RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/08/05/say-whatever-happened-to-that-new-covid-surge-everyone-was-just-freaking-about/

As recently as two weeks ago, the big story of the day was the coming surge of a new, highly infectious COVID variant, called BA.5. The Biden administration warned about it. Los Angeles county considered renewing its indoor mask mandate. The head of the World Health Organization said that “new waves of the virus demonstrate again that the Covid-19 [pandemic] is nowhere near over.”

Look at some of the headlines:

“BA.5 Will Cause ‘Even Greater Surge,’ Warns UCSF’s Wachter of Highly Infectious COVID Subvariant,” KQED, July 6
“The BA.5 COVID Surge Is Here,” New York Magazine, July 8
“Los Angeles could reinstate mask mandates as COVID cases rise,” CBS News, July 8
“As new COVID variants surge, White House urges caution, pushes boosters,” Boston Globe, July 12
“Experts rue simple steps not taken before latest COVID surge,” ABC News, July 13
“The ‘worst variant’ is here,” CNN, July 14

Well, the data from the Centers for Disease Control show that the number of new infections has remained pretty flat since late May and is now trending downward. In, fact, the rate of new infections appears to have topped out right when the media were playing up the coming “surge.”

CDC data show that the seven-day moving average for new cases peaked at 129,823 on July 17. It had fallen to 119,034 by Aug. 2.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/the_covid_vaccine_scam.html

Why were they so hellbent in trying to get every single person on the planet “vaccinated” when Drs. Fauci and Birx knew from the beginning that the “vaccines” were deeply problematic?

“Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA) came into prominence with the “Right to Try” law.  This law was another way for patients who had been diagnosed with life-threatening diseases, who had tried all approved treatment options and who were unable to participate in a clinical trial, to access certain unapproved treatments. 

What is the difference between FDA Approval and Emergency Use Authorization?

“FDA Approval” from the Food and Drug Administration is an independent, scientifically reviewed approval for medical products, drugs and vaccines.  Approval is based on substantial clinical data and evidence, the product is deemed safe, effective and able to be produced within federal quality standards.  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism used by the FDA to facilitate making products available quickly during a public health emergency, when there is no other adequate and approved medical product available. 

Sen. Kamala Harris of California said during a vice presidential debate that she does not trust the Trump Administration’s push to rush a coronavirus vaccine into production.  When she was asked if Americans should take a vaccine, she responded with, “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it.  Absolutely.  But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it.  I’m not taking it.”

What is the difference between an EUA “vaccine” under President Trump and the same one under President Biden?  One was available and the other became mandatory.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumercare-and-cancer-patients-joe-manchin-chuck-schumer-drug-pricing-deal-richard-gonzalez-abbvie-11659464967?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Much of the damage from the Schumer-Manchin drug pricing deal won’t become visible for years. But people who understand the industry can already foresee it, and one example is fewer treatment options for desperately ill cancer patients.

The mooted bill would empower the secretary of Health and Human Services to “negotiate” Medicare drug prices. “They have full latitude to basically decide whatever price they want the drug to be,” AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez said Friday on an earnings call. “It’s not a negotiation. We should just call it what it is. It’s price controls.”

Here’s how it would work: The HHS secretary would select 10 to 20 of the top Medicare spending drugs each year. Drug makers that don’t accept the government’s price would get hit with a 95% penalty on their sales. Small-molecule drugs would get a nine-year reprieve starting when the Food and Drug Administration grants approval.

This latter stipulation is intended to soften the blow to innovation, but it could result in patients waiting longer for potentially life-saving treatments. Take experimental cancer treatments, which regulators typically require that drug makers test first on patients who haven’t benefited from existing treatments.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2022/08/02/the-morning-briefing-tulsi-gabbard-is-so-close-to-being-cool-n1617527

Former congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard blasted the Biden administration for promoting puberty blockers for children, which the FDA recently acknowledged can have devastating health impacts on children.

“The FDA made a disturbing, but not at all surprising announcement just a few days ago about children’s health,” Gabbard declared in a video posted to Twitter. “Now, if you haven’t heard about it, or, if you missed it, it is because the mainstream media and the Biden-Harris administration have been completely silent on it. This warning that the FDA issued was basically saying that puberty blockers can cause serious health risks for our kids. Unfortunately, at almost the exact same time the FDA issued this warning, Biden-Harris administration officials were making public statements actively promoting the use of puberty blockers and irreversible surgeries for kids.”

“Now, let’s be clear: this administration is dangerously promoting child abuse,” she added.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/david-solway-2/2022/08/02/canada-the-country-of-the-long-wait-n1617827

A few days ago my wife and I brought her mother, who was suffering from a serious leg infection, to the local ER. We were worried about the possibility of gangrene, which an acquaintance some years back had contracted under similar circumstances, resulting in the amputation of his leg. As expected, the ER was jam-packed, and it soon became clear that my mother-in-law would have to wait at least six and even twelve hours before she could be seen. No triage had been performed to determine rank of urgency. Meanwhile, a youngish man in a wheelchair, doubled over and clutching his chest, was bitterly complaining that he had suffered a heart attack. But he too would have to wait before being attended to — assuming he would still be alive by then.

This is publicly funded “single-payer” Medicare, the pride of the Canadian medical system, though in reality, an institutional atrocity equaled only, perhaps, by the British National Health Service (NHS). Even our doctors are suffering, six having died suddenly within a period of days, apparently following the mandated fourth jab (though the likely cause of death was strenuously and predictably denied by hospital administrations). What are they waiting for, we might ask, to recognize the folly of failed medical policy? After all, the Grim Reaper is no slouch.

Pre-COVID, a hospital was a place where you went to wait. During COVID, a hospital was a place where you went to die. Post-COVID, a hospital is a place, or so it seems, where first you wait and then you die, a phenomenon clinically accentuated in the Canadian system. But whatever the outcome, the long wait is the prerequisite for treatment or responsiveness in this country, not only in medicine, as we will see, but in any domain or department of national life and practice. The medical analogy holds throughout.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/the_corruption_of_the_world_health_organization_who_.html

Abir Ballan, author of the June 2022 piece titled “The WHO Review and Why it Matters to You? has documented the corruption by WHO/global leaders and governments concerning Covid treatment.

In essence, Ballan’s findings are a call to action to “reassess the WHO’s candidacy as an authoritative global public health organization” and the necessary actions needed to “safeguard” people’s “health sovereignty.”

With the unending mismanagement of Covid treatment and the WHO’s influence on so many countries, it is a critical call to action.

Ballan ponders the following:

·Did the World Health Organization follow public health principles when recommending the global Covid-19 response?
Was the WHO-recommended response to Covid-19 in line with the WHO’s own constitution and its own pandemic preparedness plans?
Was the WHO guided by science or by private corporate interests?

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/07/25/fda-violated-own-safety-and-efficacy-standards-in-approving-covid-19-vaccines-for-children/

The FDA recently authorized Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccines for children as young as six months. Troublingly, the evidence the FDA used for those decisions violates at least three safety and efficacy standards from earlier FDA publications about Covid-19 vaccines:

In 2021, the FDA warned that “antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from Covid-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a Covid-19 vaccination.” Yet, antibody tests are the main evidence the FDA cited when approving these vaccines for young children.
In 2021, the FDA declared, “We know from our vast experience with other pediatric vaccines that children are not small adults,” and thus, a “comprehensive evaluation of clinical trial data” is necessary to “support of the safety and effectiveness” of vaccines before they are “used in a younger pediatric population.” Yet, the FDA used small studies with narrow data and claimed these vaccines are effective and safe for children by extrapolating from studies done on adults.
In 2021, the FDA wrote that “the primary study objective” is that the vaccines are at least 30% effective with 95% confidence in preventing Covid-19. Yet, none of the studies on young children met this threshold, and some were negative, meaning that the vaccine could increase the chances of catching Covid-19.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2022/07/11/follow_the_science_not_the_scientists_111367.html

During the pandemic, our public health community was forced to address an unprecedented number of controversies– from extended lockdowns and school closures to mask mandates and nursing home directives. At the same time, the Covid response saw a number of uncontroversial victories of medicine, such as Operation Warp Speed and the expansion of telemedicine.

When public health officials followed the science, good policies translated into good health outcomes. When we followed the scientists without the science, the pandemic response went sideways, and our public health recommendations proved unfruitful or counterproductive.

The public discussion was often minute and technical, with cable channels offering 24 hours of rapidly evolving medical “facts,” theories, and hunches proffered by a gaggle of doctors, scientists, and public health professionals. Conventional wisdom holds that, ‘When you are sick, do not google your symptoms’. Yet the televised version of symptom googling was broadcasted into our living rooms nightly, for the better part of two years.

Do not get me wrong. There was a public demand – and need – for information and advice. But some of this advice was not really advice. Instead, experts issued decrees accompanied by threats of enforcement – with governments and businesses recruited to provide the muscle. Because so much scientific “advice” was transformed into legal edicts, it is prudent to examine the proper role of science and scientists in future public health crises.

In response to a medical crisis, it makes sense to rely on medical science. But science produces all kinds of information, often contradictory and changing. Hopefully, this information continuously converges to a better understanding of the matters at hand. Scientists who have the task of generating, sorting through and understanding masses of data are performing vital, life-saving work. We should be grateful to them. It is often dry, confusing, and unrewarding work that must be done right. However, the need to leverage science in the service of saving lives induced some doctors and scientists to take on a role for which they were ill-suited: that of political leader.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/cdc-is-endangering-childhood-vaccination-progress

On June 18, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially recommended Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for all children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the agency responsible for authorizing emergency use of vaccines, it’s the CDC that crafts subsequent messaging, makes specific recommendations, and prioritizes who can, should, or should not get vaccinated. In her briefing, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky strongly urged all parents of the nearly 20 million American children in this age group to vaccinate them as soon as possible.

For some parents, Walensky’s briefing came as a huge relief. But if polling from May is anything to go by, a larger number of parents likely greeted the recommendation with skepticism. Even before the underwhelming trial results came out, only 18% of surveyed parents reported that they planned to vaccinate their babies and toddlers. Nationally, uptake in minors between the ages of 5 and 11 as of June 22, 2022, was 29% receiving two doses, and 36% receiving one, but vaccine requirements for sports, camps, and other activities likely drove an unknown percentage of vaccination in this age group.

There remains, moreover, no solid consensus among physicians about the importance of vaccinating healthy children against COVID-19. A survey from December 2021 indicates that as many as 30%-40% may not be recommending COVID vaccination for children ages 5 to 17, to say nothing of infants. A recent editorial in The Lancet expressed uncertainty about whether the benefits of vaccinating healthy 5- to 11-year-olds outweigh the risks, especially in those with a history of infection.

https://brownstone.org/articles/are-the-covid-mrna-vaccines-safe/

A new scientific study entitled “Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA vaccination in randomized trials” provides the best evidence yet concerning the safety of the mRNA Covid vaccines. For most vaccines in common use, benefits far outweigh risks, but that may not be the case for the mRNA covid vaccines, according to this study by Joseph Fraiman and his colleagues. It depends on your age and medical history. 

The randomized controlled clinical trial is the gold standard of scientific evidence. When regulators approved the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for emergency use in December 2020, two randomized trials showed that the vaccines reduced symptomatic covid infection by over 90% during the first few months after the second dose. 

Pfizer and Moderna did not design the trials to evaluate long-term efficacy or the more important outcomes of preventing hospitalization, death, or transmission. 

The randomized trials did collect adverse event data, including the presence of mild symptoms (such as fever) and more serious events requiring hospitalization or leading to death. Most vaccines generate some mild adverse reactions in some people, and there were considerably more adverse such reactions after the mRNA vaccines compared to the placebo. 

That is annoying but not a major issue. We care about severe health outcomes. The key question is whether the vaccine’s efficacy outweighs the risks of severe adverse reactions.