Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

Japan has now administered 2.98 vaccine doses for every Japanese resident.

During the last week, Japan was second in the world (to Hong Kong) with a COVID death rate of 17 per million. New Zealand and Denmark are right behind with COVID death rates of 14 and 13 per million respectively. In contrast, the USA is down to 3 COVID deaths per million residents.

[stickdog99]

Analysis of an important new paper just published in Science

The first study was published in Science Immunology on December 22nd, titled “Class switch towards non-inflammatory IgG isotypes after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.” We’ll call this the “December study.” Basically, it ominously suggests that vaccinated people may be developing a systemic tolerance for toxic spike protein.1

The first principle is that there are different KINDS of antibodies, which are used by the human body to handle different kinds of threats. This is similar to how we use different types of military: local police, Border Patrol, Navy, Marines, Army, and so on. The antibodies have shorthand names, like IgA, IgD, IgM, IgE, and IgG. That last one, IgG, has four subtypes, numbered IgG1 through IgG4.

With me so far? Here’s a chart showing the normal, desired immune response to a respiratory virus, by antibody type:



The left side shows how active each of the antibody types were, which is called “neutralizing effect,” because the antibodies “neutralize” the virus. You’ll see two antibody types doing most of the work: IgM (37.5%) and IgG3 (42.%).

On the right side of the chart, you see the amount (volume) of antibodies found in the serum. Interestingly, IgM (8%) and IgG3 (3%) are only present in small amounts by volume, yet as we can see from the left side, are still doing most of the work neutralizing the virus.

The unsurprising takeaway is: The TYPE of antibody is way more important than how much antibody there is. In this case, the body needs the IgM’s and IgG3’s to neutralize respiratory viruses.

But note there is NO neutralizing role for the IgG4 antibody, even though some of it (4%) is still found in the body. There’s a reason IgG4 does not appear in the neutralizing group; we’ll get to that in a minute.

First, here’s a timeline chart showing how IgM and IgG3 work together to help people recover from a covid infection.



The chart shows that, shortly after symptoms begin, the body starts making IgM. As IgM peaks, the patient begins to recover, and IgM starts to disappear. At about the same time IgM peaks, the body starts making IgG, which then hangs around in the blood providing long-term immunity to the virus.

IgM is like the Marines, which come in first to defeat the rebel army. IgG is more like well-armed local police, who stay behind to keep the peace after the territory has been occupied.

One reason IgM is the type that defeats the virus is that, unlike IgG, it is produced in the mucus membranes, where respiratory viruses flourish. We’ve learned that the covid jabs do NOT spur production of IgM, which is one big reason why they failed to stop the transmission and why breakthrough infections occur.

That the jabs spur IgG but don’t increase IgM means the IgG type has to do work it wasn’t designed for in people who’ve never been infected. It’s like sending beat cops to fight the rebel army. They can win, given enough of them, but it’s not the best strategy.

Still, you fight with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. The trouble is, not just ANY type of IgG will work; the body needs neutralizing IgG3. And this is where the jab locomotives really start flying off the rails.

You’d think the FDA would’ve made Pfizer measure IgM and IgG3 antibody levels, and not just general antibody levels. You’d think a lot of things, like unicorns, and like pots of gold at the end of rainbows. But it’s not just that they measured the wrong antibodies. The new studies appear to show that repeated jabs are somehow SUPPRESSING IgG3 antibodies, forcing the body to try to compensate with types not designed for respiratory viruses.

It’s like taking the cops’ assault rifles away, making them fight with one-shot pistols, improvised spears, sharpened garden tools, and harsh language.

Now meet IgG4, the antibody the December study found was increasingly present in multiple-jabbed people. The body doesn’t normally use the IgG4 antibody to tackle viruses. That antibody usually handles proteins from allergens like shellfish, bee venom, pollen, and peanuts.

In terms of neutralizing capability, IgG3 is up to FIFTY TIMES more effective at neutralizing virus proteins than is IgG4. If IgG3 is a well-armed SWAT team, then IgG4 is Mall Cop.

Here’s the critical first paragraph from the December study:

High levels of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2-antibodies are an important component of vaccine-induced immunity. Shortly after the initial two mRNA vaccine doses, the IgG response mainly consists of the pro-inflammatory subclasses IgG1 and IgG3. Here, we report that several months after the second vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were increasingly composed of non-inflammatory IgG4, which were further boosted by a third mRNA vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 variant breakthrough infections. IgG4 antibodies among all spike-specific IgG antibodies rose on average from 0.04% shortly after the second vaccination to 19.27% late after the third vaccination… Importantly, this class switch was associated with a reduced capacity of the spike-specific antibodies [IgG1 and IgG3] to mediate antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis and complement deposition.

In study subjects with breakthrough infections, it was even worse: On average, subjects who had a breakthrough infection after their booster shots showed 42.45% IgG4 — almost half. Remember — IgG4 is not even seen in the normal immune response to covid in unjabbed people.

Critically, all the vaccinated subjects’ IgG3 levels fell to ZERO (0%) after their third jab in the study. That’s not good.

In other words, the researchers found as time goes on, vaccinated people relied more on IgG4 — the allergy antibody — than virus fighter IgG3, whereas it was the exact opposite for unjabbed people. Something seems to be suppressing IgG3 in jabbed people, and the body appears to be compensating by recruiting the available but imperfect IgG4 type.

That phenomenon could help explain the expert-baffling chart we saw last week from the Cleveland Clinic study, which found that jabbing increased the risk of reinfection.



It could also help explain this November headline from our friends at The Washington Post:



The Atlantic article, referring to the now-famous Kaiser Foundation study, described what it understatedly called a “troubling trend”:

For the first time, a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine. Fifty-eight percent of coronavirus deaths in August were people who were vaccinated or boosted… a continuation of a troubling trend that has emerged over the past year. As vaccination rates have increased and new variants appeared, the share of deaths of people who were vaccinated has been steadily rising. In September 2021, vaccinated people made up just 23 percent of coronavirus fatalities. In January and February this year, it was up to 42 percent.

Twenty-three percent, forty-two percent, now fifty-eight percent. Of DEATHS. And there is no reason to think the trend has peaked yet. This is exactly what you’d expect to see if the IgG4 theory is correct.

In other words, the increasing death rate in boosted people could be explained by the December researchers’ finding that both IgG1 and IgG3 antibody types are being steadily replaced in the vaccinated by the IgG4 type. Returning to the first chart, we saw that IgG1 (15.5%) and IgG3 (42.2%) together did most of the virus-fighting work (57.9%), while IgG4 was nowhere in the list of neutralizing antibodies at all:



To put it simply, this antibody class shift is bizarre, unprecedented, and a very troubling sign that vaccinated people — especially repeatedly dosed people — are somehow losing their IgG1 and especially IgG3 response in favor of IgG4. It’s not just the reduction of the two effective neutralizing antibody types, either. IgG4, since it is designed for allergies, doesn’t remove the foreign proteins so much as teach the body to “tolerate” or “ignore” them.

There’s a good reason for tolerance: allergens don’t replicate like viruses. Allergens are a totally different kind of threat. With allergens, the body doesn’t need to go crazy fighting allergens; it can take a slower, more measured response.

Specifically, whereas IgG1 and IgG3 types are “pro-inflammatory,” which means they trigger the body’s immune-system high alert system, the IgG4 type is “anti-inflammatory,” which means it tells the immune system to stand down. Which is the opposite of what you really want, when you’re fighting an infection.

The December researchers explained that after the third booster, IgG3 levels fell almost to zero, while IgG4 levels became the second-most dominant antibody type:

Ten days after two immunizations, anti-spike specific antibodies of the isotypes IgG1, IgG2 and IgG3 were readily detectable, whereas anti-S IgG4 antibodies were completely undetectable (Fig. 1C). IgG2 levels were markedly lower than IgG3 and IgG1 levels. Intriguingly, 210 days after the second immunization, the levels of spike-specific IgG4 antibodies exceeded the lower limit of quantification in the sera of about half of the vaccinees. The levels for all other isotypes dropped significantly as expected from the overall anti-S response. While IgG1 was still the most dominant isotype, IgG3 levels fell below the lower limit of quantification. After the third immunization, the amounts of IgG1 were elevated again and reached levels as measured shortly after the second vaccination. Notably, a marked increase in IgG4 antibody levels was observed after the booster immunization in nearly all vaccinees. In some individuals, IgG4 became the second most abundant isotype among the anti-S antibodies

The result was that jab-produced antibodies don’t work as well as natural antibodies at clearing the virus:

{Blood} sera taken after the third vaccination and normalized to the amount of anti-spike antibodies yielded significantly lower phagocytic scores than sera from the same donors after two immunizations.

“Phagocytic scores” refers to how effective antibodies are at neutralizing a virus. Phagocytosis is the process whereby killer cells “eat” virus proteins flagged by antibodies, thereby neutralizing (killing) them. Lower phagocytic scores means the IgG4 antibodies in vaccinated people were less effective at removing the virus than the IgG1+IgG3 types in the unjabbed.

Other studies appear to confirm a misfiring immune response. A November 22nd study published in Frontiers in Microbiology was titled, “Conserved longitudinal alterations of anti-S-protein IgG subclasses in disease progression in initial ancestral Wuhan and vaccine breakthrough Delta infections.”

Similar to the December study, these researchers found higher ratios of IgG4 were associated with more severe disease, and people who had high levels of IgG4 antibodies relative to IgG3 had worse clinical outcomes, meaning they got sicker. Hopefully, they also found that the antibody ratios between injected and uninjected had stablized six months following injection, suggesting the potential for recovery.

Next, a July study published in the New England Journal of Medicine was titled, “Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection.” The data from the study showed that boosted subjects cleared the virus more slowly than unvaccinated people:



The study data showed the share of boosted subjects who were still contagious (31%) at day ten was over five times more than the share of still-contagious unvaccinated subject (6%). In other words, out of 100 boosted people who catch covid, 33 will still have live, transmissible virus on day 10. Whereas out of 100 unvaccinated persons, only six still test positive on Day 10 — more than five times fewer.

Not only are the boosted dying in increasing numbers, but they are carrying the virus longer. Houston, we have a problem.

The unknown is the most troubling part. Nobody has any idea what happens after artificial disruption of a large part of the population’s immune response. We can reasonably assume we’ll see increasing covid infections for boosted folks. Another troubling possibility is that other viruses could begin to evolve to take advantage of the reduced IgG3 response in boosted people, making new variants targeting boosted people.

A wild but troubling possibility appeared in another research article published in August in the Yemen Journal of Medicine, titled “Immunoglobulin G4-related disease: A narrative review.” Here’s the first paragraph:

Immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a new and evolving immune-mediated disease characterized by focal or diffuse organ infiltration by immunoglobulin G4-bearing plasma cells which, if left untreated, leads to irreversible fibrosis, organ dysfunction, and death… IgG4-RD can affect any organ in the body with a variety of clinical features that mimic malignant, infectious, and inflammatory conditions, making diagnosis difficult. Therefore, a high index of suspicion is necessary for the early detection of this disorder, to avoid irreversible damage and death.

This baffling new syndrome is poorly understood, but diagnosis includes measuring serum IgG4 levels, which appear high in people who have the novel disease. So it appears sustained high IgG4 levels may be a bad sign. Fortunately, the novel syndrome remains rare and there’s no evidence connecting it to the vaccines. Not yet.

The point is, we have no idea at all what the result of IgG3 suppression and IgG4 promotion might be. Still, the good news is that we’re finally learning more about the actual mechanisms behind the problems. That’s good news for accountability, and it’s good news for vaccine-injured people, because it is also the first step toward effective treatments.

Most vaccine recipients are victims. They were manipulated or coerced into taking something without informed consent, a drug pushed by reassuring government agencies, agencies they had every reason to trust, because they paid good tax money to over-fund those agencies and handsomely reward the bureaucrats running them.

We need to both help the victims as well as bring accountability to the culpable.

[drstrangelove]

This is the first study I've seen ardent supporters of the mRNA vaccines get genuinely nervous over: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798

[stickdog99]

John Ioannidis' latest peer reviewed publication

Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was 0.034% (1 in 2,941) for people aged 0–59 years and 0.095% (1 in 1,053) for those aged 0–69 years.

The median IFR was 0.0003% (1 in 333,000) at 0–19 years, 0.002% (1 in 50,000) at 20–29 years, 0.011% (1 in 9,091) at 30–39 years, 0.035% (1 in 2,857) at 40–49 years, 0.123% (1 in 813) at 50–59 years, and 0.506% (1 in 198) at 60–69 years.

At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0–59 and 0–69 year old people, respectively.

These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested.

***

I'll say.

short commentary

I’ve trying not to think too much about that 0.0003% (1 in 333,333) at 0–19 years figure, and the number of young people getting the experimental gene therapy, with its myocarditis and blood clots. I’m finding it very hard to reconcile my traditional view of doctors and “first do no harm”, with so-many doctors allowing the State to coerce people to take the jab (yes, thousands have spoken out, but millions haven’t). The fact that the State is still pushing the jabs on young people, and is planning on rolling out even more in the near future, is hard for my brain to process without invoking the concept of evil.

[Belligerent Savant]

Jeff Wells
@JeffWellsRigInt

I don't think anyone in China is saying "we never had a REAL lockdown."

[drstrangelove]

Opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal today.

Are Vaccines Fueling New Covid Variants?
Public-health experts are sounding the alarm about a new Omicron variant dubbed XBB that is rapidly spreading across the Northeast U.S. Some studies suggest it is as different from the original Covid strain from Wuhan as the 2003 SARS virus. Should Americans be worried?

It isn’t clear that XBB is any more lethal than other variants, but its mutations enable it to evade antibodies from prior infection and vaccines as well as existing monoclonal antibody treatments. Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution.

Prior to Omicron’s emergence in November 2021, there were only four variants of concern: Alpha, Beta, Delta and Gamma. Only Alpha and Delta caused surges of infections globally. But Omicron has begotten numerous descendents, many of which have popped up in different regions of the world curiously bearing some of the same mutations.

“Such rapid and simultaneous emergence of multiple variants with enormous growth advantages is unprecedented,” a Dec. 19 study in the journal Nature notes. Under selective evolutionary pressures, the virus appears to have developed mutations that enable it to transmit more easily and escape antibodies elicited by vaccines and prior infection.

The same study posits that immune imprinting may be contributing to the viral evolution. Vaccines do a good job of training the immune system to remember and knock out the original Wuhan variant. But when new and markedly different strains come along, the immune system responds less effectively.

Bivalent vaccines that target the Wuhan and BA.5 variants (or breakthrough infections with the latter) prompt the immune system to produce antibodies that target viral regions the two strains have in common. In Darwinian terms, mutations that allow the virus to evade common antibodies win out—they make it “fitter.”

XBB has evolved to elude antibodies induced by the vaccines and breakthrough infections. Hence, the Nature study suggests, “current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not efficiently prevent the infection of Omicron convergent variants.”

A New England Journal of Medicine study published last month provides more evidence of the vulnerability caused by immune imprinting. Neutralizing antibodies of people who had received the bivalent were 26 times as high against the original Wuhan variant as they were against XBB and four times as high as they were against Omicron and the BA.5 variant.

Similarly, a study this month in the journal Cell found that antibody levels of people who had received four shots were 145 times as high against the original Wuhan strain as the XBB variant. A bivalent booster only slightly increased antibodies against XBB. Experts nevertheless claim that boosters improve protection against XBB. That’s disinformation, to use their favored term.

A Cleveland Clinic study that tracked its healthcare workers found that bivalent vaccines reduced the risk of getting infected by 30% while the BA.5 variant was spreading. But, as the study explained, the reason might be that workers who were more cautious—i.e., more likely to wear N95 masks and avoid large gatherings—may have also been more likely to get boosted.

Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk of getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times as likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received two were only 2.6 times as likely.

“This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,” the authors noted. “We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.”

Two years ago, vaccines were helpful in reducing severe illness, particularly among the elderly and those with health risks like diabetes and obesity. But experts refuse to concede that boosters have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like XBB.

It might not be a coincidence that XBB surged this fall in Singapore, which has among the highest vaccination and booster rates in the world. Over the past several weeks a XBB strain has become predominant in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, making up about three-quarters of virus samples that have been genetically sequenced. The variant has been slower to take off in other regions, making up only 6% of the Midwest and about 20% in the South. The Northeast is also the most vaccinated and boosted region in the country.

Hospitalizations in the Northeast have risen too, but primarily among those over 70. One reason may be that the T-Cell response—the cavalry riding behind the front-line antibodies—is weaker in older people. The virus can’t evade T-Cells elicited by vaccines and infections as easily as it can antibodies. Because of T-Cells, younger people are still well-protected against new variants.

Another reason may be that monoclonal antibodies are ineffective against XBB, and many older people who catch Covid can’t take the antiviral Paxlovid because they have medical conditions such as severe kidney disease or take drugs that interfere with it.

The Biden administration’s monomaniacal focus on vaccines over new treatments has left the highest-risk Americans more vulnerable to new variants. Why doesn’t that seem to worry the experts?

- https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-vaccin ... 1672483618

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/TheEyes2022/status/ ... 0868090880

[tron]

i cant see the point in killing off millions of people, but, if that is the intention, what if covid was the primer to work out who is anti authority, then they release the big one to kill off those who disagree?

[stickdog99]

i cant see the point in killing off millions of people, but, if that is the intention, what if covid was the primer to work out who is anti authority, then they release the big one to kill off those who disagree?

Could be. But why not just slowly kill anyone who is dumb enough to keep injecting themselves with whatever their tribe tells them to, even though they keep getting sicker every time that they do? Remember that these are sociopaths.

Imagine that this were an alien race culling humanity. Who would deserve to live? Those who keep lining up at the slaughterhouse just because they are told to do so or those who don't.

Furthermore, what if they actually do not have the ability to make a virus that both spreads and that kills a large number of people? What if something like COVID is the best that they can do?

From 2009

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat

John Harlow, Los Angeles
Sunday May 24 2009, 1.00am BST, The Sunday Times

SOME of America's leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population and speed up improvements in health and education. The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home. They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires' aides were told they were at "security briefings".

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. "We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different - maybe because they don't want to be seen as a global cabal," he said.

Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an "umbrella cause" that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation. At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. "Official projections say the world's population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion," Gates said then.

Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to "discuss how to increase giving" and they intended to "continue the dialogue" over the next few months. Another guest said there was "nothing as crude as a vote" but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers," said the guest. "They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming."

Why all the secrecy? "They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government," he said.

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/damar-hamlin

...

Pfizer literally killed a Black man (stopped his heart for 9 minutes) on live TV and then told all Americans to shut up if they know what’s good for them. That’s the sort of power that Julius Caesar, Stalin, and Mao possessed — and now that raw murderous totalitarian power is in the hands of the most ruthless corporation on earth. And the establishment has made it clear that we will be banished from polite society if we talk about the actual cause.

So that’s the world we live in. Pharma has killed several hundred thousand Americans and millions more around the world with the clot shot. Then they killed a guy in the first quarter of Monday Night Football and there will be no investigation and we’re all just supposed to nod our heads and blame it on coincidence.

...

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/sal ... ward-dowd/

FORMER Wall Street executive Edward Dowd, whom I interviewed for TCW last year, has been dissecting excess mortality statistics recorded since the Covid pandemic began three years ago. He has analysed and reanalysed the numbers and has concluded that excess death rates, in those aged 26-41, are closely related to the administration of Covid vaccinations.

‘From February 2021 to March 2022, millennials experienced the equivalent of a Vietnam war, with more than 60,000 excess deaths,’ he said. ‘The Vietnam war took 12 years to kill the same number of healthy young people we’ve just seen die in 12 months.’

This 12-month period covers the Covid vaccination rollout for that age group so in theory we would have expected to see a decrease in excess mortality, not an increase.

So that everyone can see how he came to this conclusion, Dowd collated his research in a number one best-selling book called ‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022. The title reflects the myriad newspaper headlines announcing hundreds of young people who had ‘died suddenly’, ‘died after a short illness’ or ‘died unexpectedly’, with no reasonable explanation.

He is an American finance wizard with over 20 years’ experience who once worked for BlackRock, the largest investment company in the world, where he increased his clients’ assets from $2billion (£1.6b) to $14billion (£11.6b) so he is qualified to deal with statistics.

Comparisons with normal years was key. All-cause mortality remains relatively constant, and in 2017, 2018 and 2019 around 2.8million Americans died. Figures spiked in 2020 (Covid), although less than you might imagine, but in 2021 the stats were off the charts.

The CEO of insurance company OneAmerica brought this alarming trend to our attention in 2022 when he disclosed that during the third and fourth quarters of 2021 death in the 18-64 age group was 40 per cent higher than before the pandemic. Significantly, most deaths were not attributed to Covid. ‘It was an earth-shaking statistic,’ said Dowd. ‘Ten per cent would have been a 1-in-200-year event.’

Covid is not a significant cause of death in young people so what caused the shift in deaths from older to younger?

Fit, young athletes, the healthiest among us, were collapsing and failing down dead while playing sports, such as Italian footballer Giuseppe Perrino who died at the age of 29 while playing in a memorial match for his late brother. This is not normal, and Dowd’s book has 23 pages of headlines devoted to dead athletes.

Former England football player Matt le Tissier said: ‘I’ve never seen anything like it. I played for 17 years, and I don’t think I saw one person in 17 years have to come off the football pitch with breathing difficulties, clutching their heart. It’s not just footballers, sports people in general – tennis players, cricketers, basketball players, just how many are keeling over?’

In 2006 the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland, looked at sudden cardiac death in athletes under 35 years old. They found 1,101 cases over a period of 38 years. The site goodsciencing.com reported that by December 2022, 1,616 athletes had suffered cardiac arrests since their Covid injections and that 1,114 of them were dead, despite immediately being attended to by first responders and qualified first-aiders.

Is this a coincidence as they would like us to believe? The first Covid vaccine was administered on December 8, 2020, starting with those aged 65 and over. Other age groups were introduced gradually and by April 2021, the 45-64 age group were targeted. In May 2021, vaccination of the 15-44 group began.

We then began hearing reports of teenagers dying in their sleep, which is just as rare as athletes expiring on the pitch. Two boys in Connecticut and Michigan were confirmed to have been killed by vaccine-induced myocarditis after their second Pfizer jab. Were we warned to safeguard our children? It barely made the news.

Deaths that did appear in mainstream media included mother-of-two Helen Rhodes, a 46-year-old midwife who died in her sleep on a flight from Hong Kong to Frankfurt in August 2022 with her husband Simon and their two young children.

Another mother, Amelia Smith, 23, ‘died suddenly’ in her sleep. Her second child was only one month old.

These tragedies could have been avoided had it not been for vaccine mandates, and permission to travel based on vaccination status. Dowd reports that after President Biden introduced vaccine mandates the vaccination rate among working people rose extremely rapidly in a short time.

Media and government tried to dismiss reports that the vaccinated were suffering injury and death, but the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the US equivalent to our MHRA Yellow Card Scheme, has nearly 1.5million reports of adverse reactions associated with Covid vaccines, most entered by medical professionals. The idea that significant numbers of these reports are fake, entered by antivaxxers, is ridiculous, especially as it is a federal offence to file a false VAERS report.

To stop us investigating the phenomenon in the UK, the British Heart Foundation dismissed vaccination complications like myocarditis as ‘mild’ but Dr Venk Murthy, a cardiologist trained at Johns Hopkins, said: ‘People with myocarditis are at lifetime of increased risk of cardiac complications. This can have profound consequences . . . typically told to limit activity for several months, sometimes longer. This means no sports. Some kids are told not to carry books to school.’

Josh Stirling, a former institutional investor and Wall Street insurance analyst, was recruited by Dowd to help gather evidence. He began to run the numbers from the group life and disability divisions of insurance companies. Any change there is considered significant because group life is very stable.

After mass vaccination, the uptick in deaths was clear. If the vaccines were working, there should have been a decline in deaths. Stirling studied the US Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) excess mortality data. Millennials saw an excess mortality in the second half of 2021 at 84 per cent above baseline. The authorities said it must be more suicides, overdoses or missed cancer screening during lockdowns but Stirling and Dowd found this was statistically impossible for a spike in the same three-month period as the vaccine rollout.

The Society of Actuaries Research Institute (SOA) published their Covid-19 mortality survey report on 17 August 2022. It represented approximately 80 per cent of the group life US revenues. One of their tables showed clearly that excess mortality was 78 per cent for the 25-34 age group and 100 per cent for the 35-44 age group in the same quarter that Biden introduced vaccine mandates and corporate America complied.

Another independent source showed the same disturbing data. The Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre (CRC) and the Johns Hopkins Centre for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) tracked and analysed Covid data worldwide. They said that 68 per cent of the world’s population was vaccinated and 13billion doses administered. If they had been safe and effective, how could they explain that the highest death rate occurred after mass vaccination?

It seems obvious that an urgent investigation should be carried out. Dowd said: ‘If these new pharma products had been bound by the same laws as all other pharma products, their advertising would have included the following: “Some people will experience side effects including cardiac arrest, blood clots, stroke, and sudden death.” Which wouldn’t make for a very good sales pitch.’

Here are some very telling graphics from Edward Dowd’s book:

[stickdog99]

Sweden Actually Did *Better* Than Its Neighbours

Sweden’s decision not to lockdown in the spring of 2020 was variously described as “deadly folly” (the Guardian), “a disaster” (Time magazine) and “the world’s cautionary tale” (the New York Times).

Yet Sweden confounded its critics. The country’s first wave receded around the same time as Britain’s, and over the succeeding months it crept down the list of countries by official Covid death rate – as others caught-up-with and then surpassed Sweden’s death toll.

The argument then became: “But Sweden did worse than its neighbours!” Critics would point out that although Sweden did okay compared to the rest of Europe, it did worse than the other Nordic countries.

This was a weak argument at the time, as I’ve noted before. But now its premise is actually false: Sweden did not do worse than the other Nordics.

As you may recall, back in November of 2021 the ONS published estimates of age-adjusted excess mortality for most of the countries in Europe. These showed that up to June of 2021, Sweden had negative excess mortality – fewer people died than usual. On the other hand, its excess mortality was less negative than that of the other Nordic countries.

The ONS has now published updated estimates of age-adjusted excess mortality, which run all the way up to July of 2022. And they show that Sweden’s excess mortality is lower than Finland’s, Denmark’s and Iceland’s; only Norway did better.



Between January 2020 and July 2022 (blue dots), Sweden’s age-standardised mortality rate was 4% lower than the five-year average. By contrast, Iceland’s was 3.9% lower, Denmark’s was 2.8% lower and Finland’s was 1.7% lower. This means that Sweden did better than three out of four other Nordics.

In the summer of 2020, Sweden’s state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “Judge me in a year”. One year later, Sweden’s excess mortality was below the European average. We can now judge him again, more than two years later: Sweden’s excess mortality is the second lowest in Europe. On top of that, Sweden saw the second smallest increase in national debt of all European countries.

Tegnell got it right, and his critics got it wrong.