Dr. Haruo Ozaki of the Tokyo Medical Association on Ivermectin: “It looks like we’re blocking supply because we believe it’s going to work.”

Why would a drug be blocked if it’s believed to cure an illness?

After researching some information on Japan’s recall of over 1.6 million doses of the Moderna vaccine due to possible metal contamination, I went investigating further and found some conflicting information involving Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Dr. Haruo Ozaki, and the Ivermectin situation.

Many websites are reporting that Dr. Haruo Ozaki came out in a press conference this month (August 2021) suggesting the use of Ivermectin in a now widely shared video.

However, this is incorrect. In actuality, Dr. Haruo Ozaki made this announcement in February 2021.

Here is the video with provided transcript thanks to the subtitles that were added:

If this video no longer exists, please let me know and I will find an alternative. Thank you.

“In Africa, if we compare countries distributing ivermectin once a year with countries which do not give ivermectin, I mean, they don’t give ivermectin to prevent COVID, but to prevent parasitic diseases. But anyway, if we look at COVID numbers in countries that give ivermectin, the number of cases is 134.4 per 100,000 and the number of death is 2.2 per 100,000. 

Now African countries which do not distribute Ivermectin: 950.6 cases per 100,000 and 29.3 deaths per 100,000.

I believe the difference is clear.

Of course, one cannot conclude that ivermectin is effective only on the basis of these figures, but when we have all these elements, we cannot say that ivermectin is absolutely not effective, at least not me.

We can do other studies to confirm its efficacy, but we are in a crisis situation. With regard to the use of ivermectin, it is obviously necessary to obtain the informed consent of the patients, and I think we’re in a situation where we can afford to give them this treatment.” – Dr. Haruo Ozaki

Now with that cleared up, I want to bring attention to a more recent report that did come out in August 2021 (allegedly), from a Japanese website: yomiuri.co.jp

The following will be a translated version using this service: translate.com
I have provided a copy/pasted format for search capabilities. Viewing would be easier in desktop/tablet mode. For those on mobile, the Japanese text will be shown first, followed by the translation in English. Please keep in mind that since this is using a translation website, there may be inaccuracies and missing context.

Lastly, I want to point out that I personally do not agree with every assessment made in the following account; such as, “there is a potent delta strain going around”, or so forth. I think these notions are embellished news stories to give the illusion that the virus is deadlier and harder to contain, just to push for a worldwide vaccine effort. However, there are still many intelligent/educated individuals who are not yet fully aware of this agenda, but are waking up to the realization that something is not right with the vaccine push and the suppression of actual treatments that are working against several known illnesses. If Ivermectin is acknowledged to be beneficial in combatting respiratory viruses, then it concludes that it could be helpful in treating coronaviruses that would also involve the common cold/flu/influenza/pneumonia/COVID/SARS, etc.

It therefore goes without saying, that a cheap, effective wonder drug capable of treating such illnesses and other known diseases would be a pharmaceutical’s worst nightmare that would ultimately hurt their own pockets as well as that of the medical/health industry, and any stakeholders who share in their profits.

So with that out of the way, here is a current, updated account of what the President of the Tokyo Medical Association has to say about Ivermectin. All quotes in italics are by Dr. Haruo Ozaki.

The below image is a screenshot of the first page of the Japanese website:

Screenshot taken from: yomiuri.co.jp
Some embellishment has been added for emphasis:

「今こそイベルメクチンを使え」東京都医師会の尾崎治夫会長が語ったその効能

POINT
■イベルメクチンが新型コロナの予防にも治療にも効果があるという論文が相次いで発表されているが、すでに「使用国」とされている日本では使用が進んでいない。

■感染爆発が進む今こそ使用すべきだが、使おうにもイベルメクチンがない、政府の副作用被害救済制度の対象になっていないなどの課題がある。

■日本版EUAを早く整備して、現場の医師が使用できる体制になれば、自宅待機や療養の患者にも投与できる。政府は積極的に使用促進に取り組むべきだ。

“Use ivermectin now,” said Haruo Ozaki, president of the Tokyo Medical Association

POINT
A series of papers have been published that ivermectin is effective in preventing and treating the new corona, but its use has not progressed in Japan, which is already considered a “country of use”.

■ It should be used only now when the infection explosion progresses, but there are issues such as the absence of ivermectin even if it is used, and the fact that it is not subject to the government’s side effect damage relief system.

■ If the Japanese version of EUA is developed as soon as possible so that doctors in the field can use it, it can be administered to patients who are staying at home or recuperating. The government should actively promote its use.

東京オリンピックの開催中にインドを起源とするデルタ株が猛威を振るい、感染者の拡大が続いている。副作用の報告がほとんどなく、諸外国の臨床試験で効果が報告されているイベルメクチンを日本はなぜ使おうとしないのか。早くからイベルメクチンの有効な使用法を提言してきた東京都医師会の尾崎会長に8月5日、緊急インタビューした。
聞き手・構成 認定NPO法人・21世紀構想研究会理事長
科学ジャーナリスト 馬場錬成

During the Tokyo Olympics, delta strains originating in India are raging and the spread of infected people continues. Why does Japan not try to use ivermectin, which has been reported to be effective in clinical trials in other countries with few reports of side effects?

On August 5, I interviewed Mr. Ozaki, president of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association, who had been proposing effective use of ivermectin from an early age.

Listening and Composition President, 21st Century Conception Society, Certified NPO Science Journalist Rensei Baba

まだ見えない感染拡大のピーク

――第5波ともいわれる今回の爆発的な感染拡大は、まだ右肩上がりが続いているようです。自宅待機・療養者が急増していますが、東京都医師会はどのように対応していますか。

「1月の第3波で自宅待機、療養の人が急増したとき、これではダメだということになって、24時間支援を目標に東京都と東京都医師会が一緒になって体制構築に取り組み、47地区医師会のうち37まで対応できるまでになりました。ところが、毎日1000人を超える自宅療養者が積みあがる今の状況は、限界を超えています。診療所の医師は、一般診療、ワクチン接種、健康診断、往診などで手が回らない。いま、保健所が入院調整をしています。東京都には入院調整センターもありますが、急変したコロナ患者を迅速に受け入れて治療できる体制が確立されるところまではいっていません」

The peak of the spread of infection that has not yet been seen

―― This explosive spread, also known as the fifth wave, seems to be still rising. The number of people staying at home and recuperating is increasing rapidly, but how is the Tokyo Medical Association responding?

“When the number of people staying at home and recuperating increased rapidly in the third wave in January, this was not enough, and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Tokyo Medical Association worked together to build a system with the goal of 24-hour support, and we were able to respond to up to 37 of the 47 district medical associations. However, the current situation where more than 1,000 home care persons are accumulated every day is over the limit. Doctors at clinics are available for general medical care, vaccinations, medical examinations, house contacts, etc. The public health center is adjusting hospitalization now. There is also an inpatient coordination center in Tokyo, but we are not well into establishing a system that can quickly accept and treat corona patients who have suddenly changed.”

多くの臨床試験結果は「予防にも治療にも効果」

――これまで世界で発表されているイベルメクチンの臨床試験の論文を読むと、予防にも治療にも効いている例が多数出ています。

「中南米、アジアなどを中心にイベルメクチンがコロナの予防・治療に効いているという論文が多数出ていることは承知しています。次々と発症する患者の対応に迫られるが有効な治療薬もない。ワクチンは間に合わない。そういう差し迫ったときに、イベルメクチンがコロナに効いているという論文が出ているのだから、これを使ってみようと思うのは臨床医としては当たり前の対応です。医師主導の臨床試験論文が多数出てきたのは、そういう事情があったからです」

Many clinical trial results are “effective for prevention and treatment”

―― Reading the papers of ivermectin clinical trials published around the world, there are many cases that are effective in prevention and treatment.

I am aware that there are many papers that ivermectin is effective in preventing and treating corona, mainly in Latin America and Asia. There is no effective treatment which is pressed for the correspondence of the patient who develops one after another either. The vaccine will not be in time. It is a natural correspondence as a clinician to think that this is used because the thesis that ivermectin works for the corona has come out at such an imminent time. That’s why so many doctor-led clinical trial papers came out.”

――普通は製薬企業が大がかりな臨床試験をして効果を見るのですが、イベルメクチンはオンコセルカ症(河川盲目症)、リンパ系フィラリア症などの熱帯病の特効薬として、世界保健機関(WHO)をはじめ世界中の国々が20年以上前に承認した薬剤です。新型コロナにも効果があるなら適応外だがパンデミックの中で使用しよう、ということになったのはやむを得ないということですね。

 「そうです。パンデミックの医療現場は戦場です。野戦病院と同じです。患者が運び込まれ次々と容態が悪化して亡くなっていく。そのとき副作用もほとんどなく、コロナにも効くという論文が多数出てきたので、これにすがりつくようにして投与する医師の気持ちはよく分かります」

――Usually, pharmaceutical companies conduct large-sized clinical trials to see its effects, but ivermectin is a drug approved more than 20 years ago by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other countries around the world as a special effect of tropical diseases such as oncocelacia (river blindness) and lymphatic filariasis. If the new corona is also effective, it is not adaptable, but it is no use in a pandemic.

“That’s right. The medical field of the pandemic is a battlefield. It is the same as the field hospital. The patient is carried in, and the condition deteriorates one after another and it dies. At that time, there were few side effects, and many papers came out that it works for corona, so I understand the feelings of the doctor who administers it by following this.”

「つい先日、インドでコロナ感染症の治療ガイドラインを決めている全インド医科大学(All India Institute of Medical Sciences/AIIMS)の研究グループが、イベルメクチンの予防効果を調べた論文を発表しています。それによると、約3900人の医療従事者(職員及び学生)を対象に、イベルメクチン体重1キロ当たり0.3ミリ・グラムを3日間隔で2回投与した群、1回のみ投与した群、そして投与しなかった群の三つの群に分けて臨床試験を行った結果、イベルメクチンを2回投与された人は、新型コロナ感染が83%減少したというのです。論文を発表したのは世界でも第一級の研究グループですから、非常に信頼性が高いものです」

“Just recently, a research group from the All Institute of Medical Sciences/AIIMS, which has set guidelines for treating coronal infections in India, published a paper examining the preventive effects of ivermectin. According to the study, about 3,900 healthcare professionals (staff and students) were given 0.3 milligrams per kilo of ivermectin weight twice every three days, administered only once, and in three groups that did not, and those who were given ivermectin twice had an 83% reduction in new corona infections. It’s a very reliable research group because it’s one of the first-class research groups in the world to publish a paper.”

日本はすでに使用国に区分け

――日本では2020年5月18日に通達した「新型コロナウイルス感染症(COVID-19)診療の手引き第2版」から、イベルメクチンをCOVID-19治療に使用することを認めています。世界でも、日本はイベルメクチンの使用国に区分けされています。

「日本では以前から皮膚病の 疥癬 などに、『ストロメクトール』という商品名でイベルメクチンが適応薬として承認されており、改定手引きでは、『適応外』として新型コロナの治療にも承認する通達を出しています。適応外とは、医師と患者の判断で使用してもいいということです。通達を出したころまでに、世界では27か国、36件の臨床試験が行われており、イベルメクチンが予防・治療に効果が出ていると報告されていました。だから厚生労働省も適応外を認めたのです。効果がないと出ていたら通達は出さないでしょう」

Japan has already been classified as a country of use

―― Japan has admitted to using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment from the “New Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) Medical Care Guidelines 2nd Edition” announced on May 18, 2020. In the world, Japan is classified as a country where ivermectin is used.

“In Japan, ivermectin has been approved as an indication drug under the product name ‘stromectol’ for scabies for skin diseases, etc., and in the revised guidelines, we have issued a public order to approve the treatment of the new corona as ‘not adapted’.

It is not indication and can be used at the judgment of the doctor and the patient. By the time of the report, 36 clinical trials had been conducted in 27 countries around the world, and it was reported that ivermectin was effective in prevention and treatment. Therefore, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also admitted the outside adaptation. If it was ineffective, I wouldn’t get a good by it.”

政府は使用に前向きな国会答弁、しかし…

――国会でも政府はイベルメクチンの使用を進めるような答弁をしています。

「さる2月17日の衆議院予算委員会で、立憲民主党の中島克仁議員がイベルメクチンについて、『国として早期にコロナの治療薬として承認できるように治験に最大限のバックアップをすべきである』との提案を行いました。田村厚生労働大臣は『適応外使用では今でも使用できる。医療機関で服用して自宅待機するという使用法もある』と答弁しています。菅首相は『日本にとって極めて重要な医薬品であると思っているので、最大限努力する』と答弁し、積極的な取り組みを示すような発言でした。しかし現実には(取り組みは)できていません」

The government has responded positively to the use of the Diet, but…

――the government has also responded to the Diet to advance the use of ivermectin.

“At the House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting on February 17, Katsuhito Nakajima, a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, proposed that Ivermectin should be backed up to the clinical trial to be approved as a treatment for corona at an early date. Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Tamura said, “It can still be used for use outside of adaptation. There is also a usage of taking it at a medical institution and staying at home.”

Prime Minister Kan responded, “I believe it is an extremely important drug for Japan, so I will do my utmost,” and made a statement that indicated his proactive efforts. But in reality, we’re not working on it.”

――なぜ、できないのでしょうか?

「私たちも、日本の承認薬を供給する企業とその先にあるアメリカのメルク社がどういう供給体制にあるのか調べました。メルク社は治療薬を開発中であるせいか、イベルメクチンは新型コロナの治療・予防には効かないという見解で、疥癬などの皮膚病以外に使わせないとの意向が働いている。つまり、新型コロナに使うといっても、実際にはメルクが出さなければ国内のイベルメクチン供給には結びつかない。医師がイベルメクチンの処方を書いても、薬局には薬剤がない。これでは事実上使えないことになります」

「しかし、(メルクは)イベルメクチンは効かないと言っているのだから、何も供給を制限する必要はないはずです。効かないなら需要がないのですから。効くと信じているから供給をブロックしているように見えてしまいます」

――Why can’t you do it?

“We also looked at the supply structure of japanese companies that supply approved drugs and merck in the U.S. beyond. Perhaps because Merck is developing therapeutic drugs, the company believes that ivermectin is not effective in treating and preventing the new corona, and the intention is not to use it for anything other than skin diseases such as scabies. In other words, even if it is used for the new corona, it will not actually lead to the supply of ivermectin in Japan if Merck does not put it out. Even if the doctor writes a prescription for ivermectin, the pharmacy does not have the drug. This makes it virtually inable.”

“But [Merck] says ivermectin doesn’t work, so there shouldn’t be any need to limit the supply. If it doesn’t work, there’s no demand. It looks like we’re blocking supply because we believe it’s going to work.”

ジェネリックも普及しない理由は

――イベルメクチンのジェネリック薬品は中国、インドなどでも大量に製造されています。メルクが出さないなら、それを輸入して供給する手段もあるはずです。

「そうです。医師でもある中島議員が中心になって衆議院に提出した『新型インフルエンザ等治療用特定医薬品の指定及び使用に関する特別措置法案』(日本版EUA*整備法案)が成立すれば、ジェネリック製剤も使用できるようになります。しかし、現時点では政府は全く動いていないのではないでしょうか」

Why are generics not popular?

――Ivermectin’s generics are manufactured in large quantities in China, India, and other countries. If Merck doesn’t, there should also be a way to import and supply it.

“Yes, if the “Special Measures Bill on the Designation and Use of Specified Drugs for Treatment of New Influenza” (Japanese version of the EUA* Maintenance Bill) submitted to the House of Representatives, mainly by Mr. Nakajima, who is also a doctor, is enacted, generic formulations will also be available. But at the moment, the government is not moving at all.

「もう一つの問題は、イベルメクチンがすでに世界の多くの国で使われ、用法や用量、安全性・有効性などが確認されているのに、日本ではまだ臨床試験段階でそうはなっていない、ということです。このため、イベルメクチンは医薬品副作用の被害救済制度の対象になっていません。これでは医師は使いにくい。しかし、そういう不安と不利な状況の中でも、イベルメクチンの効果を確信している医師たちの中には、自らの責任でイベルメクチンを処方している医師が出てきています。私は日本版EUA整備法を早く成立させてほしいと願っています」

*EUA(Emergency Use Authorization)緊急時に未承認薬などの使用を許可したり、既承認薬の適応を拡大したりする米食品医薬品局(FDA)の制度。FDAが<1>生命を脅かす疾患である<2>疾患の治療などで一定の有効性が認められる<3>使用した際のメリットが、製品の潜在的なリスクを上回る<4>ほかに疾患を診断、予防、または治療する適当な代替品がない――という条件を満たすと判断した場合に使用が認められる。

“Another problem is that ivermectin has already been used in many countries around the world, and although usage, dosage, safety and efficacy have been confirmed, it has not yet been done in Japan during the clinical trial phase. For this reason, ivermectin is not subject to the drug side effect damage relief system. This makes it difficult for doctors to use it. However, even in such anxiety and adverse situations, some doctors who are convinced of the effect of ivermectin are prescribing ivermectin at their own responsibility. I hope that the Japanese version of the EUA Development Act will be enacted as soon as possible.”

*Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) system that allows the use of unappreciated drugs in emergencies and expands the indication of approved drugs. It is found to be used when the FDA determines that <1> the benefits of using <3>, which have certain efficacy in treating life-threatening diseases< <2> diseases, etc., outweigh the potential risks of the product <4> and are found to meet the condition that there is no suitable alternative to diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease.

[NOTE FROM E.A.R.: Not sure why when translating that the numbers 2 and 3 got reversed…]

筆者のインタビューに応じる尾崎会長(右) / Chairman Ozaki (right) who responds to an interview with the author
使用国なのに現実には使えない

――適応外を認めたので、世界では日本は「イベルメクチン使用国」に区分けされていますが、現実には使えない体制になっているということですね。

「その通りです。要するに政府はイベルメクチンを供給できる体制も構築せずにいるわけで、推進体制にはなっていない。日本版EUAを早く整備して、現場の医師が使用できる体制になれば、田村厚労大臣が国会で答弁したように、現実的に自宅待機、療養の患者さんにも投与できるわけですが、いまの体制では事実上何もできません。よく『国民の安全のため』と言いますが、このような有事の際にも慎重姿勢を崩さないのでは、国民の安全を犠牲にしているとしか理解のしようがありません」

Even if it is a country of use, it cannot be used in reality.

―― Because it admitted not to adapt, Japan is classified as a “country using ivermectin” in the world, but it is a system that can not be used in reality.

“That’s it. In short, the government does not build a system that can supply ivermectin, so it has not been promoted. If the Japanese version of EUA is developed early and becomes a system that doctors on site can use, it can be administered to patients who are practically staying at home and recuperating, as Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Tamura answered in the Diet, but virtually nothing can be done with the current system. I often say ‘for the safety of the people’, but if you don’t lose your cautious attitude in the event of such an event, you can only understand that it is at the expense of the safety of the people.”

自ら手を出さない学術現場や研究者

――日本の問題点はほかにもないでしょうか。

「イベルメクチンは大村智博士が発見してノーベル賞までいただいた薬剤です。コロナに本当に効いているかどうか日本が世界に先駆けて取り組む実行力があるべきです。WHOやアメリカの国立衛生研究所(NIH)がコロナへの効果が未確定だとの見解を取り続けていますが、パンデミックの中でこれだけ世界中でイベルメクチンが使われているのですから、科学的なエビデンス(証拠)を得られる臨床試験を国が主導して行い、客観的で納得できるような結論を示せば、日本の研究水準のアップにもつながります」

Academic sites and researchers who do not take their own hands

―― Are there any other problems in Japan?

“Ivermectin is a drug discovered by Dr. Satoshi Omura and received the Nobel Prize. Japan should be the first in the world to be effective in whether corona is really working or not. WHO and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to take the view that the effect on corona is indeterminate, but since ivermectin is used all over the world during the pandemic, if the government conducts clinical trials that can obtain scientific evidence and present objective and convincing conclusions, it will lead to an increase in the level of research in Japan.”

「南米、アジアなどでイベルメクチンがコロナに効いているという結果をアメリカの臨床医師たちのグループ(FLCCC)が発表し、イギリスのイベルメクチン推奨団体(BIRD)などの医師グループは、多くの論文を総合的に分析したメタ解析から『効果あり』を確信し、世界中の医療現場にイベルメクチンを推奨しています。日本オリンピック委員会にも、東京オリンピックの開催にあたってイベルメクチンの有効使用をすべきだと伝えてきましたが、政府は何も対応しませんでした」

 「学術現場の研究者や大学の先生にも問題があります。自らは何もやらないで、WHOのような国際機関や欧米の大きな保健機関が出した『イベルメクチンはコロナに効くかどうかは未確定』という見解を自分たちの見解にしている人が多い。主体的にやらないで、人の意見だけで動いています。どうしてイベルメクチンが効くか効かないか、自分たちで確かめてやろうという気にならないのか。やりもしないで批判ばかりしている評論家や研究者・学者がいるのは嘆かわしいことです。日本のアカデミアはもっと積極的に貢献してほしいと思います」

“A group of Clinical Physicians in the United States (FLCCC) has published the results of ivermectin’s effects on corona in South America, Asia, and other countries, and physician groups such as the Ivermectin Recommended Organization (BIRD) in the United Kingdom are convinced that it is ‘effective’ from a meta-analysis that comprehensively analyzes many papers, and recommends ivermectin to medical settings around the world. The Japanese Olympic Committee has also told us that ivermectin should be used effectively to host the Tokyo Olympics, but the government has not responded to anything.

“There are also problems with academic researchers and university teachers. Many people do not do anything, but take their own view of the view that “whether ivermectin works for corona is indeterminate” issued by international organizations such as WHO and large health organizations in Europe and the United States. Don’t be proactive, we’re moving only on people’s opinions. Why doesn’t we feel like we’re going to see if ivermectin works or not? It is deplorable that there are critics, researchers, and scholars who are criticizing without doing anything. I hope academia in Japan will contribute more actively.”

都医師会は「使用に取り組みたい」

――日本でもようやく、製薬企業大手の興和(コーワ)が主体になった臨床試験が予定されています。どのように対応しますか。

「東京都も医師会もこの臨床試験を積極的に支援・協力する方針です。協力する医療機関などを積極的に探して提供することにしました。外国が開発したワクチンや治療薬に頼っている国ではどうしようもない。自分たちでイベルメクチンのデータをきちんと出し、日本発として重症化や死亡の減少につながる貢献を目指すことがわれわれのやるべきことです」

The Tokyo Medical Association wants to work on its use

— Clinical trials are finally scheduled in Japan led by Kowa, a leading pharmaceutical company. How do you respond?

“The Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Medical Association will actively support and cooperate in this clinical trial. We have actively searched for and provided medical institutions to cooperate with. We can’t help it in countries that rely on vaccines and therapeutics developed by foreign countries. We need to properly provide ivermectin data ourselves and aim to contribute to the reduction of serious diseases and deaths from Japan.”

――コロナ・パンデミックの体験から日本の医療制度が学ぶべきことは。

「日本の国民皆保険制度のもとで、今回のようなパンデミック有事のときの対応は厳しいことがはっきりしました。民間医療施設は稼働率を精いっぱい高めて効率を上げることで経営しています。そういう中では、今回のように『急激に感染者が増えたから対応せよ』と言われても極めて難しいのです」

「対応策の一例をあげれば、公的医療機関・病院などで1000床くらいの空きベッドを持つ病院を建て、ふだんは研究施設や医師、看護師、検査技師らの研修や訓練機関として運用し、パンデミックが発生した際には医療機関として活用する、という方法があります。スキルを磨いて人材を養成し、パンデミック発生時には育成した人材も投入できる体制にするのです。運用方法を具体化するには課題もあると思いますが、今後、検討・研究すべきだと思います」

――What should the Japanese health care system learn from the corona pandemic experience?

“Under Japan’s national health insurance system, it has become clear that the response in the event of such a pandemic is severe. Private medical facilities are run by increasing the utilization rate to the maximum and increasing efficiency. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to say that “respond because the number of infected people has increased rapidly” as this time.”

“If you give an example of countermeasures, we will build a hospital with about 1,000 vacant beds in public medical institutions and hospitals, usually operate it as a training and training organization for research facilities, doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, etc., and use it as a medical institution in the event of a pandemic.  There is a method. We will develop human resources by honing our skills, and in the event of a pandemic, we will be able to bring in the human resources we have developed. I think there are issues to materialize the operation method, but I think we should consider and research it in the future.”

インタビューを終えて

使用に慎重なWHOへの反発も

デルタ株(インド変異株)が、日本の感染者のほぼすべてに置き換わろうとしている状況下で、新型コロナの新規感染者数が日々、過去最高を更新している。

都内の自宅療養者は2万人を超え、全国では7万人を超えている。医師でもある中島克仁衆議院議員は「抗体カクテル療法は有効だが、確保量と体制整備に課題がある。コロナ患者の重症化を防ぐため、早期治療の選択肢を広げることが必要だ」と強調する。その選択肢のひとつがイベルメクチンの投与――というのが尾崎会長を強く動かしていると感じた。

After the interview

There is also a backlash against WHO is cautious about its use.

With Delta (India Mutant) about to replace nearly all of Japan’s infected people, the number of new corona infections is hitting a record high every day.

There are more than 20,000 home recuperators in Tokyo and more than 70,000 nationwide. Katsuhito Nakajima, a member of the House of Representatives who is also a doctor, said, “Antibody cocktail therapy is effective, but there are issues in securing the amount and the system. In order to prevent corona patients from becoming more severe, we need to expand our options for early treatment.” I felt that one of the options was the administration of ivermectin, which strongly moved Chairman Ozaki.

コロナ治療・予防へのイベルメクチンの評価はまだ固まっていない。WHOやNIHなど、世界のメジャーな保健機関は、「世界中の科学者を納得させるだけのエビデンスを示した臨床試験結果は出ていない」という見解を維持している。しかし、「これらの主張は根拠が薄い」と反論する医師グループが米英に多数出てきているのも事実だ。

 重症化して死に至る人も出る中で、世界中の医療現場では日夜、医師たちが懸命に治療に取り組んでいる。感染急拡大期のインドの医療現場は、まさに戦場だった。治療薬も治療機器類も十分でない医療現場では、新型コロナに効いているとの多数の論文を頼りにイベルメクチンが投与され、大きな効果を上げる例が多数出た。

The evaluation of ivermectin for coronal treatment and prevention has not yet been solidified. The world’s major health organizations, such as the WHO and NIH, maintain the view that “no clinical trial results have shown enough evidence to convince scientists around the world.” However, it is also true that a large number of doctor groups have come out in the United States and Britain to counter that “these claims are unfounded”.

Doctors are working hard day and night in medical situations around the world as some people die from serious each other. India’s medical scene during the rapid spread of infection was truly a battleground. In medical sites where there are not enough therapeutic agents and treatment equipment, ivermectin was administered relying on a number of papers that said it was effective for the new corona, and there were many cases that raised a large effect.

インド弁護士会は、WHOがイベルメクチンを治療使用に推奨しないとしているのは「患者を見殺しにする殺人罪に等しい」と激しく批判した文書を作り、テドロス事務局長や主任サイエンティストに送り、その文書を世界に向けて公表している。

イベルメクチンの効果ありとする医師団体がアメリカのFLCCCとイギリスのBIRDである。FLCCCは、世界の613人の科学者(医師・研究者)が2万6398人を対象に行った63件の臨床試験のメタ分析(8月15日現在)の結果をまとめ、以下のように判定している。

▽14件の予防試験において86%の予防効果
▽27件の初期症状治療試験において73%の改善効果
▽22件の重症治療試験において40%の改善効果
▽25件の臨床試験において61%の死亡率低下

 メタ解析した約半数の31件が、世界の臨床試験標準とされ、エビデンスを重視するランダム化比較試験(RCT)であり、ここで60%の改善効果が出ている。尾崎会長は、これを信じて治療にイベルメクチンを使おうとする臨床医がいてもおかしくない、との見解を示している。

The Indian Bar Association has made a document that sharply criticized the WHO’s [indemnity] in its insumping ivermectin for therapeutic use, “equal to murder charges that kill patients,” and sent it to Director-General Tedros and its chief scientist, who published the document to the world.

The doctors’ organizations that have the effect of ivermectin are FLCCC in the United States and BIRD in The United Kingdom.The FLCCC compiled the results of a meta-analysis (as of August 15) of 63 clinical trials conducted by 613 scientists (physicians and researchers) around the world in 26,398 people, and determined as follows:

86% preventive effect in 14 preventive trials , 73% improvement in 27 initial symptom treatment trials , 40% improvement in 22 severe treatment trials – 61% mortality rate decrease in 25 clinical trials

About half of the 31 meta-analyses are global clinical trial standards, and evidence-focused randomized trials (RCTs) have a 60% improvement. Chairman Ozaki shows the opinion that there is a clinician who believes this and tries to use Ivermectin for treatment.

イベルメクチンを否定する主張も根強い

 一方で、コロナ治療・予防にイベルメクチンを使うことに疑問を呈したり、反対する声が根強くあることは事実だ。筆者はイベルメクチン効果なしとする論文を3本読んだが、うち2本は研究者から臨床試験の方法に間違いがあると指摘されたものだ。それ以外に効果なしとする論文はないのではないか。

 確かに、「効果あり」としたエジプトの医師グループの論文が、データが 捏造 された疑いがあると指摘されて撤回されるといった事例もあった。しかし、前述の通り、イベルメクチンが新型コロナに効果ありとする論文の方が圧倒的に多い事実は揺るがない。イベルメクチンには副作用もほとんどなく、ジェネリックが行き渡っていて価格も安い。使ってみようという考えは無謀とはいえない。使用を否定することは、パンデミックへの対応策をつぶすことになりかねないのではないか。

While there are persistent claims that ivermectin is denied, it is true that there are persistent voices questioning or opposing the use of ivermectin for coronal treatment and prevention. I have read three papers that have no ivermectin effect, two of which were pointed out by researchers as erring in the way clinical trials are conducted. There might be no thesis which does not have the effect other than that. 

Indeed, there were cases where papers by egyptian doctors who said they were “effective” were withdrawn because they were pointed out that the data was suspected to have been fabricated. However, as mentioned above, the fact that there are overwhelmingly more papers that Ivermectin is effective for the new corona is unwavering. Ivermectin has few side effects, generics are all over the place, and the price is low. The idea of using it is not reckless. Denying its use could crush responses to pandemics.

日本版EUA法案成立に期待

田村厚生労働大臣は、国会で「適応外使用では今でも使用できる。医療機関で(イベルメクチンを)服用して自宅待機するという使用法もある」と答弁している。これが簡単にできるなら、東京都医師会はわざわざ「イベルメクチンを使用すべきだ」と主張する必要はないはずだ。

尾崎会長は「適応外使用では、副作用などで健康被害があっても救済制度の対象にはならないし、第一、処方してもモノがない」と語っている。ジェネリック製剤が使えるようにならない限り、イベルメクチンは現実的には「いつまでも使えない薬」であり続けてしまう。

その壁を越えるのが、医師でもある立憲民主党の中島克仁衆議院議員らが国会に提出した「日本版EUA整備法案」の成立だ。しかしいま、国会の休会で棚ざらしになったままだ。

Japan’s eua bill is expected to be enacted, and Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Tamura told the Diet, “It can still be used for use outside of adaptation. There is also a use to take (ivermectin) at a medical institution and stay at home. “If this is easy to do, the Tokyo Medical Association should not have to insist that Ivermectin should be used. 

Chairman Ozaki says, “In non-adaptive use, even if there is a health hazard due to side effects, etc., it is not subject to the relief system, and first, there is no thing even if it prescribes it”. Unless generic formulations become possible, ivermectin will realistically continue to be a “drug that cannot be used forever.” 

Beyond that barrier is the enactment of the “Japanese version of the EUA Development Bill”, which was submitted to the Diet by Katsuhito Nakajima, a member of the House of Representatives of the Constitutional Democratic Party, who is also a doctor. However, it remains shelved by the holiday of the Diet now.

筆頭提案者の中島議員は「この法案を成立させれば、すべて解決します」と言う。疥癬治療薬のイベルメクチンがコロナ治療に使えるようになり、ジェネリック製剤の使用にも道が開け、副作用などの健康被害は救済できるようになる。これなら医師は積極的に処方するようになるだろう、と考えているのだ。

 日本国民全体に対するワクチン接種率は、1回目が約50%、2回目はまだ40%にも届いていない。国内で最大の地域人口を抱える東京都医師会の尾崎会長の最大の懸念は、重症患者を受け入れる医療施設の 逼迫 と、自宅療養者らが重症化して病態が急変することへの対応策だ。尾崎会長の言葉には、緊急にイベルメクチンを使えるようにするしかないという危機感がこもっていた。

 日本で発見されたイベルメクチンは、コロナ・パンデミックの「救世主」となる可能性を秘めている。これまでの世界の臨床試験報告を見ても、全く効かないということはあり得ない。インドをはじめ多くの国が、緊急的にイベルメクチンを投与して感染拡大を抑え込んだ実績がある。緊急時のいま、コロナ感染に使用することに 躊躇 する理由は見当たらない。私はイベルメクチンの活用は、決して「賭け」ではないと確信している。

Mr. Nakajima, the lead proponent, said, “If we pass this bill, we will solve everything.” Ivermectin, a scabies drug, can now be used to treat corona, opening up a path to the use of generic formulations and relief of side effects and other health hazards. They think this will make doctors more aggressive in prescribing it. 

The vaccination rate for the japanese people as a whole has not reached about 50% for the first time and 40% for the second time yet. The biggest concern of Ozaki, president of the Tokyo Medical Association, which has the largest regional population in Japan, is the tightness of medical facilities that accept critically ill patients and measures to prevent home recuperators from becoming more severe and their conditions suddenly changing. Chairman Ozaki’s words expressed a sense of urgency that he had no choice but to be able to use ivermectin urgently. 

Ivermectin found in Japan has the potential to be the “savior” of the coronal pandemic. Looking at the world’s clinical trial reports so far, it is unlikely that it will not work at all. Many countries, including India, have an urgent experience of administering ivermectin to suppress the spread of infection. In an emergency, I see no reason to hesitate to use it for coronal infection. I’m sure the use of ivermectin is never a “bet”.

Credit goes to Haruo Ozaki and Rensei Baba for this interview/report.

プロフィル
尾崎 治夫氏( おざき・はるお )
 おざき内科循環器科クリニック院長。疾病予防に有効なたばこ対策と要介護を未然に防ぐためのフレイル対策に特に力を入れてきた。東京都医師会長として政府や東京都、医療機関などに新型コロナ対策の要望や提言を続けている。順天堂大学卒、69歳。

Profile Haruo Ozaki Director, Ozaki Internal Medicine Cardiology Clinic. We have been particularly focusing on tobacco control effective for disease prevention and frail measures to prevent nursing care before they are required. As chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, he continues to make requests and proposals for new corona countermeasures to the government, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, and medical institutions.Graduated from Juntendo University, aged 69.

プロフィル
馬場 錬成氏( ばば・れんせい )
 1940年生まれ。読売新聞社社会部、科学部、解説部を経て論説委員。退社後は東京理科大学知財専門職大学院教授、早稲田大学客員教授、文部科学省科学技術・学術政策研究所客員研究官、内閣府総合科学技術会議委員などを歴任。現在、認定NPO法人・21世紀構想研究会理事長。「大丈夫か 日本のもの作り」(プレジデント社)、「大丈夫か 日本の特許戦略」(同)、「ノーベル賞の100年」(中公新書)、「大村智 2億人を病魔から守った化学者」(中央公論新社)、「知財立国が危ない」(共著:日本経済新聞出版社)ほか著書多数。

Profile Mr. Rensei Baba Was born in 1940. After studying at the Yomiuri Shimbun’s Social, Science, and Commentary Departments, he became an editorial board member. After leaving the company, he served as a professor at the Graduate School of Intellectual Property Professionals at Tokyo University of Science, a visiting professor at Waseda University, a visiting researcher at the Institute for Science and Technology Policy of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and a member of the Council for Science and Technology Policy of the Cabinet Office. Currently, he is the president of the 21st Century Conception Society, a certified NPO.

He has written many books, including “All Right or Japanese Making” (President), “Is It Okay or Japan’s Patent Strategy” (Same), “100 Years of the Nobel Prize” (Nakako Shin book), “Satoshi Omura, chemist who protected 200 million people from disease” (ChuoKoron Shinsha), and “Intellectual Property State Is Dangerous” (co-author: Nihon Keizai Shimbun Publishing Co., Ltd.).

Again, while I do not agree with everything stated in the above interview, I do agree with the consensus that there is a worldwide suppression of this treatment.

It is interesting getting the perspective from those in other countries, especially in contrast (comparison) to that of the United States, for one. The similarities of Dr. Ozaki’s concerns echoing that of several frontline doctors/healthcare workers and virologists with their struggles in getting an already approved medicine in the hands of patients that might need them, is a huge testament to the strange conflict we see between several health organizations recommending and showing benefits of this treatment, to that of the “powerhouse” industries [WHO, NIH, FDA, CDC, etc.] and the various governments that are refusing to acknowledge the ivermectin studies.

As Dr. Ozaki states: “But [Merck] says ivermectin doesn’t work, so there shouldn’t be any need to limit the supply. If it doesn’t work, there’s no demand. It looks like we’re blocking supply because we believe it’s going to work.”

This is rather chilling. It is implying, in not so subtle terms, that the supply of Ivermectin is being blocked ON PURPOSE because “they” think it will work in treating COVID. …This is a speculation that many are having, because to continue to deny the efficacy and safety of a drug that has been used for decades, yet suddenly make the drug harder and harder to access, ESPECIALLY after it was shown to be effective against COVID… Something tells me that it has NOTHING to do with our health.

Please continue to stay informed and keep doing research. Thank you for reading, and thank you to those who are speaking up and voicing your concerns instead of just following along with the establishments. God bless.

Our Grave Concerns About the Handling of the COVID Pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK

Open letter from several healthcare professions to the UK government/administrators.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Mr Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Ms Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland

Mr Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales

Mr Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland

Mr Sajid Javid, Health Secretary

Dr Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer

Dr Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer

 

22 August 2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

  • The  Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
  • These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
  • You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
  • Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
  • The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
  • Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

  1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

  1. Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease – as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS. Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

  1. The exaggerated nature of the threat

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born. This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate. Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense – hundreds of millions of pounds.

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

  1. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere.

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed. For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.

Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.

Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

  1. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear.

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies. Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2. Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental. This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

  1. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses.

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified. Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

  1. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions.

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith. Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies. In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions. The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings. The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred. Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear. 

The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

  1. Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

  1. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.

Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:

  • The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
  • The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines – which have no associated long-term safety data – could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

  1. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit – they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

Conclusions

The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group – the elderly – the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children. Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms. To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with – according to the previous Health Secretary – a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms. As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM,  Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM

Mr Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon

Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR

Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Mr Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon

Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Click here for the complete list of signatories and if you wish to add your name to the letter.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a press conference on 16 March, with Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Witty and Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. Picture by Andrew Parsons

Navy Commander Warns of “National Security Threat” from Mandatory Vaccination of U.S. Military Personnel

“Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination – A National Security Threat”

Reblogged from globalresearch.ca
by Revolver and Commander Jay Furman on August 15, 2021

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

An officer with the U.S. Navy is warning of a full-blown “national security threat” if the military moves ahead with its planned universal COVID-19 vaccination mandate, in a paper obtained exclusively by Revolver News.

In a memorandum released on Monday, Biden Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced his intention to require a COVID-19 vaccination for all service members by mid-September, or immediately should any COVID vaccines clear FDA approval (the vaccines are currently only authorized for emergency use). Servicemen who refuse to submit to the vaccine will potentially face court martials, prison time, and even less-than-honorable discharge from the service.

If that plan goes ahead, though, CDR J.H. Furman warns the results could conceivably be catastrophic.

“The forced vaccination of all military personnel with the present COVID-19 vaccines may compromise U.S. national security due to the unknown extent of serious vaccine complications,” writes Furman. “Further study is needed before committing the Total Force to one irreversible experimental group. Initial reports leave more concern for the COVID-19 vaccinations than the virus itself for the (at present) exceptionally healthy military population.”

Furman is a career United States naval officer, naval aviator, and foreign area officer with extensive experience advising senior military, diplomatic, and international organization leadership. The commander has spent years serving throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East at sea, ashore and airborne. He also holds a Master of Arts in Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School.

Furman’s paper is not long, weighing in at just two and a half pages plus an equally long list of citations. But he nevertheless hits all the key points for why imposing COVID-19 vaccines on the entire general populace is driven by hysteria, not real concern for saving lives or stamping out the virus.

Furman’s key points are:

  • The average member of the U.S. military is young and in excellent physical fitness, two categories that are nearly immune to the dangers of COVID. So far, only 24 people out of 2.2 million military personnel have died of COVID-19, a rate of less than one per 91,000.
  • There is reason to believe severe or even fatal side-effects from existing COVID-19 vaccines are more common than reported, and could even prove deadlier to otherwise-healthy servicemen than COVID-19.
  • There is also the outlier possibility that mRNA vaccines (the kind used by the Moderna and Pfizer shots) may have unanticipated negative effects on the immune systems of recipients.
  • Currently, the U.S. military has proven completely capable of weathering COVID-19 without any loss of effectiveness, so forcibly making the entire service a test case for a novel type of vaccine is a pointless risk.

We invite readers to read CDR Furman’s entire paper below

***

We thank Revolver News for having brought this article to our attention.

***

Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination – A National Security Threat

CDR Jay Furman, USN*

The forced vaccination of all military personnel with the present COVID-19 vaccines may compromise U.S. national security due to the unknown extent of serious vaccine complications. Further study is needed before committing the Total Force to one irreversible experimental group. Recent reports leave more concern for the COVID-19 vaccinations than the virus itself for the (at present) exceptionally healthy military population, which is not appreciably impacted by the virus without vaccination.

First, SARS-CoV-2 is unlike any other virus. We have yet to completely understand the virology and it is rapidly mutating. Second, the COVID-19 vaccines are all experimental. The world is simultaneously learning about this new technology amongst the largest vaccine rollout in human history. The data on both the virus and vaccines are new and not yet scientifically reliable. Basic assumptions are changing with unprecedented levels of breakthrough cases in the vaccinated population. The U.S. military service member is extremely healthy compared to the general population and is not succumbing to the virus at any significant level, even without the vaccination. According to the CDC, “COVID overall has a 99.74% survival rate. Among young people, that number is even higher. For people aged 18 to 29, the survival rate is 99.97%.” As of August 12, 2021, only 29 (or 0.001%) of the 2.2 mil military population had expired from COVID-19.

To date, the vaccine is more seriously injuring this unique population than the virus itself. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study finds 23 U.S. service members experienced post-vaccination moderate to severe myocarditis who were otherwise healthy and non-symptomatic. There have been many other COVID-19 vaccine harm or death outcomes documented in the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). In fact, COVID-19 vaccine adverse events comprise a full one-third (over 500,000) of the three-decade total for all VAERS reports. Plus, the VAERS system is underreporting COVID-19 vaccine deaths by a factor of five, according to a whistleblower who is described in their court filing as a “[…] subject matter expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, and has access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintain by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).” They attested that the 9,048 reported COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths in VAERS is more like 45,000, after reconciling the various databases.

The UK government agency Public Health England recently published a report showing that, “people who received the COVID-19 shot are more than three times as likely to die than those who have not received the vaccine.” Early signs in Israel indicate the same. Officials there recently reported that at least 85% of all severe and new COVID-19 hospitalizations are prior vaccinated individuals. The inventor of m-RNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, recently disclosed that “[…] new data indicates that people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are at greater risk of getting Covid than someone who is not vaccinated.” The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines also demonstrate significant problems as compared to the negligible military COVID-19 mortality rates. In the European Union (EU), more than 22,000 vaccination-associated deaths are now documented in the EU drug adverse events database. Which caused Doctors for COVID Ethics (an international doctors group from over 30 countries) to conclude on July 9, 2021 “[…] the benefits of vaccination are highly doubtful. In contrast, the harm the vaccines do is very well substantiated […]” Vaccine-enhanced herd immunity is in question. On August 3, Iceland’s Chief Epidemiologist announced that their 95% nation-wide full vaccination rate, “[…] has not led to the herd immunity that experts hoped for. In the past two to three weeks, the Delta variant has outstripped all others in Iceland and it has become clear that vaccinated people can easily contract it as well as spread it to others,”

There is precedence for vaccine failure in respiratory viruses as noted in the journal Nature Microbiology last September, “Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), resulting in failed vaccine trials.” Evidence suggests ADE could cause viral interference and along with other (influenza) vaccines alter our immune systems non-specifically to increase susceptibility to other infections. The mRNA vaccines may redirect our cells away from suppressing latent immunity issues from previous infections (e.g., chicken pox). Consider along with what Dr. Malone describes as an “entire population [that] has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population – whether vaccinated or not.” It could mean massive problems ahead for the global COVID-19 vaccinated as they encounter variations and even simple viruses like the flu, in combination.

Natural immunity already possessed by the military population recovered from COVID-19 is effective against all known variants and also likely durable over time, according to Dr. Peter A. McCullough, who is regarded as one of the most credentialed experts on COVID-19 in the U.S.This past January, the journal Nature published that greater than 95% of COVID-19 recovered people have “[…] durable memories of the virus […]” There is precedence here, as well, with SARS-CoV-1 demonstrating 17 years of natural immunity. A Cleveland Clinic study concluded, “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination […]” Another recent Israeli study questions “[…] the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals […]” after comparing re-infection rates for the vaccinated and recovered segments of the country’s national health database.” Dr. McCullough strongly asserts that the current vaccination programs have become dangerous and should be shut down immediately – that mass vaccination programs in the middle of a pandemic actually causes the variations, making the entire vaccinated population vulnerable to those same variants.

Currently, about 50% of all active and reserve service members have yet to receive a COVID-19 shot of any type. Based on recent reporting data supported by published research findings, this paper argues that instead of lumping two very large unknowns (COVID-19 virology & vaccine efficacy) into one experimental group — possibly threating U.S. military personnel combat readiness — the DOD should maintain the “unvaccinated-half” as a force protection CONTROL GROUP, thus guarantying a viable fighting force. Similar safeguards should also be considered for the civilian DOD population to support the Warfighter, regardless of the long-term vaccine verdict.

Given the COVID-19 mortality in the military, the U.S. can presently maintain the nation’s defensive manning levels, in all critical fields. Pressing forward against these extremely large unknowns by mandating COVID-19 vaccines could potentially threaten basic military deployment assumptions, to say nothing of the long-term destruction to morale and recruiting. If it is true that the military is, in fact, essential to national survival thereby justifying massive budgets and sweeping measures to protect the Force, then deciding to gamble the entirety of those vital forces on what little is certain, is reckless at best. To do so given such low demonstrated serious outcomes in the unvaccinated Force could prove fratricidal. With a better than 99.74% COVID-19 recovery rate in the military population, the singular act of stopping the present vaccination drive, thus preserving a force protection CONTROL GROUP, could prove existentially critical to the country. Immediately, cease and desist all coerced COVID-19 vaccination initiatives for service members and civilians (except for any remaining co-morbidity groups). Moreover, the force protection CONTROL GROUP should commence harmless alternative and preventative protocols like I-MASK+ currently used in nations around the world with great efficacy. According to the American Journal of Therapeuticsin their May-June 2021 issue “Multiple, large ‘natural experiments’ occurred in regions that initiated ‘Ivermectin distribution’ campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.”

Bottom line, the known science does not justify committing the entire U.S. troop strength to one singular experimental group. Given the many unknowns and what we have come to learn most recently, mandatory COVID-19 vaccination may not only be rash, but perhaps become life-threatening to the nation vis-à-vis those dedicated to her defense, against very well-known strategic competitors. Simply, COVID-19 forced-inoculation could prove to be a grave national security threat at a time when the nation can least afford it. We must immediately pause and reevaluate the U.S. defensive strategic assessment of COVID-19 vaccinations for the entire Department. There is absolutely no imperative of ‘benefits outweighing the risks’ to continue with mandating the COVID-19 vaccines to the military population who do not self-elect. Doing so could potentially trigger manning shortfalls brought on by resignations and lost enlistments from this all-volunteer armed force. At this time, there is more than enough justification for a COVID-19 vaccination safety standdown to reconsider how the decision to mass vaccinate will critically impact overall mission effectiveness.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Commander Jay Furman is a career United States naval officer, naval aviator and foreign area officer with extensive experience advising senior military, diplomatic, and international organization leadership. The Commander has spent years serving throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East at sea, ashore, and airborne. He holds a Master of Arts in Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School.

Sources

1. Moss, William. “Q&amp;a: How Many Covid-19 Variants like Delta Are Possible?” Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, 15 July 2021, coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/q-n-a/how-many-covid-19-variants-like-delta-are-possible.

2. Crawford, Nigel, Adele Harris, and Georgina Lewis. “Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED).” The Melbourne Vaccine Education Centre (MVEC). The Melbourne Vaccine Education Centre (MVEC), February 22, 2021. https://mvec.mcri.edu.au/references/vaccine-associated-enhanced-disease-vaed/.

3. Robertson, Sally. “Research Suggests Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Reprograms Innate Immune Responses.” News, May 13, 2021. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210510/Research-suggests-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-reprograms-innate-immune-responses.aspx.

4. Kekatos, Mary. “Israel Saus PFIZER’S COVID-19 Vaccine IS ‘Significantly Less’ Effective against the Indian ‘Delta’.” Daily Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, July 17, 2021. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9796589/Israel-saus-Pfizers-COVID-19-vaccine-significantly-effective-against-Indian-Delta.html.

5. Captaindaretofly. “VAERS Whistleblower: ‘45,000 Dead From Covid-19 Vaccines within 3 Days OF Vaccination’, Sparks Lawsuit against Federal Government.” Daily Expose, July 20, 2021. https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/07/19/vaers-whistleblower-45000-dead-from-covid-19-vaccines-within-3-days-sparks-lawsuit-against-federal-government/

6. Simpson, Robert. “Research Reveals Vaccinated People More Vulnerable to Delta Variant than Unvaccinated.” The Simpson Post, June 25, 2021. https://thesimpsonpost.wordpress.com/2021/06/25/research-reveals-vaccinated-people-more-vulnerable-to-delta-variant-than-unvaccinated/.

7. Public Health England. “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report Published.” GOV.UK. Public Health England. Accessed August 8, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report-published

8. Department of Health and Social Care, PHE Genomics Cell, PHE Outbreak Surveillance Team, PHE Epidemiology Cell, PHE Contact Tracing Data Team, PHE Health Protection Data Science Team, PHE International Cell, et al., 17 SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England §. Technical Brief (2021).

9.  Lieber, Dov. “Delta Variant Outbreak in Israel Infects Some Vaccinated Adults.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, June 25, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326.

10. “Provisional Covid-19 Deaths by Sex and Age.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data.

11. FLCCC. “Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19.” FLCCC, n.d

12. Kime, Patricia. “Army Officer Is 29TH US Service Member to Die FROM COVID-19.” Military.com, August 12, 2021. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/12/army-officer-29th-us-service-member-die-covid-19.html.

13. Kime, Patricia. “DoD Confirms: Rare Heart Inflammation Cases Linked To COVID-19 Vaccines.” Military.com, June 30, 2021. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/30/dod-confirms-rare-heart-inflammation-cases-linked-covid-19-vaccines.html.

14. Montgomery, MD, Jay. “Myocarditis Following Immunization With Mrna COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military.” JAMA Cardiology. JAMA Network, June 29, 2021. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601.

15. Kime, Patricia. “DoD Confirms: Rare Heart Inflammation Cases Linked To COVID-19 Vaccines.” Military.com, June 30, 2021. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/30/dod-confirms-rare-heart-inflammation-cases-linked-covid-19-vaccines.html.

16. Team, Children’s Health Defense, and Children’s Health Defense Team. “We’ve Never Seen Vaccine Injuries on This Scale – Why Are Regulatory Agencies Hiding Covid Vaccine Safety Signals?” Children’s Health Defense, August 12, 2021. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccine-injuries-regulatory-agencies-hiding-covid-safety-data/.

17. Rickards, James. “The Battle of the Censors.” Daily Reckoning. Daily Reckoning, July 28, 2021. https://dailyreckoning.com/the-battle-of-the-censors/

18.  Simpson, Robert. “Research Reveals Vaccinated People More Vulnerable to Delta Variant than Unvaccinated.” The Simpson Post, June 25, 2021. https://thesimpsonpost.wordpress.com/2021/06/25/research-reveals-vaccinated-people-more-vulnerable-to-delta-variant-than-unvaccinated/.

19. Lieber, Dov. “Delta Variant Outbreak in Israel Infects Some Vaccinated Adults.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, June 25, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326.

20.  “Israel, Widely VACCINATED, Suffers Another Covid-19 Surge.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, August 12, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-80-vaccinated-suffers-another-covid-19-surge-11628769603.

21.Conradson, Julian. “Leading Israeli Health Official: VACCINATED Account for 95% of Severe and 85-90% of New Covid Hospitalizations. VACCINE Effectiveness Is ‘Really Fading’ (VIDEO).” The Gateway Pundit. The Gateway Pundit, August 9, 2021. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/please-add-video-leading-israeli-health-official-vaccinated-account-95-severe-85-90-new-covid-hospitalizations-vaccine-effectiveness-really-fading-video/.

22.  Delaney, Patrick. “Inventor of MRNA VACCINE: Jabs Not Justified for Young, Data for Informed CONSENT LACKING.” LifeSite, July 30, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/inventor-of-mrna-vaccine-jabs-not-justified-for-young-data-for-informed-consent-lacking/.

23. de Jesús, Erin Garcia. “How Antibodies May Cause Rare Blood Clots after Some COVID-19 VACCINES.” Science News, July 6, 2021. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-antibodies-cause-blood-clots-side-effect.

24. Miller, Sara G. “Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Linked to 28 Cases of Blood Clots, CDC Reports.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, May 12, 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/johnson-johnson-vaccine-linked-28-cases-blood-clots-cdc-reports-n1267128.

25. Kime, Patricia. “Army Officer Is 29TH US Service Member to Die FROM COVID-19.” Military.com, August 12, 2021. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/12/army-officer-29th-us-service-member-die-covid-19.html.

26. “About.” Doctors for COVID Ethics, June 11, 2021. https://doctors4covidethics.org/about/.

27. Peckford, Brian. “Letter to Physicians: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines.” peckford42, July 17, 2021. https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/07/17/letter-to-physicians-four-new-scientific-discoveries-regarding-the-safety-and-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccines/.

28. Ćirić, Jelena. “COVID-19 in Iceland: Vaccination Has Not Led to Herd Immunity, Says CHIEF EPIDEMIOLOGIST.” Iceland Review, August 3, 2021. https://www.icelandreview.com/society/covid-19-in-iceland-vaccination-has-not-led-to-herd-immunity-says-chief- epidemiologist/.

29. Lee WS, Wheatley AK, Kent SJ, DeKosky BJ. Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. Nat Microbiol. 2020 Oct;5(10):1185-1191. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-00789-5. Epub 2020 Sep 9. PMID: 32908214. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32908214/

30. Cunningham, Allan S. “Tamiflu & Influenza Vaccines: More Harm than Good?” The BMJ, August 3, 2021. https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m626/rr.

31. Lin X, Lin F, Liang T, Ducatez MF, Zanin M, Wong SS. Antibody Responsiveness to Influenza: What Drives It? Viruses. 2021 Jul 19;13(7):1400. doi: 10.3390/v13071400. PMCID: PMC8310379. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8310379/

32. Malone, Robert, and Peter Navarro. “Vaccine Inventor Questions MANDATORY SHOT Push, Biden’s Covid-19 Strategy.” The Washington Times. The Washington Times, August 5, 2021. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/

33. Rumble. Accessed August 15, 2021. https://rumble.com/vk8cpw-top-american-doctor-covid-shots-are-obsolete-dangerous-must-be-shut-down.html.

34.  Le Bert, Nina et al. “SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls.” Nature vol. 584,7821 (2020): 457-462. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2550-z

35. Patel, Neel V. “Covid-19 Immunity LIKELY Lasts for Years.” MIT Technology Review. MIT Technology Review, January 6, 2021. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/06/1015822/covid-19-immunity-likely-lasts-for-years/.

36. Shrestha, Nabin K., Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, Paul Terpeluk, and Steven M. Gordon. “Necessity of Covid-19 Vaccination in Previously Infected Individuals.” medRxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, January 1, 2021. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2.

37. Goldberg, Yair, Micha Mandel, Yonatan Woodbridge, Ronen Fluss, Ilya Novikov, Rami Yaari, Arnona Ziv, Laurence Freedman, and Amit Huppert. “Protection of Previous Sars-Cov-2 Infection Is Similar to That OF Bnt162b2 VACCINE Protection: A Three-Month Nationwide Experience from Israel.” medRxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, January 1, 2021. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.

38. Rumble. Accessed August 15, 2021. https://rumble.com/vk8cpw-top-american-doctor-covid-shots-are-obsolete-dangerous-must-be-shut-down.html.

39. “Mortality Analyses.” Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Accessed August 8, 2021. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality.

40. Bhargava, Hansa D. “Coronavirus Recovery: Rate, Time, and Outlook.” WebMD. WebMD, August 7, 2020. https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-recovery-overview#1.

41.  Military Benefits. “Coronavirus Cases in the US Military.” MilitaryBenefits.info, March 19, 2021. https://militarybenefits.info/coronavirus-cases-military/.

42. Kime, Patricia. “Army Officer Is 29TH US Service Member to Die FROM COVID-19.” Military.com, August 12, 2021. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/12/army-officer-29th-us-service-member-die-covid-19.html.

43. “I-MASK+ Protocol: FLCCC: Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance.” FLCCC | Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, August 11, 2021. https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/.

44. Hope, Justus R. “Ivermectin Obliterates 97 Percent of Delhi Cases.” The Desert Review, June 7, 2021. https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html.

45. “Ivermectin.” National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed August 8, 2021. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/.

46. Bryant, Andrew, Theresa A. Lawrie, Therese Dowswell, Edmund J. Fordham, Scott Mitchell, Sarah R. Hill, and Tony C. Tham. “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.” American Journal of Therapeutics 28, no. 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000001402.

47. Ahmed, Sabeena, Mohammad Mahbubul Karim, Allen G. Ross, Mohammad Sharif Hossain, John D. Clemens, Mariya Kibtiya Sumiya, Ching Swe Phru, et al. “A Five-Day Course of IVERMECTIN for the Treatment of COVID-19 May Reduce the Duration of Illness.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 103 (2021): 214–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191.

48. Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021 Apr 22;28(3):e299–318. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377. PMCID: PMC8088823. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Featured image is from Revolver

NOTE FROM EXPANDING AWARENESS RELATIONS:
Thank you to Commander J.H. Furman for being the voice of reason during these perilous times and for expressing his concerns. He brings up several incredibly important points, all based on facts, that show the detrimental consequences of vaccinating everyone – military and citizens alike.
Thank you for being brave enough to speak up about these unnecessary vaccine mandates, especially in this current environment when any form of vaccine hesitancy is met with scorn, censorship, and in some cases, hostility.

Your efforts are greatly appreciated.