing "Antibodies elicited by a SARS-CoV vaccine enhanced infection of B cell lines in spite of protective responses in the hamster model." Another paper, "Antibody-Dependent SARS Coronavirus Infection Is Mediated by Antibodies Against Spike Proteins," published in 2014, found that:

"... higher concentrations of anti-sera against SARS-CoV neutralized SARS-CoV infection, while highly diluted anti-sera significantly increased SARS-CoV infection and induced higher levels of apoptosis.

Results from infectivity assays indicate that SARS-CoV ADE is primarily mediated by diluted antibodies against envelope spike proteins rather than nucleocapsid proteins. We also generated monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins and observed that most of them promoted SARS-CoV infection.

Combined, our results suggest that antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins may trigger ADE effects. The data raise new questions regarding a potential SARS-CoV vaccine ..."

A study that ties into this was published in the journal JCI Insight in 2019. Here, macaques vaccinated with a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) virus encoding full-length SARS-CoV spike protein ended up with more severe lung pathology when the animals were exposed to the SARS virus. And, when they transferred anti-spike IgG antibodies into unvaccinated macaques, they developed acute diffuse alveolar damage, likely by "skewing the inflammation-resolving response."
SARS Vaccine Worsens Infection After Challenge With SARS-CoV
An interesting 2012 paper with the telling title, "Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus," demonstrates what many researchers now fear, namely that COVID-19 vaccines may end up making people more prone to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The paper reviews experiments showing immunization with a variety of SARS vaccines resulted in pulmonary immunophathology once challenged with the SARS virus. As noted by the authors:

"Inactivated whole virus vaccines whether inactivated with formalin or beta propiolactone and whether given with our without alum adjuvant exhibited a Th2-type immunopathologic in lungs after challenge.

As indicated, two reports attributed the immunopathology to presence of the N protein in the vaccine; however, we found the same immunopathologic reaction in animals given S protein vaccine only, although it appeared to be of lesser intensity.

Thus, a Th2-type immunopathologic reaction on challenge of vaccinated animals has occurred in three of four animal models (not in hamsters) including two different inbred mouse strains with four different types of SARS-CoV vaccines with and without alum adjuvant. An inactivated vaccine preparation that does not induce this result in mice, ferrets and nonhuman primates has not been reported.

This combined experience provides concern for trials with SARS-CoV vaccines in humans. Clinical trials with SARS coronavirus vaccines have been conducted and reported to induce antibody responses and to be 'safe.' However, the evidence for safety is for a short period of observation.

The concern arising from the present report is for an immunopathologic reaction occurring among vaccinated individuals on exposure to infectious SARS-CoV, the basis for developing a vaccine for SARS. Additional safety concerns relate to effectiveness and safety against antigenic variants of SARS-CoV and for safety of vaccinated persons exposed to other coronaviruses, particularly those of the type 2 group."
The Elderly Are Most Vulnerable to ADE
On top of all of these concerns, there's evidence showing the elderly - who are most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 - are also the most vulnerable to ADE. Preliminary research findings posted on the preprint server medRxiv at the end of March 2020 reported that middle-aged and elderly COVID-19 patients have far higher levels of anti-spike antibodies - which, again, increase infectivity - than younger patients.
Immune Enhancement Is a Serious Concern
Another paper worth mentioning is the May 2020 mini review "Impact of Immune Enhancement on COVID-19 Polyclonal Hyperimmune Globulin Therapy and Vaccine Development." As in many other papers, the authors point out that:

"While development of both hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are promising, they both pose a common theoretical safety concern. Experimental studies have suggested the possibility of immune-enhanced disease of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections, which may thus similarly occur with SARS-CoV-2 infection ...

Immune enhancement of disease can theoretically occur in two ways. Firstly, non-neutralizing or sub-neutralizing levels of antibodies can enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection into target cells.

Secondly, antibodies could enhance inflammation and hence severity of pulmonary disease. An overview of these antibody dependent infection and immunopathology enhancement effects are summarized in Fig. 1 ...

Currently, there are multiple SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccine candidates in pre-clinical or early phase clinical trials. Animal studies on these CoVs have shown that the spike (S) protein-based vaccines (specifically the receptor binding domain, RBD) are highly immunogenic and protective against wild-type CoV challenge.

Vaccines that target other parts of the virus, such as the nucleocapsid, without the S protein, have shown no protection against CoV infection and increased lung pathology. However, immunization with some S protein based CoV vaccines have also displayed signs of enhanced lung pathology following challenge.

Hence, besides the choice of antigen target, vaccine efficacy and risk of immunopathology may be dependent on other ancillary factors, including adjuvant formulation, age at vaccination ... and route of immunization."
Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind
In all likelihood, regardless of how effective (or ineffective) the COVID-19 vaccines end up being, they'll be released to the public in relatively short order. Most predict one or more vaccines will be ready sometime in 2021.

Ironically, the datawe now have no longer support a mass vaccination mandate, considering the lethality of COVID-19 is lower than the flu for those under the age of 60. If you're under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you're metabolically flexible and vitamin D replete.

So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? As mentioned, the vaccines aren't even designed to prevent infection, only reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you're exposed to the virus. That seems like a lot of risk for a truly questionable benefit.

To circle back to where we started, participants in current COVID-19 vaccine trials are not being told of this risk - that by getting the vaccine they may end up with more severe COVID-19 once they're infected with the virus.
Lethal Th2 Immunopathology Is Another Potential Risk
In closing, consider what this PNAS news feature states about the risk of vaccine-induced immune enhancement and dysfunction, particularly for the elderly, the very people who would need the protection a vaccine might offer the most:

"Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon:

Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated. The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection ...

This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology. In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap ...

Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behavior in the human body.

'There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,' says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses ... at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology ... in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways."
Sources and References
The Best of Joseph Mercola

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Covid-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they're exposed to the virus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Several prominent physicians, doctors, Sons of Liberty Media Health and Wellness expert Kate Shemirani, her colleague Dr. Kevin Corbett, and I have postulated that the current experimental mRNA injection for coronavirus, aka COVID-19, could alter one's genetic code or DNA. Bill Gates stated it, which was included in my video " Human Genome 8 and mRNA Vaccine" on Brighteon.com. It is one reason the term "experimental human genome altering mRNA injection" has been used to describe the jab being foisted onto the mostly unsuspecting public. While many in the media, Dr. Anthony Fauci and his merry band of chronic liars, and "fact checkers" have declared this claim as false, a video of a TEDx Beacon Street talk by Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, Inc., one pharmaceutical company manufacturer of the experimental mRNA technology injection, confirms mRNA injection for COVID-19 can change your genetic code or DNA. This TEDx Beacon Street talk occurred in 2017. H/T to YouTube channel Silview Media Backup Channel.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Zaks calls it "hacking the software of life". In the first minute of the video Zaks states, "we've been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I'm here today to tell you, that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it's changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease." [Emphasis mine.] He even repeats that they (Moderna) think of it like an operating system, which the Moderna website indicates as "Our Operating System".

At one minute in, Zaks states, "In every cell there's this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we're all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will do. So we think about it as an operating system. .... So if you could actually change that, ... if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out, that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer." [Emphasis mine.]

When "changing" a line of code or "introducing" a line of code" (referring to DNA), the "code" or DNA is then altered, meaning the individual or "subject" has now had their genome changed to what the "scientists" have coded. The individual or subject is no longer a creation of God but a creation of man, meaning the individual or subject could be the object of a "patent". He goes on to say, the mRNA would tell the cells to "code" for the protein of the "virus". This "viral protein" is foreign to the body. The individual's body is making a foreign protein the immune system is to attack. When the body makes a protein the immune system then attacks, your immune system is attacking a protein your body is making, meaning what is occurring in an "auto-immune response" or "auto-immune disease".

This has been repeated a number of times by experts, physicians, nurses and countless others. As readers can see, none of us were "whistling Dixie". Zaks talks about turning this system on; however, there is no way to turn it off. When do the cells know to stop making this "viral protein"? The cells don't; therefore, this continues for the duration.

In a normal vaccine, the immune system attacks the limited amount of "particles" in the adjuvant to produce antibodies or immune response that the body can recognize at a later time if the individual comes in contact with the same or similar "particle".

The study Zaks cites at the 3:12 minute mark can be found and read here. The abstract is contained on the NIH Pub Med Library website. In the full test of the study on ResearchGate, the mention of "Luciferase" occurs on page 10. A crucial piece of information in this study is contained on page 4 - "Ferrets immunized with 200 micrograms and challenged [exposed to influenza H7N9 via IN (intranasal)] on day 49 had viral loads below the level of detection". If a viral load was "below the level of detection", two questions emerge: 1) did the ferrets even contract H7N9 through intranasal challenge; and, 2) if a viral load is below the level of detection, how do you know the animals even had a viral load? This would bring into question the efficacy of the injection.
Read More @ DCDirtyLaundry.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bombshell: Moderna Chief Medical Officer Admits MRNA Alters DNA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Several prominent physicians, doctors, Sons of Liberty Media Health and Wellness expert Kate Shemirani, her colleague Dr. Kevin Corbett, and I have postulated that the current experimental mRNA injection for coronavirus, aka COVID-19, could alter one's genetic code or DNA. Bill Gates stated it, which was included in my video " Human Genome 8 and mRNA Vaccine" on Brighteon.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Government have announced a review into introducing a Covid vaccine certificate system or "vaccine passports.

The Committee have launched an inquiry to consider potential ethical, legal and operational issues and the efficacy and appropriateness of a certificate system.

We invite written evidence on any of these areas?
Submit evidence
The Committee welcomes evidence on the issues set out above. You can find out more about how to give evidence by visiting the inquiry page here. If you have direct experience of the issues we investigate we would love to hear from you.

The deadline for submissions is Monday 3 May 2021 23.59.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Call for evidence - Committees - UK Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Government have announced a review into introducing a Covid vaccine certificate system or "vaccine passports. The Committee have launched an inquiry to consider potential ethical, legal and operational issues and the efficacy and appropriateness of a certificate system. We invite written evidence on any of these areas?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Emergency

In January 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 virus took the world by surprise, leading to many deaths and much disruption to our lives. Now, more than a year on, we need to take stock of our response and ask if all emergency actions taken were necessary, whether they are still necessary and if any mistakes were made.

Normally in England and Wales if a death is caused by a Notifiable Disease like Covid-19, an inquest must be held. However, with the introduction of the Coronavirus Act 2020 last March, this requirement was suspended in cases where Covid-19 was suspected as a cause of death. This remains the case for the duration of the "Emergency Period" defined in the act.

The act also radically changed the established procedures for registering deaths. Previously, an attending doctor would complete and submit a death certificate to the local medical examiner who would scrutinise it and discuss the death with a family representative. Once it was confirmed they had no concerns, the examiner and the representative would sign the death certificate and the death would be officially registered. This was also changed under the Coronavirus Act, allowing any doctor to complete and sign the death certificate even if they have never seen the deceased.

Concerns

The removal of these independent oversight measures has increased the likelihood of mistakes being made. Over the last year, there have been many cases where families have been surprised to find Covid-19 listed as cause of death for a loved one. Anecdotal evidence indicates that this has sometimes been successfully overturned but in the vast majority of cases, the certificates haven't been challenged.

Querying Covid-19 as a cause of death has been further complicated due to the current definition of an official Covid death. Any person who dies within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19 - or having the disease mentioned anywhere on their death certificate even if not as primary cause - is counted as an official Covid death.

This is misleading because it leads to instances where, for example, a person died of Cancer but because their doctor thinks they may also have had some symptoms of Covid he or she lists it on the person's death certificate (even though it did not contribute significantly to their death). This is then counted as a Covid death. In addition, only a small number of post mortems have been carried out for Covid deaths, further confusing the issue.

As a result, more families are coming forward with stories of suspected misattributed causes of death. Recent stories in the British press have highlighted numerous cases and there is increasing speculation that the official number of Covid deaths may be incorrect. This growing concern has led to calls for an official enquiry into the misattribution of Covid as a cause of death.

The Role of the Covid-19 Assembly

All actions to mitigate the harm caused by Covid-19 were taken due to the perceived death rate of the disease. However, with so much confusion around these deaths, in scientific terms the death rate is effectively unknown and as such, it is impossible to judge the proportionality of these measures.

The Covid-19 Assembly was formed because of its members' concern that scientific methods are being abandoned in the approach to tackling Covid-19. It is dedicated to evidence-based research in this area in order to establish correct facts and figures.

Our position is that every official Covid death must be properly investigated as it would be if an inquest was still required. As such, in the absence of official programmes to do so, our first major project in the Covid-19 arena will be to catalogue and audit these deaths. Appropriate evidence will be presented to the relevant coroners pending the time when inquests for Covid-19 deaths are reinstated. We will also be making our findings available to any future enquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Our Methodology

The Covid Deaths Audit will be overseen by pathologist Dr. Clare Craig and will involve a team of experienced researchers, health professionals, statisticians, data analysts and legal experts.

Initially focusing on individual local/unitary authority areas, our aim is to create a list of every official Covid death in each area, collating data from official sources, families, hospitals, hospices, care homes, funeral homes and other relevant sources. We do not intend to cherrypick contentious/high-profile cases only, but to investigate every death where possible.

As our funding and resources increase, out intention is to increase the number of areas we cover at a time. Findings for areas will be reported as we progress and our our final findings will also be published at the end of the investigation.

We Need Your Help

The project's success relies on help from you, the public.

If you or anyone you know has lost someone whose death has been officially recorded as Covid-19, please come forward and let us know. All communication will be in strictest confidence and a member of our team will get in touch with you to discuss the matter further.

Similarly, if you are a medical professional or work in any field which has given you insight into this situation (eg. undertaking or death registration) and have information that you think is relevant or are able to provide testimonial evidence, we very much need to hear from you as well. If this contravenes the terms of your employment, we are able to offer legal assistance and anonymity.

By taking an independent, even handed look at the circumstances of all official Covid deaths we hope to ensure that we can draw a line under any confusion and help provide a solid foundation to build on for the future.

Please use the form below to submit your details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In January 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 virus took the world by surprise, leading to many deaths and much disruption to our lives. Now, more than a year on, we need to take stock of our response and ask if all emergency actions taken were necessary, whether they are still necessary and if any mistakes were made.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2021 GreenMedInfo.com, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CENSORED: National Vaccine Information Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine adverse reactions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use some essential cookies to make this website work. We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK government is making another attempt to impose a common digital identity system across all its online public services and is mandating Whitehall departments to comply, Computer Weekly has learned.

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove last week wrote to departments about the "development of a single sign-on and identity assurance system". It is not clear when the system will be available, but Gove said in his letter that "all public-facing central government services should migrate onto it and legacy systems will be phased out".

The work is being led by the Government Digital Service (GDS) and builds on the recent trials of Gov.uk Accounts, a single sign-on system that was billed as a way to deliver more personalised services for users of the Gov.uk website.

However, according to Gove, the new system will go further by adding identity assurance features and sharing identity data between departments. Gov.uk Accounts was initially understood to be a simple login and password tool. But the government needs to replace the failed Gov.uk Verify ID assurance system, which the Treasury said in 2020 should be phased out by September this year.

It is also unclear whether the new development will re-use existing Verify functions. Gove asked departments to "provide necessary resources over FY [financial year] 2021-22 to work with GDS to enable the design, test and build of the new system". Gov.uk Accounts was given £32m initial funding in the November spending review.

The sharing of identity data, and data about people's behaviour as they move around the Gov.uk estate, could prove controversial. In September 2019, when plans for personalisation for users of Gov.uk were first announced, the Cabinet Office was adamant that it was not intended to introduce a means for tracking individual users as they interact with online services.

"There is nothing sinister happening," said a Cabinet Office spokesperson at the time.

But the latest plan for sharing identity and behavioural data between departments is likely to prompt concerns over privacy and data protection.

The Digital Economy Act 2017 governs the sharing of data between public sector bodies. Departments have to agree and publish a formal data-sharing agreement that outlines what data will be shared and under what conditions. The register of data sharing agreements currently has no such arrangements in place for identity data.

Gove said in his letter that "active participation" from departments is "a precondition for the programme's success". More than £200m has been spent on Verify, plus hundreds of millions more on other government digital identity systems, such as HM Revenue & Customs' (HMRC's) Government Gateway, the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP's) Confirm Your Identity - which sits at the heart of Universal Credit - and NHS Login.

But Gove said the new system will take precedence. "Departments must expeditiously migrate their services and users to this system and must not progress any work on separate, conflicting solutions for identity and attribute verification or single customer accounts and sign-ins," he told departments.

This is not the first time the Cabinet Office has attempted to mandate a common digital identity system across Whitehall. A 2016 plan to have 25 million users of Verify by 2020 was predicated on all departments using the system. However, in early 2017, HMRC was the first to break ranks and today, its Government Gateway system has about 16 million users, compared with less than half that number registered with Verify.

The DWP has also allowed Universal Credit applicants to use their Gateway credentials through Confirm Your Identity, as it seeks to move away from Verify.

Given that past reluctance towards a single system, Gove stressed that the new initiative relies on departments not pursuing their own developments.

"Success depends on delivering a shared, jointly-owned solution that meets the needs of citizens and of the range of services that the public expects to access digitally," he said. "Work that is substantially driven by any single department providing public services will lead to further disappointment."

The Cabinet Office plan came in the same week that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) announced the first phase of a trust framework intended to establish a set of national standards, covering public and private sectors, to allow interoperability and re-use of digital identities across the economy.

Private digital ID providers have long campaigned for government to allow access to Whitehall systems for users of their commercially available login tools, but if a single cross-government system is introduced, it could further scupper their hopes.

"The development of a single sign-on and identity assurance system that enables access to all government services is long overdue," said Gove in a letter co-signed by Steve Barclay, chief secretary to the Treasury.

"We recognise that this work is ambitious and that there are challenging technical, legal, ethical and operational issues to resolve. We must work together across departmental boundaries to establish agreed solutions - and we are confident that, with your support, we will do so."

Gove added that the benefits of a common system for digital identity will include more citizens being able to access online public services; reduction of fraud and errors; and improved policy making by sharing data to understand citizens' behaviour.

A governance structure will be put in place to oversee the programme, including the involvement of ministers to provide "strategic direction", led by Cabinet Office parliamentary secretary Julia Lopez.

Speaking at a conference in London in September 2020, Lopez said there are there are currently too many ways to sign on to different government services.

"Too often, users have to enter the same data again and again. And we know how frustrating that is. Our vision is for members of the public to be able to access any online central government service simply, safely and securely using a single sign-on. When necessary to prove your identity, it should be as easy as possible, without re-entering information," she said.

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "We do not comment on leaked ministerial correspondence."

Labour's shadow minister for digital, science & technology, Chi Onwurah, said the latest digital identity plans raise a number of important questions.

"Trust in, control of and access to online identity is one of the most important challenges of this digital age and yet the government's approach is an unholy mess," she said.

"Over the last 10 years the government has excluded the private sector from its doomed Verify project, then wasted millions on separate identity verification processes for every department. There are also reports they are going to centralise all identify verification, and track people's identity and data across the whole of government without any assessment of the privacy, equalities and rights impact.

"What they haven't managed to do in all that time is produce a comprehensive or even a basic framework for online identity and address the consequences of online anonymity and abuse. The recently published trust framework does not address who will be required to follow it, rights to identity or anonymity."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government to impose new digital identity system across all Gov.uk services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK government is making another attempt to impose a common digital identity system across all its online public services and is mandating Whitehall departments to comply, Computer Weekly has learned. Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove last week wrote to departments about the "development of a single sign-on and identity assurance system".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In any legal case, you should try to help yourself as far as possible. Keep a record of everything you do to try and resolve your issues. For example, keep copies of letters you send and responses you receive. Make a note of dates and times of telephone conversations, the name and position of whom you spoke with, and what you spoke about.

Here are some suggestions of things you can do now, and should continue to do, as group litigation will be very long winded and there's no guarantee you'll be compensated in the end. Taking these actions, or engaging your own lawyer, won't preclude you from being included in this case.

Whatever you do, DON'T give up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In any legal case, you should try to help yourself as far as possible. Keep a record of everything you do to try and resolve your issues. For example, keep copies of letters you send and responses you receive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dr. Ryan Cole Blows The Whole COVID-19 Propaganda Away

# data[].attributes.subject
Dr. Ryan Cole Blows The Whole COVID-19 Propaganda Away

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Bill Sardi

Cliff notes

Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over his medical career.

Video available:

Coronavirus infections are seasonal

Average COVID-19 age of death 78.6 years. Average annual US age of death historically 78.6 years. NatureWise Vitamin D3 ... Buy New $14.99 ($0.04 / Count) (as of 11:50 EST - Details)

Face mask wearing outdoors is absolute insanity. No study shows any super-spreader event outdoors. The best mask of all is your immune system.

There is no such thing as cold and flu season. There is only low vitamin D season.

Inflammatory (cytokine) storm cannot be controlled without adequate vitamin D levels.

Massive numbers of Americans have low vitamin D levels.

96% of ICU patients are vitamin D deficient

You cannot synthesize vitamin D from sunlight during fall and winter at 35-degrees north.

You living in northern climates you are immune suppressed if you do not supplement with vitamin D during fall and winter.

Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) test their citizens twice a year for vitamin D and fortify 35 foods with vitamin D.

Our population is left vulnerable to any seasonal viral infection without a public health program to promote vitamin D adequacy.

There is not social disparity of care but the fact darker skin pigmentation inhibits sunshine vitamin D synthesis in the skin.

Fauci says he personally takes 8000-9000 units of vitamin D per day but why has this has not become a public health message?

The top three public health messages should be: 1- vitamin D; 2- vitamin D; 3- vitamin D.

By law, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine if there is a proven treatment. That would be Ivermectin. Vitamin D3 5000 IU 125... Buy New $24.95 ($0.21 / Count) (as of 02:42 EDT - Details)

The government is in bed with a vaccine company; both the federal government and Moderna co-hold patents on their RNA vaccine. The "fox is guarding the henhouse."

The drug Remdesivir only works during the first 2-3 days of the infection. It does not increase survival. It is like "peeing on a forest fire."

Four billion doses of Ivermectin have safely taken Ivermectin. Death rate decreased 70-90% in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients.

Of the half million COVID-19 deaths in North America, there would be 375,000 less deaths if Ivermectin were used! Public health officials have blood on their hands. 100% of Ivermectin-treated patients don't get ill. Works for all genetic variants.

The vaccines are an experiment on society.

The vaccine is unproven and long-term safety data is not even being

You can get Ivermectin from doctors online. Myfreedoctor.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Ryan Cole Blows the Whole Covid-19 Propaganda Away - LewRockwell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cliff notes Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over his medical career. Video available: ﻿ Coronavirus infections are seasonal Average COVID-19 age of death 78.6 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola, Vandana Shiva says, "... if In the next decade, if we don't protect what has to be protected ... and take away the sainthood from this criminal, they will leave nothing much to be saved."

Story at-a-glance:

Bill Gates is entering every field that has to do with sustaining life and, for over a decade, has undermined vitality in all its forms, in an effort to seize control over and profit from it.

By funding research and financing public institutions, Gates is able to force those institutions down a path where they can only use his patented intellectual property.

While pretending to save the world through philanthropy, Gates' solutions perpetuate and worsen the world's problems. They may even threaten the future of humanity, as they're driving us closer to extinction.

Through his company, Gates Ag One, Gates is pushing for one type of agriculture for the whole world, organized top, down. This includes digital farming, in which farmers are surveilled and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them.

The answer to the environmental problems we face is not more of the very things that created the problems in the first place, which is what Gates proposes. The answer is regenerative agriculture and real food.

In this interview, Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discusses the importance and benefits of regenerative agriculture and a future Regeneration International project that we'll be collaborating on.

We're currently facing enormously powerful technocrats who are hell-bent on ushering in the Great Reset, which will complete the ongoing transfer of wealth and resource ownership from the poor and middle classes to the ultra-rich. Perhaps the most well-known of the individuals pushing for this is Bill Gates who, like John Rockefeller a century before him, rehabilitated his sorely tarnished image by turning to philanthropy.

However, Gates' brand of philanthropy, so far, has helped few and harmed many. While his PR machine has managed to turn public opinion about him such that many now view him as a global savior who donates his wealth for the good of the planet, nothing could be further from the truth.
Gates' stranglehold on global health
The magnitude of Gates' role over global health recently dawned on me. I believe the COVID-19 catastrophe would not have been possible had it not been for the World Health Organization (WHO), which Gates appears to exert shadow-control over. Remember, it was primarily the WHO that facilitated this global shutdown and adoption of freedom-robbing, economy-destroying measures by virtually every government on the planet.

When then-President Trump halted U.S. funding of the WHO in 2020, Gates became the biggest funder of the WHO. As explained in " WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI," the WHO has turned global health security into a dictatorship, where the director general has assumed sole power to make decisions that member states must abide by, but according to a long-term WHO insider, Gates' vaccine alliance GAVI actually appears to be the directing power behind the WHO.

The two - Gates and the WHO - have been working hand in hand pushing for a global vaccination campaign, and Gates has a great deal of money invested in these vaccines. We've also seen extraordinary efforts to censor natural alternatives and inexpensive, readily available and clearly effective drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and it appears the reason for this is probably because they're competitors to the vaccine.

Emergency use authorization for pandemic vaccines are only given when there are no other treatments, so vilifying alternatives has been a key strategy to protect vaccine profits.
The parallels between Rockefeller and Gates
As noted by Shiva, the comparisons between Rockefeller and Gates are quite apt. Rockefeller created not just Big Oil but also Big Finance and Big Pharma. He had intimate connections with IG Farben. There was a Standard Oil IG Farben company. Without the fossil fuels of Standard Oil, IG Farben couldn't have made synthetic fertilizers or fuels.

In 1910, Rockefeller and Carnegie produced The Flexner Report, which was the beginning of the end for natural medicine in the conventional medical school curriculum. They eliminated it because it saw natural medicine as a hugely competitive threat to the new pharmaceuticals that were primarily derived from the oil industry.

Much of Rockefeller's history has been captured by Lily Kay, who sifted through Molecular Vision of Life's archives. There, she discovered that the Nazi regime, which was a eugenics regime that thought some people were inferior and needed to be exterminated to keep the superior race pure, didn't vanish when Germany lost the war.

Eugenics simply migrated to the U.S., and was taken up by Rockefeller under the term of "social psychology as biological determinants." The word gene did not exist at that time. Instead, they called it "atoms of determinism." Rockefeller paid for much of the eugenics research, which ultimately resulted in the silencing and suppression of true health.

To be healthy means to be whole, and wholeness refers to the "self-organized brilliance of your integrated body as a complex system," Shiva says. That's what Ayurveda is based on, and even this ancient system of medicine has been attacked in recent times. The notion of genetic determination ignores this foundational wholeness, seeking instead to divide the human body into mechanical components controlled by your genes.

"Coming back to the parallels, Rockefeller was behind it because he was driving the chemical industry. When the wars were over, they said, 'Oh my gosh, we have all these chemicals to sell.' And they invented the Green Revolution and pushed the Green Revolution on India.

"Rockefeller, the World Bank, the U.S. all worked together, and if the farmers of India are protesting today, it's a result of Rockefeller's initiative, the Green Revolution in India. Most people don't realize what high cost India has borne; what high cost the state of Panjon has born.

"Then you have Gates joining up with Rockefeller and creating the Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) ... which pretends to be his solution to climate change. I say, "My god, what kind of stage has the world reached that absolute nonsense can pass the science?" I'll give you just three examples from his chapter on agriculture, in which he talks about how we grow things.

"First of all, plants are not things. Plants are sentient beings. Our culture knows it. We have the sacred tulsi. We have the sacred neem. We have the sacred banyan. They are sentient beings. So many people are awake to animal rights. I think we need more people awake to plant rights and really tell Mr. Gates, "No, plants are not things."

"He goes on to celebrate Norman Borlaug, who was in the DuPont defense lab, whose job it was to push these four chemicals by adapting the plants [to them]. So, he created the dwarf variety, because the tall varieties are free varieties ... [Gates] says we're eating food because of Borlaug. No, people are starving because of Borlaug. The farmers are dying because of Borlaug."
Gates offers problems as solutions
Gates hails synthetic fertilizer is the greatest agricultural invention. "Doesn't he realize synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are creating desertification, dead zones in the ocean and nitric oxide, which is a greenhouse gas?" Shiva says. In short, he's offering the problem as the solution. Gates also, apparently, does not understand that nitrogen-fixing plants can fix nitrogen. He incorrectly claims that plants cannot fix nitrogen.

Gates is equally wrong about methane production from livestock. "Have you smelt methane behind nomadic tribes?" Shiva asks. "Have you ever smelt methane behind our sacred cow in India? No, they don't emit methane." The reason cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) emit methane that stinks to high heaven is because they're fed an unnatural diet of grains and placed in crowded quarters. It's not a natural phenomenon. It's a man-made one.

"You know what Mr. Gates wants to teach us? He says cows make methane because of their poor stomachs," Shiva says. "They call them containers. I think we should sue him for undoing basic biology 101. You've talked about how he controls the WHO. He's also trying to take control of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

"[FAO] has recognized ecological agriculture is the way to go and supported [regenerative] agriculture up until last year, when Gates started to take charge. Now he's moving the food summit to New York. Five hundred organizations have said, 'This is no longer a food summit, it's a poison summit. The poison cartel and Bill Gates are running it to push more poisons, now under new names. So, we have a lot of work to do.'"

Subscribe to The Defender - It's Free!

The answer to the environmental problems we face is not more of the very things that created the problems in the first place, which is what Gates proposes. The answer is regenerative agriculture and real food.

"When people are eating healthy food, there is no problem," Shiva says. "[Gates] wants to commit a crime against our gut microbiome, pushing more fake food through Impossible Food. And he wants to create conditions so that real food will disappear. That's why we all have to organize together and the scientists have to start being protected.

"There's an extinction taking place. They call it the sixth mass extinction. Most people think the sixth mass extinction is about other species. They don't realize large parts of humanity are being pushed to extinction. Food is health, as Hippocrates said, [and that requires] indigenous systems of learning, ecological agriculture, small farmers.

"In Bill Gates' design, all this that makes life, life, that makes society, society, that makes community, community, that makes healthy beings, he would like to push this to extinction because he's afraid of independence, freedom, health and our beingness. He wants us to be 'thingness,' but we are beings ...

"The worst crime against the Earth and against humanity is using gene editing technologies for gene drives, which is a collaboration of Gates with DARPA, the defense research system. Gene drives are deliberately driving [us] to extinction. Now he does it in the name of ending malaria. No. It's about driving to extinction.

"Amaranth is a sacred food for us. It's a very, very important source of nutrition ... There's an application in that DARPA-Gates report of driving the amaranth to extinction through gene rights. And when this was raised at the Convention on Biological Diversity, do you know what he did? He actually hired a public relations agency and bribed government representatives to not say no. Can you imagine?"
Gates' long-term play
Gates clearly had a long-term vision in mind from the start. His growing control of the WHO began over a decade ago. Over this span of time, he also started transitioning into Big Pharma and the fake food industry, which would allow his influence over the WHO's global health recommendations to really pay off.

While fake foods have many potential problems, one in particular is elevated levels of the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA). If you eat real food, you're going to get more than enough LA. Our industrial Western diet, however, provides far more than is needed for optimal health already, and engineered meats are particularly loaded with LA, as they're made with genetically modified soy oil and canola oil.

This massive excess of LA will encourage and promote virtually all degenerative diseases, thereby accelerating the destruction of human health. In addition to that, Gates is also investing in pharmaceuticals, which of course are touted as the answer to degenerative disease. Again, his solutions to ill health are actually the problem. Shiva says:

"Gates ... [is] entering every field that has to do with life. Our work in Navdanya, which means nine seeds, is basically work on biodiversity in agriculture. We started to bring together all the work that he's doing in taking over. I mentioned the Rockefeller Green Revolution, now the Gates-Rockefeller Green Revolution in Africa. The next step he wants to push is ... digital agriculture.

"He calls it Gates Ag One, and the headquarters of this is exactly where the Monsanto headquarters are, in St. Louis, Missouri. Gates Ag One is one [type of] agriculture for the whole world, organized top down. He's written about it. We have a whole section on it in our new report, 'Gates to a Global Empire.'"
Stolen farmer data is repackaged and sold back to them
What does digital agriculture entail? For starters, it entails the introduction of a digital surveillance system. So far, Shiva's organization has managed to prevent Gates from introducing a seed surveillance startup, where farmers would not be allowed to grow seeds unless approved by Gates surveillance system.

The data mining, Shiva says, is needed because they don't actually know agriculture. This is why Gates finances the policing of farmers. He needs to mine their data to learn how farming is actually done. This knowledge is then repackaged and sold back to the farmers. It's evil genius at its finest.

Through his funding, Gates now also controls the world's seed supply, and his financing of gene editing research has undercut biosafety laws across the world. As explained by Shiva, the only country that doesn't have biosafety laws is the U.S. "The rest of the world does because we have a treaty called the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety," she says.

"While he created the appearance of philanthropy, what he's doing is giving tiny bits of money to very vital institutions. But with those bits of money, they attract government money, which was running those institutions. Now, because of his clout, he is taking control of the agenda of these institutions. In the meantime, he's pushing patenting, be it on drugs, vaccines or on seeds."

Taken together, Gates ends up wielding enormous control over global agriculture and food production, and there's virtually no evidence to suggest he has good intentions.
The anatomy of monopolization
The company that collects patents on gene-edited organisms, both in health and agriculture, is Editas, founded by a main financial investor for the Gates Foundation. Gates is also a big investor in Editas.

"So, here's a company called Editas to edit the world as if it is a Word program. The two scientists who got the Nobel Prize this year have both been funded in their research by Gates. My mind went back to how Rockefeller financed the research, got the Nobel Prize, and then made the money.

"So, you finance the research. Then you finance the public institutions, whether they be national or international. You invest and force them down the path where they can only use what is your patented intellectual property. And, as he has said in an interview, his smartest investment was vaccines, because it is a 1-to-20 return. Put $1 in and make $20. How many billions of dollars have been put in? You can imagine how many trillions will be made.

"At the end of it, where does food come from? It comes from seed. He wants to control it. It comes from land. He's controlling that. He's become the biggest farmland owner [in the U.S.]. But you need weather [control]. You need a stable climate.

"So, what could be a weapon of control of agriculture? Weather modification. He calls it geoengineering. This is engineering of the climate. Again, making it look like he's going to solve global warming by creating global cooling."

As explained by Shiva, Gates is also heavily invested in climate modification technologies that not only will destabilize the earth's climate systems more, but also can be weaponized against the people by controlling rainfall and drought. In India, they've been having massive hail during harvest time, which destroys the harvest.
Is the UN subservient to Gates?
According to Shiva, Gates is also corrupting the UN system, just like he's corrupted world governments and the WHO, and in so doing, he's destroying the efforts built over the last three decades to protect the global environment.

"Whether it be the climate treaty, the biodiversity treaty or the atmospheric treaties, he is absolutely behaving as if the UN is his subservient institution," Shiva says. "[He thinks] governments and regulatory bodies should not exist ... and that people in democracy have no business to speak. [If they do], they're conspiracy theorists."
Taking down Gates' empires
As it stands right now, ordinary people are forced to fight battles that are in actuality rooted in institutional, structural and societal crimes. These crimes really need to be addressed the way Rockefeller's Standard Oil empire was addressed. In the case of Gates, his empire is actually multiple empires, and they all need to be dismantled. To that end, I will be collaborating with Shiva and Regeneration International, which she co-founded, on a project to boycott Gates' empires.

"I've noticed that no matter what the movement, they're using the word regeneration now. It could be a health movement, a democracy movement, a peace movement, a women's movement - everyone has realized that regeneration is what we have to shift to," Shiva says.

"So, what do we need to be doing in the next decade? For me, the next decade is the determining decade, because these petty minds' insatiable greed want to go so fast that if, in the next decade, we don't protect what has to be protected, build resilient alternatives and take away the sainthood from this criminal, they will leave nothing much to be saved.

"The poison cartel is also big pharma. People think agriculture is here, medicine is there. No. The same criminal corporations gave us agrichemicals. They gave us bad medicine that creates more disease than it solves. So, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Poison - it's all one. And Bill Gates is holding it all together even more, and trying to make them bigger because he has investments in all of them ...

"I think [seeds] is where we have to begin ... I'm hoping that we will be able, together, to launch a global movement soon to take back our seeds from the international seed banks. The strategy is we need to remind the world that these are public institutions [and] that they're accountable to the farmers whose collections these [seeds] are ...

"On the food question, I think that's the big one because food and health go [together]. In Ayurveda, it says food is the best medicine, and if you don't eat good food, then no medicine can cure whatever disease you have. The best medicine is good eating. And Hippocrates said 'Let food be thy medicine.' So, I think this is the time to really grow a very big global campaign for food freedom.

"Food freedom means you cannot destroy our right to grow food. Secondly, you cannot destroy our governments' obligations to us to support regenerative agriculture rather than support degenerative agriculture and subsidize it. And third, I think we should call for a worldwide boycott of lab foods ...

"Another part of this should be, don't let Big Tech enter our bodies. Let big tech not enter life sciences ... These guys will make life illegal. Living will be illegal except as a little piece in their machine through their permission."

Each year, Navdanya holds a two-week campaign on food freedom starting October 2, which is nonviolence day. We now need to take that campaign to the global stage, and I will do my part to aid this effort. So, mark your calendar and prepare to join us in a global boycott of food that makes you sick - processed food, GMO foods, lab-created foods, fake meats, all of it.
More information
You can learn more about Shiva's work and her many projects on Navdanya.org. During the first week of April every year, Navdanya gives a five-day course called Annam, Food as Health, via Zoom. In this course, you'll learn about soil and plant biodiversity and healthy eating for optimal health.

You can also learn more by reading the report " Earth Rising, Women Rising: Regenerating the Earth, Seeding the Future," written by female farmers. And, again, mark your calendars and plan your participation in the food freedom campaign, starting October 2, 2021.

"When all the spiritual forces, all of nature's forces and most of people's forces are aligned together, what can [a few] billionaires, technocrats - who want to be richer than they are, greedier than they are, more violent than they are - do?" Shiva says. "They don't count in the long run, really. It's just that we cannot afford to not do the things that we can do."
Originally published by Mercola. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vandana Shiva: Bill Gates Empires 'Must Be Dismantled' * Children's Health Defense

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola, Vandana Shiva says, "... if In the next decade, if we don't protect what has to be protected ... and take away the sainthood from this criminal, they will leave nothing much to be saved."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part 1 of a new interview with Dolores Cahill when she answers questions about - should you take the vaccine? Being pressured into taking it - Lockdown & not wearing a mask! Interview by Liam Galvin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PROF. DR DOLORES CAHILL - I WILL NOT TAKE THE VACCINE!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Part 1 of a new interview with Dolores Cahill when she answers questions about - should you take the vaccine? Being pressured into taking it - Lockdown & not wearing a mask! Interview by Liam Galvin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AFLDS physicians strongly object to any persons being coerced, mandated or forced to take any experimental medication, whether it is labeled a vaccine, drug, therapeutic, modality, agent etc. Our scientific recommendations as to who should consider the experimental COVID-19 vaccines, currently in investigational stages only, are contained within the White Paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OpenVAERS is a catalog of VAERS reports made to HHS from 1990-2019.

# data[].attributes.headline
Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates

# data[].attributes.subject
Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A mass screening programme of more than 10 million residents of Wuhan, China, performed after SARS-CoV-2 was brought under control, has identified 300 asymptomatic cases of covid-19, none of which was infectious.

The findings cannot be extrapolated to countries where outbreaks have not been brought under control successfully, said the authors of the report, which was published in Nature Communications. 1

The researchers conducted a screening programme using PCR testing for viral RNA among the 10 million participants who were aged between 10 and 89. Trained staff interviewed participants on their history of covid-19. Asymptomatic positive cases were those who had a positive result on screening with neither a history of covid-19 diagnosis nor any clinical symptoms at the time of the nucleic acid testing. The researchers found no "viable virus" in cultures from asymptomatic samples.

The asymptomatic positive rate was lowest in participants aged under 17 and highest in those over 60. Further swab testing of 1174 close contacts of the 300 asymptomatic positive cases were all negative. The study population included 34 424 people with a history of covid-19, 107 of whom (0.310%) had been re-infected.

Findings not generally applicable

The researchers said that their findings did not show that the virus couldn't be passed on by asymptomatic carriers, and they didn't suggest that their findings were generalisable.

They said that strict measures-such as mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing, and lockdown-were successful in reducing the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan and that asymptomatic people in Wuhan may have low viral loads. This means that the finding cannot be applied to countries where outbreaks have not been successfully brought under control.

Fujian Song, from UEA's Norwich Medical School, who collaborated with colleagues in Wuhan on the research, said: "The asymptomatic cases identified in the screening programme were truly asymptomatic, as none of them showed clinical symptoms before or during their follow-up isolation." But, he added, "there is plenty of evidence elsewhere showing that people infected with covid-19 may be temporarily asymptomatic and infectious, before going on to develop symptoms."

Using antibody testing, the researchers found that almost two thirds of the asymptomatic cases had previously had covid-19. "With the centralised isolation and treatment of all covid-19 cases during the lockdown period in Wuhan, the risk of residents being infected in the community has been greatly reduced. When susceptible residents are exposed to a low dose of virus, they may tend to be asymptomatic as a result of their own immunity," wrote the authors.

Song said, "It is very important to say that these asymptomatic cases were identified shortly after the relaxation of a very stringent lockdown in Wuhan that lasted more than 70 days. By then, the epidemic in Wuhan had been effectively brought under control. It is too early to be complacent, because of the existence of asymptomatic positive cases and high level of susceptibility in residents in Wuhan."

Noting that mask wearing remains common in public places, he added that this and other public health measures, such as safe social distancing, should be sustained in Wuhan to control transmission, noting that "vulnerable populations with weakened immunity or comorbidities, or both, should continue to be appropriately shielded."

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A mass screening programme of more than 10 million residents of Wuhan, China, performed after SARS-CoV-2 was brought under control, has identified 300 asymptomatic cases of covid-19, none of which was infectious.

# data[].attributes.headline
(US) Johns Hopkins doctor defies Fauci, says ‘herd immunity is likely close at hand’

# data[].attributes.subject
(US) Johns Hopkins doctor defies Fauci, says ‘herd immunity is likely close at hand’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
March 31, 2021 ( LifeSiteNews) - A Johns Hopkins School of Medicine professor has strongly criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden's chief medical advisor, for denying that the U.S. is approaching herd immunity from the coronavirus.

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Marty Makary called into question Fauci's claim that "70% to 85% of the population" must be vaccinated against COVID-19 before herd immunity will be reached, positing that Fauci "inexplicably ignores natural immunity."

Makary explained that data collected by the California Department of Public Health shows that "while only 8.7% of the state's population has ever tested positive for COVID-19, at least 38.5% of the population has antibodies against the novel coronavirus." Additionally, the report noted that "45% of people in Los Angeles had COVID-19 antibodies." Makary pointed to this as evidence of closing in on herd immunity, claiming that these statistics explain why Los Angeles has seen a 95% drop in cases of the virus "and the positivity rate among those tested is now 1.7%."

Speaking with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, Makary criticized Fauci's broad influence in forwarding a "vaccination-only path" to herd immunity, saying it is not "healthy for a small group of people to be making all the public health recommendations. It's good to have multiple voices."

Makary highlighted the mechanism by which natural immunity might be achieved: "After you get the infection, your body develops antibodies. These are the same antibodies the vaccine is trying to trigger and create. When you have circulating antibodies, that means you have protection from the infection."

"Reinfections are very rare. That means, [natural] immunity is real," he said.

According to Makary, "[Fauci's] job is to prepare us for a pandemic and tell us how to manage it. He mostly missed the pandemic for the two months prior, never prepared us, was wrong on masks," Makary added.

Makary argued that if half the population has natural immunity then there cannot be "a need for 75% to 80% of the population [to] get vaccinated to get to herd immunity." He added that "[we] are there in nursing homes right now. Cases are down 98%."

- Article continues below Petition -

With the vaccine rollout in California still reaching fewer than 30 percent of the population, and with Fauci's insistence on counting only those vaccinated to be immune, ignoring natural immunity, Makary noted that false conditions are thus created which provoke "a greater urgency for everyone to get vaccinated," amounting to a "false justification for continued excessive restrictions on freedom."

In an earlier op-ed, Makary suggested that, "based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts," he expects that COVID-19 "will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life."

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
It's 'entirely possible' vaccine campaigns 'will be used for massive-scale depopulation': Former Pfizer VP Priest on COVID vaccine: 'The risks far outweigh the benefits' 31 reasons why I won't take a COVID vaccine
RELATED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johns Hopkins doctor defies Fauci, says 'herd immunity is likely close at hand'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Marty Makary has criticized Fauci's broad influence in forwarding a vaccination-only path to herd immunity, saying it is not healthy for a small group of people to be making all the public health recommendations. Its good to have multiple voices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PANDA (Pandemics - data and analysis) has been outspoken with regards to the policy-makers' reaction to Covid-19, lockdowns and other approaches to the virus. Its viewpoints have ruffled feathers over the past year, with many in the establishment openly hostile towards the group of actuaries, accountants, economists and other professionals who participate in the global think tank. Nick Hudson, co-founder of PANDA, spoke at the inaugural BizNews Investment Conference in March 2021. Here's his keynote address. Nick Hudson on PANDA:

Panda started off as a conversation, really. A group of four friends, professionals - an economist, a doctor, a lawyer and a little actuary. What we shared was an observation that the data and the facts - the reality - of Coronavirus was far away from what the media and public health institutions were presenting to the world. We saw in that problem the seeds of a great tragedy.

After some months, we realised that our South African efforts needed to internationalise. This was not a local story and it was not only about the science. Our advisory board now includes some of the leading lights in infectious diseases and epidemiology. The working team of PANDA now spans the globe and includes a great many scientists - most of whom have to be members of PANDA in a cryptic fashion.

That's how bad the censorship in this world has become. We have believed from the get go that it was wrong, on a number of levels, to close society down and that it has always been time to reopen society. We also believe that the truth only prevails if plans are taken to bring it to light. Our world is gripped by fear and that fear is very much the product of a false narrative.

On what he refers to as a false narrative:

When I say it's a false narrative, I'm telling you that every single element of this narrative is false. The narrative says that there's a deadly virus spreading across the planet - that nobody's immune to it. And there's no cure. Even asymptomatic people can spread it and are major drivers of the epidemic of disease.

And, unless we lockdown and wear our masks - until vaccines arrive and everybody gets vaccinated - we're all going to die. Anybody who challenges this narrative is a lunatic, a menace, a danger to society, hence the suppression that Alec [Hogg] was talking about. But it is - and always has been - absolutely clear to us that no element of this narrative is justified in the face of reality.

The reality is that there is a virus. It is having a meaningful impact in some regions of the world. Very few people are susceptible to generating severe disease. There are several available treatments. Asymptomatic people - in a more sensible era known otherwise as healthy people - are not drivers of the epidemic. Lockdowns and mask mandates have been ruled out by frequent signs for good reasons.

On the Diamond Princess cruise ship event:

There was the dramatic tale of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. A deadly virus on-board, the captain having to attempt a lockdown under conditions where lockdown was pretty much impossible. What that ship showed us - that petri dish experiment that should have been seen as a godsend - is that a minority of people got infected, a minority of those developed the disease and a very small minority of those confined to the over 65's died. Only 12 people out of several thousand on board the ship died. So that told you very clearly that this universal susceptibility was nonsense.

On population fatality rates around the world:

Another thing that makes it very clear is the startling map showing the population fatality rates around the world. While you can see that in Europe and the Americas, there has been an issue in a vast region - covering Africa, Southeast Asia and Oceania. The population fatality rate has been 100 per million. Which is to say there almost isn't an epidemic.

T o put it in context, in a typical year, these countries would expect to see about 10,000 deaths per million from all causes. So the 100 per million represents just 1% of annual deaths and probably less than the number of people who annually die from influenza or pneumonia - respiratory diseases. The wheel of published science turns very slowly and it's caught up. There are now dozens of papers demonstrating the mechanisms, the detail and the extent of this fact that there is significant pre-existing immunity from exposure to past viruses.

On Covid-19 lockdowns:

Where on earth does the story come from? Bruce Aylward will go down in history as a criminal of immense stature. He takes a delegation to China, spends a few days there and returns and says to the world that everybody should copy China's response. There was no substantive reason for him to say that. The entire basis for saying this was the doctrine of universal susceptibility. It was clear that in China not everybody had died - therefore, lockdowns work. It is so silly. Before covid, this is repeated wherever you look in any country's pandemic respiratory virus guidelines.

Lockdowns are ruled out. They don't call them lockdowns because the term didn't exist. They talk about quarantining of the healthy. The measures that are reported to be ineffective - and that should never be attempted - include large scale quarantines, border closures, school closures, mask mandates, social distancing - all of the stuff that we are being forced to do.

The effective measures are, pretty much, limited to isolation of the sick and hand washing - the stuff we've always done. Again, the literature catches up slowly and this finding is coming thick and fast. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, in general - especially draconian ones - do not have a statistical impact on epidemic trajectories, whether cases or deaths. You can even make the discernment that the most draconian interventions are pro-contagion - they actually inflame the spread.

On the effects of lockdowns:

Lockdowns cause a great deal of harm. We have infant mortality, creeping poverty, starvation and joblessness. There have been gut-wrenching denials of service. Failures to diagnose or even treat diseases which are far more impactful than coronavirus. We are now dealing with a horrible spectre - especially among the youth - of psychological disorders, with the incidents of self-harm, suicide [and] suicidal ideation expanding to levels that have never been seen before.

One and a half billion children had their educations effectively terminated - or at least severely disrupted - and that is even true for the few children of the wealthy who were able to attend classes online. Perhaps the hardest thing for me to swallow about all of this, is that in Undergraduate epidemiology, it is a well-known finding that when you are confronted with a disease with sharp age graduation - as you are with coronavirus - Measures to generally suppress the spread of the disease have the effect, reliably, of shifting the disease burden onto the vulnerable - who we should be protecting. They worsen, are expected to worsen and do worsen coronavirus mortality.

Read more:
(Visited 15,031 times, 15,031 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The UGLY truth about the Covid-19 lockdowns - Nick Hudson of PANDA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PANDA (Pandemics - data and analysis) has been outspoken with regards to the policy-makers' reaction to Covid-19, lockdowns and other approaches to the virus. Its viewpoints have ruffled feathers over the past year, with many in the establishment openly hostile towards the group of actuaries, accountants, economists and other professionals who participate in the global think tank.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Disinformation Dozen" COVID Vaccines
March 24 press release: Disinfo Dozen responsible for Center for Countering Digital Hate: Est. 2017
"Strengthening communities and democracy by disrupting identity-based hate and dangerous misinformation in digital spaces."
https://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/Malgorithm%20CCDH%20report.pdf https://fort-russ.com/2020/08/ccdh-the-centre-for-cancel-culture-and-digital-hypocrisy-part-1/ https://fort-russ.com/2020/08/ccdh-the-centre-for-cancel-culture-and-digital-hypocrisy-part-2/ 1. Imran Ahmed - founded the non-profit, NGO
Reclaim Social Podcast S02E04 - Countering digital hate ...https://www.lightful.com/blog/podcast/reclaim-social-podcast-s02e04-countering-digital-hate-and-misinformation-with-imran-ahmed-ccdh/
Our latest guest for the second season is Imran Ahmed, CEO of Centre for Countering Digital Hate, a not-for-profit NGO that seeks to disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation.

April 2020 - sits on UK Gov's "Commission on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force"
Funded by unnamed foundations
Can we assume Gates, Soros, other anti-democracy non-profits that masquerade as non-elected internet police officers

Labeling 12 advocates, scientists, and doctors as "Disinformation" is both ludicrous, as in rich, and dangerous-since Imran his 7 board of directors are neither medical doctors nor scientists

2. Tom Brookes - Microsoft UK

3. Simon Clark, Sr. fellow at American Progress Dot Org, a former banker now fighting right-wing terrorism and "violent white supremacy"
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2020/07/01/482414/white-supremacy-returned-mainstream-politics/

4. MP Damian Collins, who according to David Icke is a "right wing neocon Tory MP... who joined Workers at ultra-Zionist funded transatlantic professional censors for Countering Digital Hate"
Breitbart tagged Countering Hates as a "foreign interference group"

5. Dr Siobhan Marie McAndrew, Bristol University sociologist professor (not a real MD, virologist or medical scientist)

6. Kirsty McNeill, director of policy, advocacy at charity Save the Children
I wonder how many of these board members/advisers are pedos/Satanists?
https://www.savethechildren.org/us/about-us/leadership-and-trustees
The Center for Countering Digital Hate deals with the increasing use of racial and religious intolerance, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of identity-based hate to polarize societies and undermine democracy. We find practical solutions to this threat, producing policy solutions and actions we can all take to counter hate.

7. Lord Jonny Oates, a British Liberal Democrat pol; past chief of staff to former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

Lord Oates, Spokesperson for Energy and Climate Change
Jonny Oates is a former Liberal Democrat councilor in Kingston-upon-Thames, representing Grove Ward. He went on to be the Council's Deputy Leader and helped create a devolved council structure giving power to local residents. In 1995, he gained national exposure for proposing a conference motion on council involvement in the National Health Service.

He was Ed Davey's election agent in 1997 when he took the seat of Kingston and Surbiton from the Conservatives and Jenny Tonge's election agent in Richmond Park Constituency when she was re-elected in 2001. In 2005 he was campaign director for Jeremy Browne's successful election campaign in Taunton Deane constituency, one of only two seats the party took off the Conservatives in that election, the other being Tim Farron's Westmoreland and Lonsdale seat.

Jonny Oates was Chief of Staff to Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, throughout the coalition government. He is a former Director of Policy and Communications at the Liberal Democrats and was Director of General Election Communications for the 2010 General Election, responsible for the party's communications strategy in an election that saw the Liberal Democrats gain nearly 7 million votes.

Prior to this worked in various communications roles in the public and private sector, including as Policy and Communications Adviser to the Chairman of the Youth Justice Board and a Director at Bell Pottinger. From 1999-2001 he lived in South Africa working for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy on a project to support political parties previously excluded from the political process under apartheid. He has also worked in Zimbabwe, teaching in a rural secondary school.
He was nominated for a life peerage in August 2015.

8. "Sarah" Ayesha Saran is a migration director at Barrow Cadbury Trust
Migration Programme Manager
Ayesha Saran is Migration Programme Manager, managing and actively contributing to the Trust's research and policy work as well as its grant-making in the UK and internationally. Prior to joining the Trust, Ayesha worked for intergovernmental organisations for eight years, in both the UK and Albania. She also spent some time working as a freelance journalist in London.

Ayesha says: "I feel lucky to be able to work for an organisation with an impressive history of making a difference to people's lives."

Ayesha Saran is Migration and Europe Programme Manager, managing and actively contributing to the Trust's research and policy work as well as its grant-making in the UK and internationally. Prior to joining the Trust, Ayesha worked for intergovernmental organisations for eight years, in both the UK and Albania. She also spent some time working as a freelance journalist in London.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Anti-Vax Watch lists no names, boards, address, etc.
Tagged Disinformation Leaders today
Domestic Terrorists tomorrow

UK Intel Agencies Declare War on Anti-Vaxxers
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/11/reports/us-uk-intel-agencies-declare-cyber-war-on-independent-media/

An Op-Ed by Robert Steele

Original Article - https://phibetaiota.net/2021/03/robert-steele-the-center-for-countering-digital-hate-ccdh-is-a-rico-organization-in-service-to-the-deep-state-treason-be-thar/

Now this:
The Disinformation Dozen
Why platforms must act on twelve leading online anti-vaxxers
​ Just twelve anti-vaxxers are responsible for almost two-thirds of anti-vaccine content circulating on social media platforms. This new analysis of content posted or shared to social media over 812,000 times between February and March uncovers how a tiny group of determined anti-vaxxers is responsible for a tidal wave of disinformation - and shows how platforms can fix it by enforcing their standards. ROBERT STEELE: The CCDC is not just full of shit, their report is defamatory and legally actionable. Their lies are malicious with measured intent, and I hope that all twelve of the defamed individuals, who are also suffering from CCDC-led cyber-stalking (a federal felony), tortious interference in their legitimate professional activities; and wanton disregard for the 1st Amendment, Title VII (Anti-Discrimination), and the Communications Decency Act, sue the CCDC for no less than $120 million in the aggregate. Indeed, this criminal conspiracy - and it is most certainly a criminal conspiracy - could well warrant a multi-billion dollar lawsuit with a demand for federal intervention that includes the processing by the National Security Agency (NSA) of every email, cell call, text, game chat, and banking transaction associated with the CCDC and its RICO collaborators in what I believe - subject to due process review - is assuredly treason most foul. We have it all. CCDC should be eradicated.
Bill Binney & Robert Steele: We Have It All - Make The Deal Or Else . . .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"It is the right and duty of every citizen to see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves."
Lord Sumption, former Justice of The Supreme Court

Statistics and charts can be tricky and they are often used to push a certain point-of-view. However, with some critical thinking and basic school-level mathematics, we are all capable of understanding what the data means. We do not need to be scientists, mathematicians or subject-matter experts to come to sensible and informed conclusions.

Let's strip away the frightening news headlines and look at what the evidence shows us.

Table of contents

Medical experts

Medical experts and notable scientists have been speaking out against the COVID-19 hysteria since March 2020. This site summarises their views but you can listen to what they have to say directly.

Historically insignificant

While the government response worldwide to COVID-19 has been unprecedented, the mortality rates from the virus is historically insignificant. The December Office for National Statistics mortality analysis report for England and Wales show that deaths in 2020 have been higher than the past few years. However, when viewed in context of the past 20 years, the figures from 2020 look nowhere near as frightening as portrayed in the news.

This becomes clearer when we look a little further back in history. UK Column News compiled Office for National Statistics data between 1971-2020 to produce the following chart.

Both charts use age-standardised data which adjusts for the age profile of the population.

A chart compiled by author Rob Slane shows that deaths as a percentage of the population. This shows that 2020 is similar to 2000. Further, deaths between 1959 and 2000 were higher but we did not face society destroying measures.

Source: TheBlogMire using data from the Office for National Statistics

Five key facts

According to Dr. Scott W. Atlas, we now have enough data to be sure of five key facts about COVID-19:

1. The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

2. Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

3. Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

4. People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

5. We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

Dr. Scott Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

The epidemic is over

The statistics from around the world show that the COVID-19 emergency is effectively over. Data from UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard shows that COVID-19 deaths in the UK are still well below the April peak.

NHS England also shows deaths in England reached its peak around April. Hospitals were not overwhelmed, mortality rates were nowhere near as high as initially predicted and there has been no second-wave of deaths observed in any country.

During the height of the outbreak, hospitalisations in London peaked at 880 a day. UK Government data shows that numbers in October are less than a tenth recorded in April.

Spikes that are widely reported in the media are cases. COVID-19 case numbers are not a useful metric because test results are known to be inaccurate. A positive test does not mean someone is sick. Further, one person may be tested multiple times thereby generating multiple cases.

Source: @JohnDStats, 27 August 2020

The chart above, compiled using data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and Our World In Data, illustrates how cases have no relationship to deaths. As the worldwide cumulative case totals increase (shown in red), the COVID-19 deaths (shown in blue) remain flat. Deaths from all causes worldwide far exceed deaths from COVID-19.

Source: @RealJoelSmalley, 8 December 2020

Source: Public Health England Daily excess all-cause deaths in all ages, 1 January 2020 to 2 December 2020

Quantitative analyst Joel Smalley, charted deaths from all causes including COVID-19 from January to the end of November 2020 using figures from the Office for National Statistics. The latest data shows that as of December 2020, deaths are no-where near the April peak and are very obviously to be plateauing. This is confirmed by daily excess all-cause deaths data released by Public Health England on 10th December 2020.

Harmless to most people

Public Health England, on their 21 March 2020 update for High consequence infectious diseases (HCID), stated, "As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease in the UK." If COVID-19 is not a high consequence infectious disease, why was the UK thrown into uncharted territory without debate?

Nevertheless, despite spending weeks on lock-down; after destroying our economy and businesses; after causing mass unemployment; after inflicting unimaginable suffering to the entire nation, the UK Government again admitted that coronavirus is completely harmless to most people.

On the 11 May 2020 Downing Street Press Briefing, the UK's Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, confirmed:
"Most people will not get this virus at all. Of those who get symptoms, the vast majority will have a mild or moderate disease. The great majority of people, even in the highest risk groups, will not die."

The QCovid risk calculator from Oxford University can be used to calculate your risk of death or hospitalisation from COVID-19. As an example, a 75 year-old female with asthma and rheumatoid arthritis has an absolute risk of 0.085%. This means that in a crowd of 10,000 people with the same risk factors, only 8 are likely to catch and die from the disease.

No risk to children

Children have virtually no risk from COVID-19, nor are they a vector of transmission. The chart below compares the number of deaths of those aged 19 and under in England and Wales in 2003 with COVID-19 in 2020. Although there have been deaths among children, those who died were already seriously ill.

England's Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jenny Harries, says that children are at more risk from flu or car accidents. Statistically speaking, they have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than dying of COVID-19.

Infection fatality rate

Multiple studies have found that COVID-19 has an infection fatality rate of between 0.02% and 0.8%. An October 2020 paper by Professor John Ioannidis showed the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 to be around 0.15%-0.2%. This brings it close to seasonal flu which is around 0.1%-0.2%.

The infection fatality rate (IFR) is an estimated death rate in all those who have been infected with a disease. This includes those who have been found to be infected (called ' cases '), as well as those who were undetected, either because they have not been tested or are not showing symptoms.

The case fatality rate, on the other hand, is the measure of deaths among diagnosed cases. The mortality rate is the number of deaths in a specific population, such as the population of the United Kingdom, over a period of time.

The IFR tends to give a better overall mortality for non-experts and therefore is increasingly being used by policy-makers.

Comparison with flu

During the start of the COVID-19 panic, we constantly heard the media and politicians saying that comparing COVID-19 with flu is irresponsible. Apparently, COVID-19 is so deadly and spreads so quickly that governments needed to impose unprecedented control over society in order to fight it.

However, as of October 2020 we now know that the median infection fatalatity rate of 0.27% for COVID-19 brings it close to seasonal flu, which is around 0.1%-0.2%.

In terms of risk, COVID-19 is very similar to a bad flu. This is in-line with what epidemiologists, microbiologists and researchers have been telling us since March 2020:

We should tackle COVID-19 just as we currently do with seasonal influenza. Sick people should stay at home, the vulnerable should be protected but the healthy should get on with their lives as normal.

COVID-19 is deadly for vulnerable people but anyone at risk from COVID-19 is also at serious risk from flu. Even the common cold may have a death rate as high as 6% in risk groups.

In some countries COVID-19 may have a lower mortality rate than flu.

Cases for COVID-19 are not increasing exponentially. Instead, we are seeing an 'explosion in testing' for COVID-19.

The high death rates in some countries are due counterproductive treatment methods, such as intubation and the use of steroids.

Some level of social distancing is helpful but a general lock-down and house arrest of the entire population will prove to be a disaster.

Here is what no-one, even officially approved mainstream sources, appears to dispute: in at least of 80% cases, the virus produces either no symptoms or a mild cold-like illness.

Flawed evidence for lock-down

Countries have taken different approaches and there is no evidence that lockdowns have reduced COVID-19 deaths. Inaccurate testing and inconsistent reporting methods is a big problem. We also have no evidence that our NHS would have faced any greater strain when compared to previous flu seasons. In fact, the medical systems of most countries are stretched every flu season.

In the UK, we are told that a lock-down is needed to 'flatten the curve'. This was based on unfounded assumptions and flawed Imperial College models that predicted half a million deaths from COVID-19. The report that lead to the lock-down was retracted days after release, with the number scaled down first to 20,000 and then to just over 6,000. Professor Neil Ferguson, the author of the report, has a track record of failed predictions.

Nevertheless, the lockdown was still enforced. Our entire county has been shut down, millions have been made unemployed and businesses are ruined due to flawed models and bad advice.

Non-lockdown vs Lockdown

The graph below, from UK Column news, compares the deaths and cases, between non-lockdown (left) and lockdown (right) countries. A similar chart compares non-lockdown (left) and lockdown (right) states in the US.

We can see that in general, areas that have implemented lockdown have higher death rates.

Source: Non-lockdown (left) vs Lockdown countries (right) as of 1 May 2020, from UK Column

Non-lockdown (left) vs Lockdown states in the US (right) as of 17 April, 2020

Note: These charts are outdated. The death numbers have changed and Mexico moved into lockdown after the chart was compiled (see visitor comment 16 May 2020). They have been left to illustrate the differences between lockdown and non-lockdown areas around April. However, we will update the charts when new versions are available.
A report by J.P. Morgan Quantitative and Derivatives Strategy, released around 20 May 2020, supports the argument that lockdowns did not help stop the spread of the virus. The J.P. Morgan figure 1 chart shows that many US states saw a lower rate of transmission after lockdowns were ended. J.P. Morgan figure 2 shows that most countries saw their infection rates fall after lockdown.

Deaths caused by the lockdown

Alistair Haimes, a data professional who writes for The Critic, posted the chart below showing weekly deaths at home registered with the Office for National Statistics. The majority of these do not have COVID-19 mentioned in the death certificate. It shows a disproportionate number of deaths at home over the 5-year average, indicating that these are likely to have been caused by the lockdown.

Similarly, the InProportion2 project released the following chart showing the proportion of weekly deaths due to COVID-19 in the context of total deaths during the 1999/2000 flu season. The blue bars show the 2020 lockdown deaths not attributed to COVID-19. Interestingly, the fewer people died during the April 2020 peak than in January 2000.

Excess deaths data from Public Health England using Office for National Statistics death registration data shows around 29k of the 60k excess deaths seen in 2020 as of Nov 2020 were at home. Around 90% of these were not due to COVID-19. This tells us quite clearly that lockdown measures caused harm.

Buggy modelling code

Code reviews of the Imperial College modelling software written by Professor Ferguson began to appear in early May 2020. The comments from professional programmers were scathing. They found it badly written, full of bugs and produced random results. One reviewer went on to say:

"This Ferguson Model is such a joke it is either an outright fraud, or it is the most inept piece of programming I may have ever seen in my life." Martin Armstrong, 8 May 2020

There is only one reasonable conclusion we can draw from both the lockdown's results and the code reviews: the British Government's decision to lock down the country was based on bogus numbers.

Social distancing

Social distancing is a term that has recently gained popularity as the main way to defeat COVID-19. It includes measures ranging from spaced queues at the supermarket to complete lockdown of cities and countries. In this context, we do not equate social distancing with the historically proven practice of protecting vulnerable people from flu-like viruses by isolating them from risk.

What is the scientific rationale for COVID-19 style social distancing?

No evidence for social distancing

According to Professor Joel Hay, PhD Health Economist at University of Southern California, there is no scientific evidence that social distancing prevents the spread of coronavirus. He advocates that we should "do what we always do": isolate the frail and sick but don't isolate the young and healthy. According to Professor Hay, herd immunity is how we've solved the problem in the past. Social distancing is destroying millions of lives and killing more people than it saves.

Two metre rule

The social distancing rules adopted by different countries is arbitrary and has no scientific basis. Different countries use different rules ranging from the WHO 's recommended three feet (just under one metre) in Sweden and Austria, 1.5 metres in Germany and The Netherlands, to two metres in the UK and US.

Robert Dingwall from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag) said Britain's two meter rule was ' conjured up out of nowhere' because the government didn't trust the public to keep 1 metre apart. UK Column, on their 18 May 2020 programme, reported that the two meter distance was Public Health England guideance only for hospital settings. It has no basis for the general the public environment.

Face masks

Many people can now be seen in public wearing face masks. From 15 June 2020, face coverings became mandatory on public transportation. What is the evidence for their use? Currently there seems to be no strong medical consensus on whether face masks actually help.

Physics professor Denis Rancourt published a paper on the science relevant to face masks. After reviewing randomised controlled trial studies with measured outcomes over the last decade, he found that none showed statistically significant advantage to wearing a mask.

Nevertheless some proponents make the claim that masks are valuable for preventing asymptomatic carriers from spreading COVID-19. However, before their unexpected turnaround, the WHO stated that healthy people only need to wear a mask when taking care of a person with COVID-19. Despite claims to the contrary, the science on face masks has not changed.

Further, there seems to be growing evidence that wearing masks at best gives a false sense of security and at worst end up making healthy people more susceptible to getting sick. Dr. Jenny Harries, the UK's deputy chief medical officer, warned that masks could increase risk of infection:

"For the average member of the public walking down a street, it is not a good idea...In fact, you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in. Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less."

The HM Government's guidance for restaurants, pubs, bars and takeaway services, published 23 June 2020, stated:

[T]he role of PPE in providing additional protection is extremely limited...face covering may be marginally beneficial as a precautionary measure. The evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you... evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak.

(Note: that as of January 2021, despite the lack of evidence for face masks in a community setting, this guidance has been changed to fall inline with Government policy.)

Data from the Office for National Statistics, as of October 2020, shows quite clearly that masks make no impact on stopping the spread of COVID-19. If masks are effective, we would see a corresponding impact on the overall influenza and pneumonia deaths after mandatory face coverings were introduced. Instead, we observe two things from the ONS chart on the right:

1. Influenza and pneumonia deaths remains stable throughout the summer.

2. The five-year average for influenza and pneumonia deaths is not very different from the current statistics.

A Danish randomized controlled trial published in November 2020 reached the following conclusion:

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

R value

The UK government's approach to relaxing the lockdown is based on the reproductive value, sometimes referred to as the ' R value,' ' R number' or ' R rate.' This is a measure of how a disease can spread through a population. The value itself is the average number of people who can catch the disease from a single infected person. For example, an R value of 3 means one person can pass on a virus to three others. If R is below 1, a disease cannot spread enough to sustain an outbreak.

In this video, Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, explains that we don't have enough information for the R value for COVID-19.

According to Dr. John Lee, the R value is not a strong enough number to bear the burden of any Government policy. ' R' is an artificial figure calculated using mathematical models which, as he says, "have repeatedly been found to reach wrong-headed conclusions."

Despite these concerns from experts, the UK Government is using the R value as the measure of whether COVID-19 is under control. We are told that the R value will be used to justify easing lock-down or enforcing local lock-downs throughout the country. However, there is a huge discrepancy with this approach. By the government's own data, the R value had already dropped below the important threshold of 1 before lock-down was declared. Lock-down therefore did absolutely nothing to reduce the R value.

Testing

A lot has been made about testing for COVID-19 but it is far from straightforward. The death totals can sound shocking when taken out of context so it is important to compare them with the numbers the UK normally faces over a long period of time. Furthermore, as American statistician Nate Silver writes, numbers are meaningless unless you understand how they're counted.

Types of tests

There are currently two types of tests being used for COVID-19:

PCR Testing is a lab test used to detect if the virus is currently present in the patient. Sampling requires full personal protective equipment and results can have a long turnaround time. It is also very error prone if not processed properly. Although PCR testing is currently being used to confirm a COVID-19 infection, it seems the inventor would have warned against PCR testing to detect a virus.

Antibody Testing, or serological testing, checks if a person has antibodies to the virus. It is intended to detect if the subject has been exposed to the virus in the past. Since COVID-19 is a newly identified disease, manufacturing for COVID-19 tests need to be developed. There is a shortage of test kits and those currently in the market are unreliable.

Testing procedures

The shortcomings of both types of tests means that mass testing is impractical. As a result, many of the novel coronavirus victims we see reported in the statistics are 'assumed positive'. The hospitals may not have tested the patient for COVID-19 but assumed the death was caused by the virus. The assumption is based on whether a patient presents with COVID-19 symptoms. This is problematic because COVID-19 symptoms are very similar to the flu.

This needs repeating: it is almost certainly the case that the majority of deaths in the statistics were not tested for COVID-19. This makes the statistics you see on the news worse than meaningless. In makes them misleading.

Epidemiologist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg on coronavirus testing.

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an epidemiologist and lung disease specialist, explains coronavirus testing in an inverview above. We are also told of the exponential rise in cases but according to Felix Scholkmann, a biophysicist at University Hospital Zurich, test-positive cases were not increasing exponentially in the US, France, Germany and Switzerland during the height of the crisis in early 2020.

False positives

Furthermore, the tests used by most countries have both high false positive and false negative rates. Some are so bad that samples taken from a goat and a pawpaw fruit showed COVID-19 positive. The false positive rate was initially not released by the government but based on similar tests it may be between 1%-2%. This seems small but it has huge consequences.

Experts who know about medical testing, including Dr. Mike Yeadon, warn that we will never escape mandated restrictions if we keep testing. This can be shown by Bayes' Theorem and how it applies to medical tests. Dr. Yeadon explains a 1% false positive this way:

For every 1,000 people you test, 10 will come back positive, even if they don't have the virus. If prevalence is only 0.1% as reported by ONS, only 1 in 1,000 will be genuine. This means 9 in 10-in other words 90%-are false.

So, what do we know about COVID-19 testing?

The numbers are flawed because current testing methods have an unacceptably high error rate.

Many people counted as COVID-19 victims actually died of something else. (Reports from Italy back this up.)

The numbers resulting from these tests should not be used to drive public policy.

Government intervention

Some commentators have said that earlier government intervention, such as closing down boarders or locking down sooner, would have stopped COVID-19 in its tracks before it could have become a serious problem.

In contrast, experts in various fields, including Professor Dolores Cahill, Professor Isaac Ben-Israel and Professor Yoram Lass, all say that there is nothing you can do to stop the spread of coronvirus type diseases; they'll spread and peak regardless of measures taken.

Immunologist Professor Cahill and mathematician Professor Ben-Israel both come up with similar lifespans. Coronavirus epidemics last between 4 to 10 weeks in each location as it circles the globe. As of early June 2020, actual data from different countries with COVID-19 outbreaks have borne this out.

According to Professor Lass, former Israeli Health Ministry chief, "A government cannot stop a virus. What stops a virus is natural immunity. It's impossible to stop a virus by government decree."

Statistics

Official mortality rate statistics are publicly available and anyone can download the data for analysis. All the numbers so far show that COVID-19 is far from being a 'once in a century' plague. Though the numbers in news reports give the impression of an unprecedented death toll, we can see they are not at all extraordinary when placed in a historical perspective.

Novelist Hector Drummond decided to look at the annual death figures for England and Wales from the Office for National Statistics. After graphing the numbers all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, he found that the numbers for 2020 (shown on the right) cannot even be considered a major spike over the course of the century. Analysis from other sources below support this view.

EuroMOMO

EuroMOMO is an agency that monitors deaths across Europe. Data provided by EuroMOMO is used by governmental agencies including Public Health England. The chart below compares death levels in Week 2 of 2017 with Week 14 of 2020. The darker blue means more deaths.

Week 14 and 15 was roughly the peak of the deaths throughout Europe in 2020. How different is the 2017 chart from 2020? If governments did not shut down society in 2017, why are they doing so now?

By week 17, excess mortality in most of the surveyed countries have dropped to moderate or below. The UK, which is holding to its lockdown policy, remains high.

Office for National Statistics

Our commentary on the Office for National Statistics data has been archived separately.

We have made contact with the inProportion2 project which collects and analyses statistics from the Office for National Statistics, National Health Service, Public Health England and EuroMOMO. Please head over there for a more in-depth analysis and comparisons of the numbers.

COVID-19 in proportion

The charts below provide a simple way of viewing COVID-19 deaths in proportion to other deaths.

The InProportion2 chart below compares cumulative totals of COVID-19 deaths with totals for 2000 and 2018. As of late June 2020, we see there is not a huge difference between them. We did not shut down the world economy in previous years yet the entire globe is now at a standstill for COVID-19. Why?

COVID-19 is shown compared to the 1968/69 Asian Flu below.

Understand the numbers

Keep these observations in mind the next time you hear about the rapidly rising death toll on the nightly news:

Curve Analysis

The information in this section may take a bit of patience but you'll be rewarded with the ability to better understand charts.

Andrew Mather, a mathematician and financier based in the UK, offers a series of videos analysing the COVID-19 data released by various governmental and health bodies.

A primer on curve analysis

Why the crisis was over before lock-down

Suggest evidence

If you would like to post some evidence or information that you think would be helpful for other readers, please use the comment form below. The suggestions are moderated and anything off topic may be moved to our discussions page.

Please read our comments disclaimer before posting.

Next steps

By now you will hopefully be reassured that COVID-19 is not a the doomsday virus we hear about in the news. What next?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"It is the right and duty of every citizen to see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves." Lord Sumption , former Justice of The Supreme Court Statistics and charts can be tricky and they are often used to push a certain point-of-view.

# data[].attributes.headline
WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI

# data[].attributes.subject
WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Subscribe to the FREE #1 Natural Health Newsletter

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

Story at-a-glance -

The WHO has turned global health security into a dictatorship, where the director general has assumed sole power to make decisions by which member states must abide

Read the Full Article for Free!

Read the Full Article for Free!

You can unsubscribe at any time and I guarantee the privacy of your email. View our privacy policy

Subscribe for FREE to the #1 Natural Health Newsletter or Login for Instant Access

Unlock censored health information that Google doesn't want you to read

Keep your privacy secure - we are one of the few websites that have banned all Google and Facebook scripts to help stop their surveillance capitalism

Get access to all of Dr. Mercola's health articles, E-books and special reports

3 Reasons to Subscribe:

1

Unlock censored health information that Google doesn't want you to read

2

Keep your privacy secure - we are one of the few websites that have banned all Google and Facebook scripts to help stop their surveillance capitalism

3

Get access to all of Dr. Mercola's health articles, E-books and special reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Bill Gates' Influence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to a long-term World Health Organization insider who's been involved for the past two decades, this Bill Gates' vaccine alliance corporation is directing the WHO. Is it about 'the science,' or are decisions primarily made to support political agendas?

# data[].attributes.headline
Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors. All names in between are co-authors.

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.

Pieter Borger⁽¹⁾, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra⁽²⁾ , Michael Yeadon⁽³⁾ , Clare Craig⁽⁴⁾, Kevin McKernan⁽⁵⁾ , Klaus Steger⁽⁶⁾ , Paul McSheehy⁽⁷⁾ , Lidiya Angelova⁽⁸⁾, Fabio Franchi⁽⁹⁾, Thomas Binder⁽¹⁰⁾, Henrik Ullrich⁽¹¹⁾ , Makoto Ohashi⁽¹²⁾, Stefano Scoglio⁽¹³⁾, Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens⁽¹⁴⁾, Dorothea Gilbert⁽¹⁵⁾, Rainer Klement⁽¹⁶⁾, Ruth Schruefer⁽¹⁷⁾, Berber W. Pieksma⁽¹⁸⁾, Jan Bonte⁽¹⁹⁾, Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare⁽²⁰⁾, Kevin P. Corbett⁽²¹⁾, Ulrike Kämmerer⁽²²⁾

ABSTRACT

In the publication entitled "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR" (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings.

In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field.

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality. We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.

Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.

CONCISE REVIEW REPORT

This paper will show numerous serious flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, the significance of which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19. We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people's lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people's basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale.

There are ten fatal problems with the Corman-Drosten paper which we will outline and explain in greater detail in the following sections.

The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus experts) is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [1], because at the time neither control material of infectious ("live") or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof. According to Corman et al.:

"We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available." [1]

The focus here should be placed upon the two stated aims: a) development and b) deployment of a diagnostic test for use in public health laboratory settings. These aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available (e.g. for determining the infectious viral load). In any case, only a protocol with maximal accuracy can be the mandatory and primary goal in any scenario-outcome of this magnitude. Critical viral load determination is mandatory information, and it is in Christian Drosten's group responsibility to perform these experiments and provide the crucial data.

Nevertheless these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 as both are beta-coronaviruses.

The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our personal email-communication with [2] one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper. This method to model SARS-CoV-2 was described in the Corman-Drosten paper as follows:

"the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology."

The Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is an important biomolecular technology to rapidly detect rare RNA fragments, which are known in advance. In the first step, RNA molecules present in the sample are reverse transcribed to yield cDNA. The cDNA is then amplified in the polymerase chain reaction using a specific primer pair and a thermostable DNA polymerase enzyme. The technology is highly sensitive and its detection limit is theoretically 1 molecule of cDNA. The specificity of the PCR is highly influenced by biomolecular design errors.

What is important when designing an RT-PCR Test and the quantitative RT-qPCR test described in the Corman-Drosten publication?

1. The primers and probes:

a) the concentration of primers and probes must be of optimal range
(100-200 nM)
b) must be specific to the target-gene you want to amplify
c) must have an optimal percentage of GC content relative to the total nitrogenous bases (minimum 40%, maximum 60%)
d) for virus diagnostics at least 3 primer pairs must detect 3 viral genes (preferably as far apart as possible in the viral genome)

2. The temperature at which all reactions take place:

a) DNA melting temperature (>92°)
b) DNA amplification temperature (TaqPol specific)
c) Tm; the annealing temperature (the temperature at which the primers and probes reach the target binding/detachment, not to exceed 2 ̊C per primer pair). Tm heavily depends on GC content of the primers

3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles);

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]

4. Molecular biological validations; amplified PCR products must be validated either by running the products in a gel with a DNA ruler, or by direct DNA sequencing

5. Positive and negative controls should be specified to confirm/refute specific virus detection

6. There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available

SOP unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the exact same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it enables the comparison of data within and between countries.

MINOR CONCERNS WITH THE CORMAN-DROSTEN PAPER

1. In Table 1 of the Corman-Drosten paper, different abbreviations are stated - "nM" is specified, "nm" isn't. Further in regards to correct nomenclature, nm means "nanometer" therefore nm should read nM here.

2. It is the general consensus to write genetic sequences always in the 5'-3' direction, including the reverse primers. It is highly unusual to do alignment with reverse complementary writing of the primer sequence as the authors did in figure 2 of the Corman-Drosten paper. Here, in addition, a wobble base is marked as "y" without description of the bases the Y stands for.

3. Two misleading pitfalls in the Corman-Drosten paper are that their Table 1 does not include Tm-values (annealing-temperature values), neither does it show GC-values (number of G and C in the sequences as %-value of total bases).

MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE CORMAN-DROSTEN PAPER

A) BACKGROUND

The authors introduce the background for their scientific work as: "The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable while there is growing evidence that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and international spread through travelers does already occur".

According to BBC News [4] and Google Statistics [5] there were 6 deaths world-wide on January 21st 2020 - the day when the manuscript was submitted. Why did the authors assume a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?

As an aim the authors declared to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available. Further, they acknowledge that "The present study demonstrates the enormous response capacity achieved through coordination of academic and public laboratories in national and European research networks."

B) METHODS AND RESULTS

1. Primer & Probe Design

1a) Erroneous primer concentrations

Reliable and accurate PCR-test protocols are normally designed using between 100 nM and 200 nM per primer [7]. In the Corman-Drosten paper, we observe unusually high and varying primer concentrations for several primers (table 1). For the RdRp_SARSr-F and RdRp_SARSr-R primer pairs, 600 nM and 800 nM are described, respectively. Similarly, for the N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R primer set, they advise 600 nM and 800 nM, respectively [1].

It should be clear that these concentrations are far too high to be optimal for specific amplifications of target genes. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. Rather, these concentrations lead to increased unspecific binding and PCR product amplification.

Table1: Primers and probes (adapted from Corman-Drosten paper; erroneous primer concentrations are highlighted)
1b) Unspecified ("Wobbly") primer and probe sequences

To obtain reproducible and comparable results, it is essential to distinctively define the primer pairs. In the Corman-Drosten paper we observed six unspecified positions, indicated by the letters R, W, M and S (Table 2). The letter W means that at this position there can be either an A or a T; R signifies there can be either a G or an A; M indicates that the position may either be an A or a C; the letter S indicates there can be either a G or a C on this position.

This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories. These six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not relate to SARS-CoV-2 (2 distinct RdRp_SARSr_F primers + 8 distinct RdRp_SARS_P1 probes + 4 distinct RdRp_SARSr_R). The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related. Therefore, the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally.

Table 2: Primers and probes (adapted from Corman-Drosten paper; unspecified ("Wobbly") nucleotides in the primers are highlighted)
These wobbly sequences have already created a source of concern in the field and resulted in a Letter to the Editor authored by Pillonel et al. [8] regarding blatant errors in the described sequences. These errors are self-evident in the Corman et al. supplement as well.

The WHO-protocol (Figure 1), which directly derives from the Corman-Drosten paper, concludes that in order to confirm the presence of SARS-CoV-2, two control genes (the E-and the RdRp-genes) must be identified in the assay. It should be noted, that the RdRd-gene has one uncertain position ("wobbly") in the forward-primer (R=G/A), two uncertain positions in the reverse-primer (R=G/A; S=G/C) and it has three uncertain positions in the RdRp-probe (W=A/T; R=G/A; M=A/C). So, two different forward primers, four different reverse primers, and eight distinct probes can be synthesized for the RdRd-gene. Together, there are 64 possible combinations of primers and probes!

The Corman-Drosten paper further identifies a third gene which, according to the WHO protocol, was not further validated and deemed unnecessary:

"Of note, the N gene assay also performed well but was not subjected to intensive further validation because it was slightly less sensitive."
Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic. Figure 1: The N-Gene confirmatory-assay is neither emphasized as necessary third step in the official WHO Drosten-Corman protocol-recommendation below [8] nor is it required as a crucial step for higher test-accuracy in the Eurosurveillance publication.

This was an unfortunate omission as it would be best to use all three gene PCRs as confirmatory assays, and this would have resulted in an almost sufficient virus RNA detection diagnostic tool protocol. Three confirmatory assay-steps would at least minimize-out errors & uncertainties at every fold-step in regards to "Wobbly"-spots. (Nonetheless, the protocol would still fall short of any "good laboratory practice", when factoring in all the other design-errors).

As it stands, the N gene assay is regrettably neither proposed in the WHO-recommendation (Figure 1) as a mandatory and crucial third confirmatory step, nor is it emphasized in the Corman-Drosten paper as important optional reassurance "for a routine workflow" (Table 2).

1c) Erroneous GC-content (discussed in 2c, together with annealing temperature (Tm))

1d) Detection of viral genes

RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis.

"Clinicians need to recognize the enhanced accuracy and speed of the molecular diagnostic techniques for the diagnosis of infections, but also to understand their limitations. Laboratory results should always be interpreted in the context of the clinical presentation of the patient, and appropriate site, quality, and timing of specimen collection are required for reliable test results". [9]

However, it may be used to help the physician's differential diagnosis when he or she has to discriminate between different infections of the lung (Flu, Covid-19 and SARS have very similar symptoms). For a confirmative diagnosis of a specific virus, at least 3 specific primer pairs must be applied to detect 3 virus-specific genes. Preferably, these target genes should be located with the greatest distance possible in the viral genome (opposite ends included).

Although the Corman-Drosten paper describes 3 primers, these primers only cover roughly half of the virus' genome. This is another factor that decreases specificity for detection of intact COVID-19 virus RNA and increases the quote of false positive test results.
These are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses. Figure 2: Relative positions of amplicon targets on the SARS coronavirus and the 2019 novel coronavirus genome. ORF: open reading frame; RdRp: RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Numbers below amplicon are genome positions according to SARS-CoV, NC_004718 [1];

Figure 3: A test with Thermofischer's primer dimer web tool reveals that the RdRp forward primer has a 6bp 3`prime homology with Sarbeco E Reverse (left box). Another test reveals that there is a perfect match for one of the N-primers to a clinical pathogen (Pantoea) found in immuno-compromised patients (right box).

Therefore, even if we obtain three positive signals (i.e. the three primer pairs give 3 different amplification products) in a sample, this does not prove the presence of a virus. A better primer design would have terminal primers on both ends of the viral genome. This is because the whole viral genome would be covered and three positive signals can better discriminate between a complete (and thus potentially infectious) virus and fragmented viral genomes (without infectious potency). In order to infer anything of significance about the infectivity of the virus, the Orf1 gene, which encodes the essential replicase enzyme of SARS-CoV viruses, should have been included as a target (Figure 2). The positioning of the targets in the region of the viral genome that is most heavily and variably transcribed is another weakness of the protocol.

Kim et al. demonstrate a highly variable 3' expression of subgenomic RNA in Sars-CoV-2 [23]. These RNAs are actively monitored as signatures for asymptomatic and non-infectious patients [10]. It is highly questionable to screen a population of asymptomatic people with qPCR primers that have 6 base pairs primer-dimer on the 3 prime end of a primer (Figure 3).
Apparently the WHO recommends these primers. We tested all the wobble derivatives from the Corman-Drosten paper with Thermofisher's primer dimer web tool [11]. The RdRp forward primer has 6bp 3prime homology with Sarbeco E Reverse. At high primer concentrations this is enough to create inaccuracies.

Of note: There is a perfect match of one of the N primers to a clinical pathogen (Pantoea), found in immuno-compromised patients. The reverse primer hits Pantoea as well but not in the same region (Figure 3).

2. Reaction temperatures

2a) DNA melting temperature (>92°).

Adequately addressed in the Corman-Drosten paper.

2b) DNA amplification temperature.

Adequately addressed in the Corman-Drosten paper.

2c) Erroneous GC-contents and Tm
The design errors described here are so severe that it is highly unlikely that specific amplification of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will occur using the protocol of the Corman-Drosten paper. Table 3: GC-content of the primers and probes (adapted from Corman-Drosten paper; aberrations from optimized GC-contents are highlighted. Second Panel shows a table-listing of all Primer-BLAST best practices values for all primers and probes used in the Corman-Drosten paper by Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer & her team

The annealing-temperature determines at which temperature the primer attaches/detaches from the target sequence. For an efficient and specific amplification, GC content of primers should meet a minimum of 40% and a maximum of 60% amplification. As indicated in table 3, three of the primers described in the Corman-Drosten paper are not within the normal range for GC-content. Two primers (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) have unusual and very low GC-values of 28%-31% for all possible variants of wobble bases, whereas primer E_Sarbeco_F has a GC-value of 34.6% (Table 3 and second panel of Table 3).

It should be noted that the GC-content largely determines the binding to its specific target due to its three hydrogen bonds in base pairing. Thus, the lower the GC-content of the primer, the lower its binding-capability to its specific target gene sequence (i.e. the gene to be detected). This means for a target-sequence to be recognized we have to choose a temperature which is as close as possible to the actual annealing-temperature (best practise-value) for the primer not to detach again, while at the same time specifically selecting the target sequence.

If the Tm-value is very low, as observed for all wobbly-variants of the RdRp reverse primers, the primers can bind non-specifically to several targets, decreasing specificity and increasing potential false positive results.

The annealing temperature (Tm) is a crucial factor for the determination of the specificity/accuracy of the qPCR procedure and essential for evaluating the accuracy of qPCR-protocols. Best-practice recommendation: Both primers (forward and reverse) should have an almost similar value, preferably the identical value.
PCR data evaluated as positive after a Ct value of 35 cycles are completely unreliable.
We used the freely available primer design software Primer-BLAST [12, 25] to evaluable the best-practise values for all primers used in the Corman-Drosten paper (Table 3). We attempted to find a Tm-value of 60° C, while similarly seeking the highest possible GC%-value for all primers. A maximal Tm difference of 2° C within primer pairs was considered acceptable. Testing the primer pairs specified in the Corman-Drosten paper, we observed a difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R). This is a very serious error and makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool.
Further, scientific studies show that only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35 [22].
Additional testing demonstrated that only the primer pair designed to amplify the N-gene (N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R) reached the adequate standard to operate in a diagnostic test, since it has a sufficient GC-content and the Tm difference between the primers (N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R) is 1.85° C (below the crucial maximum of 2° C difference). Importantly, this is the gene which was neither tested in the virus samples (Table 2) nor emphasized as a confirmatory test. In addition to highly variable melting temperatures and degenerate sequences in these primers, there is another factor impacting specificity of the procedure: the dNTPs (0.4uM) are 2x higher than recommended for a highly specific amplification. There is additional magnesium sulphate added to the reaction as well. This procedure combined with a low annealing temperature can create non-specific amplifications. When additional magnesium is required for qPCR, specificity of the assay should be further scrutinized.
Figure 4: RT-PCR Kit recommendation in the official Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol [8]. Only a "Cycler"-value (cycles) is to be found without corresponding and scientifically reasonable Ct (Cutoff-value). This or any other cycles-value is nowhere to be found in the actual Corman-Drosten paper.

3. The number of amplification cycles

It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected .

Citing Jaafar et al. 2020 [3]: "At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive." In other words, there was no successful virus isolation of SARS-CoV-2 at those high Ct values.

Between 30 and 35 there is a grey area, where a positive test cannot be established with certainty. This area should be excluded. Of course, one could perform 45 PCR cycles, as recommended in the Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol (Figure 4), but then you also have to define a reasonable Ct-value (which should not exceed 30). But an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.

4. Biomolecular validations

To determine whether the amplified products are indeed SARS-CoV-2 genes, biomolecular validation of amplified PCR products is essential. For a diagnostic test, this validation is an absolute must.

Validation of PCR products should be performed by either running the PCR product in a 1% agarose-EtBr gel together with a size indicator (DNA ruler or DNA ladder) so that the size of the product can be estimated. The size must correspond to the calculated size of the amplification product. But it is even better to sequence the amplification product. The latter will give 100% certainty about the identity of the amplification product. Without molecular validation one can not be sure about the identity of the amplified PCR products. Considering the severe design errors described earlier, the amplified PCR products can be anything.

Also not mentioned in the Corman-Drosten paper is the case of small fragments of qPCR (around 100bp): It could be either 1,5% agarose gel or even an acrylamide gel.

The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. Positive and negative controls to confirm/refute specific virus detection.

The unconfirmed assumption described in the Corman-Drosten paper is that SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus from the SARS-like beta-coronavirus group that currently causes infections in humans. The sequences on which their PCR method is based are in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [23], because at the time of development of the PCR test no control material of infectious ("live") or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 was available to the authors. The PCR test was therefore designed using the sequence of the known SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component (Dr. Meijer, co-author Corman-Drosten paper in an email exchange with Dr. Peter Borger) [2].

All individuals testing positive with the RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, are assumed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. There are three severe flaws in their assumption. First, a positive test for the RNA molecules described in the Corman-Drosten paper cannot be equated to "infection with a virus". A positive RT-PCR test merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules. As demonstrated under point 1d (above), the Corman-Drosten test was not designed to detect the full-length virus, but only a fragment of the virus. We already concluded that this classifies the test as unsuitable as a diagnostic test
for SARS-virus infections.

Secondly and of major relevance, the functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard.

Third, the Corman-Drosten paper states:

"To show that the assays can detect other bat-associated SARS-related viruses, we used the E gene assay to test six bat-derived faecal samples available from Drexler et al. [...] und Muth et al. [...]. These virus-positive samples stemmed from European rhinolophid bats. Detection of these phylogenetic outliers within the SARS-related CoV clade suggests that all Asian viruses are likely to be detected. This would, theoretically, ensure broad sensitivity even in case of multiple independent acquisitions of variant viruses from an animal reservoir."

This statement demonstrates that the E gene used in RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, is not specific to SARS-CoV-2.

The E gene primers also detect a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.
The genome of the coronavirus is the largest of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they all have a very similar molecular structure. Still, SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 have two highly specific genetic fingerprints, which set them apart from the other coronaviruses. First, a unique fingerprint-sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is present in the N-protein of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 [13,14,15]. Second, both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV2 do not contain the HE protein, whereas all other coronaviruses possess this gene [13, 14]. So, in order to specifically detect a SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 PCR product the above region in the N gene should have been chosen as the amplification target. A reliable diagnostic test should focus on this specific region in the N gene as a confirmatory test. The PCR for this N gene was not further validated nor recommended as a test gene by the Drosten-Corman paper, because of being "not so sensitive" with the SARS-CoV original probe [1].

Furthermore, the absence of the HE gene in both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 makes this gene the ideal negative control to exclude other coronaviruses. The Corman-Drosten paper does not contain this negative control, nor does it contain any other negative controls. The PCR test in the Corman-Drosten paper therefore contains neither a unique positive control nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses. This is another major design flaw which classifies the test as unsuitable for diagnosis.

6. Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) is not available

There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available, which unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries. It is very important to specify all primer parameters unequivocally. We note that this has not been done. Further, the Ct value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses. As shown above, the test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important. This Ct value should have been specified in the Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) and put on-line so that all laboratories carrying out this test have exactly the same boundary conditions. It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation. Laboratories all over Europe are left with a multitude of questions; which primers to order? which nucleotides to fill in the undefined places? which Tm value to choose? How many PCR cycles to run? At what Ct value is the sample positive? And when is it negative? And how many genes to test? Should all genes be tested, or just the E and RpRd gene as shown in Table 2 of the Corman-Drosten paper? Should the N gene be tested as well? And what is their negative control? What is their positive control?

The protocol as described is unfortunately very vague and erroneous in its design that one can go in dozens of different directions. There does not appear to be any standardization nor an SOP, so it is not clear how this test can be implemented.

7. Consequences of the errors described under 1-5: false positive results.

The RT-PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper contains so many molecular biological design errors (see 1-5) that it is not possible to obtain unambiguous results. It is inevitable that this test will generate a tremendous number of so-called "false positives". The definition of false positives is a negative sample, which initially scores positive, but which is negative after retesting with the same test. False positives are erroneous positive test-results, i.e. negative samples that test positive. And this is indeed what is found in the Corman-Drosten paper. On page 6 of the manuscript PDF the authors demonstrate, that even under well-controlled laboratory conditions, a considerable percentage of false positives is generated with this test:

"In four individual test reactions, weak initial reactivity was seen however they were negative upon retesting with the same assay. These signals were not associated with any particular virus, and for each virus with which initial positive reactivity occurred, there were other samples that contained the same virus at a higher concentration but did not test positive. Given the results from the extensive technical qualification described above, it was concluded that this initial reactivity was not due to chemical instability of real-time PCR probes and most probably to handling issues caused by the rapid introduction of new diagnostic tests and controls during this evaluation study." [1]

The first sentence of this excerpt is clear evidence that the PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper generates false positives. Even under the well-controlled conditions of the state-of-the-art Charité-laboratory, 4 out of 310 primary-tests are false positives per definition. Four negative samples initially tested positive, then were negative upon retesting. This is the classical example of a false positive. In this case the authors do not identify them as false positives, which is intellectually dishonest.

Another telltale observation in the excerpt above is that the authors explain the false positives away as "handling issues caused by the rapid introduction of new diagnostic tests". Imagine the laboratories that have to introduce the test without all the necessary information normally described in an SOP.

8. The Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed

Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by "peer review." In this process, the journal's editors take advice from various experts ("referees") who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees' concerns and that the data presented supports the conclusions drawn in the paper." This process is as well described for Eurosurveillance [16].

The Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance on January 21st 2020 and accepted for publication on January 22nd 2020. On January 23rd 2020 the paper was online. On January 13th 2020 version 1-0 of the protocol was published at the official WHO website [17], updated on January 17th 2020 as document version 2-1 [18], even before the Corman-Drosten paper was published on January 23rd at Eurosurveillance.

Normally, peer review is a time-consuming process since at least two experts from the field have to critically read and comment on the submitted paper. In our opinion, this paper was not peer-reviewed. Twenty-four hours are simply not enough to carry out a thorough peer review. Our conclusion is supported by the fact that a tremendous number of very serious design flaws were found by us, which make the PCR test completely unsuitable as a diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper before the actual review process. We asked Eurosurveillance on October 26th 2020 to send us a copy of the peer review report. To date, we have not received this report and in a letter dated November 18th 2020, the ECDC as host for Eurosurveillance declined to provide access without providing substantial scientific reasons for their decision. On the contrary, they write that "disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations." [24].

9. Authors as the editors

A final point is one of major concern. It turns out that two authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, are also members of the editorial board of this journal [19]. Hence there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed. It has the appearance that the rapid publication was possible simply because the authors were also part of the editorial board at Eurosurveillance. This practice is categorized as compromising scientific integrity.

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER

The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was "the first" to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory "Labor Berlin". Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

CONCLUSION

The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.

Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.

REFERENCES

[1] Corman Victor M, Landt Olfert, Kaiser Marco, Molenkamp Richard, Meijer Adam, Chu Daniel KW, Bleicker Tobias, Brünink Sebastian, Schneider Julia, Schmidt Marie Luisa, Mulders Daphne GJC, Haagmans Bart L, van der Veer Bas, van den Brink Sharon, Wijsman Lisa, Goderski Gabriel, Romette Jean-Louis, Ellis Joanna, Zambon Maria, Peiris Malik, Goossens Herman, Reusken Chantal, Koopmans Marion PG, Drosten Christian. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):pii=2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

[2] Email communication between Dr. Peter Borger & Dr. Adam Meijer: Supplementary Material

[3] Jafaar et al., Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction-Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603

[4] BBC, January 21st 2020: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51185836;
Archive: https://archive.is/0qRmZ

[5] Google Analytics - COVID19-deaths worldwide: https://bit.ly/3fndemJ
Archive: https://archive.is/PpqEE

[6] Laboratory testing for COVID-19 Emergency Response Technical Centre, NIVD under
China CDC March 15th, 2020: http://www.chinacdc.cn/en/COVID19/202003/P020200323390321297894.pdf

[7] Real-Time PCR Handbook Life Technologies: https://www.thermofisher.com/content/dam/LifeTech/global/Forms/PDF/real-time-pcr-
handbook.pdf

Nolan T, Huggett J, Sanchez E.Good practice guide for the application of quantitative PCR (qPCR) First Edition 2013

[8] Trestan Pillonel et al, Letter to the editor: SARS-CoV-2 detection by real-time RT-PCR: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268274/

[9] Kurkela, Satu, and David WG Brown. "Molecular-diagnostic techniques." Medicine 38.10
(2009): 535-540.

[10] Wolfel et al., Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x

[11] Thermofischer Primer Dimer Web Tool: https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/brands/thermo-scientific/molecular-biology/molecular-biology-learning-center/molecular-biology-resource-library/thermo-scientific-web-tools/multiple-primer-analyzer.html

Supplementary Material

[12] Primer-BLAST, NCBI - National Center for Biotechnology Information: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast/

[13] Marra MA, Steven JMJ, Caroline RA, Robert AH, Angela BW et al. (2003) Science. The
Genome sequence of the SARS-associated coronavirus. Science 300(5624): 1399-1404.

[14] Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete
genome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947

[15] Borger P. A SARS-like Coronavirus was expected but nothing was done to be prepared. Am J Biomed Sci Res 2020. https://biomedgrid.com/pdf/AJBSR.MS.ID.001312.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341120750_A_SARS-
like_Coronavirus_was_Expected_but_nothing_was_done_to_be_Prepared;
Archive: https://archive.is/i76Hu

[16] Eurosurveillance paper evaluation / review process: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/evaluation

[17] Official recommendation of the Corman-Drosten protocol & manuscript by the WHO,published on January 13th 2020 as version 1.0 of the document:
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/wuhan-virus-assay-
v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902.pdf; archive: https://bit.ly/3m3jXVH

[18] Official WHO-recommendation for the Corman / Drosten RT-qPCR-protocol, which
directly derives from the Eurosurveillance-publication, document-version 2-1, published on
17th January 2020: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-
1.pdf?sfvrsn=a9ef618c_2

[19] Eurosurveillance Editorial Board, 2020: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/upload/site-
assets/imgs/2020-09-Editorial%20Board%20PDF.pdf;
Archive: https://bit.ly/2TqXBjX

[20] Instructions For Use LightMix SarbecoV E-gene plus EAV Control, TIB-Molbiol & Roche
Molecular Solutions, January 11th 2020: https://www.roche-as.es/lm_pdf/MDx_40-0776_96_Sarbeco-E-
gene_V200204_09164154001 (1).pdf
Archive, timestamp - January 11th 2020: https://archive.is/Vulo5;
Archive: https://bit.ly/3fm9bXH

[21] Christian Drosten & Victor Corman, responsible for viral diagnostics at Labor Berlin:
https://www.laborberlin.com/fachbereiche/virologie/
Archive: https://archive.is/CDEUG

[22] Tom Jefferson, Elizabeth Spencer, Jon Brassey, Carl Heneghan Viral cultures for COVID-
19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Systematic review doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932v4

[23] Kim et al.,The Architecture of SARS-CoV-2 Transcriptome:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420304062

[24] ECDC reply to Dr. Peter Borger, 18th November 2020:
Supplementary Material

[25] Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer & team, survey & Primer-BLAST table:
Supplementary Material

Additional literature:

Description RT-PCR RKI Germany, on page 10 of this link:
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Gesundheitsmonitoring/Gesundheitsberichterstattung/GBE
DownloadsJ/JoHM_S5_2020_Studienprotokoll_CORONA_MONITORING_lokal.pdf?__blob=p
ublicationFile

Author's Affiliations:

1) Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany

2) Rajesh Kumar Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM - Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts - Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria

3) Dr. Michael Yeadon BSs(Hons) Biochem Tox U Surrey, PhD Pharmacology U Surrey. Managing Director, Yeadon Consulting Ltd, former Pfizer Chief Scientist, United Kingdom

4) Dr. Clare Craig MA, (Cantab) BM, BCh (Oxon), FRCPath, United Kingdom

5) Kevin McKernan, BS Emory University, Chief Scientific Officer, founder Medical Genomics, engineered the sequencing pipeline at WIBR/MIT for the Human Genome Project, Invented and developed the SOLiD sequencer, awarded patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, USA

6) Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Molecular Andrology, Biomedical Research Center of the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

7) Dr. Paul McSheehy (BSc, PhD), Biochemist & Industry Pharmacologist, Loerrach, Germany

8) Dr. Lidiya Angelova, MSc in Biology, PhD in Microbiology, Former researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Maryland, USA

9) Dr. Fabio Franchi, Former Dirigente Medico (M.D) in an Infectious Disease Ward, specialized in "Infectious Diseases" and "Hygiene and Preventive Medicine", Società Scientifica per il Principio di Precauzione (SSPP), Italy

10) Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Internist and Cardiologist (FMH), Switzerland

11) Prof. Dr. med. Henrik Ullrich, specialist Diagnostic Radiology, Chief Medical Doctor at the Center for Radiology of Collm Oschatz-Hospital, Germany

12) Prof. Dr. Makoto Ohashi, Professor emeritus, PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, Tokushima University, Japan

13) Dr. Stefano Scoglio, B.Sc. Ph.D., Microbiologist, Nutritionist, Italy

14) Dr. Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens (MSc, PhD), specialist in Laboratory Medicine (clinical chemistry), Maasziekenhuis Pantein, Beugen, The Netherlands

15) Dr. Dorothea Gilbert (MSc, PhD), PhD Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. DGI Consulting Services, Oslo, Norway

16) Dr. Rainer J. Klement, PhD. Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Germany

17) Dr. Ruth Schruefer, PhD, human genetics/ immunology, Munich, Germany,

18) Dra. Berber W. Pieksma, General Practitioner, The Netherlands

19) Drs. Jan Bonte (GJ), Consultant Neurologist, The Netherlands

20) Dr. Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare (Molecular biologist), IP specialist, BDC Basel, Switzerland

21) Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, MSc Nursing (Kings College London) PhD (London South Bank) Social Sciences (Science & Technology Studies) London, England, United Kingdom

22) Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany

Author's Contributions:

PB: Planned and conducted the analyses and research, conceptualising the manuscript.

BRM: Planned and conducted the research, conceptualising the figures and manuscript.

MY: Proofreading the analyses and research.

KMcK: Conducted the analyses and research, conceptualized the manuscript.

KS: Conducted the analyses and research.

PMcS: Proofreading the analyses and research.

LA: Proofreading the analyses and research.

FF: Proofreading the analyses and research.

TB: Proofreading the analyses and research.

HU: Proofreading the analyses and research.

MO: Proofreading the analyses and research.

SS: Proofreading the analyses and research.

MDvK: Proofreading the analyses and research.

DG: Proofreading the analyses and research.

RJK: Proofreading the analyses and research.

RS: Proofreading the analyses and research, and the manuscript.

BWK: Proofreading the analyses and research.

RvV: Proofreading the analyses and research.

JB: Proofreading the analyses and research.

KC: Proofreading the analyses and research.

UK: Planned and conducted the analyses and research, conceptualising the manuscript.

Additional Proof-Readers:

Saji N Hameed, Environmental Informatics, University of Aizu, Tsuruga, Ikki-machi, Aizuwakamatsu-shi, Fukushima, Japan

Howard R. Steen, MA Chem. Eng. Cantab, Former Research Manager, Germany

Addendum

Update 2.12.2020:

Author Contribution Dr. Michael Yeadon changed to:
Proofreading the analyses and research.

Author Affiliation Kevin Mckernan changed to:
Medicinal Genomics.

Update 5.3.2021

Co-Signee title changed to:
Drs. Jan Bonte

There was a typing mistake that has been corrected now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This data is based on potential COVID-19 symptoms reported by members of the public to NHS Pathways through NHS 111 or 999 and 111 online, and is not based on the outcomes of tests for coronavirus.

This is not a count of people. In 111 online, any user that starts and launches the COVID-19 assessment services is indicating they may have symptoms of coronavirus.

Members of the public may have accessed the service multiple times with different symptoms.

The North East, West Midlands, South East Coast, South Central, and Isle of Wight Ambulance Services use NHS Pathways to triage calls to 999. The North West, Yorkshire, East Midlands, East of England, London, and South Western Ambulance Services use another system to triage calls to 999. Therefore, for CCGs in those areas, data here will not include most 999 calls related to COVID-19.

NHS Pathways data is sourced from a live system that is updated every 15 minutes. The data is extracted for the dashboard and open data files with as little delay as possible but there can be a time delay between the extraction processes meaning that the dashboard and open data files may have different totals.

Users of 111 online can change answers and reach multiple dispositions so the data indicates those users that have started an assessment and completed a final disposition.

Users enter their current location which may differ from their home postcode.

111 online updated the service on 9 April so that under 16s are directed to use the normal 111 online triage. Due to small numbers data for 17 and 18 year olds has been suppressed and therefore does not appear in the data. This means that data for the 0-18 age band is no longer available in the 111 online data and is not included within the overall totals for 111 online.

111 online updated the service on 23 April so that there is now a separate covid assessment for 5 - 15 year olds. This means that from data for 23rd April 2020 onwards the 0-18 age band will be reinstated into the 111 online data and will cover ages from 5 to 18 years old.

Following the changes to the assessment of COVID-19 in NHS Pathways release release 19.3.8 (on 18 May) those receiving a specific COVID-19 disposition will be reduced for the following reason:

At the start of the pandemic, work was undertaken at pace to create a COVID-specific pathway. This was intended to capture all patients with symptoms of fever or cough (as defined by Public Health England at that time) and reflected the high prevalence of coronavirus in the community. Through the pandemic, as further clinical evidence has emerged and the prevalence of coronavirus has decreased, it has become possible to more fully integrate this COVID-specific approach with the main NHS Pathways system to ensure that the potential diagnosis of COVID-19 is more accurate.

The initial approach may have overestimated the number of potential coronavirus patients because the symptoms of coronavirus overlap with those of other infections not caused by coronavirus, such as colds and flu.

release 19.3.8 of NHS Pathways integrated Covid-19 more fully into the main Pathways system. This release also included a change to the management of self-care dispositions. These changes coincided with a national decrease in call volumes related to Covid-19 in NHS 111.

Following detailed data analysis we have noted that these changes had an impact on the reporting of Covid-19 self-care dispositions. As a result an average of 500 Covid-19 self-care dispositions a day may have been omitted from our nationally reported daily data. An amendment has been made to better capture this data and was deployed to sites on the 26th June. We therefore anticipate that the number of Covid-19 self-care dispositions captured in this report will increase as this change is deployed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NHS Pathways coronavirus triages - NHS Digital

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This data is based on potential COVID-19 symptoms reported by members of the public to NHS Pathways through NHS 111 or 999 and 111 online, and is not based on the outcomes of tests for coronavirus. This is not a count of people.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Cambridge study testing asymptomatics and its implications for the claim that "1 in 3 people with the virus have no symptoms"

# data[].attributes.subject
The Cambridge study testing asymptomatics and its implications for the claim that "1 in 3 people with the virus have no symptoms"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This makes interesting reading for anybody who still believes the Government 'case' data and the claim that just because you don't have any COVID-19 symptoms it doesn't mean you aren't in danger (and a danger to others)....

This data also means that if the Government claim that "1 in 3 people with the virus has no symptoms" is correct then the ONS estimated infection rate is massively inflated - the currently reported 'case' numbers must be at least 11 times greater than the true number of cases. On the other hand, if the Government estimates of case numbers are correct then at most 1 in 34 people with the virus has no symptoms. Here's why:

Cambridge has a population of 129,000.

If the ONS infection estimates for Cambridge (0.71%) are accurate, then during an average week in this period about 916 people had the virus and 128,084 did not.

But if the "1 in 3" claim is correct about 305 of the 916 people in Cambridge with the virus were asymptomatic and 611 had symptoms.

While we do not know how many people in total in Cambridge were asymptomatic, we can certainly assume there must have been at most 128,389 (namely 129,000 minus the 611 we know had symptoms). So, with 305 asymptomatics having the virus, that means at least 305/128389 people with no symptoms had the virus. That is at least 0.24% (i.e. at least around 1 in 421).

But the study shows on average only 1 in 4867 (0.0205%) asymptomatics had the virus. So, we should have found at most 26 asymptomatics with the virus not 305.

That means the "1 in 3" claim and the ONS estimates cannot both be correct.

If the "1 in 3" claim is correct, then the maximum possible value for the infection rate is at most 0.062% and not 0.71% as claimed. So the ONS estimated infection rate would be 11 times greater than the true rate. (Formal proof below)

On the other hand, if the ONS reported infection of 0.71% is correct, then at most 2.95% (1 in 34) of people with the virus have no symptoms and not 1 in 3 as claimed. (Formal proof below)

Conclusions:

Although the above analysis applied to a single UK city, there is no reason to believe it' is special (see the report below on national lateral flow testing data).

Since mass PCR testing began many of those classified as 'cases' were not COVID-19. And the Government claim that "1 in 3 with the virus has no symptoms" is massively exaggerated. There needs to be confirmatory testing for any people testing positive before they are declared a 'case'.

We should stop testing people without symptoms unless they have been in recent contact with a person confirmed as having the virus.

And it's always interesting to compare number of NHS 999 emergency COVID-19 calls/triages with number of 'cases'. This data ( https://digital.nhs.uk/dashboards/nhs-pathways ) clearly shows real pandemic last spring but not '2nd/3rd waves'. All caveats discussed here https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/01/more-on-inconsistency-between-official.html apply

Also: This Government report says 9,480 of 2,372,358 lateral flow tests in UK 28 Jan - 3 Feb were positive. It is assumed almost all lateral flow tests are on people without symptoms. Given the false positive rate for these tests that's about 1 in 1587 true positives. In the same period the ONS estimated UK infection rate was 1 in 77.

Obviously all of this data is on asymptomatics tested, so we expect the percentage testing positive to be less than the overall infection rate. However, this data still massively contradicts Government claims about asymptomatics as explained here.

And, of course, we have very solid evidence that the number of 'cases' based on PCR testing are inflated.

The links:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Cambridge study testing asymptomatics and its implications for the claim that "1 in 3 people with the virus have no symptoms"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This makes interesting reading for anybody who still believes the Government 'case' data and the claim that just because you don't have any COVID-19 symptoms it doesn't mean you aren't in danger (and a danger to others)....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Freedom through peaceful demonstration

Welcome to the official website for the big European demonstration at the start of May in Brussels, Belgium!

For too long, our governments have been taking unlawful and disproportional measures that restrict our freedom. With the excuse of a worldwide pandemic, they propose law after law without any regards to human rights or constitutions. This is bringing all European countries on the brink of dictatorship. The worst disease we imported from China was not the virus, but totalitarianism.

Enough is enough. Europeans are making a stand and uniting against tyranny by protesting peacefully in Brussels.

The first demonstration will be in Baarle-Hertog / Baarle-Nassau this Saturday 3 April at 2pm. Dutchmen, Belgians, Germans, ... all together!!! The final goal is to unite all Europeans in Brussels for the biggest European demonstration for freedom ever in May!👊 You can find a list of participating countries on this website.

Join us on Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/zjsgN1uL8ztiYmM0 . You can install Telegram on your mobile phone or your desktop then click the link to get the latest updates live!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the official website for the big European demonstration at the start of May in Brussels, Belgium! For too long, our governments have been taking unlawful and disproportional measures that restrict our freedom. With the excuse of a worldwide pandemic, they propose law after law without any regards to human rights or constitutions.