CANNABIS CULTURE – Everything you ever wanted to know about vaccines – and non-proprietary substitutes for vaccines – but were terrfied to ask.
Another deep dive from DML.
“There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976 debacle’ in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people – more than the virus itself. … Within days, symptoms of GBS (Guillain-Barre Syndrome) were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.”
– Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America, JO MACFARLANE, 15 August 2009 (1)
“What do you get for pretending the danger’s not real? Meek and obedient, you follow the leader down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel. What a surprise! A look of terminal shock in your eyes. Now things are really what they seem. No, this is no bad dream.”
– Pink Floyd, “Sheep”, from the Animals album, January 21st, 1977
“Now if Drs. Baric et al – who are world renowned coronavirus experts – demonstrated the potential risk of SARS CoV re-emergence not responsive to immune therapy or potential vaccine therapy via ‘gain-of-function research’, but also did research to show the potential for Zinc and ionophores might be effective at inhibiting replication of RNA-viruses (of which SARS-COV-2 is one), then why – now that there HAS been a ‘re-emergence’ of a SARS-COV virus – aren’t they vigorously advocating for post-exposure trials of cheap and available Zinc in combo with ionophores (of chloroquines and quercetin flavonoids are two examples) to mitigate this disease, if their own research shows this simple treatment has potential but immune modalities don’t? I’m suffering cognitive and moral dissonance. I think I just went down the rabbit hole.”
– “Island Girl” comment in the Peak Prosperity discussion forum, July 3rd, 2020, found in the video “Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!” Peak Prosperity, July 7th, 2020 (2)
In my last article for Cannabis Culture – on the medical uses of coca – I pointed out that the medical establishment demonized and stigmatized all non-proprietary medicine – not just cannabis and coca. This institutional bias also extends to magic mushrooms, kratom, DMT, LSD, mescaline, opium – all the botanically derived illegal psychoactive drugs have been lied about by those in positions of power and authority in our medical system.
But some cannabis activists are ignoring this institutional bias against non-proprietary medicine and now believe that the same medical establishment that has lied about these drugs for over 100 years are now suddenly telling the truth about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and the non-proprietary alternatives to vaccines. I’m not just talking about the outragious and careless pot activists – I’m taking about some of the most intelligent and well-respected and well-read pot activists – some of my closest friends and associates. People I respect, and want to continue to respect.
I have written this article in response to this situation, in the hopes that open-minded pro-vaccine friends and associates of mine will either change their minds, or point out where I’m wrong. I think decades of working together on projects involving drug peace, the right to natural medicine and the right to medical autonomy justifies such a request.
If you haven’t read part 1 or part 2, and you want a deep dive into the possible origin of SARS-COV-2 and different possible treatments for COVID, here are the links.
There are lots of reasons to be vaccinated: Not counting yourself amongst the right-wing, racist, anti-mask, low-information lunatics that make up a significant part of the anti-vaccine movement, or being able to go out to restaurants or music events or other “non-essential” events, or keeping the ability to travel on mass transportation or maintaining good relationships at work or with one’s family, or – in some cases – to keep one’s job. There’s even reports of access to medical treatment including life-saving surgery being withheld unless one gets the vaccine. But none of these reasons have anything to do with the supposed positive effects of the vaccine on one’s health – they’re all related to succumbing to (a now quite massive amount of) public pressure.
Here are my six reasons for not getting vaccinated – in order from most to least acceptable (in my estimation) to the current general public, rather than their importance to me personally. Evidence to back up these reasons are found below.
Six Reasons For Not Getting Vaccinated:
1. The mass media and government officials refuse to compare COVID vaccine safety and efficacy with non-proprietary COVID treatments, but there is reason to believe that these other treatments are cheaper, far safer and at least as effective – if not more effective – than the vaccine.
2. It is impossible to accurately evaluate the safety of the COVID vaccine, because:
a)Doctors and other healthcare professionals have received inadequate education in vaccine side effect recognition.
b) Vaccine industry whistleblowers and skeptics have been railroaded in the establishment media and academic journals.
c) The institutions that monitor vaccine safety are designed to avoid finding – rather than designed to find possible causal relationships between vaccines and apparent side effects.
d) The COVID vaccine trials have been shrouded in secrecy.
e) Vaccine safety stats are skewed – anyone who has died from COVID within 14 days of their vaccination is considered “unvaccinated” by the CDC and may very well have died from the vaccine rather than from lack of one.
f) OSHA has removed the requirement for employers to report vaccine side effects from vaccines that they are mandating for their employees.
3. Vaccine injury compensation exists on paper, but causation is difficult to prove, and receiving compensation would be an uphill battle, with no guarantees. Also, there is no compensation big enough to make up for an unnecessary death, which is a much more likely result from a vaccine than from one of many non-proprietary treatment options to COVID.
4. Unlike non-proprietary COVID treatments, vaccines have been deemed “inherently unsafe” in the courts. History has plenty of examples of vaccine-related disasters.
5. Everything about the COVID vaccines are new and experimental – the side effects are either completely unknown or poorly understood and may manifest far in the future. The COVID vaccines are one massive experiment. Vaccine madates were used by a doctor at the Nuremberg Nazi war crimes trials to justify vaccine experiments on death camp inmates. It’s against the Nuremberg Doctor’s Code to experiment with someone against their will, or, arguably, mandate expermental treatments. It’s against the latest version (2013) of the Declaration of Helsinki to use an “unproven intervention” when other interventions exist and have been proven effective.
6. There is a slippery slope that begins with incremental loss of medical autonomy and ends with predictable, inevitable attrocities against vulnerable people. Endorsing this medical intervention with my participation is complicity in the elimination of medical autonomy, helping to transform humanity into little more than livestock.
1) Other treatments are cheaper, safer and more effective than the vaccine.
Vaccine Safety & Efficacy
In the United States, there have been thousands of deaths associated with the COVID vaccine. The CDC states that there have been 7,439 recorded deaths among vaccine recipients between December 14th, 2020 and September 7, 2021.
“More than 375 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through September 7, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,439 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.” (3)
The National Vaccine Information Center says that by September 3rd, the number of US deaths associated with the COVID vaccine was actually 14,506. (4)
There is no institution or system designed to evaluate the actual number or cause of these deaths. The only systems that monitor vaccine adverse events in place in the United States and Canada – the U.S. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and the Canadian CAEFISS (the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System) – both avoid looking into the cause of death. (5)
In spite of the ability to deny causation built into VAERS and CAEFISS, there is reason to believe that coincidental serious adverse events are a small minority of all adverse events. Analysis on the VAERS death data shows that in 86% of reports the vaccine cannot be ruled out as a causal factor in the death of the patient. (6)
The Japanese have published an article on how the Pfizer-BioNTech vax is associated with brain hemorrhaging – lending credence to the hypothesis that the “spike proteins” are crossing the blood-brain barrier in some people. (7)
An article has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine on how the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with blood clots in the brain – lending more credence to the hypothesis that the spike proteins are crossing the blood-brain barrier in some people. (8) There have also been 46 cases of “spontaneous abortions” reported. (9) There have been hundreds of reports of Shingles, also known as zoster or herpes zoster, in the United States and Israel, related to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine. (10)
Some researchers estimate that only 1 to 10 percent of vaccine-related injuries are reported to VAERS. (11) Other researchers estimate that “less than 1%” of adverse events are reported. (12)
Due to the overwhelming support for vaccination from all the powerful sectors of society, and the merciless treatment of critics, skeptics and whistleblowers by major media and academic institutions (see below), the actual toll of vaccine victims may very well be much, much higher than the official toll. As well, there is some suggestion that there is a “staggering” backlog in the reporting of COVID vaccine adverse events, and the “overall risk signal is high”. (13)
One researcher summed up the COVID vaccine VAERS data this way:
“Analysis suggests that the vaccines are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological AEs. Based on the precautionary principle, since there is currently no precedent for predictability with regards to long-term effects from mRNA injections, extreme care should be taken when making a decision to participate in this experiment. mRNA platforms are new to humans with regard to mass injection programs in the context of viruses. There is currently no way to predict potential detrimental outcomes with regards to SAE occurrences in the long-term. Also, with regards to short-term analysis, this data is limited based on reporting that likely significantly underestimates actual events.” (14)
That’s COVID vaccine safety. On the topic of COVID vaccine efficacy, an article has been published which explains how vaccine manufacturers have used relative risk reduction to determine that vaccine efficacy is ~90+%, however they should have used absolute risk reduction which would tell us that the vaccines will only reduce total covid cases by ~1%. (15)
In all coronavirus vaccines created throughout history thus far, antibodies from these vaccines start to drop within 8 months, requiring (according to the CDC) a booster shot. (16) COVID vaccination will now require multiple shots every year, similar to the flu vaccines, which also come out once or twice per year. (17)
The British Medical Journal commented on the problem of “waning immunity” with regards to the COVID vaccines;
“The concern, of course, was decreased efficacy over time. ‘Waning immunity’ is a known problem for influenza vaccines, with some studies showing near zero effectiveness after just three months, meaning a vaccine taken early may ultimately provide no protection by the time ‘flu season’ arrives some months later. If vaccine efficacy wanes over time, the crucial question becomes what level of effectiveness will the vaccine provide when a person is actually exposed to the virus? Unlike covid vaccines, influenza vaccine performance has always been judged over a full season, not a couple months.” (18)
This suggests will be an endless number of booster shots, which will compound the risks from the vaccine endlessly. There are no long-term multiple-booster shot clinical trials for COVID vaccines. Vaccine skeptics remain skeptical of the COVID vaccine:
“Although studies show cellular and humoral responses upon injection, it is not known how long immunity might last, and thus it has been suggested that many boosts will be required. It has also been detailed that these particular vaccines do not prevent transmission, and thus the effectiveness of these vaccines is very questionable. Perhaps even more important is that it is unknown what the impact of non-neutralizing antibodies will be in the long term.” (19)
While some argue that it’s the Delta variant that has created a situation where booster shots are required, Peter Doshi of the British Medical Journal suggests the evidence points to waning efficacy. (20)
Compare the documented COVID vaccine side effects and efficacy problems with the relative lack of similar side effects or problems from non-proprietary drugs such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin.
Hydroxychloroquine Safety & Efficacy
HCQ has been repeatedly considered a “safe” drug. Supposed “fatalities” were either non-existent, extremely rare, the result of massive-dose studies designed to fail or else confused with the outcome of a disease in late intervention treatments. (21)
HCQ is an “ionophore” – one of many. An ionophore is an “ion carrier”. (22) An “ion” is “a particle, atom or molecule with a net electrical charge.” (23) HCQ carries zinc into cells where it kills or harms pathogens. It inhibits “replication of various viruses” – including coronaviruses. (24)
Before COVID, its use as a potential therapy for coronaviruses was not considered controversial. HCQ was considered as a potential treatment for SARS back in 2003. It appeared both relatively safe and potentially effective. (25) It was again evaluated in 2005, and considered “relatively safe, effective and cheap.” (26) Death was not mentioned as a possible side effect from HCQ by the CDC before the COVID-19 pandemic began. (27)
There is some evidence that the World Health Organization began designing HCQ studies to fail once the pandemic was underway, using lethal doses of HCQ. (28)
HCQ is undoubtedly safer than a COVID vaccine. As for efficacy, one analysis of hundreds of HCQ/COVID studies – with links to every study – is revealing:
“Database of all HCQ COVID-19 studies. 344 studies, 250 peer reviewed, 281 comparing treatment and control groups. HCQ is not effective when used very late with high dosages over a long period . . . effectiveness improves with earlier usage and improved dosing. Early treatment consistently shows positive effects. Negative evaluations typically ignore treatment time, often focusing on a subset of late stage studies. In Vitro evidence made some believe that therapeutic levels would not be attained, however that was incorrect, e.g. see [Ruiz].” (29)
Ivermectin Safety & Efficacy
Ivermectin is another medication that shows real promise in the prevention and treatment of COVID. Whereas the medical establishment dismissed HCQ as being unsafe by confusing death from COVID with death from HCQ use, the same establishment dismissed the use of ivermectin by focusing on it’s use in veterinary medicine while ignoring its long history of use in humans. Wikipedia points out it is a drug used by humans for a wide range of pathogens as well as for other animals:
“Ivermectin is a medication that is used to treat parasite infestations. In humans, this includes head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis. In veterinary medicine, it is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications. It can be taken by mouth or applied to the skin for external infestations.” (30)
According to numerous studies, “Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use,” (31) is “one of the safest drugs known,” (32) and
“. . . plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses.” (33)
Researchers believe that ivermectin “is also effective with the different variants of the virus.” (34) Health professionals in countries who have a medical establishment which is not under the direct control of big pharma are openly supportive of the use of Ivermectin. Ivermectin has been endorsed by the Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association. (35) The WHO is being sued by India’s Bar association for misleading information about ivermectin. (36)
People in the United States and Canada are misusing ivermectin – using the wrong type and/or improperly dosing themselves – because the medical establishment refuses to prescribe it and help them get the right type and the right dose. Those who live in countries that allow doctors to prescribe ivermectin for COVID are not suffering from these “accessing ivermectin for humans” problems or dose problems.
Anyone who doubts the safety or efficacy of ivermectin should read the 1 page summary of the Review of the Emerging Evidence Supporting the Use of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19, by the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance. (37)
Another summary of a database of dozens of ivermectin/COVID studies paints an incredible picture of efficacy – one ignored completely by the major media, who routinely dismiss this medicine as “horse dewormer”:
“Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 69% [54‑79%] and 86% [75‑92%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.” (38)
Finally, a comprehensive 2021 review of the safety literature on ivermectin by Jacques Descotes, one of France’s leading toxicologists, concluded that ‘ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.’” (39)
It is evident that the safety and efficacy data on the approved, proprietary COVID medicines are either hard to get or indicates major problems, whereas the safety and efficacy data on the unapproved non-proprietary COVID medicines are easy to find (if you bother to look for it) and indicates no major problems.
Other Possible Therapies
It’s not only HCQ and ivermectin that are being used with great success against COVID. There’s also aspirin, bromhexine, budesonide, colchicine, curcumin, Iota-carrageenan, melatonin, Nigella sativa (black cumin), nitazoxanide, povidone-iodine, quercetin, vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc. All of these therapies have shown promise in the treatment of COVID-19. The studies have all been uploaded online, in case anyone would like to look into them further. (40)
The most likely reason these medicines are being overlooked by the medical establishment in North America is that they are either unpatentable natural medicines or else the 20 to 25 year patent on them has run out and there are cheaper, generic versions available. The establishment won’t make a killing off the pandemic if they admit these other non-proprietary options are available.
Quercetin, for example, is an ionophore, like HCQ, which carries zinc into cells where viruses are hiding and prevents their replication. Unlike HCQ, quercetin is available without a prescription in North America, and is found in many healthfood stores or all over the internet.
Back in 2010, Ralph Baric – who infamously conducted gain-of-function (weaponization) research on bat coronaviruses in 2015 – concluded that zinc and pyrithione (another zinc-carrying ionophore) “inhibits the replication of SARS-coronavirus” in cell cultures. (41)
Recent Studies Involving Cannabis
Many studies have been published that indicate cannabis is a potential treatment for COVID. Here are the latest.
Two studies out of Lethbridge, Alberta, studied high-CBD cultivars and their ability to help people survive COVID. The first looked at these strains interfering with the ability of SARS-COV-2 to enter host cells. (42) The second study looked at strains that were especially good at reducing inflammation. (43)
CBD continues to be studied as a treatment for COVID. Recently, a published pre-print (pre-peer review) has shown this cannabinoid to be a promising preventative medicine and curative treatment in the early stages of infection, as it may block SARS-COV-2 replication. (44)
A different study looked at the efficacy of using CBD combined with different cannabis terpenes against COVID. (45) All these cannabis studies show promise.
The Probable Reason For Suppressing Non Proprietary COVID Treatments
Emergency use authorization for the vaccines cannot be granted if there are effective alternative approved treatments for COVID. (46) So, if the pharmaceutical industry is going to make any money off this pandemic, they must suppress the existence of any existing off-patent drugs or natural remedies that may be effective in treating or preventing COVID.
This might explain why, for example, colloidal silver is ignored as a potential treatment for COVID, in spite of the fact that many studies have been produced indicating it might be a useful antiviral, (47) and even shows promise against SARS-COV-2 itself. (48)
Those who articulate the views of the medical establishment ignore all these colloidal silver studies – pretending they don’t exist – and focus only on examples of the abusive use of colloidal silver. (49) Students of drug war history will note that this is exactly the same technique used to stigmatize cannabis and coca and opium and magic mushrooms – all the forbidden botanical medicines: ignore any study or report indicating safety or efficacy, and pretend all use is abusive use and that beneficial use is impossible.
2) It is impossible to accurately evaluate the safety of the COVID vaccine.
- Doctors and other healthcare professionals have received inadequate education in vaccine side effect recognition.
Most doctors are partially ignorant of the history of vaccine pathology, and are given no incentives to investigate;
“ . . . generally, comprehensive vaccinology training is not offered to medical and/or biological sciences students as part of their Universities courses and consequently there is insufficient knowledge of vaccine topics among health-care providers.” (50)
- Industry whistleblowers have been railroaded in the establishment media and academic journals.
Take, for example, the most famous example: Andrew Wakefield. The current view of the establishment media, summarized at the top of Wakefield’s Wikipedia entry, is that Wakefield
“. . . is a British anti-vaccine activist, former physician, and discredited academic who was struck off the medical register for his involvement in the Lancet MMR autism fraud, a 1998 study that falsely claimed a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.” (51)
Understanding the truth behind “the Lancet MMR autism fraud” requires a more careful look into the details of Wakefield’s discreditation, and the corporate conflicts of interest behind it. Unfortunately, none of Wakefield’s critics seem willing to spend any time looking into the matter, in spite of a massive amount of evidence of his railroading gathered in one place:
“All of the documented evidence and testimonies submitted to the General Medical Council, upon which GMC issued its guilty verdicts against Dr. Wakefield and his two co-defendants in 2010, were subsequently forensically assessed by the UK High Court in March 2012, in the appeal of Professor John Walker-Smith, the senior clinician and senior author of the Lancet case series. The High Court determined that the verdicts of professional misconduct and ethics violations were unsupported by the evidence. Indeed, the adjudicated evidence refutes the case against Dr. Wakefield; the documents and testimonies demonstrate that there is no evidence whatsoever, to support the charges of professional misconduct, much less the accusation of fraud. The accusation of fraud was hurled by the Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ, a medical journal whose corporate ownership is intertwined with the vaccine manufacturing Behemoths, Merck – with whom BMJ signed a partnership agreement in 2008 – and GlaxoSmithKline which provides additional financial support to BMJ. Among their numerous vaccine products, Merck and GSK manufacture the MMR vaccine.” (52)
Wakefield himself has defended his reputation against charges of fraud and misconduct, but critics are unwilling to even listen to the defense of his work, much less respond to it. (53)
Or take, for another example, scientist J. Anthony Morris, who blew the whistle on the swine flu vaccine before the fiasco, and was fired for it;
“But in 1971, Morris charged that the DBS (the Public Health Service’s Division of Biologics Standards) was releasing lots of flu vaccine that were failing DBS potency tests. His claim was upheld by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which reported that some of the vaccine lots had a potency of less than 1 percent of the established standard. A DBS official made a memorable statement at a 1971 hearing: ‘The manufacturers would sell water if they could get away with it.’ Morris and others demonstrated that DBS personel had been ordered to accept the manufactuers’ tests results without requiring that vaccine lots pass DBS standards. Subsequently, Morris’s research efforts at the DBS were significantly curtailed. Morris explained why he thought the agency reacted so negatively to his suggestion that the influenza vaccine was not effective. ‘Influenza vaccine is the only vaccine administered annually. This is a tremendous market. At that time, about twenty million doses of influenza vaccine were being produced and sold yearly. If you took that vaccine market away, it would have left a tremendous hole, and I believe that the administration within the NIH were not willing to see that market disappear. Certainly, the pharmaceutical manufacturers were not willing to see that market disappear. Where do you think vaccine experts go when they leave the government? They either go to a related medical field or they got to work for a pharmaceutical manufacturer.’ In the early 1970s, Morris refused to endorse the DBS’s ‘swine flu’ mass vaccination campaign and warned the public that not only would there be no ‘swine flu’ epidemic but that the vaccine had the potential to cause serious side effects. He was subsequently fired by the new DBS director, Harry Meyer. (When Meyer retired from the FDA in the mid-1980s, he went to work for Lederle Laboratories.) Morris was eventually proven to be right: the ‘swine flu’ epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine caused cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome – a type of paralysis, for which the government eventually paid more than $400 million in damages.” (54)
- The institutions that monitor vaccine safety are designed to avoid finding – rather than designed to find – possible causal relationships between vaccines and apparent side effects.
The CDC considers the inability of their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to evaluate if the vaccine actually caused the side effect a “limitation”. (55) The concept of setting up a system to monitor possible vaccine-related side effects but not to take the next logical step and bother to assess whether or not the association is causal is seen by vaccine skeptics as an “irreconcilable incongruence.” (56)
This design flaw in the system may very well be on purpose. Pro-vaccine statiticians can argue that vaccines are “safe” because causation hasn’t been – or ever will be – proved. This incongruence allows the vaccine makers to make tens of billions (and with COVID vaccines, potentially hundreds of billions) of dollars without safety considerations getting in the way.
Much of the general public does not realize that there is no institution or system in existance which evaluates the causal relationship between vaccines and possible side effects. In a sane world, there would be – especially if getting a vaccine was a prerequisite for getting or keeping a job or getting access to emergency medical attention.
- The COVID vaccine trials have been shrouded in secrecy.
Unreported by the major media, the clinical trial data has been hidden from the public, either by eliminating control groups to prevent long term efficacy data from being evaluated, (57) or blatant refusals to make the data public in a timely fashion. (58)
The latest meagre offerings of COVID vaccine clinical trial data have been described as inadequate, since – amongst other reasons – they still provide “no reported data past 13 March 2021.” (59)
- Vaccine safety stats are skewed – anyone who has died from COVID within 14 days of their vaccination is considered “unvaccinated” by the CDC and may very well have died from the vaccine rather than from lack of one.
By prioritizing the collection of accurate vaccine efficacy data over the collection of accurate vaccine safety data, the CDC has successfully created a way to hide vaccine injury or vaccine death statistics;
“Persons were considered fully vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines) or after 1 dose of the single-dose Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine; partially vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and <14 days after the second dose in a 2-dose series; and unvaccinated <14 days receipt of the first dose of a 2-dose series or 1 dose of the single-dose vaccine or if no vaccination registry data were available.” (DML’s emphasis) (60)
According to vaccine safety researchers,
“The percentages of reported deaths, hospitalizations and emergency doctor visits are highest in the first two days post-injection.” (61)
Also, this means that not only the mortality stats are skewed, the hospitalization stats are, too. How many people in the intensive care units that are labelled “unvaccinated” are actually “recently vaccinated”? Nobody knows, because instead of keeping track of that statistic, it’s being hidden through the unnecessarily confusing definition of “unvaccinated”. Are they in the ICU because they are recently vaccinated? The fact nobody in charge cares to know the answer to this question demonstrates how broken the system is.
OSHA removed the requirement for employers to report vaccine side effects from vaccines they are mandating for their employees.
OSHA – the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently removed the requirement for employers to report vaccine side effects! The blind, religious faith in the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines by these bureaucrats is only matched by the callous disregard for human life such irresponsible actions represent;
“At the same time that the CDC stopped tracking covid in the vaccinated, OSHA removed the requirement for employers to report vaccine side effects from vaccines they are mandating for their employees. OSHA says they do not want to increase vaccine hesitancy by publishing side effects. They are admitting that they want to hide the true risk from people. How can you have informed consent?” (62)
3) Vaccine injury compensation would be an uphill battle.
Some of the problems involved with getting compensation for a vaccine injury are that the side effects might take years to manifest, or take years to diagnose, or may never be diagnosed, or you might die and be unable to collect benefits on account of you being dead. Also, you might dismiss your side effects as “not serious” (until they become serious) and not bother to report them at first, thereby failing to initiate the chain of evidence at the beginning of the process.
One of the reasons that people might not be reporting COVID vaccine side effects is because the media and the medical establishment is telling people to expect COVID vaccine side effects. According to the CDC, the “Common Side Effects” one should expect from a COVID vaccine are:
According to the CDC, the symptoms of COVID itself are:
“Fever or chills
Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
Muscle or body aches
New loss of taste or smell
Congestion or runny nose
Nausea or vomiting
In other words, all of the publicly stated side effects of the vaccine – without exception – are symptoms of the disease.
My girlfriend of the last four years was vaccinated with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine when she was 14 years old. She experienced her first full body rash within two weeks of that vaccination. Decades later, she was diagnosed with Lupus. One of the symptoms of Lupus is a full body rash. She gets them from time to time. It’s a painful, horrible experience. It’s a nightmare. Lupus can be debilitating at times, leaving one unable to work – or even get out of the bathtub by oneself.
It is very difficult for my girlfriend to even qualify for disability – qualifying for compensation for her vaccine-caused Lupus would be next to impossible. Her doctors say they don’t know what caused her Lupus. There is some evidence that Lupus has been associated with vaccination, but the medical establishment isn’t very interested in putting time or energy into investigating the link. (65)
Image #61: uscfc.uscourts.gov/
Canadian health experts have been calling for a national vaccine injury compensation program since at least the mid-1980s. (66) In response to the COVID pandemic, the Canadian government slapped a vaccine injury compensation program together – making Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for the injury caused by pharmaceutical companies. (67)
Only “severe or permanent injuries” will be compensated for. It’s unclear from the definition of “severe or permanent injuries” given (68) if Lupus would qualify – even if the injury was recent instead of decades ago – and even if doctors weren’t reluctant to try and prove the MMR vaccine caused Lupus. And they are reluctant.
The Canadian Government has vowed to create a “regime that aims to protect them”, although it’s not clear whether the “them” they are talking about is vaccine-injured Canadians or big pharmaceutical companies. (69)
Doubts have already arisen from those attempting to get compensation. One man – Murry Hellekson – was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after his COVID-19 vaccination in May – the same side effect connected to the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine fiasco. (70) Hellekson is skeptical he will ever receive any help;
“Hellekson said he’s sick of watching politicians talking about how they’ll help you if you get COVID-19, but ‘if what the government gives you, to put in your arm, injures you? No help. Before they started giving the vaccines out and the big push to do it, they should have had this in place.’” (71)
According to Hellekson, “some people never recover from it (GBS) fully.” The CBC reports that if you are permanently disabled by GBS for the rest of your life, you might get something “in the neighbourhood of $120,000.” And if you die, you might get “closer to $250,000” – well, your next of kin would, anyway. (72)
$120,000 sounds like a lot of money, but compare that $120,000 with today’s cost of living. If you’re successful in getting compensation, getting GBS might pay out enough for a Vancouver 3 bedroom apartment (an average of 3,800 per month as of Sept. 4, 2021) (73) for just over 2.5 years. Then what?
Back on June 4th, 2021, the CBC reported that
“. . . as of May 21, Health Canada’s adverse events tracking system shows 15 cases of GBS on a list of several hundred other individuals who have reported serious side effects.” (74)
As of September 3rd, the serious side effects number is 3967, with 75 reports of GBS, and 188 deaths. (75)
If Canadians try to get compensation for any of these thousands of serious side effects through private insurance or through tort litigation, they should expect “delay of benefits, financial cost, evidentiary hurdles, and emotional toll.” (76)
If an employer requires you to get the vaccine as a condition of employment – and you get injured by the vaccine – Worksafe BC says you’re allowed to submit a claim for compensation. But you would have to leap over those “evidentiary hurdles”, and you would have to prove that vaccination was an actual requirement, or at the very least a refusal to vaccinate would deny one “to access available extra shifts or duties” or if the worker “is convinced they were strongly encouraged”. Maybe one might get compensation, if WorkSafeBC’s investigation agrees with the worker’s assessment. (77)
The following is an exerpt from a template that the Justice Centre legal team designed as a response to an employer or educational institute demanding a mandatory vaccine;
“Finally, the Requirement that employees take Covid vaccines is particularly egregious in regard to vaccines which are still appropriately considered experimental, not having gone through long-term trials or being fully approved in Canada. There are many reports of adverse reactions, including death, which have occurred from individuals receiving Covid vaccines: see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html.
Health Canada has warning labels for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson vaccines which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, (https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/75959a-eng.php) Bells Palsy (https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/76203a-eng.php) and thrombosis (https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/75479a-eng.php). Can you confirm that you, as my employer, will accept all liability for any adverse reactions employees may suffer as a result of taking vaccines mandated by you?” (78)
4) Vaccine-Related Disasters From History.
It has been noted that vaccine safety requirements must meet a higher standard than other medicines, because vaccines are given to the healthy as well as the sick;
“The Food and Drug Administration’s John Robbins, M.D., once remarked, ‘The concept of safety for vaccines is much different than the concept of safety as applied to many other things. Vaccines are given to healthy people, our goal should always be 100 percent safety.’” (79)
According to the court decision in Bruesewitz Et Al. v. Wyeth LLC, FKA Wyeth, Inc., Et Al. 2011, the goal of “100 percent safety” is impossible to achieve, due to the very nature of vaccines. In that court case, the third circuit US court found that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe”, and that the producers of vaccines were protected from liability if the vaccines performed as unsafely as expected;
“Respondent (Wyeth) suggests an alternative reading of the 1986 Report. According to respondent, ‘the principle in Comment K’ is simply that of nonliability for ‘unavoidably unsafe’ products, and thus Congress’ stated intent in the 1986 Report to apply the ‘principle in Comment K’ to ‘the vaccines covered in the bill’ means that Congress viewed the covered vaccines as a class to be ‘unavoidably unsafe’.” (80)
History provides dozens of examples of unsafe vaccines. An early example of a vaccine disaster was the tuberculosis vaccine disaster in Lübeck, Germany in 1929 and 1930;
“A disaster caused by use of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for tuberculosis vaccination struck the German city of Lübeck. During 1929 and 1930, 72 babies died from tuberculosis out of 252 vaccinated. Many other infants were made ill as a result of vaccination. The vaccine used was later found to have been contaminated with a human tuberculosis strain being studied in same lab where the vaccine was produced.” (81)
In the British Medical Journal, Associate Editor Peter Doshi outlines three examples from history where vaccines were the problem rather than the solution;
“History shows many examples of serious adverse events from vaccines brought to market in periods of enormous pressure and expectation. There were contaminated polio vaccines in 1955, cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome in recipients of flu vaccines in 1976, and narcolepsy linked to one brand of influenza vaccine in 2009.” (82)
Like the US COVID vaccine development program – Operation Warp Speed – these three catastrophes were also a result of a hastily produced vaccine. In the case of the contaminated polio vaccines in 1955, “70 000 children who received that vaccine developed muscle weakness, 164 were permanently paralyzed, and 10 died.” (83)
There were “2357 untoward reactions” in the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccine Fiasco. (84) About 450 people came down with GBS, (85) and 25 died. (86)
In 2009, over 1300 Europeans were given narcolepsy from that year’s swine flu vaccine. According to the British Medical Journal;
“Multiple academic and government led studies subsequently judged that the relation between Pandemrix and narcolepsy was likely to be causal. Over 1300 people are estimated to have been affected among the roughly 30 million vaccinated across Europe, including around 100 families in the UK.” (87)
In spite of these multiple reports of a causal relationship between the vaccine and narcolepsy, the CDC wrote its own reports, exonerating the vaccine from any hint of imperfection. (88)
During the swine flu pandemic of 2009, this author was in jail, and was getting pressured regularly to get the vaccine;
“When I first arrived at North Fraser, they asked me why I didn’t want the shot; I told them I didn’t trust it. They responded with the classic appeal to authority, ‘So you think you know better then the Center for Disease Control, eh?’ I responded with: ‘I know about the Swine Flu vaccination of 1976 where one person died of the flu and 25 people died of the vaccine, and over 1000 ended up with horrible vaccine-related diseases.’ The North Fraser doctor had no response to that. When I was moved from North Fraser to Fraser Regional it was at the height of the scare. The nurses were busy taking each prisoner’s temperature. When it came time for my turn, I asked one of them, ‘Isn’t it true that at the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial a precedent was established that medical procedures could not be conducted without the consent of the patient?’ ‘I’d agree with that,’ responded the nurse, adding, ‘unless there were extenuating circumstances.’ They didn’t elaborate.” (89)
Other vaccine disasters include the 1919 Dallas Disaster, (5 dead, dozens sickened) (90) the 1928 Queensland Disaster, (12 dead) (91) the 1935 US Polio Vaccine Trials, (several dead, many paralized) (92) the 1948 Kyoto Disaster. (68 dead) (93) and the 2014 Syrian vaccine disaster. (15 dead, 75 sickened) (94)
Then there was the anthrax vaccine – the only other time aside from the COVID vaccines that the FDA had provided emergency use authorization for a vaccine;
“Only once before has the FDA given a vaccine this lesser standard approval of an EUA (emergency use authorization), but it was in an unusual circumstance. Soldiers had sued, claiming a mandatory anthrax vaccine made them sick, and a judge put a hold on the program. The Department of Defense asked for an EUA that then overrode the court ruling in 2005, so it could continue vaccinating military personnel — this time on a voluntary basis.” (95)
The new “voluntary basis” of this vaccine was short-lived;
“In 2006, the Defense Department announced the reinstatement of mandatory anthrax vaccinations for more than 200,000 troops and defense contractors. Despite another lawsuit filed by the same attorneys, the vaccinations are required for most U.S. military units and civilian contractors assigned to homeland bioterrorism defense or deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan or South Korea.” (96)
According to the US Government Accountability Office;
“. . . the vaccine was not properly stored or refrigerated, requirements for the voluntary program were not accurately estimated, and surveillance procedures used in the pilot program to monitor reactions to the vaccine were inadequate.” (97)
Multiple sources link Gulf War Syndrome to the anthrax vaccine. (98)
5) The Nuremberg Doctor’s Code and the Declaration of Helsinki.
According to researchers who recently published their findings in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research;
“Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following:
- First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)
- First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent
- First time Moderna has brought any product to market
- First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction
- First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text)
- First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths
- First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
- First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population” (99)
As was shown to be true in section 2d above, the development of all the COVID vaccines has proceeded in the upmost secrecy, with control groups being eliminated (preventing long-term study) and very little in the way of test data being shared to the public.
Many vaccine skeptics are citing the Nuremberg Doctor’s Code as a guideline to understanding the right to refuse vaccination. The Code came about as a result of Nazi doctor experimentation on death camp inmates during WW2. One of those Nazi Doctors was Gerhard Rose, who tested vaccines on death camp inmates for I.G. Farben at at Dachau and Buchenwald. At the Nuremberg Doctors Trials, Rose justified using inmates as test subjects against their will by claiming that German mandatory vaccine laws allowed him the right to control and use inmates as he saw fit. This question and answer segment from the Doctors Trials is shocking as it is relevant to today’s vaccine mandates;
- How about the voluntary aspect during such test vaccinations?
- Since I never learned any details about Haagen’s work, I naturally cannot say whether he asked these persons for their permission. In itself it is rather probable that in an endangered atmosphere as was the case in a camp the persons there would undoubtedly volunteer to be vaccinated against typhus. It becomes, however, clearly apparent from the correspondence that the experimental subjects were somehow or other designated. Obviously that can be explained by saying that one could not from the start determine how strong the vaccination reaction would be. I personally would not have any misgivings in forcing people to submit to such vaccination, because in the German Health System we are quite used to the compulsory application of vaccinations of human beings. We have legal compulsion in the case of smallpox vaccination. In the case of the Wehrmacht we have the protective vaccinations against typhus, cholera, and so forth, which are compulsory on the basis of a directive, and we have the same thing on the basis of the labor service. Nobody could withdraw from any such vaccination by refusal.” (DML’s emphasis) (100)
The Nuremberg Code states – amongst other things – that “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” and that “The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study . . .” (101)
The website factcheck.org assures the public that the Nuremberg Code has nothing at all to do with vaccination;
“A bogus claim that ‘[v]accines are in direct violation of The Nuremberg Code’ has been circulating on social media. Actually, the Nuremberg Code addresses the treatment of human subjects in medical experiments and says nothing about the use of tested and authorized vaccines on patients.” (102)
But if the COVID vaccines are unprecidented and long-term studies are sabotaged and test data hidden, can it truly be considered a “tested” vaccine? Is it not more like an experiment than some sort of low-risk, tried and true health mandate? What’s the point of even having a Nuremberg Doctors Code if it becomes invalid the moment the experimenter declares the “experiment” over, regardless of how much or how little data was created in the clinical trials, and what that data revealed?
Recently, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has referred to the entire country of Israel as the “world’s lab” with reference to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine (103) – a tacit admission that the real clinical trial is the rollout of the vaccine in the general global population.
The other document invoked by vaccine skeptics is the Declaration of Helsinki, which was first created in 1964 and amended nine times since then, most recently in 2013. In the most recent version, it states that
“In the treatment of an individual patient, where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorised representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. This intervention should subsequently be made the object of research, designed to evaluate its safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information must be recorded and, where appropriate, made publicly available.” (104)
Given the limited, short term COVID vaccine clinical trials, the COVID vaccine interventions cannot be said to be “proven”. Given the secrecy of the COVID vaccine clinical trials, the global COVID vaccines experiment cannot be said to involve “informed” consent, and given the fact that people are being asked to choose between employment and access to medical attention on the one hand or the right to refuse the vaccine on the other, the global COVID vaccines experiment cannot be said to involve “consent”, either. Evidence for the gradual elimination of consent is found in section 6 below.
6) The slippery slope – the transformation of vaccine choice into vaccine mandates.
Forced vaccination, or mandatory vaccination, or vaccine mandates, is a problem faced by the general public once every few generations. According to Wikipedia;
“Forced vaccination (as opposed to fines or refusal of services) is rare and typically only happens as an emergency measure during an outbreak.” (105)
In 1893, a landmark ruling was handed down by a New York State judge. Judge Bartlett ruled that, while the state could mandate vaccinations for school children, it could not make vaccinations mandatory for all citizens;
“To vaccinate a person against his will, without legal authority to do so, would be an assault.” (106)
This progress in the evolution of human medical autonomy would be undone by the US Supreme Court in 1905, when in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the government found the support it needed for forced vaccination raids and island quarantines, when the court affirmed;
“. . . the right of the majority to override individual liberties when the health of the community requires it.” (107)
Unfortunately, this 1905 case stands to this day as the leading case in US vaccine-related law.
In Ontario Canada – according to the courts – some Canadians are supposed to have the right to refuse any medical treatment. (108) And Ontario courts often provide leading cases for the rest of Canada to follow. Furthermore, forced immunization has been declared unconstitutional by Health Canada as recently as 1997. (109)
Right before the pandemic began, New Brunswick’s government was busy attempting to get the right of parents to refuse the vaccination of their children removed from Canadian law;
“Cardy’s bill was introduced long before the COVID-19 pandemic and has no specific reference to the coronavirus, for which no vaccine is expected to exist until next year. The bill would eliminate philosophical, religious and other non-medical exemptions from an existing requirement that all school children be vaccinated. Children not vaccinated for any reason other than health concerns would not be allowed to go to public schools starting in the fall of 2021. Cardy pointed out that when he introduced the bill a year ago, he spoke about New Brunswickers being lucky to live at a time ‘where death and disability from infectious diseases is something we’ve largely been able to forget. Of course that’s not the world we’re in any more, and no one’s going to forget the last few months,’ he said. ‘I think the importance of vaccines has become a lot more central in people’s minds. . . . Look at what a world without a vaccine for one disease looks like.’” (110)
Alberta’s “Bill 10”, which would allow the provincial government to assume dictatorial emergency powers and order “mass vaccination”, was rammed down the electorate’s throat in April of 2020, just as the pandemic was getting started. Even then, a National Post op ed called it an “affront to the rule of law.” (111) In October of 2020, Alberta’s Health Minister Tyler Shandro promised Bill 10 would be repealed. Eventually. (112)
A legal challenge to Bill 10 (113) was tossed in March of 2021 because the judge felt that one could not challenge the constitutionality of a law the government had promised to (eventually) get rid of. (114) An appeal of this ruling was filed on March 31st. (115)
In April of 2021, the mandatory vaccination powers within Bill 10 were repealed due to public pressure:
“Edmonton-City Centre MLA David Shepherd, the NDP Opposition critic for health, said the changes proposed in Bill 66 have more to do with blowback over Bill 10 than with improving public health. ‘It’s mostly about cleaning up the political messes for Jason Kenney and the UCP,’ he said. Shepherd said the NDP proposed amendments to limit the government’s powers when Bill 10 was first debated, but they were voted down by the UCP majority in the legislature. He said Kenney chose to strike a special committee of MLAs to examine the Public Health Act rather than admitting he made a mistake.” (116)
It appears that British Columbia has now passed legislation similar to the first version of Alberta’s Bill 10. In BC it’s called “Bill 19”, and it would also allow for “mass vaccinations” “or other measures that are not supported by evidence-based science, research or data.” (117) The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is “concerned” about the bill, arguing that the broad new powers and lack of accountability are harmful and unjustifiable. (118) There is no expiry provision or sunset clause for orders given using Bill 19. (119)
It’s not just Canadian provincial governments that show signs of being fascistic. The current Chief Public Health Officer of Canada – Dr. Theresa Tam – indicated in 2010 in a documentary film entitled “Outbreak – Anatomy Of A Plague” that she was prepared to go full Orwell;
“She warned ‘if there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.’ In the film, the visuals go back and forth between her being interviewed to scenes of a man being handcuffed and arrested by armed police. The narration has Tam saying there is ‘potential you can track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and their setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.’ Narrator Colm Feore explains: ‘Police checkpoints are set up on all the bridges and everyone leaving the city is required to show proof of vaccination. Those who refuse to cooperate are taken away to temporary detention centres.’ Tam reappears and explains, ‘It’s better to be pre-emptive and precautionary and take the heat of people thinking you might be over-reactionary, get ahead of the curve, and then think about whether you’ve overreacted later. It’s such a serious situation that I think decisive early action is the key.’” (120)
Elite support of forced vaccination has been maintained in the face of the 1976 swine flu fiasco (and other vaccine disasters) which have all demonstrated time and time again the government’s inability to guarantee vaccine safety or to be able to effectively identify safer and more effective alternatives to vaccination.
Perhaps the reasons why we still have forced vaccination despite the many failures of vaccines throughout history is because rich and powerful vaccine manufacturers lobby for it. (121)
It is now September 2021, and medical professionals are threatening to withold services – sometimes life-saving surgery – unless their patients get the vaccine;
“The University of Alberta Hospital has threatened to take a terminally ill 56-year-old woman off of a donor list for a lung transplant because she has chosen not to receive the new Covid-19 vaccine. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Annette Lewis, who has idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a terminal condition affecting both of her lungs. Ms. Lewis has been suffering with the illness for over two and a half years and waiting for a transplant for over one year. Just two months ago, her lung capacity was at just 40%. Without this transplant, Ms. Lewis will die.” (122)
This obvious violation of the “abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm” provision of the Hippocratic Oath (123) cannot be excused by the argument that vaccines are accepted by society in general and the medical establishment in particular, so any harm that comes out of forcing people to take them is “unintentional.” At some point it is the responsibility of medical professionals to become at least as familiar with the relevant facts as this author has.
Of course, this assault on human medical autonomy is not limited to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;
“A doctor says he will soon refuse to treat unvaccinated patients in Alabama, where low vaccination rates and the highly transmissible delta variant are overwhelming hospitals. Dr. Jason Valentine, a physician at Diagnostic and Medical Clinic Infirmary Health in Mobile, recently posted a photo on his Facebook page showing him next to a sign that says, ‘Effective Oct. 1, 2021, Dr. Valentine will no longer see patients that are not vaccinated against COVID-19.’” (124)
These doctors who refuse to help the unvaccinated argue their approach is scientific, but given the fact that they can’t be bothered to look into vaccine safety and efficacy and compare it with other alternative therapies, their refusal to assist the unvaccinated is more based on faith.
“A Florida doctor says she will stop treating patients in person if they are not vaccinated against COVID-19, citing the risk of exposing immunocompromised patients and staffer to the virus that has killed over 46,000 people in the state and more than 648,000 nationwide. ‘I understand that people are free to choose, but to me, it’s a problem when it affects other people,’ Dr. Linda Marraccini said. With the Delta variant fueling the latest COVID-19 surge, the Marraccini said she had to make a tough decision for her practice. ‘When it comes to the safety of others, when it comes to the fact that it’s a global health problem and community health problem, at this point, I really say that this is where it draws the line in the sand for me,’ Marraccini said. The family practice physician based out of South Miami sent a letter to her patients saying they will no longer continue serving patients who are not vaccinated from COVID-19 by Sept. 15. Marraccini said the decision was based on science, not politics, and aims to avoid subjecting other patients and staff to unnecessary risk.” (125)
The problems that comes with the contempt for human medical autonomy is not isolated to a few doctors here and there – it’s everywhere in the medical system. The Nuremberg Doctor’s Code did not eliminate it – or even put a dent in it.
In 1966, an essay was published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled
Ethics And Clinical Research, Doctor Henry K. Beecher pointed out how the problem of contempt for patient autonomy was “by no means rare, but are almost, one fears, universal.” This essay was supposed to have a major impact on the practice of medicine – or at the very least, it’s been written about a few times;
“In his essay ‘Ethics and clinical research’ in 1966, Henry K. Beecher identified ethical lapses in research carried out by physician–scientists in renowned universities and published in the world’s leading journals. In this paper, which has rightly been deemed the most influential single paper ever written about experimentation involving human subjects, Beecher demonstrated that poor treatment of human subjects was not confined to the barbaric practices of Nazi doctors that had been documented by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal after the Second World War. . . . Beecher’s agitation over the widespread moral laxity he perceived among his peers grew to a point where he was no longer satisfied with academic discourse, and he exercised his capacity for drama in the spring of 1965, when he chose to explore the problems and complexities of clinical research before a group of journalists convened by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company at the Brook Lodge Conference Center in rural Michigan. His speech must have rocked his conservative corporate conference sponsors. ‘What seem to be breaches of ethical conduct in experimentation’, he informed his audience, ‘are by no means rare, but are almost, one fears, universal.’ The body of his presentation centred on a review of eighteen examples of clinical research that he deemed unethical. Beecher claimed that these ethical problems were not restricted to remote corners but were found in the nation’s leading medical schools, health centres, military hospitals, and industry.” (126)
Beecher made it clear that he wasn’t just talking about experiments in research, but also experiments “in therapy” (127) – in other words, in the practice of medicine itself;
“Experimentation in man takes place in several areas: in self-experimentation; in patient volunteers and normal subjects; in therapy; and on the different areas of experimentation on a patient not for his benefit but for that, at least in theory, of patients in general.” (128)
In conclusion, this author hopes that this information will either change the minds of those who are in favour of vaccine mandates, or, barring that, this author hopes that his doctor, his associates and his friends will set him straight and point out where his research is faulty, with better evidence, and more compelling facts. Intuitively, this author knows a request such as that should not be too much to hope for. Intuitively, this author knows that one’s opinion about vaccination should be based on evidence and facts rather than other considerations.
2) https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/re-covid-19-vindication-hcq-ivermectin-work/ – beginning at 28:13 of the video.
4) National Vaccine Information Center, From the 8/27/2021 release of VAERS data
5) “When evaluating VAERS data, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations. VAERS data contain both coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines. … It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event.” https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
“An AEFI is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that follows immunization but that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the administration of the vaccine. The adverse event may be a sign, symptom or defined illness.” Vaccine safety surveillance in Canada: Reports to CAEFISS, 2017, K Johnson, H Anyoti, C Coulby, Volume 44-12, December 6, 2018: Adult immunization https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2018-44/issue-12-december-6-2018/article-4-vaccine-safety-in-canada-2017.html
See also: OpenVAERS is a site that allows you to easily read VAERS reports and breaks down the numbers. The reports seem to be a lot of people who have comorbidities or are old, but there are also some really eye opening cases where young people experience horrible side effects. Read for yourself and make up your own mind about what the vax is doing to Americans: https://www.openvaers.com/openvaers
7) Shimazawa, R., Ikeda, M. Potential adverse events in Japanese women who received tozinameran (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech) J of Pharm Policy and Pract 14, 46, 2021 https://joppp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40545-021-00326-7
8) Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination, Andreas Greinacher, M.D., Thomas Thiele, M.D., Theodore E. Warkentin, M.D., Karin Weisser, Ph.D., Paul A. Kyrle, M.D., and Sabine Eichinger, M.D. June 3, 2021 N Engl J Med 2021; 384:2092-2101 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840
9) “Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).” Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons. n engl j med June 17, 2021 N Engl J Med 2021; 384:2273-2282 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
10) “An observational study conducted at Tel Aviv Medical Center and the Carmel Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, found a significantly increased herpes zoster incidence following the Pfizer vaccination. This observational study monitored patients with pre-existing autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Among the 491 patients with AIIRD over the study period, 6 (1.2%) were diagnosed with herpes zoster as a first-ever diagnosis between 2 days and 2 weeks after the first or second vaccination. In the control group of 99 patients, there were no herpes zoster cases identified. The CDC’s VAERS database, queried on April 19, 2021, contains 278 reports of herpes zoster following either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccinations. Given the documented under-reporting to VAERS and the associational nature of VAERS reports, it is impossible to prove any causal link between the vaccinations and the zoster reports. However, the authors of the study believe the occurrence of zoster is another important ‘signal’ in VAERS.” https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/worse-than-the-disease-reviewing-some-possible-unintended-consequences-of-the-mrna-vaccines-against-covid-19/
11) “It must be noted that the adverse events reported to VAERS represent a fraction of the actual number of incidents. Studies have shown that the percentage of incidents reported can be quite low (1–10%) but, for the purposes of this report, in order to do the necessary calculations, VAERS numbers were used and the results should be considered to reveal trends.
“A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) Biologicals,” Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, Science, Publich Health Policy, and The Law, Volume 2:59–80 May, 2021 Clinical and Translational Research, p. 60
12) “Less than 1% of AEFIs (adverse events following innoculations) are reported and accurate recording of AEFIs is compromised on many levels.”
“Significant Under-Reporting of Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine-Associated Serious Adverse Events in the United States: Time for Change?” May, 2021, Science, Publich Health Policy, and The Law, Volume 2:37-58, May, 2021 Clinical and Translational Research
13) “Based on analysis of the VAERS numbers, it may appear that AEs are not currently imposing a significant burden on the fully vaccinated population; however, the weekly releases of VAERS data do not include all of the reports made to date — they are all the reports the CDC has processed to date — and the backlog is likely to be staggering. Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering an SAE following injection is significant and that the overall risk signal is high.”
“A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) Biologicals,” Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, Science, Publich Health Policy, and The Law, Volume 2:59–80 May, 2021 Clinical and Translational Research, p. 73
15) COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room, Piero Olliaro Els Torreele Michel Vaillant, April 20, 2021, The Lancet: Microbe https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
Addendum to the above information. This video from 2013 explains the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction in a very simple way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K30MGvOs5s&ab_channel=TerryShaneyfelt
16) “The goal is for people to start receiving a COVID-19 booster shot beginning in the fall, with individuals being eligible starting 8 months after they received their second dose of an mRNA vaccine (either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna).” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-shot.html
17) “Influenza vaccines, also known as flu shots or flu jabs, are vaccines that protect against infection by influenza viruses. New versions of the vaccines are developed twice a year, as the influenza virus rapidly changes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine
18) Does the FDA think these data justify the first full approval of a covid-19 vaccine? Peter Doshi, associate editor, BMJ, August 23, 2021
19) “A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) Biologicals,” Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, Science, Publich Health Policy, and The Law, Volume 2:59–80 May, 2021 Clinical and Translational Research, p. 61
Covinfo’s Ten Problems with the Vaccine Mandates (Sept 3rd 2021) https://web.archive.org/web/20210904004400/https://teddit.net/r/TrueAntiVaccination/comments/phbnus/covinfos_ten_problems_with_the_vaccine_mandates/
20) “. . . it is notable that evidence of waning immunity was already visible in the data by the 13 March 2021 data cut-off. ‘From its peak post-dose 2,’ the study authors write, ‘observed VE [vaccine efficacy]declined.’ From 96% to 90% (from two months to <4 months), then to 84% (95% CI 75 to 90) ‘from four months to the data cut-off,’ which, by my calculation (see footnote at the end of the piece), was about one month later. But although this additional information was available to Pfizer in April, it was not published until the end of July. And it’s hard to imagine how the Delta variant could play a real role here, for 77% of trial participants were from the United States, where Delta was not established until months after data cut-off.”
Does the FDA think these data justify the first full approval of a covid-19 vaccine? Peter Doshi, August 23, 2021
21) Coronavirus: Debunking The Hydroxychloroquine ‘Controversy’, Peak Prosperity (Dr. Chris Martenson), Apr 22, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLSYRqcg0wo
Second Waves Of Coronavirus Infections Are Pretty Much Guaranteed, Peak Prosperity, May 15, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZG64p0RBDI
Garbage ‘Science’: Be Wary Of What You’re Being Told, Peak Prosperity, May 28, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUD_wvkNhnk
Will We See A Covid-19 Spike In The Next 3-5 Weeks?, Peak Prosperity, Jun 9, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjyNw8qgkaw
Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc With Either Azithromycin or Doxycycline for Treatment of COVID-19 in Outpatient Setting https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04370782
Does zinc supplementation enhance the clinical efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine to win today’s battle against COVID-19?, R.Derwand, M.Scholz, Medical Hypotheses Volume 142, September 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720306435
“A Turkish research team in Istanbul led by Mahir Ozmen, a professor of surgery at the Istinye University, School of Medicine in Istanbul is conducting a study on the use of chloroquine in combination with zinc, vitamin A, vitamin C and vitamin D. Hydroxychloroquine, they say, helps the zinc get inside the infected cells to destroy the virus, and vitamins C and D support immune function.” Zinc can play pertinent role in mitigating COVID-19 : Dr. Soumitra Das, May 7th, 2020 https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/zinc-can-play-pertinent-role-in-mitigating-covid-19-dr-soumitra-das/75583522
Zinc-hydroxychloroquine found effective in some COVID-19 patients: study 11/05/2020 https://www.france24.com/en/20200511-zinc-hydroxychloroquine-found-effective-in-some-covid-19-patients-study
“WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose–according to WHO consultant” Sunday, June 14, 2020 https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal.html
25) “Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine has a well-studied toxicity profile. The half-century-long use of this drug in the therapy of malaria demonstrates the safety of acute administration of chloroquine to human beings. The use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in rheumatic diseases and for antimalarial prophylaxis showed a low incidence of adverse events during chronic administration of this drug for periods of up to a few years. In these cases, the most serious toxic effect is a macular retinopathy, which depends on the cumulative dose rather than on the daily dose, and permanent damage may be prevented with regular visual monitoring during treatment. A recent study provided encouraging results on the safety of a high dosage of the drug (up to 500 mg of chloroquine base per day) even during pregnancy. We conclude that chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine administration presents limited and well-preventable toxicity and may thus result in a low risk/benefit balance at least when it is used in life-threatening conditions. …Finally, we want to share with the scientific community the speculative hypothesis that chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, due to its antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, may have some effect on SARS. We emphasise the need of testing in cell cultures infected with SARS coronavirus the effects of chloroquine, as well as those of other substances possessing in-vitro activity against members of the coronaviridae family. We should remember that the possibility of new outbreaks of SARS cannot be excluded.”
PERSONAL VIEW| VOLUME 3, ISSUE 11, P722-727, NOVEMBER 01, 2003 PDF [289 KB] Figures Save Share Reprints Request Effects of chloroquine on viral infections: an old drug against today’s diseases
26) “Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.”
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread, Virology Journal volume 2, Article number: 69 (2005) https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69
28) “WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose–according to WHO consultant” Sunday, June 14, 2020 https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal.html
“India, however, decided to defy the WHO and continue its trial of HCQ. During the period when the Solidarity study was suspended, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) wrote to the WHO, that Solidarity schedule was employing four times the recommended dose of HCQ. The WHO schedule prescribed 1600 mg of the drug on the first day and total of 9600 mg for the full course of treatment. This dose was likely to be toxic and potentially fatal. Dr Vinod Paul in the Niti Aayog was of the opinion (New Indian Express 29 May) that the drug given in the correct dose was useful against Covid in India. It turned out that the Lancet paper about HCQ deaths was fraudulent and used fabricated data. The Lancet paper was retracted within 13 days of publication. On 3 June, the WHO resumed the Solidarity HCQ study. Inspite of the warning about the drug dosage from the ICMR, the same toxic dose was continued. Ten days later, Dr Meryl Nass, an US physician and expert on adverse reactions with drugs, wrote in her blog on 14 June 2020 about the lethal dose of HCQ being used in the Solidarity trial. People on Twitter, took it up. Three days later, on the 17 June, the WHO announced that it was suspending the HCQ trial because ‘there was no reduction in mortality’ with the drug, without any mention of the controversy about the drug dosage being used. No data was published. By a strange coincidence, on the same day the WHO stopped its HCQ trial, the UK announced that it was stopping its trial of HCQ (called the Recovery trial) because they found simultaneously, that there was no reduction in mortality with the drug. The UK Recovery trial was funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) and it was also using the same toxic dosage as the Solidarity trial. No data was provided about the other outcome measures like the reduction in time to recovery.”
Gresham’s Law and the Covid-19 pandemic, Jacob Puliyel, June 29, 2020
31) Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective, Proceedings Of The Japan Academy, Series B Physical And Biological Sciences, 2011 Feb 10; 87(2): 13–28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
32) “Ivermectin is a well-known, FDA-approved anti-parasite drug that has been used successfully for more than four decades to treat onchocerciasis ‘river blindness’ and other parasitic diseases. It is one of the safest drugs known. It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, has been given 3.7 billion times around the globe, and has won the Nobel prize for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world. Our medical discovery of a rapidly growing published medical evidence base, demonstrating ivermectin’s unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication and to suppress inflammation, prompted our team to use ivermectin for prevention and treatment in all stages of COVID-19. Ivermectin is not yet FDA-approved for the treatment of COVID-19, but on Jan 14, 2021, the NIH changed their recommendation for the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 from “against” to “neutral”. (see our press release). In March 2020 we created our life-saving MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19, which is intended for hospitalized patients. In October 2020 we developed the I-MASK+ Prophylaxis & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19, which is designed for use as a prophylaxis and in early outpatient treatment, for those who test positive for COVID-19.”
From the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of highly published, world-renowned critical care physicians and scholars: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
33) Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen, The Journal of Antibiotics (Tokyo) . 2020 Sep;73(9):593-602. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32533071/
34) “Because Ivermectin has 5 different mechanisms of action against coronaviruses, the medication is also effective with the different variants of the virus.”
From the FAQ:
35) Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association says household doctors should prescribe Ivermectin to treat Covid 19 https://streamable.com/yoqhuv https://www-yomiuri-co-jp.translate.goog/choken/kijironko/cknews/20210818-OYT8T50030/2/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=ajax,nv,elem
Indian Bar Association Serve Legal Notice on WHO’s Chief Scientist: from Trial Site News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WenJhxVWekU
Meta-analysis on the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating Covid19: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial shows that Ivermectin is able to cure covid within 6 days for most people: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1 More evidence that Ivermectin treatment leads to much faster recovery from Covid19: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.26880 An NIH study reveals that a five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ Ivermectin stops replication of covid: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011 Ivermectin has anti-viral properties: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3888155/ Ivermectin has anti-viral properties against covid: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z Ivermectin binds to Covid19 proteins to block the virus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ Evidence that Ivermectin can be effective as a prophylaxis, Argentine frontline healthcare workers were given Ivermectin as a preventative and zero got sick with covid, whereas 58.2% of the control group who did not take Ivermectin got covid: https://www.buongiornosuedtirol.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Nota-Journal-of-Biomedical-Research-Safety-and-Efficacy-Iota-Carrageenan-and-Ivermectin.pdf Ivermectin safe to give 12mg per day for 5 days: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712%2820%2932506-6/fulltext Ivermectin safely administered 60mg per day for 6 months: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10428194.2020.1786559
39) “A comprehensive review of ivermectin reveals that it is among the safest and most well-tolerated drugs ever introduced to the market. In this episode I walk through an expert review of ivermectin by Jacques Descotes MD, PharmD, PhD which was conducted in early 2021. In here we discuss the safety, toxicity and known side effects and drug interactions, few and mild as they are. I felt this material needed to be brought out into the public to help assure we are having complete conversations founded on the latest data. The conclusion is that ‘ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.’”
Ivermectin Toxicity Reviewed, Peak Prosperity, September 8th, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATiX0-2PEr4 Link to Toxicology report (requires email for free PDF download): https://www.medincell.com/ivermectin/
A Novel Approach to Treating COVID-19 Using Nutritional and Oxidative Therapies, July 2020 https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_cc5004cfa84a46d3b1a0338d4308c42c.pdf
41) “Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture,” Aartjan J W te Velthuis, Sjoerd H E van den Worm, Amy C Sims, Ralph S Baric, Eric J Snijder, Martijn J van Hemert, PLoS Pathog . 2010 Nov 4;6(11):e1001176.
42) “Using artificial 3D human models of oral, airway and intestinal tissues, we identified 13 high-CBD C. sativa extracts that decrease ACE2 protein levels. Some C. sativa extracts down-regulate serine protease TMPRSS2, another critical protein required for SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells. While our most effective extracts require further large-scale validation, our study is important for future analyses of the effects of medical cannabis on COVID-19. The extracts of our most successful novel high-CBD C. sativa lines, pending further investigation, may become a useful and safe addition to the prevention/treatment of COVID-19 as an adjunct therapy.”
In search of preventive strategies: novel high-CBD Cannabis sativa extracts modulate ACE2 expression in COVID-19 gateway tissues, November 22nd, 2020
43) “We noted that out of seven studied extracts of novel C. sativa cultivars, three (#4, #8 and #14) were the most effective, causing profound and concerted down-regulation of COX2, TNFα, IL-6, CCL2, and other cytokines and pathways related to inflammation and fibrosis. These data were further confirmed in the WI-38 lung fibroblast cell line model. Most importantly, one of the tested extracts had no effect at all, and one exerted effect that may be deleterious, signifying that careful cannabis cultivar selection must be based on thorough pre-clinical studies.”
Fighting the storm: could novel anti-TNFα and anti-IL-6 C. sativa cultivars tame cytokine storm in COVID-19? January 19, 2021 https://www.aging-us.com/article/202500
44) “Here we report that cannabidiol (CBD), a compound produced by the cannabis plant, inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection. CBD and its metabolite, 7-OH-CBD, but not congeneric cannabinoids, potently block SARS-CoV-2 replication in lung epithelial cells.”
Version 1. bioRxiv. Preprint. 2021 Mar 10.
45) “The activity of a new, terpene-based formulation, code-named NT-VRL-1, against Human Coronavirus (HCoV) strain 229E was evaluated in human lung fibroblasts (MRC-5 cells), with and without the addition of cannabidiol (CBD). The main constituents in the terpene formulation used for the experiment were beta caryophyllene, eucalyptol, and citral. The tested formulation exhibited an antiviral effect when it was pre-incubated with the host cells prior to virus infection. . . .To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of activity of a combination of terpenes and CBD against a coronavirus.”
In Vitro Evaluation of the Activity of Terpenes and Cannabidiol against Human Coronavirus E229 https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/11/4/290/htm
46) “Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”
47) COVID-19, Cannabis & Herbal Medicine Part 2: Gain-Of-Function By David Malmo-Levine on September 24, 2020, citations 607 to 622
48) “These results indicate that AgNPs are highly potent microbicides against SARS-CoV-2 but should be used with caution due to their cytotoxic effects and their potential to derange environmental ecosystems when improperly disposed.”
“Potent antiviral effect of silver nanoparticles on SARS-CoV-2,” Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020 Nov 26; 533(1): 195–200.
49) “A Common Snake Oil Reemerges for the Coronavirus”
“The pandemic has sparked an interest in dubious cures such as colloidal silver—and some are trying to capitalize on it.” Olga Khazan, JUNE 22, 2020
50) Education in Vaccinology: An Important Tool for Strengthening Global Health, Paul-Henri Lambert, Audino Podda, Front Immunol . 2018 May 24;9:1134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29881385/
52) L’affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ’s Descent into Tabloid Science October 30, 2017
53) Dr. Andrew Wakefield Defends His Research On MMR Vaccine And Autism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMkDWBWFPoI
54) A Shot In The Dark, Harris L. Coulter & Barbara Loe Fisher, Avery Publishing Group Inc., New York, 1991, pp. 166-167
See also: Whistleblowing and research integrity: making a difference through scientific freedom, Tracey Bretag (editor), Handbook of Academic Integrity (Singapore: Springer, 2016), pp. 957-72 Tom Devine and Alicia Reaves Government Accountability Project Washington, DC https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/16hai/Devine-Reaves.html
In a hit piece of Morris, Quackwatch decided to take the word of the FDA – who approved the vaccine that killed 25 people and paralized over 450 for a flu that killed just one person – rather than take the word of the person who tried to warn everyone about that vaccine (Morris), which should tell you all you need to know about “Quackwatch”: https://quackwatch.org/health-promotion/immu/what-happened-to-dr-j-anthony-morris/
55) “Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
▪ National data
▪ Rapidly detects safety signals
▪ Can detect rare adverse events
▪ Data available to public
▪ Reporting bias
▪ Inconsistent data quality and completeness of information
▪ Lack of unvaccinated comparison group
▪ Not designed to assess causality”
COVID-19 vaccine safety update Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) March 1, 2021 Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force Vaccine Safety Team, p. 10
56) “The following limitations are also listed: reporting bias, inconsistent data quality and completeness of information, lack of unvaccinated comparison group, and, importantly, that it is ‘not designed to assess causality’ (Shimabukuro, 2021). The deep and irreconcilable incongruence between ‘can detect rare adverse events’ and ‘not designed to assess causality’ by Dr. Shimabukuro is noteworthy.” https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_55bdbf2d8f0c4254a4a034b3185d9bb7.pdf
57) Pfizer intentionally destroyed the control groups in their trials for the covid vaccine, which means we’ll never know how effective the vaccine actually is: “Dr. Steven Goodman, a clinical trials specialist at Stanford University, says losing those control groups makes it more difficult to answer some important questions about COVID-19 vaccines. ‘We don’t know how long protections lasts,’ he says. ‘We don’t know efficacy against variants — for which we definitely need a good control arm — and we also don’t know if there are any differences in any of these parameters by age or race or infirmity.’” https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni
58) “Addressing the many open questions about these trials requires access to the raw trial data. But no company seems to have shared data with any third party at this point. Pfizer says it is making data available ‘upon request, and subject to review.’ This stops far short of making data publicly available, but at least leaves the door open. How open is unclear, since the study protocol says Pfizer will only start making data available 24 months after study completion. Moderna’s data sharing statement states data ‘may be available upon request once the trial is complete.’ This translates to sometime in mid-to-late 2022, as follow-up is planned for 2 years. Things may be no different for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine which has pledged patient-level data ‘when the trial is complete.’ And the ClinicalTrials.gov entry for the Russian Sputnik V vaccine says there are no plans to share individual participant data.”
Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data, Peter Doshi, Associate Editor, BMJ, January 4, 2021
59) Does the FDA think these data justify the first full approval of a covid-19 vaccine? Peter Doshi, Associate Editor, BMJ, August 23, 2021
60) SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Hospitalizations Among Persons Aged ≥16 Years, by Vaccination Status — Los Angeles County, California, May 1–July 25, 2021, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1170 MMWR / August 27, 2021 / Vol. 70 / No. 34 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jennifer B. Griffin, PhD; Meredith Haddix, MPH; Phoebe Danza, MPH; Rebecca Fisher, MPH; Tae Hee Koo, MPH; Elizabeth Traub, MPH; Prabhu Gounder, MD; Claire Jarashow, PhD; Sharon Balter, MD, bottom of page 6. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7034e5-H.pdf
61) “A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) Biologicals,” Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, Science, Publich Health Policy, and The Law, Volume 2:59–80 May, 2021 Clinical and Translational Research, p. 69
65) “The onset of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus following influenza vaccination: report of three cases” Arthur E Brawer, Sai Koyoda
See also: Vaccines and Autoimmunity Chapter 22 Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Induced by Vaccines Nurit Katz-Agranov,Gisele Zandman-Goddard, Book Editor(s):Yehuda Shoenfeld,Nancy Agmon-Levin ,Lucija Tomljenovic, 15 May 2015 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118663721.ch22
66) “Canadian health experts have been calling for a national vaccine injury compensation program since at least the mid-1980s.” cmajnews.com/2021/02/05/vaxinjury-1095922/
67) “The federal government agreed to assume liability for injuries or deaths as a condition in its contracts with vaccine suppliers, protecting these manufacturers from potential litigation. Vaccine injury compensation programs are in place in 19 other countries, including every G7 member except Canada. The province of Quebec implemented one of its own in 1985 after a young girl developed viral encephalitis shortly after receiving a measles vaccination. Her family sought damages but couldn’t prove the manufacturer was negligent in court, highlighting the need for another path to compensation.”
68) “In terms of what constitutes a severe or permanent injury, PHAC says patients must have experienced ‘life-threatening or life-altering injuries that may require in-person hospitalization, or a prolongation of existing hospitalization, and results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or where the outcome is a congenital malformation or death.’ https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canada-launches-its-first-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-1.5451579
69) “However, on Monday, as the first shots were administered after arriving in Canada on Sunday, Procurement Minister Anita Anand made the confirmation. ‘We are definitely not any different than any other country in this world,’ she explained. ‘Let’s be clear that indemnification clauses in vaccine contracts are standard. All countries, generally speaking, are faced with the issue.’ She added that’s why the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund was set up. Through the fund, the federal government would foot the costs and provide financial support to people should the worst case scenario play out. ‘If there is an issue at all with the technology in these novel vaccines, that they do have access to a regime that aims to protect them,’ Anand explained.”
70) “Jennifer Donovan, left, and her husband Murry Hellekson, right, are anxious to know if he will qualify for the federal government’s new vaccine injury support program. Hellekson was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome after his COVID-19 vaccination last month. . . . The federal government began accepting applications for its vaccine injury support program this week, but some people diagnosed with rare but serious conditions after their vaccinations aren’t sure the compensation goes far enough. Serious side effects have been very rare among the millions of doses administered in Canada this year. But they’re possible with any vaccine, and this new program covers not only COVID-19 shots, but other vaccinations as well. To qualify, a person has to have received a Health Canada-approved vaccine in Canada and be diagnosed with ‘a serious and permanent injury.’ But what if someone’s significantly injured and can’t work for a while, but eventually recovers months later? Would that qualify for help?”
Applications open for federal vaccine injury compensation Side effects from Health Canada-approved shots must be ‘serious and permanent’ to trigger support Janyce McGregor · CBC News · Posted: Jun 04, 2021
74) Applications open for federal vaccine injury compensation Side effects from Health Canada-approved shots must be ‘serious and permanent’ to trigger support Janyce McGregor · CBC News · Posted: Jun 04, 2021
75) Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada
76) “How should we handle those occasions when a person is harmed by a recommended vaccine taken in furtherance of the public good? For those outside of Québec, the costs associated with a permanent or debilitating injury are currently borne by the injured individual (and their family), either personally as out-of-pocket expenses or through the purchase of private insurance, or by the actors who bear some responsibility for the injury (e.g., vaccine manufacturers, administering healthcare providers, etc.) through tort litigation. However, access to these options is dependent on the individual’s social and economic conditions and capabilities. And tort litigation imposes a range of additional personal costs, including delay of benefits, financial cost, evidentiary hurdles, and emotional toll.”
77) “The COVID-19 vaccination would be considered to be required by employment if it meets one of the following criteria as outlined by policy in the Rehabilitation Services & Claims Manual (page 84): The inoculation or injection is required by the employer, either as a condition of employment or as a condition of continued employment. For example: The worker is advised by the employer that they cannot work unless they have the vaccination. Although the employer has advised that the inoculation or injection is not a condition of employment, without the vaccination, the worker would not be permitted at work if there was an outbreak on the employer’s premises. Examples would include: If there is an outbreak of COVID-19, the employer will not permit their non-vaccinated employees to work until the outbreak has passed while vaccinated employees are allowed to continue to work. Without the vaccination, the worker is not able to access available extra shifts or duties. For example, a nurse is not able take shifts on a specific ward (i.e., emergency room or COVID-19 unit) unless vaccinated. The worker is convinced that it was necessary to receive the inoculation or injection, in spite of objective evidence from the employer that the process was not compulsory. If a worker contends that it was mandatory, WorkSafeBC will investigate the individual merits and circumstances as to why the worker felt the vaccination was a requirement of their employment. The following are examples where it may be reasonable to conclude that the worker was convinced that it was necessary: The worker is employed in an industry as outlined in the British Columbia’s Ministry of Health COVID-19 Immunization Plan and high risk category of worksites as outlined in the March 15, 2021, Joint Statement on the First Deployment of AstraZeneca Vaccine in B.C. (or as designated through similar or successor mechanisms or authorities) and the worker felt compelled to receive the vaccination to protect people they work with. The worker is convinced they were strongly encouraged by their employer and/or the public health officer to receive the vaccination to protect the high-risk patients, residents, or staff at their place of employment.”
79) A Shot In The Dark, Harris L. Coulter & Barbara Loe Fisher, Avery Publishing Group Inc., New York, 1991, p. 166
80) BRUESEWITZ ET AL. v. WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC., ET AL., CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09–152. Argued October 12, 2010—Decided February 22, 2011, Sotomayor, J., dissenting, p. 10 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
82) “Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us,” Peter Doshi, associate editor, BMJ 2020; 371, 21 October 2020
83) “There is grim historical precedent for allowing expediency to rule vaccine development. In 1955, the inactivated polio vaccine developed by Jonas Salk was declared ‘safe, potent, and effective’ following the largest public health experiment in the nation’s history, involving more than a million schoolchildren. Within weeks, however, the miracle vaccine intended to end the scourge of polio stood accused of causing it. Years in development, the Salk vaccine had been rigorously tested in preparation for the massive trials. But the very success of these trials led to an understandable outcry for the immediate, but premature, public release of the vaccine. Five pharmaceutical companies were given Salk’s formula and left to produce the vaccine without significant oversight. As speed took precedence over caution, serious mistakes went unreported. One company, Cutter Laboratories, distributed a vaccine so contaminated with live poliovirus that 70 000 children who received that vaccine developed muscle weakness, 164 were permanently paralyzed, and 10 died. Not surprisingly, that incident forced the federal government to directly intervene. The legacy of this event is a regulatory landscape in which vaccines undergo thousands of tests to ensure their safety and effectiveness. Yet on rare occasions, this vital evidence-based process of vaccine development and testing has still been ignored. In 1976, concerns about the emergence of a new swine flu strain reminiscent of the lethal 1918 version led President Gerald Ford to convene a panel that recommended a government-backed mass vaccination program. Poorly conceived, the attempt to vaccinate the US population at breakneck speed failed in virtually every respect. Safety standards deteriorated as one manufacturer produced the incorrect strain. The vaccine tested poorly on children who, depending on the form of vaccine tested, either developed adverse reactions with high fevers and sore arms or did not mount an immune response at all. Reports emerged that the vaccine appeared to cause Guillain-Barré syndrome in a very small number of cases, a finding that remains controversial, but added to the early momentum of the antivaccine movement. Once again, the pressure to rapidly distribute a vaccine undermined the scientific integrity of the process and damaged public trust.”
Trogen B, Oshinsky D, Caplan A. Adverse consequences of rushing a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: implications for public trust. JAMA2020;323:2460-1.
84) Reflections on New York City’s 1947 Smallpox Vaccination Program and Its 1976 Swine Influenza Immunization Program Pascal James Imperato Journal of Community Health volume 40, pages581–596 (2015)
86) Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America, JO MACFARLANE, 15 August 2009 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html
87) Doshi P. Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? BMJ, 2018 https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948.full
88) “In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy. In 2018, a study team including CDC scientists analyzed and published vaccine safety data on adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines (arenaprix-AS03, Focetria-MF59, and Pandemrix-AS03) from 10 global study sites. Researchers did not detect any associations between the vaccines and narcolepsy.” https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html
89) The H1N1 Scam – A Prisoner’s Perspective By David Malmo-Levine, Cannabis Culture on December 17, 2009 https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2009/12/17/h1n1-scam-prisoners-perspective/
97) State Department: Serious Problems in the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, GAO-01-21 Published: Dec 13, 2000. Publicly Released: Jan 16, 2001.
98) “While the United States government has not thoroughly researched the long-term side effects of the anthrax vaccine on military Veterans, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the vaccine contributed to the collective chronic illnesses and disabilities known as Gulf War Syndrome. According to a recent article in Stars and Stripes, the Department of Veterans Affairs denies over 80% of benefits claims filed by military Veterans for illnesses and conditions related to the Gulf War.”
“. . . the committee report does point out that veterans who received a larger number of various vaccines in advance of deployment have shown higher rates of persistent symptoms since the war.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome#Anthrax_vaccine
99) Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19, Stephanie Seneff, and Greg Nigh, International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research, 2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 390
See also: https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/worse-than-the-disease-reviewing-some-possible-unintended-consequences-of-the-mrna-vaccines-against-covid-19/
100) PAGE 6,289 http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/transcripts/1-transcript-for-nmt-1-medical-case?seq=6432
See also: “Gerhard August Heinrich Rose (November 30, 1896 in Danzig – January 13, 1992 in Obernkirchen) was a German expert on tropical medicine. Participating in Nazi human experimentation at Dachau and Buchenwald, he infected Jews, Romani people, and the mentally ill with malaria and typhus. Sentenced to life in prison, he was released in 1953. … Between 1941 and 1942 Rose tested for IG Farben industry, (Leverkusen), new antimalarials. Malaria experiments with the participation of Rose are documented for the Saxon country-sanatorium Arnsdorf. By July 1942 altogether 110 patients were infected by mosquito bites. In a first test series with 49 people, four people died. The experiments in Arnsdorf fell in the time of Nazi medical murders, the Aktion T4. Subjects were transferred to other institutions and killed there. According to the company, Rose sought out one of the main organizers of the action T4, Viktor Brack, and received a promise that his subjects were to be excluded from the transfers. Rose stood still in conjunction with his predecessor Claus Schilling. From January 1942 human experiments were conducted in Dachau concentration camp to develop a vaccine against malaria … He had assumed that the experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp ‘should be carried out to criminals sentenced to death.’ This was contradicted by the charged as a witness in Nuremberg former inmate Eugen Kogon (1903-1987).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Rose
103) “‘I believe Israel has become the world’s lab right now because they are using only our vaccine at this state and they have vaccinated a very big part of their population, so we can study both economy and health indices,’ said Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during an interview given to NBC News on Friday. . . . The NBC interview also made mention of the recent Israeli study regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine, with Bourla noting that the data came largely from a younger population. He said it remains a high risk to rely on only one dose of the vaccine to combat the coronavirus.”
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla calls Israel ‘world’s lab’ in interview to NBC Bourla further noted that studies on the risk of the vaccine are also underway on pregnant women and younger children. By CODY LEVINE, FEBRUARY 27, 2021 https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/pfizer-ceo-albert-bourla-calls-israel-worlds-lab-in-interview-to-nbc-660349
104) World Medical Association DECLARATION OF HELSINKI – ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS, 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013, Declaration #37
See also: “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advises physicians to respect the refusal of parents to vaccinate their child after adequate discussion, unless the child is put at significant risk of harm (e.g., during an epidemic, or after a deep and contaminated puncture wound). Under such circumstances, the AAP states that parental refusal of immunization constitutes a form of medical neglect and should be reported to state child protective services agencies.”
106) On Vaccinations and the Small Pox epidemic of 1894 By John Zarrillo Posted on July 21, 2014 https://www.brooklynhistory.org/blog/on-vaccinations-and-the-small-pox-epidemic-of-1894/
107) How New York Separated Immigrant Families in the Smallpox Outbreak of 1901, Alexandra Marvar SMITHSONIANMAG.COM JANUARY 10, 2019
108) “The right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is fundamental to a person’s dignity and autonomy. This right is equally important in the context of treatment for mental illness: see Fleming v. Reid 1991 CanLII 2728 (ON CA), (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 74 (C.A.), per Robins J.A., at p. 88: Few medical procedures can be more intrusive than the forcible injection of powerful mind-altering drugs which are often accompanied by severe and sometimes irreversible adverse side effects.”
109) “Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Only three provinces have legislation or regulations under their health-protection acts to require proof of immunization for school entrance. Ontario and New Brunswick require proof for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. In Manitoba, only measles vaccination is covered. [see note below] It must be emphasized that, in these three provinces, exceptions are permitted on medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization.”
Immunization in Canada – Volume: 23S4 – May 1997 — Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996 – Supplement to the Canada Communicable Disease Report – Health Canada Website
110) Cardy hopes to pass contentious vaccination bill by summer Poitras · CBC News · Posted: May 13, 2020 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-dominic-cardy-vaccination-bill-1.5567980
111) John Carpay: Alberta’s Bill 10 is an affront to the rule of law, John Carpay April 14, 2020
116) Alberta bill removes mandatory vaccinations, repeals Bill 10 powers – Bill 66 repeals 2020 law that faced constitutional challenge, Michelle Bellefontaine · CBC News, Apr 12, 2021 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-bill-removes-mandatory-vaccinations-repeals-bill-10-powers-1.5984531
117) “Bill 19 gives the BC government sweeping, unchallenged powers to enact other potentially authoritarian and fascist state actions, including: Ongoing, uncontested, and unending ‘State of Emergency’ enactments that have no reason to have been enacted in the first place, or to continue. The violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Candians through the BC government’s implementation, and continued use of covert secretive, state-sponsored unlawful forced confinement, detention, and forced isolation of citizens, with no disclosure of how these detention programs operate, the cost to BC taxpayers, what legislation people are detained under, or what actions they can take to challenge their unlawful detentions. The possibility/potential of forced health measures, which could potentially include forced and mass vaccinations; mask use; or other measures that are not supported by evidence-based science, research, or data. The ability to bring in new regulations, or laws, which systematically violate the Charter rights of Canadian citizens in BC at will. Transforming and restructuring BC’s socio-economic and business structures and systems, including businesses, schools, communities, and anything else they so desire in any manner without comment, challenge, debate, questions, or opposition. Allowing for the ongoing transformation of BC to a ‘cashless’ society by allowing and not preventing, or constraining businesses from refusing cash, which is legal tender in Canada. Increasing state-sponsored powers to implement and systematically use of ‘surveillance’ tools and measures, such as using apps and collected data from a range of sources to investigate, track, monitor, and identify individuals/citizens and their movements in their communities and the province.”
#Bill19: COVID-19 Related Measures Act in BC, June 27, 2020 https://advocacybc.blogspot.com/2020/06/bill19-covid-19-related-measures-act.html
119) “The expiry provision, or sunset clause for orders, is not contained in Bill 19 . . .” https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/b-c-repairs-covid-19-emergency-order-for-local-government/
120) WARMINGTON: Tam talked of tracking, bracelets in 2010 epidemic film, Joe Warmington, April 28, 2020
121) “Following media reports that Merck was heavily involved in promoting school-entry mandates, questions arose about the extent and appropriateness of industry involvement in vaccine policy. The presidential candidacy of Texas Governor Rick Perry recently prompted a new round of public and media scrutiny of the issue after opponent Representative Michele Bachmann accused the governor of ordering girls to receive the HPV vaccination because of his financial and political ties to Merck.”
Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination, Michelle M. Mello, JD, PhD, Sara Abiola, JD, PhD, and James Colgrove, PhD, Am J Public Health. 2012 May; 102(5): 893–898. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483914/
“Although Merck’s lobbying was a key catalyst in the initial push for mandates, many stakeholders came to view the company’s efforts as a liability. As media coverage called attention to the company’s aggressive tactics, suspicion grew that policy decisions were not being based on the product’s merits, and people who were otherwise supportive pulled back. The belief that mandate bills were an effort to make money for the company overshadowed whatever principled arguments might exist for them.”
HPV Vaccination Mandates — Lawmaking amid Political and Scientific Controversy, James Colgrove, Ph.D., M.P.H., Sara Abiola, J.D., Michelle M. Mello, J.D., Ph.D., August 19, 2010, N Engl J Med 2010; 363:785-791 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1003547
122) Patient threatened with withdrawal of life-saving surgery unless she gets Covid shot SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 EDMONTON:
124) “Alabama doctor pledges to stop treating unvaccinated patients Dr. Jason Valentine said in a letter to patients that he could not watch more of them “die from an eminently preventable disease.” Aug. 20, 2021, 10:25 AM PDT By Antonio Planas and Caroline Radnofsky
125) No Vax, No Visit: South Florida Doctor Won’t Treat Unvaccinated Patients in Person Dr. Linda Marraccini is still offering an option for telemedicine, but if patients are not vaccinated against COVID-19, they can’t come to her office By Amanda Plasencia • Published September 3, 2021 • Updated on September 3, 2021 https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/no-vax-no-visit-south-florida-doctor-wont-treat-unvaccinated-patients-in-person/2544042/
126) Laying ethical foundations for clinical research Jon Harkness, Susan E. Lederer, & Daniel Wikler, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2001, 79 (4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566401/pdf/11368058.pdf
127) “A therapy or medical treatment . . . is the attempted remediation of a health problem, usually following a medical diagnosis.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy
128) Ethics And Clinical Research, Henry K. Beecher, M.D., NEJM, June 16th, 1966, p. 367