Breaking News

Shocking 86% of Children suffered an Adverse Reaction to the Pfizer Covid Vaccine in Clinical Trial

The FDA granted emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine for use in children aged 12 and over in the USA back on the 10th May 2021. The EMA has recently followed suit, recommending the Pfizer jab should be administered to children aged 12 and over in EU countries.

Because of this there can be no doubt that the MHRA will follow the FDA and EMA’s lead and also grant emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer jab for use in children aged 12 and above.

But are you aware that the clinical trials carried out by Pfizer on children aged 12 – 15 reveal that 86% of children who were given at least one dose of the jab suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to serious?


Buy us a coffee!

The information is publicly available and contained within an FDA fact sheet which can be viewed here (see page 25, table 5 on-wards).

That fact sheet contains two tables that detail the alarming rate of side effects and damage experienced by 12 – 15- year-old children who were given at least one dose of the Pfizer mRNA “vaccine” (gene therapy).

The tables shows that 1,127 children were given one dose of the mRNA jab, but only 1,097 children received the second dose. This fact in itself raises questions as to why 30 children did not receive a second dose of the Pfizer jab, and we doubt the answer is pretty.

Of the 1,127 children who received a first dose of the jab a shocking 86% experienced an adverse reaction. Of the 1,097 children who received a second dose of the jab a shocking 78.9% experienced an adverse reaction.

Table 6 within the FDA fact sheet shows that 20.3% of the 1,127 children who received a first dose of the Pfizer jab experienced fever, meanwhile 39.3% of the 1,097 children who received a second dose experienced fever.

Another 60.1% of the children who received the first dose also experienced fatigue, whilst 66% of those who received a second dose experienced fatigue.

Another 55.3% of the children who received the first dose also experienced a headache, and 64.5% of those who received a second dose also experienced a headache.

27.6% of the children who recieved the first dose also experienced chills, whilst 41.5% of the children who received a second dose experienced chills. 2.8% of the children who received a first dose experienced vomiting, whilst 2.6% of the children who received a second dose experienced vomiting.

The final specific adverse reaction that the FDA list is diarrhoea. Of the 1,127 children who received the first dose 8.0% suffered with diarrhoea. Of the 1,097 children who received a 2nd dose 5.9% experienced diarrhoea.

It’s shocking to find that even after 86% of children reported an adverse reaction after the first dose that the study was allowed to proceed and the same children were given a second dose of the jab.

The FDA document also states that 0.04% suffered an extremely serious adverse reaction but does not go in to detail on the type of reactions that occurred. 0.04% may sound small but lets put this into perspective. In the United Kingdom there are approximately 4 million children aged between 12 – 15-years-old. If every single one of these children were to receive just one dose of the Pfizer mRNA jab then according to the study we can expect to see 1,600 suffer an extremely serious adverse reaction which could include death.

But if this then extends to children under the age of 12 and a similar rate of extremely serious adverse reaction occurs then we can expect to see that number increase to around 5,200.

However we cannot forget that the study shows that 86% of recipients suffered an adverse reaction. This means that if just 12-15-year-old’s are given one dose of the Pfizer jab we can expect to see 3.4 million of them suffer an adverse reaction.


Buy us a coffee!

When comparing this rate against the actual risk of children even mildly suffering from the alleged Covid-19 disease we are bewildered at how medicine regulators have concluded that the benefits of these experimental vaccines outweigh the risks.

And these are experimental vaccines, the FDA document even tells the public this in which it states the following –

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

The FDA also confirms in their fact sheet that the Pfizer jab (alongside all other Covid jabs) is still in clinical trials –

‘Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials.

They are coming for your children. Your silence and compliance has allowed this to happen. Any rational person, after reading this “fact sheet” from the FDA, would surely find the courage to say “enough is enough”?

Please share this widely so parents across the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States can make an informed decision for their children.



We urgently need your support!
We rely solely on your support to help

fund our investigative reports.
If you like what we do then please help us to
keep doing it by supporting us today.


Please choose your preferred
method to show your support


Nurse claims fully vaccinated Covid-19 patients are being treated with Ivermectin whilst the unvaccinated are being put on ventilators
A nurse of 40 years has claimed that fully vaccinated Covid-19 patients …
URGENT! – 13 reasons why you should not allow your Child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine
At a press conference on Monday September 13th, the four Chief Medical …
BREAKING – 62% of all excess deaths since March 2020 have occurred at home; but just 3% are associated with Covid-19 – Are the Covid-19 Vaccines killing thousands?
Since March 7th 2020 there have been 250,725 deaths that have occurred …
FDA experts reveal the Covid-19 Vaccines are killing at least 2 people for every 1 life they save as they vote 16 – 2 against the approval of booster shots
FDA experts have unexpectedly voted against approving Covid-19 vaccination boosters for anyone …
BREAKING – Fully vaccinated account for a huge 74% of Covid-19 deaths in the UK summer wave according to latest Public Health England report
The latest Public Health England technical briefing on Covid-19 variants of concern …
The “Pandemic” Has Ended for Much of India, How Did They Do It? – Not With Covid Injections but a Drug That Costs Less Than £2 Per Person: Ivermectin
Dr. Pierre Kory, an American pulmonary and critical care specialist and founding …
Judge in New York Temporarily Halts State’s Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate
Healthcare workers in New York have been given a temporary reprieve from …
16-Year-Old Who Developed Neurological Symptoms After Pfizer Vaccine: ‘I Just Want My Life Back’
Sarah Green, 16, has developed tremors and crippling migraines after she received …
1.2 million reasons why you should NOT allow your child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine – UK Government releases 33rd update on Adverse Reactions to the Covid-19 Vaccines
Chris Whitty has advised the UK Government that they should offer the …
Share this page to Telegram
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
1 month ago

[…] the Pfizer mRNA jab to be safe for use in children, however, is anyone’s guess when you consider 86% of children who took part in the short two month trial suffered an adverse reaction to the Pfizer jab ranging […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] the Pfizer mRNA jab to be safe for use in children, however, is anyone’s guess when you consider 86% of children who took part in the short two month trial suffered an adverse reaction to the Pfizer jab ranging […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to be given to children over the age of 12. This was despite 86% of children suffering an adverse reaction to the jab in the extremely short and small clinical trial, and despite numerous reports of […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to be given to children over the age of 12. This was despite 86% of children suffering an adverse reaction to the jab in the extremely short and small clinical trial, and despite numerous reports of […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] mRNA da somministrare a bambini di età superiore ai 12 anni. Ciò è avvenuto nonostante l’ 86% dei bambini abbia subito una reazione avversa al siero nello studio clinico estremamente breve e di piccole dimensioni e nonostante numerosi […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] For submitting to the vaccine, the schoolchildren and parents will be offered “free backpacks and other resources” along with their experimental jab: The same Pfizer vaccine that caused 86% of children to suffer an adverse reaction during clinical trials. […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] For submitting to the vaccine, the schoolchildren and parents will be offered “free backpacks and other resources” along with their experimental jab: The same Pfizer vaccine that caused 86% of children to suffer an adverse reaction during clinical trials. […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] extrem kurzen und kleinen Studie überhaupt gelesen haben. Wenn ja, dann hätten sie gesehen, dass 86 % der Kinder in der Studie eine Nebenwirkung aufwiesen, die von leicht bis schwerwiegend […]

trackback
29 days ago

[…] the results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

trackback
29 days ago

[…] the results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

trackback
28 days ago

[…] del estudio extremadamente corto y pequeño. Si lo hubieran hecho, habrían visto que el 86% de los niños en el estudio sufrieron una reacción adversa que iba de leve a extremadamente […]

trackback
28 days ago

[…] del estudio extremadamente corto y pequeño. Si lo hubieran hecho, habrían visto que el 86% de los niños en el estudio sufrieron una reacción adversa que iba de leve a extremadamente […]

trackback
28 days ago

[…] results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

Barry Woods
Barry Woods
28 days ago

If you download the appendix to the Pfizer trial research.. there is another table. Where it shows there were 2 severe or life threatening adverse reactions after the 1st dose of Pfizer..in 1131 children (and children with drawn from the trial

given that only really healthy kids would get ‘volunteered for a trial.. real world this could be higher.

2 severe or life threatening adverse reaction, out of 1131..
is the equivalent, of about 2 per secondary school… there are thousands of secondary schools in the UK. On those figures hundreds could be at risk of dying…

Barry Woods
Barry Woods
28 days ago

life threatening adverse reactions, doesn’t make into the main paper, that is buried away in a table pg 9 in the appendix, to the paper

1 in ~560 chance or severe or life threatening adverse reaction (12-15 year olds – 2 out of  1331 in the trial)

also – limitations – no long term safety (or efficacy) data available 

Barry Woods
Barry Woods
28 days ago

The research paper is here. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2107456
at the bottom of that page is a link to the research papers – Supplementary Appendix.

Download it, pg 9, in a table. It shows 2 either life threatening or severe adverse reactions (out of 1131 children) after the 1st dose of Pfizer. None in placebo groups.

I hope everyone is then prepared for potentially thousands of severe or life threatening adverse reactions in children.. if the government tries to ‘jab’ 12-15 year olds…..

some guy
some guy
Reply to  Barry Woods
21 days ago
trackback
26 days ago

[…] extrêmement courte et petite. S’ils l’avaient fait, ils auraient pu constater que 86 % des enfants de l’étude avaient subi une réaction allant de légère à extrêmement […]

trackback
26 days ago

[…] the results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

trackback
26 days ago

[…] the results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

trackback
26 days ago

[…] the results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

trackback
26 days ago

[…] os resultados do estudo extremamente curto e pequeno. Se tivessem, eles teriam visto que 86% das crianças no estudo sofreram uma reação adversa que varia de leve a extremamente […]

trackback
26 days ago

[…] the results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

trackback
25 days ago

[…] results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

trackback
25 days ago

[…] the results of the extremely short and small study. If they have then they would have seen that 86% of children in the study suffered an adverse reaction ranging from mild to extremely […]

Charlotte Bice
Charlotte Bice
24 days ago

This is ridiculous! They know the children don’t have problems with this virus. These people need to be taken to trial for this harm against humanity! I pray they’ll all be brought to justice very, very soon!!!

trackback
9 days ago

[…] they not read the report on the extremely short and small clinical trial which found 86% of the children suffered an […]

trackback
6 days ago

[…] There is no scientifically valid reason to be giving young children the Covid jabs, even more so when you consider how children have been injured by these jabs. The Pfizer jab, which has been approved for emergency use on children in countries such as the US, actually caused 86% of children to suffer from an adverse event ranging from mild to severe during trials. […]

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

Second Breastfeeding Baby Dies Of Blood Clots And Inflamed Arteries After Mother’s Pfizer Shot As Per VAERS
September 7, 2021
According to VAERS data a breastfeeding baby died of blood clots and inflamed arteries weeks after his mother was given the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The case is the second known account of a breastfeeding baby dying of blood clots from vaccine.
A six-week-old breastfeeding baby became inexplicably ill with a high fever after his mother received a COVID-19 vaccine and he died weeks later with blood clots in his “severely inflamed arteries,” according to a vaccine adverse event report filed with the U.S. government.
An unidentified 36-year-old woman from New Mexico said she received a first dose of Pfizer’s Covid-19 jab on June 4, 2021 when she was breastfeeding her six-week-old infant son, according to a report (archive link) filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
“On July 17, my baby passed away,” says the report, which first appeared on VAERS August 13, 2021.
The baby boy became “very sick with a high fever” on June 21 when he was treated with intravenous antibiotics for two weeks in hospital for what was assumed to be a bacterial infection.
The VAERS report says that hospital tests “never found any specific bacteria,” and called his diagnosis “culture-negative sepsis.” It states that at the end of his two-week hospital stay he tested positive for rhinovirus and was sent home.
At home, the baby developed further symptoms over the following week, including a swollen eyelid, “strange rashes” and vomiting. His mother returned him to the hospital July 15 when he was diagnosed with “atypical Kawasaki disease”
The Mayo Clinic describes Kawasaki disease as a condition primarily affecting children which causes swelling (inflammation) in the walls of medium-sized arteries throughout the body.
Coronary arteries, which supply blood to the heart muscle tend to be most affected, but the disease can also affect lymph nodes that swell during an infection as well as the membranes inside the mouth, nose and throat.
Most cases of Kawasaki disease are “usually treatable and most children recover from Kawasaki disease without serious problems,” according to the Mayo Clinic website.
After the baby was returned to hospital on July 15, he “passed away shortly thereafter from clots in his severely inflamed arteries,” states the VAERS report which inaccurately lists the mother’s age, 36 years, for the age of the deceased.
Few other details about the case are provided. His mother reports that he had been born three weeks early when she developed appendicitis.
Spike protein in breastmilk?
In the report to the vaccine adverse event system, she questioned the role of the vaccine in her baby’s death.
“I am curious if the spike protein could have gone through the breast milk and caused an inflammatory response in my child. They say Kawasaki disease presents very similarly to the Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome in children that they are seeing in post Covid infections,” she said.
“However, if they know that antibodies go through the breastmilk as a good thing, then why wouldn’t the spike protein also go through the breastmilk and potentially cause problems.”
Young children are becoming victims of Multi System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS), due to the increase in the number of antibodies being made in the body from the COVID-19 vaccine which is causing damage to the immune system which is attacking other organs.
At least 17 children have died in Jaipur and more than 2000 around India are suffering from MIS caused due to exccess antibodies from the COVID vaccine.
In May, GreatGameIndia published a story on the VAERS entry regarding the death of a 2-year-old from Pfizer vaccine.
Since, the vaccination trials were only for children from age 5 to 11 officially, we asked “how come a 2 year old baby got vaccinated” and that “the incident should be investigated by CDC immediately.”
Later, the CDC has removed the VAERS entry without providing any details.

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

Tomorrows World
Theoretically, human civilization may still await a fundamental leap forward. But as the experience of previous revolutions shows, it will be the result of a severe crisis, which is accompanied by a dramatic reduction in the size of the human population. And in the worst case, humanity may be unable to overcome the polifurcation point of the middle of the century.
Another way for civilization to move to the next level of development is for humanity to develop and pass a new evolutionary strategy as soon as possible. The foundation of this strategy is constant and intensive development, reaching a higher level for controlling reality, towards new ideas, meanings and values, and the creation of a fundamentally new model for the existence of society: spiritual, humanistic, ethical and high-tech.
SPIRITUAL AND BODILY EVOLUTION AS A NEW DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
The successful realization of the new development strategy requires large-scale transformations from humanity, comparable with not one, but two revolutions of the past: spiritual and scientific and technical.
A spiritual revolution means a wide program for the transformation of the individual and mass consciousness, according to which:
– negative human qualities will be taken under control: aggression towards others, excessively egoistic aspirations, unrestrained consumerism, inertia;
– positive qualities will be brought out: inner purity, beauty, sympathy, love for all living beings, harmony, altruism, the ability to serve the good of society, sacrifice and commitment;
– the creative awareness of the genius will be revealed, along with the resources of development of the personality, stability of emotion and will, initiative, figurative thinking;
– using tested and recommended ancient methods, extrasensory perception will be developed, along with skills of controlling life energy, regulating inner process of the organism using will power, controlling reality by the power of thought.
As our own potential is developed and revealed, our individual consciousness will become complex, flourishing, flexible and playful. Multi-varied and paradoxical, it will inevitably begin to come into conflict with its limited mortal protein-based carrier – the biological body.
Overcoming this conflict will be the main stimulus for a scientific and technical breakthrough. The convergent development of NBICS-technologies open up possibilities for creating self-organizing systems capable of reproducing the functions of life and the mind on non-biological substrates. Over the coming decades, human beings will gain a new, practically immortality carrier of the personality.
This is the path of replacing biological evolution with cybernetic evolution. In these transformations lies the essence of a new strategy of development of society – the strategy of spiritual and bodily evolution, or evolutionary trans-humanism.
Modern science already knows a great deal about the evolution of the cybernetic body. Cybernetic bodies will develop from robotic bodies to bodies made of a cluster of nano-robots, and then to hologram bodies. These transformations will completely change the accustomed infrastructure of human civilization.
In describing the prospects of the future of humanity connected with revealing the potential of individual consciousness, we may rely primarily on ancient spiritual texts, but we expect that there will be a flood of new approaches to studying this in cognitive sciences.
Evolutionary trans-humanism will make it possible to move to a new form of social organization, to a completely new era – neo-humanism, where the great goal will be evolution, the self-improvement of every human and all humanity. All goals and tasks of future society will be set taking into account the evolution of the new cybernetic body of the human, and revealing the potential of the human consciousness.
Pursuing this goal will become the voluntary and conscious choice of everyone. In this society, made up of enthusiasts wishing to serve a great global goal, a super-task, a mega-project, corruption, crime and inter-ethnic conflicts will be unthinkable.
WHAT NEW HUMANITY WILL BE LIKE
Throughout history, the evolution of human society has had the following vectors:
– human beings have moved away from nature, their influence on natural processes has increased, and the ecological niche has expanded and deepened;
– demographic growth, growth of the lifespan of the individual;
– an increase in the internal diversity of society, its complexities and technological power;
– a change in the inner nature of the human being in accordance with the growth of the scale and consequences of their activity;
– an increase in the influence of culture on the historical process;
– an increase in the level of self-organization and integration of society
The realization of the new evolutionary strategy will to a significant degree increase the self-organization of society, and the process will begin of the integration of humanity into a common collective super-mind, a super-being, capable of solving many problems that seem impossible to solve today within a short period.
Neo-humanity will change the bodily nature of the human being, and make them immortal, free, playful, independent of limitations of space and time. These transformations will not restrict the individuality and freedom of each separate person, but on the contrary will ensure maximum creative development and reveal their unlimited potential. This is an adequate response by thinking humanity to the challenges, crises, risks and threats of the new times.
Neo-humanity as an ideology, socio-economic structure and form of civilization will open a fundamentally new era – the cosmic civilization of people of the future. It will provide something that has never existed before and which could not have existed, something which may appear fantastic and incredible today. All history will prove to be merely a process of preparing for an unprecedented leap forward in evolution.
The main features of neo-humanity:
– the aspiration towards self-improvement and self-development – instead of creating, accumulating and consuming material goods;
– the ability to unite in a collective gigantic mind, the noosphere, a complex self-organizing free society of progress, evolution and synergism. Values, ideology, the mentality and economy are focused on moving forward, on the growth of the global nature of goals and tasks;
– synergy of technological and spiritual development, super-mind, immortality, multi-corporeality, cosmic creativity, technologies directed towards improving the physical carrier of the personality.
The world will become the way that we plan it to be. For the swift implementation of the necessary transformations, we must bring together as many enthusiasts as possible, linked by a common vision of the future, and ready to serve a great idea. Existing scientific achievements and reserves are sufficient to start putting this plan into practice. The great goal is a new futuristic reality, based on five principles: high spirituality, high culture, high ethics, high science and high technologies.
The goals and tasks of the transitional period – the 21st century:
– to refocus science completely on the creation of breakthrough technologies (such as for the realization of the “Avatar” project to transfer the personality to an alternative carrier, the main technological project of the third millennium);
– to create conditions for an amalgam of science and spirituality;
– to develop and introduce new energy sources;
– to create new forms of transport (individual portable super-speed means of transport);
– to create eco- and futuropolies with a controllable climate;
– to create underwater, floating and flying cities;
– to develop and introduce weaponry that prevent the possibility of waging war;
– to develop new space technologies, to create pre-requisites for human expansion into outer space;
– to develop trans-humanist medicine based on avatar technologies: technologies of cybernetic artificial organs and systems, technologies for moving the individual mind of the human being to a non-biological substrate – an artificial body;
– to eliminate aging, illnesses and death;
– to make people with restricted abilities become people with additional abilities;
– to nurture people who are spiritual, humane, with aspirations for the future, creative, and with belief in their divine potential;
– to overcome existing global crises and a possible catastrophe of the middle of the century;
– to introduce new organizational technologies for managing society;
– to form a self-organizing human society directed towards further self-improvement according to the principle of blossoming complexity;
– to create conditions for cultural flourishing and the development of every nation, bringing them together under the aegis of evolutionary trans-humanism, in order to transform a citizen of a separate nation into a citizen of Earth;
– to carry out a cultural revolution;
– to ensure a drastic rise in the level of mass education;
– to persuade the international community of the importance of ideas of evolutionary trans-humanism;
– to eliminate crime and any conflicts, including conflicts between ethnic groups and nations;
– to neutralize natural disasters and cataclysms.
The goals and tasks of neo-humanity for the 22nd-23rd centuries:
– to conquer aging and dying universally, for every human being and all of humanity, using technologies for moving the individual to another carrier. To gain unlimited immortality, i.e. to perfect the capabilities of the artificial body in order to realize existence of unlimited length for it (freedom in time);
– to realize free unlimited movement in outer space;
– to give everyone the opportunity to gain multi-corporeality, a mind distributed on many carriers, the free life of one mind in several immortal bodies and control of them;
– to expand the living environment to multi-reality – the ability to live and move freely in several realities at the same time.
The goals and tasks of neo-humanity in the 23rd-30th centuries:
– to realize expansion into outer space – humanity settling in the near and distant cosmos, unlimited freedom of movement in the Universe, liberation from the need to live in just one specific place – on planet Earth (“Earth is the cradle of mankind, but one cannot live in a cradle all one’s life”. K.E. Tsiolkovsky);
– to realize full control of reality by the power of thought and will, the possibility to self-organize, order and complicate space, and by creating complex unequal systems, to make new worlds;
– to create a personal Universe controlled by the mind for every neo-human being;
– to realize control over the course of personal history by the power of thought, going as far as to complete all historical process in a point of singularity (end of history, contraction of time).
Dmitry Itskov
2045 Initiative founder

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

Toxic substance exposures in the COVID-19 pandemic
Kostoff RN1,
Briggs MB2,
Porter AL3,
Hernández AF4,
Abdollahi M5,
Aschner M6,
Tsatsakis A7
Author information
Food and Chemical Toxicology : an International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 14 Aug 2020, 145:111687
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2020.111687 PMID: 32805343 PMCID: PMC7426727
Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and previous pandemics have been viewed almost exclusively as virology problems, with toxicology problems mostly being ignored. This perspective is not supported by the evolution of COVID-19, where the impact of real-life exposures to multiple toxic stressors degrading the immune system is followed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus exploiting the degraded immune system to trigger a chain of events ultimately leading to COVID-19. This immune system degradation from multiple toxic stressors (chemical, physical, biological, psychosocial stressors) means that attribution of serious consequences from COVID-19 should be made to the virus-toxic stressors nexus, not to any of the nexus constituents in isolation. The leading toxic stressors (identified in this study as contributing to COVID-19) are pervasive, contributing to myriad chronic diseases as well as immune system degradation. They increase the likelihood for comorbidities and mortality associated with COVID-19. For the short-term, tactical/reactive virology-focused treatments are of higher priority than strategic/proactive toxicology-focused treatments, although both could be implemented in parallel to reinforce each other. However, for long-term pandemic prevention, toxicology-based approaches should be given higher priority than virology-based approaches. Since current COVID-19 treatments globally ignore the toxicology component almost completely, only limited benefits can be expected from these treatments.
Ronald N. Kostoff,a, Michael B. Briggs,b Alan L. Porter,c,d Antonio F. Hernández,e Mohammad Abdollahi,f Michael Aschner,g,h and Aristidis Tsatsakish,i
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and previous pandemics have been viewed almost exclusively as virology problems, with toxicology problems mostly being ignored. This perspective is not supported by the evolution of COVID-19, where the impact of real-life exposures to multiple toxic stressors degrading the immune system is followed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus exploiting the degraded immune system to trigger a chain of events ultimately leading to COVID-19. This immune system degradation from multiple toxic stressors (chemical, physical, biological, psychosocial stressors) means that attribution of serious consequences from COVID-19 should be made to the virus-toxic stressors nexus, not to any of the nexus constituents in isolation. The leading toxic stressors (identified in this study as contributing to COVID-19) are pervasive, contributing to myriad chronic diseases as well as immune system degradation. They increase the likelihood for comorbidities and mortality associated with COVID-19.
For the short-term, tactical/reactive virology-focused treatments are of higher priority than strategic/proactive toxicology-focused treatments, although both could be implemented in parallel to reinforce each other. However, for long-term pandemic prevention, toxicology-based approaches should be given higher priority than virology-based approaches. Since current COVID-19 treatments globally ignore the toxicology component almost completely, only limited benefits can be expected from these treatments.
Keywords: Pandemic, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Toxic mixture, Contributing factors, Immune system
1. The human virome
We live in a “sea” of viruses known as the human virome (Lecuit and Eloit, 2013). Viruses are integral to life itself; they are nature’s way of ensuring “survival of the fittest”. They constantly probe the immune system defenses of the body. If the immune system is healthy, the viruses are neutralized. If the immune system is degraded/dysfunctional, pathogenic viruses can invade the cells, replicate, and trigger a chain of events leading to clinically manifested infectious disease.
Wylie et al., (2014) analyzed DNA viruses from up to five significant body habitats (nose, skin, mouth, vagina, and stool) of 102 subjects (generally healthy adults; not symptomatic for acute infections; not diagnosed with HPV infection within the last two years; females had not had any active genital herpes infection within the last two months). They detected an average of 5.5 viral genera in each individual. These included herpesviruses, papillomaviruses, polyomaviruses, adenoviruses, anelloviruses, parvoviruses, and circoviruses.
In a later study, Wylie (2017) identified common viruses detected in the respiratory tract virome, including picornaviruses, paramyxoviruses, orthomyxoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, parvoviruses, herpesviruses, anelloviruses, papillomaviruses, and polyomaviruses. Thus, the viral distribution of the above experiments depended largely on the body sampling site.
2. Beneficial versus pathogenic effects of viruses
Viruses are parasites of host organisms, and produce beneficial or pathogenic effects. The latter include infectious diseases to humans, animals, and other living organisms. Emerging evidence suggests that some viruses could have beneficial effects, including host protection against second virus, protection against non-infectious diseases by childhood virus infection, regulation of gut microbiota, and host protection by endogenous retroviruses (Watanabe and Kawaoka, 2020).
There is a large diversity of viruses; currently, approximately 263 viruses from 25 viral families can infect humans. Most emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, caused by viruses that originate in wild animals (e.g., primates, rodents and bats). The PREDICT program (https://ohi.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/programs-projects/predict-project) has identified over 1100 viruses in animals and humans. According to the Global Virome Project (http://www.globalviromeproject.org), ~1.67 million yet-to-be-discovered viral species from key zoonotic viral families may exist in mammal and avian hosts, with 631,000–827,000 of them having zoonotic potential (Watanabe and Kawaoka, 2020).
The mammalian virome includes diverse commensal and pathogenic viruses that evoke a broad range of immune responses from the host. A subset of the virome (in particular, zoonotic viruses that appear to be pathogenic in humans) challenges the immune system continually. This process appears to be a dual-edged sword. Healthy immune systems respond optimally to viral challenges and are further strengthened by the continual challenges, offering additional protection against other viral challenges. Degraded/dysfunctional immune systems over-respond or under-respond to viral challenges, and are thus unable to prevent the occurrence of a life-threatening clinical course.
3. Role of SARS-CoV-2 in emergence of COVID-19
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the zoonotic virus most closely associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There are strong misconceptions about the role played by SARS-CoV-2 in the emergence of COVID-19, especially the severity of COVID-19 in selected demographic groups. These misconceptions result in treatments focused on virology without any consideration of toxicology: containing/attenuating SARS-CoV-2 exposure/viral loads rather than intrinsically strengthening the immune system. These virology-based actions do not address the underlying toxicology-based problems that must be addressed properly in order to decrease human vulnerability to infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Short-term, reactive virology-based measures (e.g., quarantines, repurposed drugs, etc.) are required to contain the present SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (Farsalinos et al., 2020; Nitulescu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Bhagavathula et al., 2020; Skalny et al., 2020; Torequl Islam et al., 2020). However, the long-term, proactive toxicology-based measures required to intrinsically strengthen the immune system and prevent such future outbreaks have not been addressed. This article attempts to clarify these misconceptions and to propose strategic approaches aimed at intrinsically strengthening the immune system. If such a strategy had been followed consistently in the past, it could have prevented/minimized the incidence and outcome of COVID-19. Still, this strategy is essential to prevent/minimize the adverse effects of the inevitable future pandemics.
4. Immune system health is central to infectious disease resistance
The current COVID-19 pandemic, the SARS pandemic of 2002–2003, and the annual influenza pandemics share some strong commonalities. A small fraction of those who are exposed to the respective viruses become symptomatic; then, a small fraction of those who are symptomatic succumb. Most of these infectious disease deaths result from pneumonia and further acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
A vast majority of the deaths are among the elderly with important comorbidities and degraded/dysfunctional immune systems (Huang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Mo et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2020; Han et al., 2020; Yun et al., 2020; Medetalibeyoglu et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020; Docea et al., 2020; Petrakis et al., 2020), and some deaths among younger people with degraded/dysfunctional immune systems. While there is some decline in the immune system with age, comorbidity is a more reliable predictor of impaired immunity than chronological age in older adults (Castle et al., 2005; Castle et al., 2007; Kalula and Ross, 2008; Kostoff, 2010; Gradinaru et al., 2018; Gradinaru et al., 2017; Petrakis et al., 2017). Underlying health conditions among patients with COVID-19 admitted to Intensive Care Units include hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, immune compromised status, cancer and obesity (ECDC, 2020). Metabolic stress also contributes significantly to the dysfunctional immune response and, thus, to the increased risk associated with viral exposure (Petrakis et al., 2020; Margina et al., 2020).
These chronic diseases have been linked to toxic stressor exposures (chemical, physical, biological, or psychosocial stressors) that disrupt the immune system and lead to an increased risk of death in COVID-19 patients (Sears and Genius, 2012; Kostoff, 2015, 2019; Tsatsakis et al., 2020). Additionally, the risk of dying can also increase when the baseline inflammatory state that occurs with chronic diseases is challenged by exposure to an infectious agent, such as SARS-CoV-2. The most severe consequences from COVID-19 and influenza stem from a degraded/dysfunctional immune system, and the exploitation of the degraded immune system by the virus. For a healthy immune system, the virus would be unable to overcome its strong defenses, and would be neutralized.
What are the contributing factors to a degraded/dysfunctional immune system? Some immune systems are intrinsically dysfunctional due to genetic/hereditary/congenital factors (Goumenou et al., 2020). However, for most people, other factors may play a much stronger role in determining the health of the immune system.
5. Contributing factors to a degraded immune system
A recent study examined the adverse impacts of toxic lifestyle, iatrogenic, biotoxic, environmental/occupational, and psychosocial/socioeconomic factors on the health of the immune system directly or indirectly (Kostoff et al., 2020). Depending on how one aggregated the results, there were anywhere from 1000–2000+ factors that contributed to immune system degradation, and that number was viewed as a gross under-estimate. Some of the factors in this recent study that were shown repeatedly to degrade the immune system include:
   –

Lifestyle (e.g., sedentary lifestyle, tobacco smoking, alcohol intake, drugs of abuse, Western-pattern diet (high-fat diet, ultraprocessed food, sugar and refined grains), chronic sleep deprivation, etc.);
   –

Iatrogenic (e.g., immunosuppressants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen (paracetamol), surgical stress, anesthesia, psychotropic drugs (antidepressants, antiepileptic and antipsychotic drugs), antibiotics, nanomedicine products, adjuvanted vaccines, ionizing radiation therapy, etc.);
   –

Biotoxins/Biomaterials (e.g., aflatoxin, ochratoxin, T-2 toxin, anatoxin-A, mycotoxins, microcystin-LR, toxic dietary cyanobacteria, yessotoxin, scorpion venom, Streptomyces californicus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.);
   –

Occupational/Environmental (e.g., endocrine-disrupting chemicals, microplastics, heavy metals, pesticides, nanoparticles, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), fine particulate matter, air pollution, acrylamide, aromatic halogenated disinfection byproducts, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, crude oil, corexit, sodium fluoride, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, cell or mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices (WTDs) including cordless phones, cell towers, and Wi-Fi, etc.);
   –

PsychoSocial/SocioEconomic (e.g., depression, chronic stress, restraint stress, social isolation, stressful life events, childhood adversity, etc.).
Many of the above factors that contribute to a degraded/dysfunctional immune system are pervasive; they contribute to myriad (especially chronic) diseases (Kostoff, 2015, 2019). Thus, people with immune systems degraded by the above contributing factors also have an increased likelihood of having significant comorbidities, such as the demographic most vulnerable to succumbing from COVID-19.
6. The primacy of toxic stressors’ effects
Given the wide diversity and prevalence of contributing factors shown above, the public is exposed continually to myriad toxic stressors, with each individual being exposed to a distinct combination of toxic stressors over his/her lifetime (Tsatsakis et al., 2016; Hernández et al., 2020). As several studies have shown (Kostoff et al., 2018; Laetz et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2015; Hernandez et al., 2013; Vardavas et al., 2016; Docea et al., 2017, 2018; Kalogeraki et al., 2017), the broader the combination of toxic stressors and the higher the concentrations of its constituents, the higher the likelihood of adverse combined effects. For infectious diseases, the effect of the combination of toxic stressors will determine the degradation/dysfunction of the immune system, and therefore the severity of the consequences of viral exposure. Different people will be exposed to distinct toxic stressors combinations, and will respond differently according to the composition of the toxic stressors combinations and a person’s genetic makeup and overall level of health. There can be substantial synergies among the constituents of a given toxic stressors combination and, depending on the concentration and toxicity profile of the constituents, can result in enhanced adverse effects from the combination (Docea et al., 2019; Kostoff et al., 2018; Ginzburg et al., 2018; Schulz et al., 2018; Zmyslony et al., 2000; Borman et al., 2017; Tsatsakis et al., 2019a, Tsatsakis et al., 2019b, Tsatsakis et al., 2019c, Tsatsakis et al., 2019d; Tsiaoussis et al., 2019; Sergievich et al., 2020; Margina et al., 2019). The key concept here is that the virus-toxic stressors combination nexus is determining the ultimate health outcome, not necessarily any one of the constituents in isolation.
The response of governments worldwide to COVID-19 has been virology-based, disregarding toxicological issues. That response consisted of: (1) imposing a quarantine on the public (residents, travelers) that will restrict exposure to only one constituent of the virus-toxic stressors combination nexus (SARS-CoV-2) that may be triggering the toxic stressors combination-enabled chain of events leading to COVID-19; (2) conducting searches for, and trials of, mainly repurposed anti-viral treatments; and (3) accelerating SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development. The following example highlights the very limited nature of, and flaws inherent in, this virology-centric approach.
Assume hypothetically that a combination of four hazardous elements (including SARS-CoV-2) is required for a lethal bout of pneumonia to occur (see Fig. 1 ). Three of these elements are toxic stressors in the ordinary sense: pesticides, high-fat-diet, wireless radiation. The fourth is SARS-CoV-2.

 Open in a separate window
Fig. 1
Arbitrary attribution of death for multi-component mixture.
Assume that any combination of three of the four hazardous elements would not be sufficient to result in pneumonia, and would result in no symptoms. Assume further that four experiments are conducted to identify the marginal impact of each constituent: each experiment starts with three of the four elements, and the fourth is added. In each of the four experiments, the final result using all four elements will be fatal pneumonia. One could conclude (when assigning responsibility/causation for the death to a single entity) that the marginal impact of adding the fourth element was fatal pneumonia.
In Fig. 1, the four experiments are reflected by the four mixtures shown. In all four cases, the element shown at the top of the mixture is the fourth element added in the experiment. So, for the first experiment (reflected by mixture Ma), where C4 (SARS-CoV-2) was the final element added to the mixture, one could conclude that SARS-CoV-2 was the cause of death, since its addition enabled the emergence of fatal COVID-19. Test kits would show the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in biological samples, and that could be used as confirmation.
For the second experiment (reflected by mixture Mb), where C3 (pesticides) was the final element added to the mixture, one could conclude that pesticides were the cause of death, since their addition enabled the emergence of fatal COVID-19. Test kits would show the presence of pesticides in biological samples, and that could be used as confirmation.
This procedure would be repeated for all four elements, and show that if one chose to select a single element for cause of death, it could be any of the four based on the marginal impact. So, once the choice of variables is switched from the combination of constituents as a single element to each constituent of the combination as a single element (in the present case, where the switch was made from one variable (combination of constituents) to four variables (each combination constituent)), cause for death could be assigned to any of the four elements. The process is quite arbitrary: the assignment of death to any single entity could be considered a political act, done for political (and financial) reasons, and not for scientific reasons!
Why has this single element (SARS-CoV-2) causation assignment approach been taken? SARS-CoV-2 is one of the few constituents of the virus-toxic stressors combination nexus that cannot be related to a technology offshoot, or to a technology that has production and/or consumption stakeholder backing (e.g., pesticides, industrial chemicals, radiation sources, etc.).
Thus, the present quarantine eliminates/reduces exposure to (and the treatment/vaccine development will attenuate viral load of) only one of the many constituents of the virus-toxic stressors combination nexus; it is a constituent that does not have strong production and/or consumption stakeholder backing!
If responsibility for the pandemic can be assigned to the only (or main) constituent of the virus-toxic stressors combination nexus with no backing from the aforementioned powerful stakeholders, then these production and/or consumption stakeholders are protected from responsibility for (and ensuing legal consequences from) the deaths that occurred and were attributed to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and the trillions of dollars of lost revenue in the global economy that resulted from the lockdown. Assigning responsibility for the pandemic to Mother Nature rather than to those who bear the major responsibility for laying the pandemic groundwork ensures that these harmful practices and their associated pandemics (including the annual deaths of the most vulnerable demographic related to the so-called influenza epidemics/pandemics) will continue unabated.
Why are not any of the other constituents of the virus-toxic stressors combination nexus being placed under effective ‘quarantine’ from the public? Why are not smoking, or air pollution, or excess alcohol, or wireless radiation, or agrochemicals, or industrial chemicals, being placed under quarantine? There is no lack of evidence of linkages between these environmental pollutants and immune-related diseases (Tsatsakis et al., 2020; Kostoff et al., 2020).
7. Demonstration of effective “quasi-vaccine”
It is clear from the SARS results and the present COVID-19 results that exposure to the coronavirus for most people (except the relatively small number in the most vulnerable demographic) results in relatively mild symptoms (or, in many cases, no symptoms). In other words, the vast majority of the public is metaphorically being protected presently by an extremely effective “quasi-vaccine”; namely, following practices that, while they certainly degrade the immune system to some extent because of exposure to toxic stressors, do not degrade the immune system excessively. Promoting healthy lifestyle habits (including healthy diet, regular aerobic exercise, and appropriate responses to adverse life events) and an ambitious regulation of toxic stressors (chemicals, radiations, etc.) are cornerstones to reducing the risk of developing most chronic diseases. These healthy habits represent a “quasi-vaccine” as they are capable of eliminating those factors that contribute to degrading the immune system and adding those factors that contribute to strengthening the immune system. For most of the public, this “quasi-vaccine” has proven to be effective, and further elimination of immune-degrading contributing factors will improve the immune system further and afford even greater protection from infectious diseases.
Thus, a more protective quarantine (for the current pandemic and against future pandemics) would be to impose effective ‘quarantines’ for the public against the intrinsically toxic constituents of the virus-toxic stressors combination nexus (e.g., pesticides, PFOS, PCBs, nerve agents, wireless radiation, etc.). Whether they would have the same very-short-term benefits as the present quarantine/lockdown is questionable, given the lag times before these preventive measures become effective. From the long-term perspective, the broader quarantine on the constituents of the combination of toxic stressors would be very protective against future viral attacks on the most vulnerable demographic, including protection against the annual influenza infections.
To be fully protected in the present pandemic and against future pandemics, both tactical/reactive responses to survive the immediate threat and strategic/proactive responses to prevent the problem and damage from re-occurring are required. Examples of such tactical and strategic responses have been identified in recent studies (Kostoff, 2020; Kostoff et al., 2020; Calina et al., 2020; Iddir et al., 2020; Nilashi et al., 2020; Lima et al., 2020; Calder et al., 2020).
8. Conclusions
The underlying causes of the present pandemic have been both misrepresented and camouflaged. Causes that are mainly toxicology-based have been ignored relative to virology-based causes. This has resulted in treatments and ‘protective’ measures that address virology issues to the exclusion of toxicology issues, are of questionable effectiveness, and do little (if anything) to prevent future pandemics. They have produced disastrous effects on the global economy that have worsened social and economic conditions of many people and contributed to a deterioration of their physical and mental health. To correct this situation, and offer intrinsic protection against future pandemics, both tactical/reactive responses to survive the immediate threat and strategic/proactive responses to prevent the problem and damage from re-occurring are required.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1.   Bhagavathula A.S., Aldhaleei W., Rovetta A., Rahmani J. Vaccines and drug therapeutics to lock down novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of clinical trials. Cureus. 2020;12(5) [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
2.   Borman E.D., Foster W.G., deCatanzaro D. Concurrent administration of diethylhexyl phthalate reduces the threshold dose at which bisphenol A disrupts blastocyst implantation and cadherins in mice. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2017;49:105–111. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
3.   Calder P.C., Carr A.C., Gombart A.F., Eggersdorfer M. Optimal nutritional status for a well-functioning immune system is an important factor to protect against viral infections. Nutrients. 2020;12(4) [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
4.   Calina D., Docea A.O., Petrakis D., Egorov A.M., Ishmukhametov A.A., Gabibov A.G. Towards effective COVID-19 vaccines: updates, perspectives and challenges. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2020;46(1):3–16. Review. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
5.   Castle S.C., Uyemura K., Rafi A., Akande O., Makinodan T. Comorbidity is a better predictor of impaired immunity than chronological age in older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005;53(9):1565–1569. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
6.   Castle S.C., Uyemura K., Fulop T., Makinodan T. Host resistance and immune responses in advanced age. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2007;23(3):463–+. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
7.   Chen C., Wang Y., Qian Y., Zhao X., Wang Q. The synergistic toxicity of the multiple chemical mixtures: implications for risk assessment in the terrestrial environment. Environ. Int. 2015;77:95–105. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
8.   Docea A.O., Calina D., Gofita E., Arsene A.L., Kouretas D., Tsatsarakis M. Effects of long-term low dose exposure to mixtures of pesticides, food additives and consumer products chemicals on biochemical parameters. Toxicol. Lett. 2017;280 S217-S. [Google Scholar]
9.   Docea A.O., Gofita E., Goumenou M., Calina D., Rogoveanu O., Varut M., Olaru C., Kerasioti E., Fountoucidou P., Taitzoglou I., Zlatian O., Rakitskii V.N., Hernandez A.F., Kouretas D., Tsatsakis A. Food and Chemical Toxicology : an International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association. vol. 115. 2018. Six months exposure to a real life mixture of 13 chemicals’ below individual NOAELs induced non monotonic sex-dependent biochemical and redox status changes in rats; pp. 470–481. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
10.   Docea A.O., Goumenou M., Calina D., Arsene A.L., Dragoi C.M., Gofita E., Pisoschi C.G., Zlatian O., Stivaktakis P.D., Nikolouzakis T.K., Kalogeraki A., Izotov B.N., Galateanu B., Hudita A., Calabrese E.J., Tsatsakis A. Adverse and hormetic effects in rats exposed for 12 months to low dose mixture of 13 chemicals: RLRS part III. Toxicol. Lett. 2019;310:70–91. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
11.   Docea A.O., Tsatsakis A., Albulescu D., Cristea O., Zlatian O., Vinceti M. A new threat from an old enemy: Re-emergence of coronavirus (Review) Int. J. Mol. Med. 2020;45(6):1631–1643. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
12.   ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) Epidemiology of COVID-19. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/latest-evidence/epidemiology Available online at: updated.
13.   Farsalinos K., Niaura R., Le Houezec J., Barbouni A., Tsatsakis A., Kouretas D., Vantarakis A., Poulas K. Editorial: nicotine and SARS-CoV-2: COVID-19 may be a disease of the nicotinic cholinergic system. Version 2. Toxicol Rep. 2020 Apr 30;7:658–663. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
14.   Ginzburg A.L., Truong L., Tanguay R.L., Hutchison J.E. Synergistic toxicity produced by mixtures of biocompatibie gold nanoparticles and widely used surfactants. ACS Nano. 2018;12(6):5312–5322. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
15.   Goumenou M., Sarigiannis D., Tsatsakis A., Anesti O., Docea A.O., Petrakis D., Tsoukalas D., Kostoff R., Rakitskii V., Spandidos D.A., Aschner M., Calina D. COVID-19 in Northern Italy: an integrative overview of factors possibly influencing the sharp increase of the outbreak (Review) Mol. Med. Rep. 2020;22(1):20–32. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
16.   Gradinaru D., Khaddour H., Margina D., Ungurianu A., Borsa C., Ionescu C. Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes : Official Journal. German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association; 2018. Insulin-leptin Axis, cardiometabolic risk and oxidative stress in elderly with metabolic syndrome. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
17.   Gradinaru D., Margina D., Borsa C., Ionescu C., Ilie M., Costache M. Adiponectin: possible link between metabolic stress and oxidative stress in the elderly. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2017;29(4):621–629. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
18.   Guo T., Shen Q., Guo W., He W., Li J., Zhang Y. Clinical characteristics of elderly patients with COVID-19 in hunan province, China: a multicenter, retrospective study. Gerontology. 2020:1–9. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
19.   Han H., Ma Q., Li C., Liu R., Zhao L., Wang W. Profiling serum cytokines in COVID-19 patients reveals IL-6 and IL-10 are disease severity predictors. Emerg. Microb. Infect. 2020;9(1):1123–1130. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
20.   Hernandez A.F., Parron T., Tsatsakis A.M., Requena M., Alarcon R., Lopez-Guarnido O. Toxic effects of pesticide mixtures at a molecular level: their relevance to human health. Toxicology. 2013;307:136–145. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
21.   Hernández A.F., Docea A.O., Goumenou M., Sarigiannis D., Aschner M., Tsatsakis A. Application of novel technologies and mechanistic data for risk assessment under the real-life risk simulation (RLRS) approach. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020;137:111123. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
22.   Huang C., Wang Y., Li X., Ren L., Zhao J., Hu Y. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497–506. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
23.   Iddir M., Brito A., Dingeo G., Fernandez Del Campo S.S., Samouda H., La Frano M.R. Strengthening the immune system and reducing inflammation and oxidative stress through diet and nutrition: considerations during the COVID-19 crisis. Nutrients. 2020;12(6) [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
24.   Kalogeraki A., Stivaktakis P., Docea A., Calina D., Gofita E., Arsene A.L. Evaluation of long term low dose exposure to mixtures on the lymphocytes of the peripheral blood of rats. Toxicol. Lett. 2017;280 S126-S. [Google Scholar]
25.   Kalula S.Z., Ross K. Immunosenescence – inevitable or preventable? Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology. 2008;21(3):126–130. [Google Scholar]
26.   Kostoff R.N. The highly cited SARS research literature. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2010;36(4):299–317. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
27.   Kostoff R.N. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2015. Pervasive Causes of Disease.http://hdl.handle.net/1853/53714 PDF. [Google Scholar]
28.   Kostoff R.N., Goumenou M., Tsatsakis A. The role of toxic stimuli combinations in determining safe exposure limits. Toxicology Reports. 2018;5:1169–1172. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
29.   Kostoff R.N. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2019. Prevention and Reversal of Chronic Disease: Lessons Learned.http://hdl.handle.net/1853/62019 PDF. [Google Scholar]
30.   Kostoff R.N. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2020. Combining Tactical and Strategic Treatments for COVID-19.http://hdl.handle.net/1853/62523 PDF. [Google Scholar]
31.   Kostoff R.N., Briggs M.B., Porter A.L. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2020. COVID-19: Preventing Future Pandemics.https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/62907 PDF. [Google Scholar]
32.   Laetz C.A., Baldwin D.H., Collier T.K., Hebert V., Stark J.D., Scholz N.L. The synergistic toxicity of pesticide mixtures: implications for risk assessment and the conservation of endangered pacific salmon. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009;117(3):348–353. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
33.   Lecuit M., Eloit M. The human virome: new tools and concepts. Trends Microbiol. 2013;21(10):510–515. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
34.   Lima W.G., Moreira Brito J.C., Overhage J., Nizer WSdC. The potential of drug repositioning as a short-term strategy for the control and treatment of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2): a systematic review. Arch. Virol. 2020 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
35.   Liu Y., Yang Y., Zhang C., Huang F., Wang F., Yuan J. Clinical and biochemical indexes from 2019-nCoV infected patients linked to viral loads and lung injury. Sci. China Life Sci. 2020;63(3):364–374. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
36.   Margina D., Ungurianu A., Purdel C., Tsoukalas D., Sarandi E., Thanasoula M. Chronic inflammation in the context of everyday life: dietary changes as mitigating factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2020;17(11) [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
37.   Margina D., Nițulescu G.M., Ungurianu A., Mesnage R., Goumenou M., Sarigiannis D.A. Overview of the effects of chemical mixtures with endocrine disrupting activity in the context of real-life risk simulation: an integrative approach (Review) World Academy of Sciences journal. 2019;1(4):157–164. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
38.   Medetalibeyoglu A., Senkal N., Capar G., Kose M., Tukek T. Characteristics of the initial patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a single-center report. Turk. J. Med. Sci. 2020 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
39.   Mo P., Xing Y., Xiao Y., Deng L., Zhao Q., Wang H. Clinical Infectious Diseases : an Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2020. Clinical characteristics of refractory COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
40.   Nilashi M., Samad S., Yusuf S.Y.M., Akbari E. Can complementary and alternative medicines be beneficial in the treatment of COVID-19 through improving immune system function? Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2020;13(6):893–896. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
41.   Nitulescu G.M., Paunescu H., Moschos S.A., Petrakis D., Nitulescu G., Ion G.N.D. Comprehensive analysis of drugs to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection: mechanistic insights into current COVID-19 therapies (Review) Int. J. Mol. Med. 2020;46(2):467–488. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
42.   Petrakis D., Vassilopoulou L., Mamoulakis C., Psycharakis C., Anifantaki A., Sifakis S., Docea A.O., Tsiaoussis J., Makrigiannakis A., Tsatsakis A.M. Endocrine disruptors leading to obesity and related diseases. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2017;14(10):1282. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
43.   Petrakis D., Margina D., Tsarouhas K., Tekos F., Stan M., Nikitovic D. Obesity-a risk factor for increased COVID-19 prevalence, severity and lethality (Review) Mol. Med. Rep. 2020;22(1):9–19. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
44.   Qian G.-Q., Yang N.-B., Ding F., Ma A.H.Y., Wang Z.-Y., Shen Y.-F. QJM : Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians. 2020. Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of 91 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in zhejiang, China: a retrospective, multi-centre case series. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
45.   Qin C., Zhou L., Hu Z., Zhang S., Yang S., Tao Y. Clinical Infectious Diseases : an Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2020. Dysregulation of immune response in patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
46.   Schulz M.-C., Schumann L., Rottkord U., Humpf H.-U., Gekle M., Schwerdt G. Synergistic action of the nephrotoxic mycotoxins ochratoxin A and citrinin at nanomolar concentrations in human proximal tubule-derived cells. Toxicol. Lett. 2018;291:149–157. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
47.   Sears M.E., Genuis S.J. Environmental determinants of chronic disease and medical approaches: recognition, avoidance, supportive therapy, and detoxification. Journal of environmental and public health. 2012;2012:356798. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
48.   Sergievich A.A., Khoroshikh P.P., Artemenko A.F., Zakharenko A.M., Chaika V.V., Kodintsev V.V., Stroeva O.A., Lenda E.G., Tsatsakis A., Burykina T.I., Agathokleous E., Kostoff R.N., Zlatian O., Docea A.O., Golokhvast K.S. Behavioral impacts of a mixture of six pesticides on rats. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;727:138491. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
49.   Skalny A.V., Rink L., Ajsuvakova O.P., Aschner M., Gritsenko V.A., Alekseenko S.I., Svistunov A.A., Petrakis D., Spandidos D.A., Aaseth J., Tsatsakis A., Tinkov A.A. Zinc and respiratory tract infections: perspectives for COVID-19 (Review) Int. J. Mol. Med. 2020 Jul;46(1):17–26. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
50.   Tian S., Hu N., Lou J., Chen K., Kang X., Xiang Z. Characteristics of COVID-19 infection in beijing. J. Infect. 2020;80(4):401–406. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
51.   Torequl Islam M., Nasiruddin M., Khan I.N., Mishra S.K., Kudrat-E-Zahan M., Alam Riaz T., Ali E.S., Rahman M.S., Mubarak M.S., Martorell M., Cho W.C., Calina D., Docea A.O., Sharifi-Rad J. A perspective on emerging therapeutic interventions for COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health. 2020;8(281) [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
52.   Tsatsakis A.M., Docea A.O., Tsitsimpikou C. Food and Chemical Toxicology : an International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association. vol. 96. 2016. New challenges in risk assessment of chemicals when simulating real exposure scenarios; simultaneous multi-chemicals’ low dose exposure; pp. 174–176. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
53.   Tsatsakis A., Petrakis D., Nikolouzakis T.K., Docea A.O., Calina D., Vinceti M. Food and Chemical Toxicology : an International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association. vol. 141. 2020. COVID-19, an opportunity to reevaluate the correlation between long-term effects of anthropogenic pollutants on viral epidemic/pandemic events and prevalence; p. 111418. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
54.   Tsatsakis A., Docea A.O., Constantin C., Calina D., Zlatian O., Nikolouzakis T.K. Genotoxic, cytotoxic, and cytopathological effects in rats exposed for 18 months to a mixture of 13 chemicals in doses below NOAEL levels. Toxicol. Lett. 2019;316:154–170. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
55.   Tsatsakis A.M., Docea A.O., Calina D., Buga A.M., Zlatian O., Gutnikov S., Kostoff R.N., Aschner M. Food and Chemical Toxicology : an International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association. vol. 125. 2019. Hormetic Neurobehavioral effects of low dose toxic chemical mixtures in real-life risk simulation (RLRS) in rats; pp. 141–149. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
56.   Tsatsakis A., Tyshko N.V., Docea A.O., Shestakova S.I., Sidorova Y.S., Petrov N.A., Zlatian O., Mach M., Hartung T., Tutelyan V.A. The effect of chronic vitamin deficiency and long term very low dose exposure to 6 pesticides mixture on neurological outcomes – a real-life risk simulation approach. Toxicol. Lett. 2019;315:96–106. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
57.   Tsatsakis A., Goumenou M., Liesivuori J., Dekant W., Hernández A.F. Toxicology for real-life risk simulation – editorial preface to this special issue. Toxicol. Lett. 2019;309:33–34. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
58.   Tsiaoussis J., Antoniou M.N., Koliarakis I., Mesnage R., Vardavas C.I., Izotov B.N., Psaroulaki A., Tsatsakis A. Effects of single and combined toxic exposures on the gut microbiome: current knowledge and future directions. Toxicol. Lett. 2019;312:72–97. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
59.   Vardavas A.I., Fragkiadaki P., Alegakis A.K., Kouretas D., Goutzourelas N., Tsiaoussis J. Downgrading the systemic condition of rabbits after long term exposure to cypermethrin and piperonyl butoxide. Life Sci. 2016;145:114–120. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
60.   Watanabe T., Kawaoka Y. Villains or heroes? The raison d’etre of viruses. Clinical & Translational Immunology. 2020;9(2) [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
61.   Wylie K.M. The virome of the human respiratory tract. Clin. Chest Med. 2017;38(1):11–+. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
62.   Wylie K.M., Mihindukulasuriya K.A., Zhou Y., Sodergren E., Storch G.A., Weinstock G.M. Metagenomic analysis of double-stranded DNA viruses in healthy adults. BMC Biol. 2014;12 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
63.   Yun H., Sun Z., Wu J., Tang A., Hu M., Xiang Z. Laboratory data analysis of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) screening in 2510 patients. Clin. Chim. Acta. 2020;507:94–97. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
64.   Zhang J., Xie B., Hashimoto K. Current status of potential therapeutic candidates for the COVID-19 crisis. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020;87:59–73. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
65.   Zmyslony M., Palus J., Jajte J., Dziubaltowska E., Rajkowska E. DNA damage in rat lymphocytes treated in vitro with iron cations and exposed to 7 mT magnetic fields (static or 50 Hz) Mutat. Res. Fund Mol. Mech. Mutagen. 2000;453(1):89–96. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]

Food Chem Toxicol. 2020 Nov; 145: 111687.
Published online 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2020.111687
PMCID: PMC7426727
PMID: 32805343

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

Trojan Horse sabotage of the LNP-GO in all the COVID mRNA vaccines.
Dr. Charles Hoffe, acting on Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi’s advice has been running D-Dimer tests on his vaccinated patients’ blood and found blood clots or microthrombosis in a majority of the cases, reported here earlier. Dr. Hoffe has reported that 40 trillion mRNA molecules are carried inside a single Moderna dose, and the majority of these when injected enter the blood capillary system all around the body (listen to the video snippet where he describes this clearly, included in the article) and cause spike protein creation all over the body: Dr. Bhakdi and he have attributed the blood clotting to the spike protein creation. Damaged tissue due to thrombosis in organs causes permanent damage (to those organs which cannot regenerate tissue such as heart, brain, spinal cord, lungs), he says.
Dr. Hoffe has passionately called for a halt to the vaccines, writing to the Provincial Health Officer in British Columbia (letter in article), and his information and letter must continue to be shared widely. Health Departments worldwide cannot be permitted to ignore such necessary and lifesaving information.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi has spoken extensively of thrombosis due to spike proteins, describing how the mRNA and viral-vector vaccines are therefore acting as a neuro bioweapon, reported here earlier.

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

US Red Cross Says No Blood From vaccinated peoplePublished on September 8, 2021
Written by survivethenews.com
If you took a Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine,” the American Red Cross will not accept blood plasma donations from you due to the inherent toxicity issues caused by the injection.

As it turns out, convalescent plasma should only be collected from the unvaccinated who still have clean blood that has not been contaminated with deadly spike proteins and other chemicals that threaten to kill those who receive blood transfusions.
Thanks to “Operation Warp Speed,” there is now a massive shortage of pure blood in the United States that has not been tainted with genetic modifications and other damage.
Mass vaccination, in other words, is effectively killing people who desperately need unvaccinated blood but cannot find it.
A now-archived document from the American Red Cross explains that anyone who takes “any type of COVID vaccine” is “not eligible to donate convalescent plasma” because of the serious risks involved.
One of the Red Cross requirements for plasma from routine blood and platelet donations that test positive for high-levels of antibodies to be used as convalescent plasma is that it must be from a donor that has NOT received a COVID-19 vaccine,” the document explains. (Emphasis added)
Scientifically speaking, it is critical for those receiving donor blood to have sufficient antibodies directly related to their own immune systems. Tainted blood from vaccinated people does not qualify.
This is to ensure that antibodies collected from donors have sufficient antibodies directly related to their immune response to a COVID-19 infection and not just the vaccine, as antibodies from an infection and antibodies from a vaccine are not the same.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) apparently thinks differently about vaccinated blood.
A new document on the Red Cross website now explains that because the FDA “allows people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine to donate dedicated COVID-19 convalescent plasma,” the Red Cross has decided to discontinue its convalescent plasma donation program entirely.
The FDA allows people who have received a COVID-19 vaccine to donate dedicated COVID-19 convalescent plasma within six months of their infection of the virus, based on data that antibodies from natural infection can decline after six months however, the Red Cross has discontinued our convalescent plasma collection program,” the new document explains.
In other words, it would appear as though the Red Cross is not comfortable continuing to collect and administer convalescent plasma from people who took the jab, even though the FDA claims that doing so is completely safe.
This type of thing is par for the course for the FDA, which rarely promotes policies that benefit actual human beings. The agency really is nothing more than an extension of Big Pharma that does whatever is necessary to keep the profits flowing – even at the expense of human life.
The antibodies naturally produced by covid infection actually work,” wrote one commenter at Citizen Free Press. “The antibodies artificially produced by covid vaccines do not work as well, and actually wipe out the natural covid antibodies. This is why vaccinated people are increasingly becoming significantly ill with covid.” (Emphasis added)
Another commenter wrote that the Red Cross is denying that it does not accept convalescent plasma from vaccinated people, even though the document on its website claims otherwise.
The FDA says that you can donate convalescent plasma within six months of infection, even if you’ve been vaccinated,” this person wrote, calling it a “legal lie.
But the Red Cross guidelines prohibit them from using convalescent plasma if the individual has been vaccinated.
See more here: survivethenews.com
Header image: American Red Cross

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Now Pointless:
Covid-19 vaccines do not keep people from catching the prevailing Delta variant and passing it to others

September 9, 2021
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD1
ninapierpont@protonmail.com

Executive Summary:
1) Excellent scientific research papers published or posted in August 2021 clearly demonstrate that current vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
2) Vaccines aim to achieve two ends:
a. To protect the vaccinated person against the illness.
b. To keep people from carrying the infection and transmitting it to others.
i. If enough people are vaccinated or otherwise become immune, it is hoped that the disease will stop circulating. We call this herd immunity.
ii. On the way to herd immunity, there is an assumption that people who are
immunized can form safe clusters or groups within which no one is carrying or transmitting the virus.
3) Unfortunately, this last assumption (2.b.ii) is no longer true under the new variant of SARS-CoV- 2, Delta (B.1.617.2), which now accounts for essentially all cases worldwide.
4) Delta is more infectious than the Alpha strain (B.1.1.7) that prevailed in the UK from January to May 2021 (and in the US from March to June 2021), meaning that Delta is passed more readily person-to-person than the previous dominant strain.

b. From its origin in India, Delta has soared to nearly complete domination of COVID-19 viral strains everywhere in a matter of months, because it spreads so easily and infects both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

1file://C:/Users/Administrator/AppData/Local/Temp/AtlHTMLClip/clip_files/Img63314066000001.pngis a graduate of Yale University (BA in biology), with a MA and PhD from Princeton University in population biology/evolutionary biology/ecology, and the MD degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. She has been a Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Columbia University’s College of Physicians & Surgeons. She is currently in private practice in upstate New York, specializing in behavioral medicine.
 
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

5) New research in multiple settings shows that Delta produces very high viral loads (meaning, the density of virus on a nasopharyngeal swab as interpreted from PCR cycle threshold numbers).
a. Viral loads are much higher in people infected with Delta than they were in people infected with Alpha.
b. Viral loads with Delta are equally high whether the person has been vaccinated or not.
c. Viral load is an indicator of infectiousness. [13,14] The more virus one has in the nose and mouth, the more likely it is to be in this individual’s respiratory droplets and secretions, and to spread to others.
6) Due to evolution of the virus itself, all the currently licensed vaccines (all based on the original Wuhan strain spike protein sequence) have lost their ability to accomplish vaccine purpose 2(b), above, “To keep people from carrying the infection and transmitting it to others.”
7) Vaccine mandates are thus stripped of their justification, since to vaccinate an individual no longer stops or even slows his ability to acquire and transmit the virus to others.
8) Under Delta, natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination. All severities of COVID-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity.

The Documentary Evidence:
Here are three studies whose findings and data support the above statements:
(A) The first is by the Massachusetts Department of Health and the CDC, published August 6, 2021 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. An outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in Provincetown, Massachusetts in July 2021 during two weeks of heavily attended indoor and outdoor public gatherings. The study focuses on the 469 cases among Massachusetts residents who were in attendance. [1] All successfully gene-sequenced isolates (120) were the Delta variant.
346 of the cases in Massachusetts residents (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated people who had received a 2-dose course of the BioNTech/Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, or a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson. Vaccine coverage at this time among all Massachusetts residents was 69%. This suggests that vaccinated people became infected just as frequently as unvaccinated people in this outbreak.
We do not know the vaccination percentage among actual festival attendees who were Massachusetts residents, but we can assume given the demographics of the festival that it was the state average (69%) or higher. We also do not know the total number of Massachusetts residents who attended. Both of these numbers would be needed to determine actual values for vaccine efficacy in this outbreak.
 
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

However, we cannot brush the high percentage of vaccinated people in the infected sample under the carpet quite as easily as the authors do, when they say, “As population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases” (p. 1061). This is true, but we would still, if vaccine is protective, find vaccinated cases to be underrepresented in an illness sample compared to the number vaccinated in the whole population of attendees. As best we can tell at this festival, vaccination was not protective against infection, because the proportion of vaccinated in the sample (74%) is in the same numeric range as the proportion vaccinated, 69% or above.
Among the 346 cases who were already vaccinated, 79% were symptomatic, reporting cough, headache, sore throat, muscle aches, and fever. Four of these vaccinated, infected individuals (1.2%) were hospitalized. No one died. The remainder of the vaccinated cases did not report symptoms.
Among the 123 cases who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, one was hospitalized (0.8%) and no one died. Percentage with symptoms was not reported.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated cases were found to have very similar viral loads (in a sample of 127 and 84 cases, respectively). This means the PCR tests showed that vaccinated and unvaccinated infected people were carrying similar amounts of virus in their upper respiratory tracts at diagnosis and were thus equally infectious.
(B) The next study, released August 10, 2021, examines the Delta viral load phenomenon in far more detail, and shows clearly that vaccinated people can become infected and pass the infection to other vaccinated people. The Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Ho Chi Minh City in southern Vietnam has about 900 staff members, including an Oxford University Clinical Research Unit. The entire hospital staff was vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine two-dose series in March and April 2021, and then enrolled in a post-vaccination study. Thus, a great deal of detailed information was available when the outbreak struck. [2]
The entire hospital staff was PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2 in mid-May 2021. The index case (first known case in a cluster) became mildly ill on June 11 and had a positive PCR with a high viral load. The whole staff was then re-tested. 52 additional cases were identified immediately. Ten more had high viral loads, a number being staff who shared an office with the index case. All the additional cases at first had no symptoms.
The hospital was then locked down. Over the next two weeks, 16 additional cases were identified in subsequent PCR surveys. 62 of the 69 PCR-positive cases participated in this study of the outbreak.
 
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Forty-seven (76% of the 62 subjects) developed respiratory symptoms, three with pneumonia on chest x-ray and one requiring three days of nasal cannula oxygen (this is the least intensive form of oxygen therapy). Everyone recovered fully.
Peak viral loads in this fully vaccinated, infected group were, on average, 250 times higher than peak viral loads with older variants early in the pandemic (March-April 2020), when no one was vaccinated. This is a means of comparing the biology of the variants themselves: the Delta virus has gained the ability to replicate itself enormously in the upper respiratory tract, regardless of vaccination, thereby making itself more infectious.
In the current outbreak, viral loads (and thus infectiousness) peaked in the 2-3 days both before and after symptoms began.
All sequenced isolates were the Delta variant. The genetic sequences from hospital staff were more similar to each other than they were to contemporaneous isolates from the city at large or from more distant parts of the country. This means it is likely that the virus spread among the (fully vaccinated) hospital staff from a single infected (and vaccinated) staff member who brought it from the outside. Given the dynamics of symptoms and positivity among the staff, it is clear that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic staff members, as well as symptomatic, were infecting others.
PCR tests continued to be positive up to 33 days after diagnosis (averaging 21 days). Case- control comparisons showed that staff members with lower titers of neutralizing antibodies after vaccination and at diagnosis were more likely to become infected. However, there was no correlation between vaccine-induced antibody levels at diagnosis and viral loads or the development of respiratory symptoms.

The study includes measures of viral load or “burden” under Alpha and Delta predominance. While Alpha was the dominant UK strain (January to mid-May 2021), vaccination or prior COVID- 19 disease strongly reduced viral load compared to unvaccinated people who had never had COVID-19.
The sample size was large and random, obtained as described above. 12,287 new PCR-positives were found in the Alpha-dominant period, of which 88% were unvaccinated and had no evidence of prior infection. Only 0.5% of new positive tests were from fully vaccinated people,
 
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

and 0.6% from people with prior COVID-19 infection. Since it was a large, random sample and vaccination percentages increased dramatically in the UK across this time period, we can safely say that vaccination and prior infection were very protective against becoming infected with the Alpha variant. Virtually all the new infections occurred in unvaccinated people.
After mid-June 2021, when greater than 92% of PCR positives in the UK were Delta, the differences in viral load between vaccinated, unvaccinated, and people with past COVID-19 disease nearly vanished. Viral loads in all three groups were much higher than with Alpha, indicating increased infectiousness. More vaccinated people were now showing symptoms when they became positive, also correlated with viral load.
During the Delta-dominant period, the sample was 1939 new positive PCR tests. Of these, 17% (326) were from unvaccinated people without prior COVID-19 disease, 1% (20) were unvaccinated with evidence of prior disease, and 82% (1593) were fully vaccinated. This is approximately the percentage of the UK population who were vaccinated by August 18, 2021— when 75-83% of UK residents were fully vaccinated and 84-89% had received at least one dose. [5]
Like the Massachusetts study reviewed above, this suggests that the new Delta variant infects vaccinated and unvaccinated people with equal probability. To go from 0.5% of randomly sampled new infections in vaccinated people (under Alpha) to 82% (under Delta) in several months, as the population is becoming more and more vaccinated—these are extraordinary numbers.
If vaccination is still effective in preventing infection, we would expect the proportion of infections in a random population sample to be less than the proportion of the population vaccinated. If 82% of randomly obtained positive tests occur in vaccinated people, and about 82% of people are vaccinated, then vaccination is not reducing the likelihood of infection at all. Efficacy at preventing infection has become zero.
The UK study addresses vaccine efficacy in much more complex ways than the straightforward numbers I present here. The authors conclude that both of the earlier UK-approved vaccines (BioNTech/Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca) have lost some efficacy against Delta compared to Alpha. But both vaccines, they maintain, remain substantially effective at keeping people from becoming infected with the Delta strain, in the range of 67 to 80%. If this is the case, why was 82% of their random sample of new positive PCR tests from vaccinated people?
If a vaccine reduces the risk of becoming infected by two-thirds (67%), we would expect the proportion of vaccinated in the positive sample to be less than the proportion of vaccinated in the population. Say we start with 1000 people in the country, of whom we will randomly sample 100. The country is 80% vaccinated. This means that in our sample of 100 we have 80 vaccinated and 20 unvaccinated people. Let’s say that the virus has infected 10% of the people
 
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

across the sampling period, or 10 total cases. If 8 of the infected are among the vaccinated, and 2 in the unvaccinated (80% and 20% of the positives, matching the ratio of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the population), the vaccine has made no difference in whether one can get infected (0% efficacy). If the vaccine is 67% effective, the cases in the vaccinated group would be reduced by 2/3 to 2.67 cases, and the total cases would be only 4.67 cases (2.67 vaccinated and 2 unvaccinated). This means that only 2.67/4.67 or 57% of the cases would be in the vaccinated group, and 43% in the unvaccinated. (We can go back to 10% overall being positive just using ratios, yielding 5.7 cases among the vaccinated and 4.3 among the unvaccinated.)
This is why the proportion vaccinated in the infected sample, very close to the proportions vaccinated in the total population, are incompatible with the efficacy numbers generated by the authors. It appears to me—as in the Massachusetts study—that the vaccine is not decreasing susceptibility to infection at all, and is in reality somewhere between slightly (insignificantly) decreasing susceptibility and slightly increasing susceptibility to the Delta variant.
The UK study is clear that viral load (and thus infectiousness to others) is much greater with Delta than with Alpha, and that, with Delta, viral load and infectiousness are equal in vaccinated and unvaccinated infected people.

Discussion #1:
These three different studies in three countries with three different population sampling methods produced the same result: with the current, dominant Delta strain, vaccinated people become infected and carry just as much infectious virus in their upper respiratory tracts when infected as unvaccinated people. The reproducibility of this finding makes it a very strong finding.
The study in Vietnam shows clearly that infected, vaccinated people transmit the infection to others.
Under the current dominance of the Delta variant, being vaccinated or not has no influence on a chief determinant of infectiousness: the size of the viral load carried in the nose and mouth of an infected person. In addition, both vaccinated and unvaccinated become infected in significant numbers, approximating the ratios of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the population.
The rationale for mandates—that each individual has a responsibility to be vaccinated to limit spread of the virus to others—is hereby seriously or even fatally undermined. The decision to be vaccinated, under Delta predominance, has become entirely personal, affecting only the future health and well-being of the individual receiving the vaccine.
 
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Blaming the unvaccinated for the rapid spread of the Delta variant has no merit whatsoever, since both vaccinated and unvaccinated infected people are equally infectious to others, and vaccinated and unvaccinated people are represented in illness samples in proportion to their representation in the general population, showing they are equally likely to become infected.
These findings also equalize vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of quarantine, vaccine- based exclusion, or the wearing of masks.
The Delta variant has entirely changed our expectations of the effects of vaccination on containing the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
What about natural immunity from previous COVID-19 infection?
What about natural immunity from previous COVID-19 infection, with regard to the change in virus strain? An Israeli study posted on August 25, 2021 powerfully shows that “natural immunity [from previous COVID-19 infection] confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS- CoV-2 compared to the BNT162b2 [BioNTech/Pfizer] two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” If a person is both naturally immune and received one vaccine dose, immunity to Delta infection is even stronger. [6]
To demonstrate this, the authors studied the records of a large Israeli Health Maintenance Organization covering 2.5 million people (26% of the population). They compared the numbers of positive PCR tests from June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant, in people who were either immunized in January-February 2021 or had COVID-19 infection in January-February 2021.
Those who were vaccinated but never had COVID-19 disease were 13 times more likely to develop a new SARS-CoV-2 infection than those made naturally immune by COVID-19 disease. The increased risk was also significant for having symptoms or not.
When the prior COVID-19 disease was allowed to happen earlier in the course of the pandemic, from March 2020 through February 2021, vaccinees who had never had COVID-19 disease were still (a) 6 times more likely to have a positive PCR in June-August 2021 than a naturally immune person, (b) 7 times more likely to have symptomatic disease, and (c) at greater risk for COVID- 19-related hospitalization.
By comparison, under Alpha strain dominance during the first half of 2021, over 50,000 staff members of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio demonstrated that vaccine-induced immunity (from
 
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

any of the three US-authorized vaccines) and natural immunity were equally protective against COVID-19 disease. [7]
The Israeli study shows at a later time period how the Delta variant has escaped the control of at least one of these vaccines, while natural immunity to earlier forms of SARS-CoV-2 still confers protection.
A Danish study of 203 recovered COVID patients shows that COVID-19 infection/disease provokes robust immune responses in the vast majority of people regardless of disease severity, including mild cases and even true asymptomatic cases (excluding those with false positive tests). [8]

Discussion #2:
It is difficult to tell anything about the virulence or pathogenicity of the Delta variant itself—how sick it makes people—since the available studies are all done in highly vaccinated populations. Vaccination has protected against severe disease and death with all the other variants, and may well do the same with the Delta variant. This remains the most compelling reason individuals may decide to be vaccinated.
What drives people—especially PhD’s, together with certain minorities [9]—to choose not to be vaccinated? There is substantial recorded and written evidence from first-hand observers and vaccine recipients themselves, and in the immunization “adverse effects” registries of both the US and Europe, that we are tolerating with COVID-19 vaccines a level of severe adverse effects, including death, that would have been unthinkable for any earlier vaccine.
So far, convincing evidence that these effects are “not related to vaccine” has not emerged. Convincing evidence would be research-lab-level autopsy studies of people deceased soon after vaccination (or ill soon after vaccination and eventually deceased), including immunofluorescence or other specific staining for the unique proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids of vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 itself in different tissues. (Some excellent examples of this approach are autopsy studies illuminating the pathophysiology of COVID-19 disease by C Magro and others at Weill Cornell Medical Center [e.g. 10].) Biopsy studies of key tissues in living affected people, such as those with persistent neurologic deficits after vaccination for COVID-19, would also provide powerful evidence. It is highly irregular and indeed unacceptable that such autopsy and biopsy studies have not been done.
Some prominent scientists and a significant number of physicians take these <

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

Vaccine Mandate Letter for your employer (FIRST):
DELETE THIS PAGE BEFORE SENDING YOUR LETTER
 
If an employer is forcing mandatory vaccination in your workplace, the template letter below is a possible way to handle it and put you in a stronger negotiating position. It highlights the responsibility of your employer for your safety and health as a result of a vaccine. The legality of employers forcing employees to take a vaccine is a legal grey zone.
 
It’s possible that your employer will not provide you with the information requested in this letter. Providing this letter does not guarantee that you will avoid having to take a vaccine. It is intended to remind your employer of their obligations to you and to request information about their decision that may assist you later if you choose to challenge the direction.
 
Before using the template, please note the following:
 
file://C:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\Temp\AtlHTMLClip\clip_files\symbol337621717.png  You should be fully informed before providing consent to treatment. Ask for that information.
 
file://C:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\Temp\AtlHTMLClip\clip_files\symbol337621717.png  Your valid informed consent must be voluntary and based on disclosure of clear details of risks, alternatives, need, options, side effects, any other possible harm that could be caused by the proposed vaccination and their relevance to your workplace. Ask for these to be specified.
 
file://C:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\Temp\AtlHTMLClip\clip_files\symbol337621717.png  The information the employer would need to disclose needs to be specific to you writing the letter and relevant to you in considering whether to consent or not.
 
file://C:\Users\Administrator\AppData\Local\Temp\AtlHTMLClip\clip_files\symbol337621717.png  A direction to take a vaccine as a requirement to work must be reasonable. Ask for the reasons.
Rather than refuse the vaccine outright, employees may be in a stronger legal position through trying something like this. Despite receiving this letter and choosing to provide or not provide you with the requested information, an employer might still direct you to get vaccinated or seek to terminate your employment. At this point you should seek independent legal advice from a suitably qualified employment or industrial relations lawyer, and/or assistance from your relevant union.
 
Please keep in mind that if you agreed to be vaccinated when you were first appointed to your position you may be required to be vaccinated under your contract of employment.
 
The following template letter could assist you because it shows you are willing to be vaccinated providing you receive information and protection. Some employers may not be capable or willing to provide such reassurance and as a result may not insist on vaccination. Information requested at points 1, 2 and 3 of the letter is especially important and could assist you if you choose to challenge the direction from your employer in court.
 
Disclaimer: Vaccine mandates in employment law are currently an uncertain and grey legal area. This Information is not to be considered as specific legal advice to be relied on. It comes from various sources and is for your consideration only. If you have any concerns, questions or problems please contact an employment adviser, your relevant union or a solicitor.
DELETE THIS PAGE BEFORE SENDING YOUR LETTER

 
 
[INSERT THE DATE HERE]
 
 
INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE
ADDRESS LINE 1
SUBURB STATE POSTCODE
 
 
Dear [DELETE THIS AND INSERT YOUR EMPLOYERS NAME HERE]        
 
I write regarding your direction for me to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Before making a decision in this matter, I wish to be fully informed and appraised of all relevant facts. In that regard, I would appreciate you providing me with the following information:-
 
1.    Whether you are making this request under a specific law or public health order. If so, please specify the specific law or public health order.
 
2.    The circumstances under which you believe this is a reasonable direction, specifically:
 
a.    The nature of the workplace (the extent to which I need to work in public facing roles, whether social distancing is possible and whether the business is providing an essential service);
 
b.    the extent of community transmission of COVID-19 in the location of the workplace, including the risk of transmission among employees, customers or other members of the community;
 
c.    the effectiveness of the relevant vaccine in reducing the risk of transmission;
 
d.    my individual work circumstances, including duties and risks associated with my work;
 
e.    whether you are accommodating for employees who have a legitimate reason for not being vaccinated and the details of these accommodations;
 
f.     vaccine availability.
 
3.    Under what Work Tier (1, 2, 3 or 4) you classify my work according to the below criteria:
Tier 1: employees are required as part of their duties to interact with people with an increased risk of being infected with coronavirus (for example, employees working in hotel quarantine or border control)
 
Tier 2: employees are required to have close contact with people who are particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of coronavirus (for example, employees working in health care or aged care).
 
Tier 3: there is interaction or likely interaction between employees and other people such as customers, other employees or the public in the normal course of employment (for example, stores providing essential goods and services).
 
Tier 4: employees have minimal face-to-face interaction as part of their normal employment duties.
4.    The approved legal status of the COVID-19 vaccine and if it is under experimental or “provisional” approval in Australia (or whichever country you are in = America, England, Eu, or wherever)
 
5.    Details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests including its long term safety, its effect on pregnant recipients, its use for children and its future generational safety along with the data used to come to these conclusions.
 
6.    The full list of contents of the vaccine that I am to receive, and if any are toxic to the body.
 
7.    All adverse reactions associated with this vaccine in Australia (or whichever country you are in = America, England, Eu, or wherever) since its introduction, including deaths and disablement supported by the latest relevant data.
 
8.    The likely risks of fatality or serious side effects, should I be unfortunate enough to contract COVID-19 after being vaccinated and the likelihood of recovery and long-term side effects supported by the appropriate data.
 
9.    Confirmation that I will not be under any duress or coercion from you or a representative of your company, as my employer, to force me to have this vaccination including threatened loss of employment.
 
Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is no threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions, namely:-
 
1.    I receive written confirmation that no harm will come to me after receiving this vaccination.
 
2.    Once the information is provided to me and confirmed by a qualified medical doctor, you will undertake to accept full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself as a result of receiving this vaccination.
 
3.    In the event that I choose to decline the offer of vaccination, please confirm that:
 
(a)     it will not compromise my workplace position; and
 
(b)     I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result.
 
Yours faithfully
 
 
________________________
[SIGNATURE ABOVE]
[INSERT YOUR PRINTED NAME HERE]

 
This document originated in Australia

 
Richard (smile)

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

Vaccines emergency use in children ages 5 to 11 by the end of October 2021
Washington — Former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb predicted Sunday that the agency he helmed will authorize Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine for emergency use in children ages 5 to 11 by the end of October.
In an interview with “Face the Nation,” Gottlieb, who serves on Pfizer’s board of directors, said the drug company is expecting to have data on its vaccines in young children before the end of September, which will then be filed with the FDA “very quickly.” The agency then has said it will be weeks, rather than months, before determining whether it will authorize the vaccine for kids ages 5 to 11.
“In a best-case scenario, given that timeline they’ve just laid out, you could potentially have a vaccine available to children aged 5 to 11 by Halloween,” Gottlieb said. “If everything goes well, the Pfizer data package is in order, and FDA ultimately makes a positive determination, I have confidence in Pfizer in terms of the data that they’ve collected. But this is really up to the Food and Drug Administration to make an objective determination.”
·   Transcript: Dr. Scott Gottlieb on “Face the Nation”
Pfizer has been conducting clinical trials of its two-dose vaccine in children 2 years and older, and its approval could be crucial to helping combat the spread of the highly contagious Delta variant in schools. Children represent 25% of new COVID-19 infections.
The shot has already been authorized for children ages 12 to 15, and Gottlieb said he believes COVID vaccines will eventually be among those required for children in public schools.
“I think you’re going to see more local school districts and governors make those recommendations,” he said. “Eventually ACIP is going to make a recommendation about whether this should be included in the childhood immunization schedule. My guess is they’re waiting for more of the vaccines to be fully licensed to make that kind of a recommendation. But I would expect this eventually to be required as part of the childhood immunization schedule.”
For parents who may be wary of their children receiving a vaccine that is under emergency use, rather than fully approved by the FDA for children, Gottlieb encouraged them to consult with their pediatricians, but stressed they are not facing a “binary decision” of getting their children vaccinated against COVID-19 or not.
“There’s different ways to approach vaccination. You could go with one dose for now. You could potentially wait for the lower dose vaccine to be available, and some pediatricians may make that judgment. If your child’s already had COVID, one dose may be sufficient. You could space the doses out more,” he said. “So, there’s a lot of discretion that pediatricians can exercise, making largely off-label judgments, but exercising discretion within the context of what an individual child’s needs are, their risk is, and what the parents’ concerns are.”
While the FDA is expected to make a decision on whether to authorize COVID vaccines in children in the coming weeks, federal health agencies are also weighing whether to approve booster shots for vaccinated Americans.
The Biden administration initially announced in August that it was prepared to begin offering the boosters the week of September 20, and Americans would need to get their additional shots eight months after receiving their second vaccine dose. But Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told “Face Nation” last week that it may only be Pfizer’s booster that receives federal approval by September 20.
The FDA’s advisory committee is scheduled to meet Friday to discuss the booster shots, and Gottlieb said the agency is positioned to act “very quickly” depending on the outcome of the meeting. If the boosters are approved, he said a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee would then recommend which populations would get them first, likely those who are at higher risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 such as elderly Americans living in nursing homes.
Pfizer has already filed its application with the FDA for approval of its booster, and Gottlieb predicted Johnson & Johnson will likely be next to do so.
“They have very good data also looking at boosters. They’ve showed a good response,” he said of Johnson & Johnson. “And I think that vaccine also could be in a position to get authorized by FDA in short order.”
Coronavirus Crisis
First published on September 12, 2021 / 11:48 AM
© 2021 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Richard Noakes
Richard Noakes
6 days ago

I simply don’t understand why people get herded into taking vaccines which don’t work, according to my betters, however this is the Covid Crusher which would stop this Covid Pandemic dead, if everyone practiced it and it is free, from me:
The Achilles Heel of Coronavirus, is while it is still in the developing stage as Coronavirus/Covid in the warm, wet areas inside the nasal passages of your head (nose) and before it gets to become Covid in your head and lungs, 10 to 14 days later. If Coronavirus is not treated with my free iodine salt clean water cure to flush out your nasal passages, as soon as possible, or during self isolation, it becomes Covid, which is where the money is. You cannot catch Covid! Always breathe through your nose and keep your mouth shut, because you really don’t want the Coronavirus to seed itself in your lungs!! My free salt water cure has “absolutely nothing” to do with mRNA test vaccines. Treating Coronavirus with my free iodine salt clean water cure, flushes out the nasal cavity and kills Coronavirus, before it gets to be Covid, irrespective of if you have had mRNA vaccines or not. Mix one heaped teaspoon of iodine salt in a mug of warm or cold clean water, cup a hand and pour some of the solution in, then sniff or snort that mugful up into your nose, spitting out everything which comes down into your mouth, by so doing, you flush out your nasal cavity, where Coronavirus lives. If you get a burning sensation (which lasts for 2-3 minutes) then you have a Coronavirus infection.When the soreness goes away, blow out your head with toilet paper and flush away, washing your hands afterwards and continue doing my salt clean water nasal cavity flush cure, morning, noon and night, or more often, if you want, until, when you do my free salt water cure, you don’t experience any soreness at all in your nasal cavity. While you are at it, swallow a couple of mouthfulls and if you get a burning sensation in your chest, then you are killing the Covid/Bronchitis there too, so keep it up, each time you do a salt water sniffle, until the soreness in your head and lungs goes away – job done. Pour some of the solution on a flat surface and allow to dry and see what you have then. This is what coats the nasal passages in your head and kills Coronavirus/Covid off. You can see why it is so effective. This is what I have done for the past 27 years and I am NEVER ill, nor do you need to be either.
Please pass it around to everyone who wants to give it a try.
“Even so, a key issue is that the current vaccines block severe disease but do not prevent infection, said Dr. Gregory Poland, a vaccine scientist at the Mayo Clinic. That is because the virus is still capable of replicating in the nose, even among vaccinated people, who can then transmit the disease through tiny, aerosolized droplets”
Reuters – what my free salt water cure stops.
He added that “Current vaccines are great at preventing [CO1] serious infection deep in the lungs, but not at blocking infection in the upper airways. What’s needed is a nasal-spray (vaccine) that would stop the coronavirus from taking hold at all.” – what my free salt water cure does and stops.
No soreness when you do it, it feels like you are flushing your head with water, if you get sore reaction, you have a virus so deal with it, exactly as I have described above – did a sniffle today – Me, all OK!!
We all need a cure which works instead of these vaccines, when you get a Coronavirus infection – now you have one.
Do not use saline water bought online, use iodine based kitchen or sea salt, it is the iodine in the salt which kills Coronavirus dead
Keep safe. Richard