Introduction

The goal of this document is to provide information pertaining to the various aspects that relate to COVID-19, its treatment and the COVID-19 vaccines. Its goal is to challenge the narrative and also to challenge the reader to think and seek out the information – the truth – themselves.

Compiled by: Stephen Sammut BPharm, PhD
Last updated: 10/19/2021

Click here to download a pdf version of the information below.

For a synopsis of the information provided below, click here.

Table of Contents

  1. Putting SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 in Perspective – the reality of COVID-19 morbidity and recovery
    1.1 Defining COVID-19 deaths
  2. Ignored Evidence of Toll on Humanity due to Measures Imposed
    2.1 Mental Health Consequences
    2.2 Drug Overdose
    2.3 Delays in addressing other disease
    2.4 Other Consequences Reported
  3. The question of ethics in relation to the various mandates and lockdowns
  4. Masks
    4.1 Inefficacy of mask mandates
    4.2 Potential for significant impact on society
    4.3 Various adverse physiological effects
    4.4 Penetration of viral particles
    4.5 Inefficiency and inefficacy of masks
    4.6 Increased spread
    4.7 Substantial psychosocial impact
  5. Lockdowns & Isolation
  6. PCR Testing and Asymptomatic Testing
  7. COVID-19 Vaccines
    7.1 Failure to properly investigate the vaccines
    7.2 Potential for side effects beyond site of injection
    7.3 Children, adolescents and vaccinations
    7.4 Potential Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)
    7.5 Breakthrough Infections
    7.6 Virus Interferences
    7.7 Vaccine In/Effectiveness
    7.8 Efficacy of natural immunity
    7.9 VAERS data analysis
    7.10 Autoimmune disease
  8. Available Treatments
  9. Additional Information
    9.1 Efforts to control fertility
    9.2 Planned event?
  10. Acknowledgment
  11. References

1.    Putting SARS-CoV2 and COVID-19 in Perspective – the reality of COVID-19 morbidity and recovery

Summary:
Putting COVID-19 in context of:
– other diseases, and
– not taking into consideration inflation of numbers due to misreporting based on ambiguous definitions by the WHO and CDC (see below), in addition to
– potential financial incentives for the reporting of COVID-19 deaths (Miller, 2020),

  • COVID-19-related deaths are not any more alarming than any other global disease,
  • COVID-19 has a low infection mortality rate and
  • The majority of those infected recover from it.

1.1 Defining COVID-19 deaths

  • Global statistics for comparison with COVID-19-related deaths. Unless indicated otherwise, data is for 2020.

1 https://www.worldometers.info/ (Percentage is calculated from # abortions in 2020/Current World Population)
2 https://www.who.int/health-topics/cardiovascular-diseases/#tab=tab_1
3 https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/  
4 https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html#ss; Troeger et al., 2019

  • COVID-19 is considered to have a LOW infection mortality rate (IFR) as indicated by the statistics below O’Driscoll et al. (2021) [Data is “age-specific COVID-19-associated death data from 45 countries and the results of 22 seroprevalence studies”]

    • COVID-19 Fatality rates by age:
      • 0-4 yrs old: 0.003%,
      • 5-9 yrs old: 0.001%,
      • 10-14 yrs old: 0.001%,
      • 15-19 yrs old: 0.003%,
      • 20-24 yrs old: 0.006%,
      • 25-29 yrs old: 0.013%,
      • 30-34 yrs old: 0.024%,
      • 35-39 yrs old: 0.040%,
      • 40-44 yrs old: 0.075%,
      • 45-49 yrs old: 0.121%,
      • 50-59 yrs old: 0.323%,
      • 60-64 yrs old: 0.456%,
      • 65-69 yrs old: 1.075%,
      • 70-74 yrs old: 1.674%,
      • 75-79 yrs old: 3.203%,
      • 80+ yrs old: 8.2%

    • Note: An 80 year old has a 6% chance of dying from anything within a year; An 85 year old has a 10% chance.
  • Other papers that reflect similar information include:
    
    • “Across all countries, the median IFR in community-dwelling elderly and elderly overall was 2.4% (range 0.3%-7.2%) and 5.5% (range 0.3%-12.1%). IFR was higher with larger proportions of people >85 years. Younger age strata had low IFR values (median 0.0027%, 0.014%, 0.031%, 0.082%, 0.27%, and 0.59%, at 0-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years)…The IFR of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly people is lower than previously reported. Very low IFRs were confirmed in the youngest populations.” (Axfors and Ioannidis, 2021)
      
    • “…we estimate the overall IFR [Infection Fatality Rate] in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79 95% prediction interval range).” (Brazeau et al., 2020)
      
    • “This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.” (Fauci et al., 2020)
      
    • “Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.” (Ioannidis, 2021)
      
  • Recovery rates have been reported as being between 97% and 99.75% (Nikhra, 2020)
    
  • Comorbidity with other diseases (e.g. obesity, heart failure, chronic kidney disease) is a significant contributor to death (Petrilli et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020) and makes up ~ 94% of reported deaths (“For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned”) (CDC, 2020a).

2.    Ignored Evidence of Toll on Humanity due to Measures Imposed

Summary:
The data indicates that measures taken to purportedly contain the spread of COVID-19 have caused a significant negative impact at the physiological, psychological, social, political, financial, moral and ethical levels (in addition to others not listed) with the potential to impact society for generations.

  • 2.1 Mental Health Consequences
    • Czeisler et al. (2020)
      • 40.9% of individuals reported at least one adverse event related to the pandemic:
        • 30.9% depressive/anxiety disorder
        • 26.3% trauma & stressor related disorder 
        • 13.3% started or increased substance use to cope with pandemic

    • Fiorillo et al. (2020)
      • “One of our main findings is the presence of moderate to severe levels of depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms”

      • “…the high rate (14.5%) of suicidal ideation/suicidal thoughts found in our sample.”

    • Horigian et al., (2021)
      • “Forty-nine percent of respondents reported loneliness scores above 50 [Items were summed to create a score ranging from 20 to 80, with higher scores being indicative of greater loneliness];

      • 80% reported significant depressive symptoms;
      • 61% reported moderate to severe anxiety;
      • 30% disclosed harmful levels of drinking.
      • 22% of the population reported using drugs,
      • 38% reported severe drug use.

      • Loneliness was associated with higher levels of mental health symptomatology. Participants reported significant increases across mental health and substance use symptoms since COVID-19”

    • 25.5% (18-24yo) seriously considered suicide in 30 days prior to survey (Czeisler et al., 2020)
  • 2.2 Drug Overdose
    • “Synthetic opioids (primarily illicitly manufactured fentanyl) appear to be the primary driver of the increases in overdose deaths, increasing 38.4 percent from the 12-month period leading up to June 2019 compared with the 12-month period leading up to May 2020. During this time period:
      • 37 of the 38 U.S. jurisdictions with available synthetic opioid data reported increases in synthetic opioid-involved overdose deaths.
      • 18 of these jurisdictions reported increases greater than 50 percent.
      • 10 western states reported over a 98 percent increase in synthetic opioid-involved deaths.” (CDC, 2020b)
  • 41.5% increase in pornography use in the US (Pornhub Insights, 2020)
  • 8.7-30% increase in unemployment rates (Janaskie and Earle, 2020)
  • 27.6-34.0% reduction in GDP across the various regions in the US (Janaskie and Earle, 2020)

  • 2.3 Delays in addressing other disease
    • 19-43% predicted increase in deaths due to delayed cancer surgery as a result of COVID-19 – “Modest delays in surgery for cancer incur significant impact on survival.”  (Sud et al., 2020)

    • Richardson and Bentley (2020) – document describes (citing other sources – see original document for citations) various aspects of disruption associated with Cancer due to COVID-19.

      • Screening: “Cancer Research UK has highlighted that as a result of these measures, approximately 210,000 people per week are not being screened, thus missing the opportunity for early detection of cancer in a significant number of citizens”

      • Referrals: “Amid the pandemic, urgent referrals have decreased significantly compared to usual levels in England. Early data from April by DATA-CAN, the UK Health Data Research Hub for Cancer, showed a drop as high as 76% in ‘two-week-wait’ (2WW) referrals in selected sites, while their more recent data show that this has recovered to a level that is 45% lower than normal.”

      • Diagnosis: “Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the number of performed CT scans dropped by 28% in April, May and June 2020 compared to the same time last year, with the additional challenge that CT scanning has been used to diagnose COVID-19. MRI scanning has also decreased by 53%.”

      • Treatment: “Data from May shows a 29% cancellation rate of cancer surgery, equivalent to more than 36,000 surgeries, while more recent estimates suggest a reduction of up to 40%.
  • 2.4 Other Consequences Reported:
    • “We find that children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic. Moreover, we find that males and children in lower socioeconomic families have been most affected.” (Deoni et al., 2021)

    • Disturbances in sleep (Fiorillo et al., 2020)
Table 1: Combined information from section 1 & 2 for comparison

3.    The question of ethics in relation to the various mandates and lockdowns

Summary:
The literature indicates significant concerns and potential significant violations of the dignity of the human person, in addition to human rights abuses resulting from the impositions made by governments and organizations.

  • Giubilini et al. (2021)
    • “Restrictions such as lockdowns and school closure compromise important societal and public goods and the well-being and health of young generations. Thus, a fairer way to protect vulnerable groups is to adopt focused protection strategies targeted at them: the burdens on them would be justified by the benefit they receive in terms of protection from COVID-19, something that is not true for young people.”

    • “What matters, from an ethical point of view, is that the differential treatment is based not on arbitrary or irrelevant factors (which would make it discriminatory), but on morally relevant factors (eg, risks of COVID-19, individual benefit from restrictions, personal costs of restrictions, societal benefit and so on).”

    • “The only reason why we have imposed this burden on children is to serve other people’s or broader societal interests. These measures have not been in the interest of children, nor where they intended to be. The burden on them has been vast and the benefit of lockdowns for the collective at the very least questionable”
  • Capozzo (2020)
    • “Many have died in isolation. Dying alone is not justifiable, even in times of infection with a pandemic virus, particularly when the impact of imposing such a radical measure on the course of the epidemic is, at least, questionable.”

    • “If we lose humanity, it will be our fault. We will not be able to blame it on the virus.”

  • Ussai et al. (2020)
    • “The dignity of the dead, their cultural and religious traditions, and their families should be always respected and protected. Among all the threats, COVID-19 epidemic in Italy revealed the fragility of human beings under enforced isolation and, for the first time, the painful deprivation of families to accompany their loved ones to the last farewell. Ethics poses new challenges in times of epidemics.”
  • Savulescu and Cameron (2020)
    • “Ethically, selective isolation is permissible. It is not unjust discrimination. It is analogous to only screening women for breast cancer: selecting those at a higher probability of suffering from a disease. Even if it were unjust discrimination, it would be proportionate because it brings benefits to the elderly and is proportionate and necessary given the grave risks to the economy and subsequent well-being of the population of an indiscriminate lockdown. To oppose selective isolation of the elderly is to engage in levelling down equality which is itself morally repugnant.”

  • Vojdani and Kharrazian (2020)
    • “The promotion and implementation of such an aggressive “immune passport” program worldwide in the absence of thorough and meticulous safety studies may exact a monumental cost on humanity in the form of another epidemic, this time a rising tide of increased autoimmune diseases and the years of suffering that come with them.

4.    Masks

Summary:
While some scientific literature appears to indicate the usefulness of masks, the overwhelming evidence indicates that masks are not helpful in reducing the spread of COVID-19. Rather, it appears that masks increase problems. This is evident at various levels and includes, but is not limited to physiological (e.g. temperature alterations), physical (e.g. rashes, headaches), psychological and social (e.g. effect on communication and impact on human relationships and the dignity of the human person, including, but not limited to, in relation to sexuality) effects observed and reported.

  • 4.1 Inefficacy of mask mandates
    • “We did not observe association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.”  (Guerra and Guerra, 2021)

    • Although a CDC study (Guy et al., 2021) concluded that “Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with increases in county-level case and death growth rates within 41–80 days after reopening.”, the maximum reduction in cases was reported at 81-100 days after implementation of mask mandated, and amounted to 1.8%. The maximum increase in cases relative to the day states allowed on-premises dining was 1.1%.
  • 4.2 Potential for significant impact on society (Czypionka et al., 2020)
    • “…mask mandates involve a tradeoff with personal freedom, so such policies should be pursued only if the threat is substantial and mitigation of spread cannot be achieved through other means.”
  • 4.3 Various adverse physiological effects
    • “We objectified evaluation evidenced changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with significant correlation of O2 drop and fatigue (p < 0.05), a clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment and O2 drop (67%), N95 mask and CO2 rise (82%), N95 mask and O2 drop (72%), N95 mask and headache (60%), respiratory impairment and temperature rise (88%), but also temperature rise and moisture (100%) under the masks. Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.” (Kisielinski et al., 2021)

    • “Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use.” (Tong et al., 2015)

    • “Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals.” (Fikenzer et al., 2020)

    • “This study including 19504 blood donors spanning over one and a half year shows that prolonged use of face mask by blood donors may lead to intermittent hypoxia and consequent increase in hemoglobin mass.” (Setia et al., 2021)

    • “We discuss how N95 and surgical facemasks induce significantly different temperature and humidity in the microclimates of the facemasks, which have profound influences on heart rate and thermal stress and subjective perception of discomfort.” (Li et al., 2005)

    • “Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD [hemodialysis] significantly reduced PaO2 and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD [end-stage renal disease] patients” [Note of consideration: this report pertains to data from already compromised patients] (Kao et al., 2004)

    • Other literature addressing significant changes in skin characteristics on the part of the face covered by a mask including: in skin temperature, redness, hydration and secretions (Park et al., 2021) in addition to eye dryness, acne, skin breakdown and nosebleeds, headaches and bad odors (Shenal et al., 2012; Kisielinski et al., 2021; Kumar and Singh, 2021)
  • 4.4 Penetration of viral particles
    • “Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.” (MacIntyre et al., 2015)

    • “By intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections [stats] nor against clinical respiratory infection [stats]. Similarly, in a per-protocol analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections [stats] nor against clinical respiratory infection [stats]…. This trial was unable to provide conclusive evidence on facemask efficacy against viral respiratory infections most likely due to poor adherence to protocol. [however, without justification in article, conclude that “likely due to poor adherence”] (Alfelali et al., 2020)
  • 4.5 Inefficiency and inefficacy of masks
    • “We were unable to detect a reduction in per-population daily mortality, hospital bed, ICU bed, or ventilator occupancy attributable to the implementation of a mask order” (Schauer et al., 2021)

      • Study also states that “To date, limited published data evaluating the effects of public mask wear on COVID-19 incidence demonstrate a significant (Cheng et al., 2020; Lyu and Wehby, 2020), beneficial effect These studies, however, restricted their analysis to publicly reported COVID-19 infection rates without an evaluation of corresponding hospital resource utilization.”

    • “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.” (Jacobs et al., 2009)

    • “In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation.” (Bundgaard et al., 2020)

    • Xiao et al. (2020)
      • “The evidence from RCTs [randomized controlled trials] suggested that the use of face masks either by infected persons or by uninfected persons does not have a substantial effect on influenza transmission.”

      • “Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (Aiello et al., 2010; Aiello et al., 2012). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (Aiello et al., 2010; Aiello et al., 2012).”

    • MacIntyre et al. (2015)
      • “Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI [influenza-like illness] compared with the control arm.”

      • “Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.”

      • “…and the results caution against the use of cloth masks…Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection…as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs [healthcare workers]…”

    • Example of some papers with potential problems in study design or interpretation:
      • Aiello et al. (2012)
        • “Our findings show a significant reduction in the rate of ILI [influenza-like illness] among participants randomized to the face mask and hand hygiene intervention during the latter half of the study period, ranging from 48% to 75% when compared to the control group. We also observed a substantial (43%) reduction in the incidence of influenza infection in the face mask and hand hygiene group compared to the control, but this estimate was not statistically significant.”

        • “There were no substantial reductions in ILI [influenza-like illness] or laboratory-confirmed influenza in the face mask only group compared to the control.”

        • Summary of Conclusions: Masks on their own do not help; masks and hand sanitizer reduced transmission, however, results are ambiguous as to whether the reduction was statistically significant. Study flawed (despite CDC involvement in design) – no hand hygiene alone group, therefore it cannot be determined whether the reduced transmission was simply due to hand hygiene alone, given that the mask-alone group showed no reduction.

      • MacIntyre and Chughtai (2020)
        • “The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings.”

        • Summary of Conclusions: Paper flawed – Conclusion in abstract (see above) is not supported by the information in the paper; potential significant conflict of interest; significant conflicting conclusions from papers reviewed; unsubstantiated/unsupported claims and extrapolations/projections; misrepresents the information from some of the papers reviewed (e.g. Aiello et al., 2012); contradicts their own previous work (MacIntyre et al., 2015).

      • Abaluck et al. (2021)
        • 7.9% (27,116) reported COVID-like symptoms (from 342,126); From the 7.9%, 40.3% (10,592) consented to have blood collected.

        • The following statements and the findings indicating a very minimal symptomatic seropositivity (i.e. displayed both symptoms and were seropositive for the antibody) further questions the significance of the findings. 

          • “Our trial is therefore designed to track the fraction of individuals who are both symptomatic and seropositive.”

          • “Not all symptomatic seroprevalence is necessarily a result of infections occurring during our intervention; individuals may have pre-existing infections and then become symptomatic (perhaps caused by an infection other than SARS-CoV-2).”

        • Relative to WHO-Defined COVID-19 Symptoms (Figure 2): “We find clear evidence that the intervention reduced symptoms: we estimate a reduction of 11.9% (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.88 [0.83,0.93]; control group prevalence = 8.59%; treatment group prevalence = 7.60%)…In this sample we continue to find an effect overall and an effect for surgical masks, but see no effect for cloth masks.”

        • Relative to Symptomatic Seroprevalence by Age (Figure 3): “In surgical mask villages, we observe a 23.0% decline in symptomatic seroprevalence among individuals aged 50-60 (adjusted prevalence ratio of 0.77 [0.59,0.95]) and a 34.7% decline among individuals aged 60+ (p = 0.001) (adjusted prevalence ratio of 0.65 [0.46, 0.85]).”

        • “Our estimates suggest that mask-wearing increased by 28.8 percentage points, corresponding to an estimated 51,347 additional adults wearing masks in intervention villages, and this effect was persistent even after active mask promotion was discontinued. The intervention led to a 9.3% reduction [Figure 1, p=0.043] in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (which corresponds to a 103 fewer symptomatic seropositives) and an 11.9% reduction [Figure 2, p=0.000], in the prevalence of COVID-like symptoms, corresponding to 1,587 fewer people reporting these.”

          • Concerns: NOT addressed explicitly in this paragraph is that there was NO statistically significant decrease in 40-50 year old and <40 year old subjects. These results need, like other papers, to be interpreted in the context of other evidence, including the counter evidence that exists in relation to mask wearing, in addition to the other impacts (e.g. psychological, physiological, etc.). Thus, taking the information mentioned above into consideration, in addition to other scientific literature including, but not limited to, the Bundgaard study (Bundgaard et al., 2020), the fact that mask wearing in those <50 years old was not significantly different highlights that it is not the masks that are related to symptomatic seroprevalence (or else common sense dictates that all ages should have demonstrated significant decreases) but additional factors including, but not limited to comorbidities.

        • Other Concerns:
          • Potential for coercion?
            • Governmental: “The sample excludes 4 villages because of lack of government cooperation to perform the intervention.”

            • Questionable appropriate consent for participation of villagers: Consent is only addressed in regards to blood collection.
              • “…observations were not limited to adults from enrolled households.”
              • “After 5 weeks of surveillance in wave 1, it was clarified that surveillance staff should only record mask-wearing behavior of people who appear to be 18 years or older. Prior to this, some surveyors included children (especially older children) in their counts.”

          • Potential impact of financial incentives: Despite all claims, concerns remain in terms of the impact of financial incentives (in a population that is extremely poor – Could this study have been carried out in a developed country?) potentially influencing the results. 
  • 4.6 Increased spread
  • 4.7 Substantial psychosocial impact
    • Magnitude is difficult to currently quantify due to the typical delay that is observed in the manifestation of negative mental health consequences (Rajkumar, 2020).

    • The physiological and psychological impact are not independent of each other and the former may potentially impact the latter (Roberge et al., 2012; Scheid et al., 2020). The psychosocial impact of masks include:

      • Their potential to interfere with communication, appropriate care and well-being of patients (Isaacs et al., 2020; Marler and Ditton, 2021).

      • Fatigue, anxiety, or claustrophobia, impaired cognition (Shenal et al., 2012; Kumar and Singh, 2021).

      • Confusion in the interpretation of emotions due to interference with the recognition of facial expressions, and impediment in interpersonal relationships irrespective of whether there are pre-existing psychopathologies or not (Critchley et al., 2000; Carbon, 2020).

      • The potential to interfere with the appropriate detection of natural chemicals (pheromones) that are potentially involved in the bonding involved in natural human relationships (Savic et al., 2009).

    • The possibility of extreme psychological stress (including data being analyzed currently from our university)…

      • “Taken together, our findings support emerging research that COVID-19 can be understood as a traumatic stressor event capable of eliciting PTSD-like responses and exacerbating other related mental health problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, psychosocial functioning, etc.). Our findings add to existing literature supporting a pathogenic event memory model of traumatic stress.” (Bridgland et al., 2021)

      • “Alcohol use, PTSD, anxiety, anger, fear of contagion, perceived risk, uncertainty, and distrust are a few of the immediate and long-term effects that are likely to result from the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Esterwood and Saeed, 2020)

      • …including from mask wearing, is known and has been known as indicated by, for example (Hawryluck et al., 2004):

        • Masks: “Those who wore their masks all of the time had higher mean IES-R [Impact of Events Scale-Revised] scores…and higher mean CES-D [Center for Epidemiologic Studies—Depression Scale]…” [Note: The reference to higher IES scores in relation to mask wearing is indicative of higher levels of PTSD symptoms; CES-D addresses depressive symptoms]

        • Isolation: “All respondents described a sense of isolation… Infection control measures imposed not only the physical discomfort of having to wear a mask but also significantly contributed to the sense of isolation.”

5.     Lockdowns & Isolation

Summary:
The science, including our knowledge of the immune system, in addition to the impact of lockdowns previously observed and also observed in current studies, indicates no justification for lockdowns, making them a significant violation of human rights.

  • Negative impact of lockdowns has been shown
    • “…results indicate that it [isolation] alters physical activity and eating behaviours in a health compromising direction.” The authors make this statement while at the same time starting the statement with “While isolation is a necessary measure to protect public health…”! (Ammar et al., 2020)

    • Charbonnier et al. (2021)
      • “Depressive symptoms are significantly higher during lockdown periods compared to unlockdown periods. Anxiety symptoms are likewise particularly high during the two lockdowns, but also when the universities reopen. At different times, anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively associated with maladaptive strategies, such as the self-blame and negatively with adaptive strategies, such as the positive reframing”

      • “The trajectory of anxiety, which is elevated even in the absence of lockdown, raises concerns about the long-term effects of the pandemic on these symptoms”

    • Gismero-Gonzalez et al. (2020)
      • “Quarantine entails a difficult situation to endure, involving separation from loved ones, loss of liberties, insecurity about possibly getting infected, among others, and of course boredom, which can also have negative effects….It is also associated with a perceived loss of control and the feeling of being trapped…”

      • “…the data indicated an increase in negative affects (e.g., “upset,” “afraid,” “distressed”) and a decrease in positive affects after 8 weeks under lockdown, as well as a general decline in overall mood. The largest increases in negative affects were observed in young adults (18–35 years) and women.”

    • Brooks et al. (2020)
      • “Quarantine is often an unpleasant experience for those who undergo it. Separation from loved ones, the loss of freedom, uncertainty over disease status, and boredom can, on occasion, create dramatic effects. Suicide has been reported (Barbisch et al., 2015), substantial anger generated, and lawsuits brought following the imposition of quarantine in previous outbreaks.”

      • “Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma.”

    • Reynolds et al. (2008)
      • “Health-care workers (HCW) experienced greater psychological distress, including symptoms of PTSD.”

    • Hawryluck et al. (2004)
      • “All respondents described a sense of isolation.”

      • “Infection control measures imposed not only the physical discomfort of having to wear a mask but also significantly contributed to the sense of isolation.”

      • “Our results show that a substantial proportion of quarantined persons are distressed, as evidenced by the proportion that display symptoms of PTSD and depression as measured by validated scales.”

      • Stigma: “Following quarantine, 51% of respondents had experiences that made them feel that people were reacting differently to them…”

    • “There are clear linkages between PSI [Perceived Social Isolation] and the cardiovascular system, neuroendocrine system, and cognitive functioning. PSI also leads to depression, cognitive decline, and sleep problems. The mechanisms through which PSI causes these effects are neural, hormonal, genetic, emotional, and behavioral. The effects of PSI on health are both direct and indirect.” (Bhatti and Haq, 2017)

6.    PCR Testing and Asymptomatic Testing

Summary:
The cumulative evidence pertaining to the PCR test, including the recent lab alert by the CDC (CDC, 07/21/2021), in addition to our knowledge pertaining to infectious disease, does not support either the use of the PCR test as a reliable test or the concept of asymptomatic testing.

  • Corman et al. (2020) – paper claims the RT-PCR protocol to be “validated”, as well as being a “robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings”

  • Borger et al. (2020) – addresses numerous issues pertaining to the Corman paper including:
    • Significant methodological issues pertaining to the
      • Probe (a fragment of DNA or RNA used to detect the presence of a specific DNA fragment within a sample) and Primer (short strand of DNA or RNA that serves as the starting point for DNA synthesis) design.
      • Reaction temperature,
      • Number of amplification cycles (Jaafar et al., 2020) –> At Ct=35, <3% of cultures are positive.
      • Biomolecular validation
      • Positive & negative controls to confirm/refute specific virus detection
      • Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) not available
      • Consequences of Errors mentioned in the first five points listed –> False positive results

    • Additional issues
      • Paper was not peer reviewed
      • Authors – members of the editorial board of the journal

  • Cevik et al. (2021)
    • “No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads.”

    • “Our study shows that despite evidence of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples, viable virus appears to be short-lived. Therefore, RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness.”

  • “Historically people need to realize that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission [of covid-19], in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers” (Fauci, 2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6koHkBCoNQ&feature=youtu.be&t=2642)

  • “We found some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection is less likely than in contacts of people with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10–1.27).” (Buitrago-Garcia et al., 2020)

  • Unusually in disease management, a positive test result is the sole criterion for a covid-19 case. Normally, a test is a support for clinical diagnosis, not a substitute….. It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious….., no study was able to culture live virus from symptomatic participants after the ninth day of illness, despite persistently high viral loads in quantitative PCR diagnostic tests.” (Pollock and Lancaster, 2020)

7.    COVID-19 Vaccines

Summary:

  • The cumulative evidence pertaining to COVID-19 including the low infection fatality rate, the questionable efficacy of the vaccines, the VAERS and other data pertaining to reported adverse events, and the presence of proven alternative treatments, in addition to the violations of the established standard protocol for the testing of efficacy and safety of any treatment given to humans, all point to substantial violations of  the various established protections of humans in research and outlined first in the Nuremberg Code, and reflect a significant attack on human dignity and human rights.

  • The use of the vaccines is questionable for adults for the reasons outlined above. The current evidence indicates that the administration of the vaccines should be contraindicated in pregnant women and younger people.

  • Efficacy of vaccines appears to be lower than natural immunity and increases the potential for severe infections from variants relative to those who are unvaccinated.
  • 7.1 Failure to properly investigate the vaccines
    • “None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus” (Doshi, 2020; 2021)

    • Additionally, see Kostoff et al., (2021) under “Children, adolescents and vaccinations” below.
  • 7.2 Potential for side effects beyond site of injection
    •  Suzuki and Gychka (2021)
      • “However, recent observations suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can by itself trigger cell signaling that can lead to various biological processes. It is reasonable to assume that such events, in some cases, result in the pathogenesis of certain diseases.”

      • “However, we need to consider their long-term consequences carefully, especially when they are administered to otherwise healthy individuals as well as young adults and children. In addition to evaluating data that will become available from SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals”

    • Appropriate biodistribution studies appear to be, in general, absent from the scientific literature.

    • Unfounded insistence (given conflicting evidence) that the vaccine acts locally at the site of injection in order to induce the immune response, despite evidence that this, potentially, is not the case (Pfizer; European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), 2021a;b).

    • Tissue implicated in this distribution include the spleen and ovaries after 48 hours (Pfizer). If the particles containing the instructions (mRNA) for making the protein that causes the immune response travel beyond the site of injection, given the target (Kuhn et al., 2004; Hoffmann et al., 2020; Lan et al., 2020) and its broad distribution (Hamming et al., 2004; Jing et al., 2020) in the human body (including the ovaries, brain etc.), this may potentially be the reason for the significantly higher levels of various serious side effects compared to other vaccines (data from VAERS available upon request, and see below)

    • Potential toxicity of nanoparticles used in drug delivery
      • Wang et al. (2018)
        • “Previous studies have shown that numerous types of NPs [nanoparticles] are able to pass certain biological barriers and exert toxic effects on crucial organs, such as the brain, liver, and kidney.”

        • “NPs can pass through the blood–testis barrier, placental barrier, and epithelial barrier, which protect reproductive tissues, and then accumulate in reproductive organs.”

        • “Previous studies have shown that NPs [nanoparticles] can increase inflammation, oxidative stress, and apoptosis and induce ROS, causing damage at the molecular and genetic levels which results in cytotoxicity.”

      • McAuliffe and Perry (2009)
        • “While research into the potential reproductive toxicity of nanoparticles is still in its infancy, the identified research suggests that nanoparticles cross the blood testes barrier and deposit in the testes, and that there is potential for adverse effects on sperm cells.”

    • Khayat-Khoei et al. (2021)
      • “Our observations suggest that, in some individuals, COVID-19 vaccination [Moderna (n = 3) or Pfizer (n = 4)] may carry a short-term risk of CNS demyelination.” [Note: study carried out in MS patients; very small number; additional research is necessary]
  • 7.3 Children, adolescents and vaccinations
    • Kostoff et al. (2021)
      • “Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size.”

      • “Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases.”

      • “Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”

      • “…the deaths following inoculation are not coincidental and are strongly related to inoculation through strong clustering around the time of injection.”

      • “…the VAERS deaths reported so far are for the very short term. We have no idea what the death numbers will be in the intermediate and long-term; the clinical trials did not test for those.”

      • “The clinical trials used a non-representative younger and healthier sample to get EUA for the injection. Following EUA, the mass inoculations were administered to the very sick (and first responders) initially, and many died quite rapidly. However, because the elderly who died following COVID-19 inoculation were very frail with multiple comorbidities, their deaths could easily be attributed to causes other than the injection (as should have been the case for COVID-19 deaths as well).”

      • “Since many of these potential serious adverse effects have built-in lag times of at least six months or more, we won’t know what they are until most of the population has been inoculated, and corrective action may be too late”

    • Schauer et al. (2021a)
      • “We describe 13 patients 12-17 years of age who presented with chest pain within 1 week after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine and were found to have elevated serum troponin levels and evidence of myopericarditis.”

      • “Although a causal relationship between vaccine receipt and development of myopericarditis cannot be concluded from a case series, clustering in time as well as the uncommon occurrence of myopericarditis and the rapid resolution of symptoms and findings made this likely to be a unique vaccine related event.”

      • “Identification of myopericarditis as an adverse event should have high priority during investigations before and after authorization of COVID-19 vaccines and be considered by policy makers in the risk/benefit ratio in adolescents and children”

    • See also VAERS data analysis below
  • 7.4 Potential Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)
    • Definition: “ADE is an enhancement of viral entry into immune cells mediated by antibody” (Wu et al., 2020)

    • “Our results revealed that ADE mediated by SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibodies could result from binding to the receptor in slightly different pattern from antibodies mediating neutralizations.” (Wu et al., 2020)

    • “Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).” (Lee et al., 2020)

    • “Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) may be involved in the clinical observation of increased severity of symptoms associated with early high levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients. Infants with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19 may also have ADE caused by maternally acquired SARS-CoV-2 antibodies bound to mast cells.” (Ricke, 2021)

    • “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated… The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.” (Cardozo and Veazey, 2021)

    • In relation to the attempted development for a SARS-CoV-1 vaccine (Tseng et al., 2012):
      • “These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.”

      • “…concern for an inappropriate response among persons vaccinated with a SARS-CoV vaccine emanated from experiences with coronavirus infections and disease in animals that included enhanced disease among infected animals vaccinated earlier with a coronavirus vaccine (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005).”

      • “The concern arising from the present report is for an immunopathologic reaction occurring among vaccinated individuals on exposure to infectious SARS-CoV, the basis for developing a vaccine for SARS. Additional safety concerns relate to effectiveness and safety against antigenic variants of SARS-CoV and for safety of vaccinated persons exposed to other coronaviruses…”
  • 7.5 Breakthrough Infections
    • Background:
      • RNA viruses “typically have high mutation rates due to lack of RdRp [RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase or RNA replicase] proofreading activity [i.e. lack of proofreading of the replicated RNA], which promotes viral genetic diversity and increases their adaptive potential.” “…the mutation rates of coronaviruses are an order of magnitude lower (10-6 to10-7) than that of most RNA viruses” (Hartenian et al., 2020)

      • “The genomes of positive-strand RNA viruses have considerable capacity to evolve quickly in response to changing ecologic conditions and/or host environments” (Denison et al., 2011)

    • Vaccine pressure and viral escape: known to happen with influenza virus due to an “increase of the viral genetic diversity”, which “may reflect the emergence and the subsequent selection of mutants escaping vaccine pressure…”. Admittedly, viral escape with influenza is more likely “particularly where vaccination was not completely or properly applied…” (Cattoli et al., 2011). This raises the following practical and ethical issues:

      • Low mortality rate does not justify vaccination

      • Low mortality rate does not logically justify the risk of the potential for more dangerous variants that could be more detrimental to the population due to vaccine pressure

      • Low mortality rate does not ethically justify the imposition of vaccine mandates simply to reach a “complete vaccination state”, when natural immunity could continue to evolve and effective medications for treatment are available.

      • Summary: While coronaviruses are somewhat more stable, they still have the capacity to mutate. This is evident in the SARS-CoV-2 variants that continue to appear (e.g. Delta variant). Vaccine breakthrough appears to be indicated given the higher presence in those vaccinated. Weighing the risk of death from the virus with the purported benefits of the vaccine, is it practical and ethical to provide a vaccine that may be more likely to produce a more dangerous situation? [also see below Saito et al., (2021)]

    • “Outbreak investigations suggest that vaccinated persons can spread Delta” (Riemersma et al., 2021)

    • “Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons (those who had completed a 2-dose course of mRNA vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] or had received a single dose of Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine ≥14 days before exposure).” (Brown et al., 2021)

    • “Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.” (Read et al., 2015)

    • The combined findings from
      • Riemersma et al. (2021), indicating that vaccinated people can spread the Delta (also known as B.1.617.2) variant,

      • Read et al. (2015), indicating that vaccines that do not prevent transmission can promote the emergence of strains that can cause more severe disease, and

      • Saito et al. (2021) who report a specific mutation (P681R) in the spike protein characteristic of the Delta/ B.1.617.2 variant which facilitates “the spike protein cleavage and enhances viral fusogenicity” and that viruses that have this mutation exhibit “higher pathogenicity than the parental virus”,

        appear to give further credence to the concept of viral escape.

  • 7.6 Virus interference
    • “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference…Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus…” (Wolff, 2020)

  • 7.7 Vaccines In/Effectiveness
    • What is the real efficacy of the vaccines? – It depends on what you’re looking at!!!! Olliaro et al. (2021) present some useful information in this regard:
      • Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)
        • Definition: used to report vaccine efficacy = 1 – RR (the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine).

        • “However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time.”

        • “RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine

        • The RRR for the vaccines is:
          • 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
          • 94% for the Moderna–NIH,
          • 91% for the Gamaleya,
          • 67% for the J&J, and
          • 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines

      • Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)
        • Definition: “the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population” (compare to RRR)

        • “ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs”.

        • The ARR for the vaccines is:
          • 1.3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford,
          • 1.2% for the Moderna–NIH,
          • 1.2% for the J&J,
          • 0.93% for the Gamaleya, and
          • 0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

      • “There are many lessons to learn from the way studies are conducted and results are presented. With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy”

    • “We found no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta.” (Acharya et al., 2021)

    • “Six months after receipt of the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, humoral response was substantially decreased, especially among men, among persons 65 years of age or older, and among persons with immunosuppression.” (Levin et al., 2021)

    • “BNT162b2-induced protection against SARS-COV-2 infection appeared to wane rapidly [Vaccine Effectiveness: 22.3%] following its peak [Vaccine Effectiveness: 77.5%] after the second dose, but protection against hospitalization and death persisted at a robust level for 6 months after the second dose.” (Chemaitelly et al., 2021)

    • Subramanian and Kumar (2021)
      • “Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa.”

      • “There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated”

      • “Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties… Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.”

      • “…in a report released from the Ministry of Health in Israel, the effectiveness of 2 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against preventing COVID-19 infection was reported to be 39% [6], substantially lower than the trial efficacy of 96% [7].”

      • “Even though vaccinations offers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death, the CDC reported an increase from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1% (between January to May 2021) in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, amongst the fully vaccinated [10]”.

    • “When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees [not previously infected, received vaccine] had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.” (Gazit et al., 2021)

    • “Efficacy peaked at 96.2% during the interval from 7 days to <2 months post-dose 2, and declined gradually to 83.7% from 4 months post-dose 2 to the data cut-off, an average decline of ~6% every 2 months.” (Thomas et al., 2021)

    • Vaccine effectiveness between March and July, 2021 significantly reduced from 93.9% to 65.5% (March: 93.9%; April: 96.2%; May: 95.9%; June: 94.3%; July: 65.5%) (Keehner et al., 2021)

    • While the vaccines are being pushed as the solution to the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to the reduced effectiveness just described, even if an argument could be made for their efficacy and reasonable use/administration, there is a factor that is being ignored, makes the use of the vaccines under the current socio-political circumstances even less justifiable – the potential inefficacy of the vaccines because of the various irrational and stresses (addressed above, e.g. lockdowns, mask mandates and more) imposed on  whole populations.

  • 7.8 Efficacy of natural immunity
    • “The data suggest that immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting and that convalescent individuals who receive available mRNA vaccines will produce antibodies and memory B cells that should be protective against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.” [NOTE: the latter part pertaining to the vaccines does not appear to hold given the breakthrough infections, and hospital admissions being observed primarily of people who have received the vaccine] (Wang et al., 2021)

    • “Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in ~40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.” (Grifoni et al., 2020)

    • Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory. About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory. Thus, simple serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2. This work expands our understanding of immune memory in humans. These results have implications for protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and recurrent COVID-19” (Dan et al., 2021)

    • “SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular and humoral immunities are durable at least until one year after disease onset…These findings are encouraging in relation to the longevity of immune memory against this novel virus and indicate that these sustained immune components, which persist, among most SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, may contribute to protection against reinfection.” (Zhang et al., 2021)

    • “…the results indicate local tissue coordination of cellular and humoral immune memory against SARS-CoV-2 for site-specific protection against future infectious challenges.” (Poon et al., 2021)

    • “It is now well-documented that mild and severe infection generates circulating virus-specific T cells and antibodies detectable in peripheral blood for up to a year or more (Grifoni et al., 2020;Bilich et al., 2021;Cohen et al., 2021;Dan et al., 2021;Gaebler et al., 2021;Rodda et al., 2021;Wang et al., 2021;Zuo et al., 2021). Moreover, the presence of neutralizing antibodies specific for the viral Spike (S) protein correlates with protection for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Earle et al., 2021;Khoury et al., 2021).” (Poon et al., 2021)

    • “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees [not previously infected, received vaccine] had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021.” (Gazit et al., 2021)

    • We found that NAb [neutralizing antibodies] against the wild-type virus persisted in 89% and S-IgG [SARS-CoV-2 spike immunoglobulin G] in 97% of subjects for at least 13 months after infection. Only 36% had N-IgG [nucleoprotein IgG] by 13 months. The mean S-IgG concentrations declined from 8 to 13 months by less than one third; N-IgG concentrations declined by two thirds. Subjects with severe infection had markedly higher IgG and NAb levels and are expected to remain seropositive for longer.” (Haveri et al., 2021)

    • “Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.” (Turner et al., 2021)

    • “The observation that memory B cell responses do not decay after 6.2 months but instead continue to evolve, is strongly suggestive that individuals who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 could mount a rapid and effective response to the virus upon re-exposure.” (Gaebler et al., 2021)

    • “The finding that patients who recovered from COVID-19 and SARS can mount T cell responses against shared viral determinants suggests that previous SARS-CoV infection can induce T cells that are able to cross-react against SARS-CoV-2…These findings demonstrate that virus-specific T cells induced by infection with betacoronaviruses are long-lasting, supporting the notion that patients with COVID-19 will develop long-term T cell immunity. Our findings also raise the possibility that long-lasting T cells generated after infection with related viruses may be able to protect against, or modify the pathology caused by, infection with SARS-CoV-2.” (Le Bert et al., 2020)

    • “The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection.” (Vitale et al., 2021)

  • 7.9 VAERS data analysis
    • In addition, the following website may also be of assistance in regards to adverse drug reaction reports: http://www.vigiaccess.org/
      • 2,219,299 reports of adverse events from the COVID-19 vaccines have been reported (with the majority in 2021) – data accessed 10/10/2021

    • Indicates higher risks of various side effects addressed below

    • VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] data are limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date” NOTE: However, COVID vaccines became available ~late 2020/early 2021.

    • Data can be downloaded from: https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

    • Percentages shown are COVID-19-vaccine-related reports as a percentage of all reports of the specific event for the listed vaccines included in the comparison/data extraction:

      • Amenorrhea (absence of a menstrual period in a woman of reproductive age) and Dysmenorrhea (pain during menstruation): 80% [“These results are for 1,823 total events.”]; ALL vaccines [Grouped by Vaccine type & not distinguishing between various manufacturers; Date of extraction: 09/17/21]

        • These reports are not restricted to the US. “Changes to periods and unexpected vaginal bleeding are not listed, but primary care clinicians and those working inreproductive health are increasingly approached by people who have experienced these events shortly after vaccination. More than 30 000 reports of these events had been made to MHRA’s yellow card surveillance scheme for adverse drug reactions by 2 September 2021, across all covid-19 vaccines currently offered.”(Male, 2021b)

        • Knowledge in this field is, as in regards to most aspects relating to the COVID-19 vaccines, is significantly lacking “Although reported changes to the menstrual cycle after vaccination are short lived, robust research into this possible adverse reaction remains critical to the overall success of the vaccination programme…We are still awaiting definitive evidence…” (Male, 2021b)

        • Note: please keep in mind that the normal menstruation is an inflammatory process which involves the immune system. Changes in the immune system function can lead to disturbances in the menstrual cycle (Berbic and Fraser, 2013).

        • See above under “Potential toxicity of nanoparticles used in drug delivery” under “Potential for side effects beyond site of injection” in relation to potential impact on male fertility.

      • Cardiac-related events: 92% [Comparison to DTAP, Hep B, MMR; Date of extraction: 06/02/21]

      • Pericarditis; Myocarditis: 72% [Comparison to all vaccines; Date of extraction: 09/25/21]
        • Despite the fact that these side effects have also been reported for other vaccines e.g. the tetanus vaccine (Dilber et al., 2003), the relative occurrence is significantly higher for the COVID-19 vaccines.

        • “These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this is well above known background rates for myocarditis. COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells. When you combine this fact with the temporal relationship of AE [Adverse Event] occurrence and reporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact that these data are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical data, it supports a conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the myocarditis cases observed after injection” (Rose and McCullough, 2021)

        • Additionally, when split by age the rates are as follows, indicating a higher vulnerability for younger recipients of the vaccine:
          • 6-17 years        18.20%
          • 18-29 years      27.86%
          • 30-39 years      12.69%
          • 40-49 years      8.98%
          • 50-59 years      8.28%
          • 60-64 years      4.04%
          • 65-79 years      7.15%
          • 80+ years         1.07%
          • Unknown        4.71%

        • Other literature relating to myocarditis

          • “The incidence of myocarditis, although low, increased after the receipt of the BNT162b2 vaccine, particularly after the second dose among young male recipients.” (Mevorach et al., 2021)

          • Other studies also report incidences of myocarditis and other side effects resulting from the vaccine BNT162b2 (Barda et al., 2021; Witberg et al., 2021) and higher incidences in younger males (Witberg et al., 2021). The Barda study (2021) reports significantly higher negative effects from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the unvaccinated:

            • risk ratio for myocarditis in vaccinated of 3.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44) [risk ratio (RR) “tells us how many times more likely the outcome occurs among people with the risk factor (or exposure)” (Viera, 2008) – for interpretation multiply by 100 i.e. 324 times more likely to occur];

            • risk ratio for myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection of 18.28 (95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12).

          • ISSUE: The Barda study (2021) removes people with the combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection + Vaccination (“In the vaccination analysis, so as not to attribute complications arising from SARS-CoV-2 infection to the vaccination (or lack thereof), we also censored data on the matched pair if and when either member received a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Similarly, in the SARS-CoV-2 infection analysis, we censored data on the matched pair if and when either member was vaccinated.”). Therefore, the study does not address the likelihood of events (e.g. myocarditis) in those vaccinated AND infected (i.e. in the case of breakthrough infections).   

      • Any adverse event: 66% [Comparison to Flu vaccines; Date of extraction: 06/04/21]
      • Stroke: 89% [Comparison to DTAP, Hep B, MMR, Flu; Date of extraction: 06/22/21]
      • Spontaneous Abortion: 53% [Comparison to all vaccines; Date of extraction: 09/20/21]
        • This contradicts the reports of safety in pregnant women (Male, 2021a)

        • Additionally, see Pfizer study (Pfizer) above, which indicates the potential for the vaccine lipid nanoparticles to be concentrated in the ovaries (among other organs).

        • Shimabukuro et al. (2021) and editorial comments by Riley (2021) on the same paper report:
          • Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (9.4%)
          • Small size for gestational age (3.2%)
          • Congenital abnormalities (2.2%)
          • Pregnancy losses (13.9%)

          • ISSUE: Changes to original paper Shimabukuro et al. (2021) in relation to spontaneous abortion are interesting:
            • Original paper reports 12.6% (104/827) spontaneous abortions

            • Correction states: “the “V-safe Pregnancy Registery” cell should have read “104,” rather than “104/827 (12.6)‡” and the Associated double dagger footnote states “No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week-specific risk of spontaneous abortion.”

          • ISSUE: Changes to editorial comments by Riley (2021) are also interesting (bolded information was removed in correction):
            • Original editorial reports: “…a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%); these percentages are well within the range expected as an outcome for this age group of persons whose other underlying medical conditions are unknown.”

            • Correction states: “Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, 104 experienced spontaneous abortions and 1 had a stillbirth,”

          • Additionally, of significance for the low percentage from which the authors obtained their numbers, the authors also note that “only a small fraction (4.7%) have enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry”

          • ISSUE: Suggestion to violate human rights? “This situation underscores the urgent need not only to include pregnant women in clinical trials,”. Given the absence of sufficient pre-clinical investigation and evidence (i.e. experiments in animals), this suggestion is in violation of:
            • Section 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations on the Protection of Human Subjects: “§ 46.204 Research involving pregnant women or fetuses: Pregnant women or fetuses may be involved in research if all of the following conditions are met: (a) Where scientifically appropriate, preclinical studies, including studies on pregnant animals, and clinical studies, including studies on nonpregnant women, have been conducted and provide data for assessing potential risks to pregnant women and fetuses;”

            • The Helsinki Declaration section 21: “Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequate laboratory and, as appropriate, animal experimentation.”

            • The Nuremberg Code: “The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.”

        • Spontaneous abortion is also the highest reported adverse event (58%) for the COVID-19 vaccines within the section “Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions” on the VigiAccess™ website (accessed 10/10/2021)

    • 28.6% of ALL side effects reported [“These results are for 1,130,123 total events.”]; ALL vaccines [Grouped by Vaccine type & not distinguishing between various manufacturers: 95 vaccines; Date of extraction: 07/17/21]

  • 7.10 Autoimmune disease
    • SARS-CoV-2 has been reported to trigger an autoimmune response (Liu et al., 2021)

    • COVID-19 vaccine reported to be potentially linked to autoimmune disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome (immune cells attack nervous system) (Dyer, 2021)

    • Merchant (2021) in a Rapid Response to the editor relating to the Dyer paper reports that:

      • “Study 514559 showed that the Covid vaccine AZ was distributed to sciatic nerves in almost all animals and the distributed fractions did not clear throughout the study. The last sample was taken on 29 days post-administration and sciatic nerves of 70% of animals were still tested positive at the end of the study. The vaccine distribution to the sciatic nerves may lead to conditions like sciatica that has been previously linked to the viral infection of the sciatic nerve, such as herpes.”

      • “The biodistribution of the vaccine to other nerves is not known as the study 514559 checked for sciatic nerves only being anatomically closer to the injection site (hind limb) in mice. The facial(cranial) nerves, on the contrary, are anatomically closer to the vaccine injection site in humans (deltoid muscle).” While the response does not directly make the direct link, it does state that “The MHRA database listed ~1031 cases of facial cranial nerve disorders (527cases of Bell’s palsy and 457 cases of facial paresis/paralysis), 20 cases of Miller Fisher syndrome [similar to Guillain-Barre syndrome] and additional 372 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome (2 fatal) following AZ vaccine up until 28th July 2021.”

      • “The biodistribution (study 514559) also evidenced the vaccine distribution via blood circulation to other tissues notably bone marrow, liver, mammary glands and spleen. The vaccine encoded gene transfection to distant tissues is likely to attract an immune response against various body tissues that can manifest into various autoimmune conditions.”

      • “These autoimmune responses may well be transient in many healthy subjects, and the immune response is likely to be very selective towards vaccine transfected cells only, however, the possibility of developing a chronic autoimmune condition in some individuals cannot be overruled”

    • “The reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in individuals suffering from immune-mediated diseases and having therefore a pre-existent dysregulation of the immune response has not been investigated.” (Talotta, 2021)

    • “…we hypothesize that, even though, COVID-19 vaccination does not provoke de novo immune mediated adverse events, it is possible that, the immunologic response triggers pre-existing underlying dysregulated pathways.” (Akinosoglou et al., 2021)

    • “Vaccine-associated autoimmunity is a well-known phenomenon attributed to either the cross-reactivity between antigens or the effect of adjuvant [3]. When coming to COVID-19 vaccine, this matter is further complicated by the nucleic acid formulation and the accelerated development process imposed by the emergency pandemic situation [4].” (Talotta, 2021)

    • Vojdani and Kharrazian (2020)
      • “There are reasons for all the precautions involved in developing a vaccine, not the least of which are unwanted side-effects. In light of the information discussed above about the cross-reactivity of the SARS-CoV-2 proteins with human tissues and the possibility of either inducing autoimmunity, exacerbating already unhealthy conditions, or otherwise resulting in unforeseen consequences, it would only be prudent to do more extensive research regarding the autoimmune-inducing capacity of the SARS-CoV-2 antigens.”

      • “…our own findings that 21 out of 50 tissue antigens had moderate to strong reactions with the SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are a sufficiently strong indication of cross-reaction between SARS-CoV-2 proteins and a variety of tissue antigens beyond just pulmonary tissue, which could lead to autoimmunity against connective tissue and the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and nervous systems.

    • “This letter addresses the issue of why SARS-CoV-2 attacks the respiratory system and reports on a vast peptide sharing between SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and surfactant-related proteins… results suggest that immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to cross-reactions with pulmonary surfactant and related proteins, and might contribute to the SARS-CoV-2-associated lung diseases. The data warn against using vaccines based on entire SARS-CoV-2 antigens to fight SARS-CoV infections, and highlight peptide uniqueness as a molecular concept for effective anti-CoV immunotherapy”(Kanduc and Shoenfeld, 2020)

8.    Available Treatments

Summary:
The scientific and medical literature, in addition to our knowledge of COVID-19, clearly indicates the presence of numerous alternative preventative and treatment measures that could be utilized and have been successfully utilized in the treatment of COVID-19. This includes, but is not limited to, anti-inflammatories, anticoagulants, various drugs (e.g. hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdesivir, ivermectin, doxycycline, etc.).

  • “Controlling the inflammatory response may be as important as targeting the virus. Therapies inhibiting viral infection and regulation of dysfunctional immune responses may synergize to block pathologies at multiple steps. At the same time, the association between immune dysfunction and outcome of disease severity in patients with COVID-19 should serve as a note of caution in vaccine development and evaluation.” (Tay et al., 2020)

  • Various treatments and protocols are available to address the effects of SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting COVID-19. Some of these are addressed below. Some of what is addressed below is common sense treatments that have either been used in medicine for a long time for other disorders that cause similar symptoms e.g. asthma, or potentially known for centuries (e.g. topical saline (i.e. nasal sprays in this case) to reduce microbial burden). However, also refer to McCullough et al. (2020). (Further information available at: https://www.truthforhealth.org/)

    • Arefin (2021) recommends the use of Povidone Iodine (PVP-I) oro-nasal spray as a shield against COVID-19, a “strong microbicidal agent having 99.99% virucidal efficacy in its only 0.23% concentration, irrespective of all known viruses, even in SARS- CoV-2 (in vitro).” [NOTE: the potency of PVP-I is well known in the medical field. The author does indicate that “oral PVP-I, throat spray, nasal spray formulations are currently available as over-the-counter medications in many countries”. My concern in this case would potentially be about potential effects on the thyroid (please also see Guenezan et al. (2021) in this section). The author does warn about contraindications in patients with “iodine allergy or those undergoing radioiodine treatment or thyroid dysfunction”; Paper is also not very well written]

    • Guenezan et al. (2021) state that “Nasopharyngeal decolonization may reduce the carriage of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in adults with mild to moderate COVID-19. Thyroid dysfunction occurred in 42% of the patients exposed to PI [Povidone-Iodine], with spontaneous resolution upon treatment discontinuation, as previously reported.”

    • “…in human airway-derived cell models, moxidectin and ivermectin failed to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection…these findings suggest that, even by using a high-dose regimen of ivermectin or switching to another drug in the same class are unlikely to be useful for treatment against SARS-CoV-2 in humans.” (Dinesh Kumar et al., 2021) [NOTE: however, there are limitations to this study: conducted in vitro; does not take into consideration what has been reported clinically – see https://ivmmeta.com/ – for ongoing analysis relating to – Ivermectin]

    • Findings: In an observational cohort study of 412 adult patients with COVID-19, aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower rate of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality after controlling for confounding variables. Meaning: Aspirin may have lung-protective effects and reduce the need for mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.” (Chow et al., 2021)

    • For additional information re: Ivermectin – ongoing analysis: see https://ivmmeta.com/

    • “The pharmacology of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs, Molnupiravir (M) and repurposed Ivermectin (IV) were compared. The IC50 for the inhibition of viral replication were 0.3μM for M and 2.8μM for IV. Both drugs have good oral absorption, with M achieving peak plasma concentrations by 2 hours and IV by 5 hours. The plasma half life were 7 hours for M and 81-91 hours for IV. M inhibits viral replication inducing viral mutagenesis in RdRp, causing viral error catastrophe and viral extinction. IV affects viral cell entry, nuclear transport and inhibits replication via RdRp. IV has additional effect to suppress cytokine production through STAT-3 inhibition. M is a more potent antiviral drug and IV has a longer residence in the body.” (AAL, 2021)

    • “Our results show that therapeutic and prophylactic administration of EIDD-2801-an oral broad-spectrum antiviral agent that is currently in phase II/III clinical trials-markedly inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in vivo, and thus has considerable potential for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.” (Wahl et al., 2021)

    • Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2, which could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency” [in silico investigation] (Choudhury et al., 2021)

    • “Hypertonic nasal saline, which facilitates mucociliary clearance, likely decreases viral burden through physical removal. Other additives, such as povidone-iodine, may aid in eliminating viral particles within the nasal cavity and nasopharynx prior to active infection. Given available evidence, saline irrigations with or without indicated additives may be safe to use in the presence of COVID-19.”(Farrell et al., 2020)

    • “INCS [Intranasal Corticosteroid] therapy is associated with a lower risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death.” (Strauss et al., 2021)

    • In relation to remdesivir, while studies such as that by Ader et al. (2021) state that “Together with previous evidence, results from the DisCoVeRy trial do not support the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in a population with symptoms for more than a week and requiring oxygen support.”, findings from other studies are inconsistent with this conclusion:

      • Comparison between a 5-day course vs 10-day course of remdesivir. Study showed that 64% of patients treated recovered in the 5-day group relative to 54% of patients in the 10-day group. However, “In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined.” (Goldman et al., 2020)1

      • “Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.” (Beigel et al., 2020)1

    • “In pre-clinical models, remdesivir has demonstrated potent antiviral activity against diverse human and zoonotic b-coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2.” (Jorgensen et al., 2020)

    • Some studies have also reported faster recovery times with remdesivir treatment but little change in mortality rates (Jorgensen et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020)

    • Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) alone or in combination therapy with other treatments (McCullough et al., 2020)

    • “Precious time is squandered with a “wait and see” approach in which there is no anti-viral treatment as the condition worsens, possibly resulting in unnecessary hospitalization, morbidity, and death.” (McCullough et al., 2020)

    • “…treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality.” (Arshad et al., 2020)

    • HCQ, which is three times more potent than CQ in SARS-CoV-2 infected cells (EC50 0.72 μM), was significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients compared to controls.” (Klimke et al., 2020)

    • “Our findings reveal that remdesivir and chloroquine are highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record and shown to be effective against various ailments, we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease.” (Wang et al., 2020)

    • “…several studies have shown the effectiveness of this molecule, including against coronaviruses among which is the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-associated coronavirus ….[clinical trials] showed that chloroquine could reduce the length of hospital stay and improve the evolution of COVID-19 pneumonia, leading to recommend the administration of 500 mg of chloroquine twice a day in patients with mild, moderate and severe forms of COVID-19 pneumonia.” (Colson et al., 2020)

    • “Our review shows that SARS-Cov-2 selectively induces a high level of IL-6 and results in the exhaustion of lymphocytes. The current evidence indicates that tocilizumab, an IL-6 inhibitor, is relatively effective and safe.” (Tang et al., 2020)

    • Chloroquine phosphate, an old drug for treatment of malaria, is shown to have apparent efficacy and acceptable safety against COVID-19 associated pneumonia in multicenter clinical trials conducted in China.” (Gao et al., 2020)

    • Chloroquine enhanced zinc uptake… The combination of chloroquine with zinc enhanced chloroquine’s cytotoxicity and induced apoptosis in A2780 cells” (Xue et al., 2014)

    • Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection.” (Vincent et al., 2005)

    • Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).” (Formiga et al., 2021)

    • Discovered in the late 70’s ivermectin, it was “Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it kills a wide range of internal and external parasites in commercial livestock and companion animals. It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found.” (Crump and Omura, 2011)

    • Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement” (Rajter et al., 2021)

    • “Here, we show that countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.” (Hellwig and Maia, 2021)

    • “The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases has been remarkable. It is extremely unlikely that the observed results could have occurred by chance” (Zaidi and Dehgani-Mobaraki, 2021)

    • “Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 29 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.” (ivmmeta.com, 2021)

    • “Excitingly, cell culture experiments show robust antiviral action [by ivermectin] towards HIV-1, dengue virus (DENV), Zika virus, West Nile virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Chikungunya virus, Pseudorabies virus, adenovirus, and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).” (Jans and Wagstaff, 2020)

    • Ivermectin can be a potential molecule for prophylaxis and treatment of people infected with Coronavirus, owing to its anti-viral properties coupled with effective cost, availability and good tolerability and safety.” (Vora et al., 2020)

    • Ivermectin 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. In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting” (Heidary and Gharebaghi, 2020)

    • “We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2), with a single addition to Vero-hSLAM cells 2 h post infection with SARS-CoV-2 able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 h” (Caly et al., 2020)

    • Ivermectin exerts broad-spectrum antiviral activity against several animal and human viruses, including both RNA and DNA viruses” (Sharun et al., 2020)

    • “…the authors found Ivermectin-Doxycycline combination therapy had a better success of symptomatic relief; shortened recovery duration, reduced adverse effects, and superior patient compliance compared to the Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin combination. The authors concluded ivermectin as a better choice for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease (Chowdhury et al., 2021)” (Pandey et al., 2020)

    • “Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin…ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (Bryant et al., 2021)” (Bilezikian et al., 2020)

    • Ivermectin (IVM) is one of the best known and most widely used antiparasitic drugs in human and veterinary medicine…IVM has been shown to regulate glucose and cholesterol levels in diabetic mice [1], to suppress malignant cell proliferation in various cancers [2], to inhibit viral replication in several flaviviruses [3], and to reduce survival in major insect vectors of malaria and trypanosomiasis [4,5].” (Laing et al., 2017)

    • Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug with a broad spectrum of activity, high efficacy as well as a wide margin of safety” (Gonzalez Canga et al., 2008)

    • “This study demonstrated that ivermectin is generally well tolerated at these higher doses and more frequent regimens.” (Guzzo et al., 2002)

  • Other factors that assist (e.g. Vitamin D, diet)
    • Vitamin D deficiency significantly correlates with the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection…Active forms of vitamin D and lumisterol can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication machinery enzymes, which indicates that novel vitamin D and lumisterol metabolites are candidates for antiviral drug research.” (Qayyum et al., 2021)

    • “Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-infection deficiency of vitamin D was associated with increased disease severity and mortality” (Dror et al., 2021)

    • “There is growing evidence that vitamin D signaling is active throughout the immune system, and that it is physiologically important in protecting the human host from bacterial and viral invaders… Many clinical reports suggest that vitamin D supplementation, at least for the elderly and patients with low 25D status, can help in protecting against COVID-19 infection and severe course of disease.” (Ismailova and White, 2021)

    • “In conclusion, low serum 25 (OH) Vitamin-D level was significantly associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. The limited currently available data suggest that sufficient Vitamin D level in serum is associated with a significantly decreased risk of COVID-19 infection.” (Teshome et al., 2021)

    • “We found a markedly high prevalence (100%) of hypovitaminosis D in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, suggesting a possible role of low vitamin D status in increasing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent hospitalization. The inverse association between serum 25(OH)D levels and risk of in-hospital mortality observed in our cohort suggests that a lower vitamin D status upon admission may represent a modifiable and independent risk factor for poor prognosis in COVID-19.” (Infante et al., 2021)

    • “Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with calcifediol [25-hydroxyvitamin D3), compared with those not receiving calcifediol, was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days.” (Alcala-Diaz et al., 2021)

    • “…calcifediol treatment on ICU admission…showed that treated patients had a reduced risk to require ICU. Overall mortality was 10%. In the Intention-to-Treat analysis, 21 (4.7%) out of 447 patients treated with calcifediol at admission died compared to 62 patients (15.9%) out of 391 non-treated.” (Nogues et al., 2021)

    • Vitamin D supplementation might be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially when administered after the diagnosis of COVID-19.” (Pal et al., 2021)

    • “A 5000 IU daily oral vitamin D3 supplementation for 2 weeks reduces the time to recovery for cough and gustatory sensory loss among patients with sub-optimal vitamin D status and mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. The use of 5000 IU vitamin D3 as an adjuvant therapy for COVID-19 patients with suboptimal vitamin D status, even for a short duration, is recommended” (Sabico et al., 2021)

    • “Therapeutic improvement in vitamin D to 80–100 ng/ml has significantly reduced the inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19 without any side effects.” (Lakkireddy et al., 2021)

    • “Nevertheless, recent publications consistently show a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients presenting with severe forms of COVID-19 (Grant et al., 2020)” (Bilezikian et al., 2020)

    • “Through several mechanisms, vitamin D can reduce risk of infections. Those mechanisms include inducing cathelicidins and defensins that can lower viral replication rates and reducing concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines that produce the inflammation that injures the lining of the lungs, leading to pneumonia, as well as increasing concentrations of anti-inflammatory cytokines.” (Bilezikian et al., 2020)

    • “Several studies demonstrated the role of vitamin D in reducing the risk of acute viral respiratory tract infections and pneumonia. These include direct inhibition with viral replication or with anti-inflammatory or immunomodulatory ways. In the meta-analysis, vitamin D supplementation has been shown as safe and effective against acute respiratory tract infections.” (Ali, 2020)

    • “In this review, inflammation associated with pre-existing comorbidities was highlighted as a significant risk factor for COVID-19 patients…Nutrients such as vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc may hold some promise for the treatment of COVID-19. Likewise, nutrients with anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, and antioxidant properties may prevent or attenuate the inflammatory and vascular manifestations associated with COVID-19. Indeed, following healthy dietary patterns and avoiding unhealthy dietary patterns, such as the Mediterranean and Western diets, respectively, may have beneficial effects against infection but require significantly more research. Our primary conclusion is that it is vitally important to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle during the pandemic.” (Zabetakis et al., 2020)

    • “Our pilot study demonstrated that administration of a high dose of Calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a main metabolite of vitamin D endocrine system, significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment of patients requiring hospitalization due to proven COVID-19.” (Entrenas Castillo et al., 2020)

    • “…increased mortality in vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients. As per the flexible approach in the current COVID-19 pandemic authors recommend mass administration of vitamin D supplements to population at risk for COVID-19.” (Jain et al., 2020)

    • “…treatment with cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] booster therapy, regardless of baseline serum 25(OH)D levels, appears to be associated with a reduced risk of mortality in acute in-patients admitted with COVID-19.” (Ling et al., 2020)

    • “Based on many preclinical studies and observational data in humans, ARDS [Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome – major complication of COVID-19] may be aggravated by vitamin D deficiency and tapered down by activation of the vitamin D receptor” (Quesada-Gomez et al., 2020)

    • “A vitamin D / magnesium / vitamin B12 combination in older COVID-19 patients was associated with a significant reduction in the proportion of patients with clinical deterioration requiring oxygen support, intensive care support, or both. This study supports further larger randomized controlled trials to ascertain the full benefit of this combination in ameliorating the severity of COVID-19.” (Tan et al., 2020)

    • “The National Academy of Medicine…recommends the rapid serum vitamin D (i.e. 25 OHD) testing in people over 60 years of age with Covid-19, and a loading dose of 50,000 to 100,000 IU in case of deficiency, which could help limit respiratory complications; recommends vitamin D supplementation of 800 to 1000 IU/day in people under 60, as soon as the diagnosis of Covid-19 is confirmed.” (French National Academy of Medicine, 2020)

    • “We observed that Mediterranean diet adherence was negatively associated with both COVID-19 cases and related deaths across 17 regions in Spain and that the relationship remained when adjusted for factors of well-being. We also observed a negative association between Mediterranean diet adherence and COVID-19 related deaths across 23 countries when adjusted for factors of well-being and physical inactivity. The anti-inflammatory properties of the Mediterranean diet – likely due to the polyphenol content of the diet – may be a biological basis to explain our findings.” (Greene et al., 2021)

9.    Additional Information

9.1 Efforts to Control Fertility

Concerns have been raised as to the potential that COVID-19 vaccines may affect fertility. Certainly, some of the evidence indicates such a potential. While there is still a necessity for additional research, the literature below indicates that attempts of population control via the use of vaccines have been in the works for many years and even implemented in some countries. This is what we are aware of. It is obviously difficult/impossible to address what we are not aware of. This is only some of the evidence, and while it does not relate directly to the COVID-19 vaccines, it indicates the necessity for serious consideration of the claims being made of potential harms to fertility.

  • The desire to control fertility and the population with vaccines
    • “Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya “anti-tetanus” campaign was reasonable called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.” (Oller et al., 2017)

    • “Vaccines have been proposed as one of the strategies for population control…Further scientific inputs are required to increase the efficacy of contraceptive vaccines and establish their safety beyond doubt, before they can become applicable for control of fertility in humans.” (Gupta and Bansal, 2010)

    • “A priest, president of Human Life International (HLI) based in Maryland, has asked Congress to investigate reports of women in some developing countries unknowingly receiving a tetanus vaccine laced with the anti-fertility drug human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)…In addition to the World Health Organization (WHO), other organizations involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG include the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State universities. The priest objects that, if indeed the purpose of the mass vaccinations is to prevent pregnancies, women are uninformed, unsuspecting, and unconsenting victims.” (1995)

    • “Vaccines are under development for the control of fertility in males and females…The developments on the anti-hCG vaccine for women are encouraging…It is logical to expect that the source of most of the antigens employed for anti-fertility vaccines in the future will be either synthetic (as for GnRH) or from recombinant DNA techniques (hCG and sperm antigens). Vectors such as vaccinia offer an attractive mode of making the anti-fertility vaccines” (Talwar and Raghupathy, 1989)

9.2 Planned event?

Additional concerns are raised when one considers Event 201 – A Global Pandemic Exercises. As the goal of this document is not geared towards making up the mind of the reader, only limited information is provided, sufficient for the reader to follow up and make up their own mind.

Event 201 is reported to have taken place Friday, October 18, 2019 at The Pierre hotel, New York, NY. The website shows sponsorships from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, World Economic Form and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While confirming credibility and validity has become more difficult in the current age, the fact that this website continues to display the logos of the foundations involved, without any difficulty, in addition to the disclaimer addressed below do not appear to indicate fraud with regards to reality of the event actually happening. What, of course, remains totally unknown is whether the denials of any planned pandemic can be believed.

The exercise is described as:

a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic. 15 global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise

A document with recommendations made by the three organizations can also be found on the website. The Event 201 scenario is also described here. Interestingly, the first paragraph on the scenario page states:

Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”

Interestingly, the website has a disclaimer:

In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a pandemic tabletop exercise called Event 201 with partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Recently, the Center for Health Security has received questions about whether that pandemic exercise predicted the current novel coronavirus outbreak in China. To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise.


Coincidence or planned? Coincidence or a major violation of human rights? Coincidence or a crime against humanity?


1 This paper involved research conducted using support from Gilead Sciences which is the developer of remdesivir. This is fully declared in the paper.


10.    Acknowledgment

While I have researched and continue to research extensively on the topics addressed in this document myself, I want to also give credit to the many people who have helped and continue to help by bringing the articles that I had not/have not seen to my attention: My research assistant, Christina Camilleri, the student workers in my lab, students I teach, friends and colleagues, and also the many people I do not know on LinkedIn and other such websites who post single articles that I have not/had not seen, allowing me to compile the information into this document….and to my family who puts up with me doing this additional research work in order to share the truth and reality of SARS-CoV2 and COVID-19; work, that in reality would not be necessary, if it were not for the inhumanity that we have observed around us and if scientists were doing what they are truly called to do – seeking the truth for the good of humanity. Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank God for the beauty of His creation through which He reveals Himself to us.


11.    References

Click here for the full reference list.