I guess this is what constitutes scientific progress in the age of COVID. He goes even further off of the approved script by stating that there is no point in trying to stop all infections, and that “at some point, society has to open up”. Homer Simpson’s famous “D-oh” comes to mind. Pollard serves as the Chairman of the UK-based Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), and has taken the previously radical position that fourth jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, as he warned that giving a new dose to people every six months was “not sustainable”. Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, the head of Britain’s lead vaccine oversight and policy body, is now on record basically endorsing the much maligned Great Barrington Declaration “ Focused Protection” approach, which happens to also have been the basis for the two Washington Times op-eds penned by Peter Navarro and myself back in early August 2021, which was attacked by Facebook’s opinion reinforcers masquerading as “factcheckers”. Fourth Covid jab: We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months, says JCVI chief Further inoculations should not be offered until there is more evidence, says Sir Andrew Pollard, with priority given to the most vulnerable. Soon it will be time to bring in the clowns. □ Follow and Share □□ speaking of the dominant narrative, it looks like that is starting to crack in multiple places. Some of cited publications were very out of date and did not make the case for vaccination, in contrast to claims made by the authors. However, despite the overwhelming worldwide data concerning the risks of myocarditis post genetic vaccination, the obsequious authors still felt it necessary to make irrational homage to the dominant approved narrative that everyone must get a vaccine was so over the top to make the article almost unreadable. Post-vaccination myocarditis doesn’t only happen in young men and boys. The temporal association is compatible with such a hypersensitivity reaction, other causes have been excluded, and the histomorphology is consistent with the diagnosis.” Note that this case report involved a 57 year old woman. It seems probable the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was responsible for the fatal fulminant necrotizing myocarditis in this case. “The clinical features and immunopathology of a case of fatal fulminant necrotizing eosinophilic myocarditis, following the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, are described in this report. □ Follow and Share □□ Identified Case of Fatal Fulminant Necrotizing Eosinophilic Myocarditis Following the Initial Dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2, Comirnaty): an Extremely Rare Idiosyncratic Hypersensitivity Reaction. Particularly given that the severity of this disease is highly stratified by age and known risk factors. We are now two years into this pandemic by now such strategies should be fully developed and implemented. Not to mention the need for innovative clinical research trial designs for rapidly repurposing drugs. Telemedicine, mobile unites, send-out laboratory samples, age and disease specific out-patient centers are just some of the ways a society could buffer against the threat of a novel infectious disease or bio-warfare threat. Absence of innovative leadership is compromising health and wellness systems throughout the world. Clearly, we must re-imagine how patients can receive preventative health care as well as important medical treatments in the timely manner in the face of a chronic ongoing pandemic. These data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had a deep impact on the real-world management of cancer patients in a district of Italy with a high prevalence of COVID-19.” Importance: Although this data is for Italy only, reports such as this have been rolling in worldwide over the past year. Conclusion: Our data indicate a significant reduction in cancer diagnosis, antitumor venous treatment, and patients enrolled in clinical research studies in 2020 compared with 2019, although there was a significant increase in oral treatment. “ Results: In 2020, a significant reduction in new cancer diagnosis was demonstrated when compared with 2019, with 17.4% fewer cancer diagnoses, 84.5% fewer patients enrolled in clinical trials, a 10.6% reduction in intravenous antitumor treatment, and a 42.7% increase in oral anticancer treatment. The holiday weekend seems to have stymied the flow of science news, only a handful of article were released over the past few days: Moving on to today’s Science Newsfeed Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the oncologic activities (diagnosis, treatment, clinical trials enrollment) of a general hospital in a district with high prevalence of SARS-COV-2 in Italy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |