Scotland, Britain, Israel, and Denmark are four of the world’s most highly vaccinated countries. They all have 90 percent adult Covid vaccination rates and 60 percent adult boosters. Yet the vast majority of deaths are occurring in vaccinated people; serious cases are soaring; and infections are almost literally off the charts.
This is Covid vaccine failure at the most profound and basic level.
SCOTLAND: Covid death rates (RATES, not raw numbers) by vaccination status for the last four weeks. Death rates in vaccinated but unboosted people have been higher than rates in the unvaccinated each week.
Also, 87 percent of total deaths occurred in vaccinated people in the most recent week:
(Note: I have corrected the link. Also, the data in the British chart below is United Kingdom-wide and thus includes Scotland – some British readers asked me to make that clear.)
Covid deaths by vaccination status in the most recent four weeks (2,845 out of the 3,860 people for whom vaccine status could be determined were vaccinated – 74 percent):
Highly, highly recommended. I believe NAC has helped me tremendously with inflammation against my life-long overactive immune system, and lessened the severity of my cytokine storm post-delta. Of course, I am taking it in combination with other things, so it might not be 100% the NAC, but I’m pretty sure it is a huge part of it. Thanks, Nurse Claire. Here is Dr. Mercola:
By Joseph Mercola January 25, 2022
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has a long history of use to help prevent liver damage, and more recently as a treatment for flu viruses. Now researchers have discovered its lifesaving value for COVID-19.
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a precursor to reduced glutathione, which appears to play a crucial role in COVID-19. According to an April 2020 literature analysis, glutathione deficiency may be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.
NAC has a long history of use as a first-aid remedy for acetaminophen poisoning. It neutralizes the toxic effects of the drug by recharging glutathione, thereby preventing liver damage. But the idea that NAC can also be helpful against viral infections is not new. Previous studies have found it reduces viral replication of certain viruses, including the influenza virus.
In one such study, the number needed to treat (NNT) was 0.5, which means for every two people treated with NAC, one will be protected against symptomatic influenza. That’s significantly better than influenza vaccines, which have an NNV (number needed to vaccinate) of 71, meaning 71 people must be vaccinated to prevent a single case of confirmed influenza. It’s even better than vitamin D, which has an NNT of 33.
In the MedCram lecture above, pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult reviews the latest medical literature on NAC for COVID-19, starting with a paper published in the October 2020 issue of Clinical Immunology titled “Therapeutic Blockade of Inflammation in Severe COVID-19 Infection With Intravenous N-acetylcysteine.”
Previous research has shown NAC inhibits the expression of proinflammatory cytokines in cells infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus. Proinflammatory cytokines also play a crucial role in COVID-19 severity…
Biden administration to withdraw Covid-19 vaccination and testing regulation aimed at large businesses
By Liz Stark 3:19 PM ET Tue January 25, 2022
(CNN)The Biden administration is withdrawing its Covid-19 vaccination and testing regulation aimed at large businesses, following the Supreme Court’s decision to block the rule earlier this month.The US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration said Tuesday it will be withdrawing the vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard for businesses with 100 or more employees, according to a statement on the agency’s website.“Although OSHA is withdrawing the vaccination and testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, the agency is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule. The agency is prioritizing its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard,” the statement read.
The withdrawal of the emergency temporary standard “does not affect the ETS’s continuing status as a proposed rule,” a US Department of Labor spokesperson told CNN in a statement.
Sometimes you’re presented with a data set that isn’t really news to you, you already sort of knew it at least instinctively, so the data itself doesn’t have shock value, so much as the way it is presented. It’s the old picture worth a thousand words, in a Cartesian plane. (Don’t get me started on Descartes… he ruined everything). Anyway, this is a quick read, and Dr. Briggs’ witty monologue makes the unpleasantness a little easier to take.
Never forget: The essence of Wokeness is unreality. To embrace unreality, God must first be rejected, because He is the Ultimate Reality. Wokeness is claiming that reality is whatever the individual says is reality. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” church of Satan, are we seeing the clear connection here? Because it’s not just a connection; they are one.
The plot is from Ryan Burge. It is a succinct, though rough, summary of the similarity of metaphysical beliefs held by different birth cohorts in the once United States.
The edges of these cohorts are fuzzy. I prefer the definitions of Howe and Strauss in their The Fourth Turning. Their Gen Xers, for example, start in 1961. They make their cuts based on similarity of guiding thoughts of each generation and not strict demography.
That’s necessary, I think, because the guiding thoughts, the ideas believed or operated on by the majority in each cohort, is the point of having the divisions in the first place.
If Howe and Strauss are right about dates, that means the boundaries used by Burge are a tad off. But not so much it makes much difference to our purpose. Which is guessing when the Woke take over. We can accept being off by a few years.
Some 70% of Silents “know God really exists and…have no doubts about it.” This scarcely changes in time. The line looks downward sloping, but that’s somewhat exaggerated because it doesn’t take into account the uncertainty in each sample point (the entire populace wasn’t surveyed). But it’s close enough.
Even though only 70% of Silents held with something close to older orthodox Christianity, and with much associated with that, it doesn’t mean the remaining 30% didn’t share most of the same metaphysical beliefs, and ideas of Reality and morality. They did. There is always a distribution in beliefs, of course, and never unanimity, but bulk thought about fundamentals have a strong generational locus.
These beliefs are formed and joined necessarily by shared experiences, which naturally draw a people together.
Add all this together, and we have a generation. Again, it is a mistake to say all in a generation think the same, or nothing would ever change, but it is not a bad approximation for some applications.
Such as, again, predicting when the Woke are the majority.
If this chart is any guide, and belief, however loose, in the tenets of (older) Christianity and in non-subjective Reality is indeed a workable summary of shared beliefs, then Boomers and Gen Xers are close to the Silents, though with noticeable shifts at the edges. This accords with common experience.
Obviously, as the borders were opened and Diversity became “our” strength, and Perversion Is Ackshually Good sentiments exploded in the 60s, things changed. The Long March Through the Institutes began slow and at last turned into a rout, Christianity and its connections faded with the influx, and the culture changed key. And don’t forget, much was done in the name of the old ideas.
We can see on the chart just where the shift began. Millennials were taught badly, according to the lights of the old beliefs, by their parents, who were largely Gen Xers and some Boomers.
The trends accelerated for those in Gen Z. They are Woke. Millennials are semi-Woke, semi-Reality. Gen Z’s were birthed by late Gen Xers, but also by a lot of semi-Woke Millennials. The oddly named Generation Alpha—which Howe and Strauss call “Homeland”, as if they are the new generation—born starting around 2005-2010, are in schools now. And those schools are staffed almost wholly by the Woke, or those who fear resisting the Woke.
Who rules now? A handful of Silents (Hi, Nancy!), but mostly Boomers and some Gen Xers. Many complaints about Boomers are heard, but their aging grip on power is what is staving off the spiral into the hell of Full Wokeness.
Gen Xers hold many of the same beliefs as Boomers, particularly foundational metaphysical beliefs about Reality. This cohort is in their early 40s to about 60. They, too, hold a lot of power. Their power will increase as the Boomers fade away.
The oldest Millennials are just turning 40 or so, and so are just starting to gain real power.
The oldest Gen Zers will begin to turn 40 around the year 2030. By 2030, the very youngest Boomers will be in their 70s, which is no bar to hold power; however, most of the Boomers will be in their 80s or dead by then.
It will thus be up to the smaller cohort of Gen Xers to hold back the Woke Wall of Undead. Just like those sad folks trapped in the farmhouse in Night of the Living Dead. Spoiler alert: they didn’t make it.
All this together says that if nothing else happens—a huge enormous monstrous assumption!—then the Woke gain the prize around (go read his prediction for USA): https://wmbriggs.com/post/38857/
Any number of things can push this up, or back. “Events” would push it back. The attitudes of those now in power push it up.
Many Boomers in power, as greedy as ever and anxious to deny their fate, have turned into ravening liars. Take “Dr” Tom Frieden, born almost in 1961. Ex-chief of the CDC. He’s out saying “pregnant people“. But maybe he’s a Gen Xer. The year 1961 is on the edge in Howe and Strauss’s reckoning.
Anyway, you can easily bring to mind many Silents and Boomers in power who lip Woke (what is taken to be) dogma. We know they don’t mean it, but they do speak it, which encourages younger cohorts. Gen Xers do this more than Boomers, and Millennials even more.
This changes by country, of course. Canada will be earlier. Finland is almost there now. Et cetera…
In its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens, the Congressional 1/6 Committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that not even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy. Indeed, lawyers for the committee have been explicitly arguing that nothing proscribes or limits their authority to obtain data regarding whichever citizens they target and, even more radically, that the checks imposed on the FBI (such as the requirement to obtain judicial authorization for secret subpoenas) do not apply to the committee.
As we have previously reported and as civil liberties groups have warned, there are serious constitutional doubts about the existence of the committee itself. Under the Constitution and McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases interpreting it, the power to investigate crimes lies with the executive branch, supervised by the judiciary, and not with Congress. Congress does have the power to conduct investigations, but that power is limited to two narrow categories: 1) when doing so is designed to assist in its law-making duties (e.g., directing executives of oil companies to testify when considering new environmental laws) and 2) in order to exert oversight over the executive branch.
What Congress is barred from doing, as two McCarthy-eraSupreme Court cases ruled, is exactly what the 1/6 committee is now doing: conducting a separate, parallel criminal investigation in order to uncover political crimes committed by private citizens. Such powers are dangerous precisely because Congress’s investigative powers are not subject to the same safeguards as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And just as was true of the 1950s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that prompted those Supreme Court rulings, the 1/6 committee is not confining its invasive investigative activities to executive branch officials or even citizens who engaged in violence or other illegality on January 6, but instead is investigating anyone and everyone who exercised their Constitutional rights to express views about and organize protests over their belief that the 2020 presidential election contained fraud. Indeed, the committee’s initial targets appear to be taken from the list of those who applied for protest permits in Washington: a perfectly legal, indeed constitutionally protected, act.
This abuse of power is not merely abstract. The Congressional 1/6 Committee has been secretly obtaining private information about American citizens en masse: telephone records, email logs, internet and browsing history, and banking transactions. And it has done so without any limitations or safeguards: no judicial oversight, no need for warrants, no legal limitations of any kind…
The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the widely perceived public health crises of Covid-19.The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease had no precedent, but desperate times seemed to call for desperate measures. The mRNA vaccines utilize genetically modiﬁed mRNA encoding spike proteins. These alterations hide the mRNA from cellular defenses, promote a longer biological half-life for the proteins, and provoke higher overall spike protein production. However, both experimental and observational evidence reveals a very diﬀerent immune response to the vaccines compared to the response to infection with SARS-CoV-2. As we will show, the genetic modiﬁcations introduced by the vaccine are likely the source of these diﬀerential responses. In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike natural infection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical micro RNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shown to have a potentially direct causal link to neuro degenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage. We show evidence from adverse event reports in the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/beneﬁt assessment of the mRNA vaccines excludes them as positive contributors to public health, even in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic
In this paper we explore the scientiﬁc literature suggesting that vaccination with an mRNA vaccine initiates a set of biological events that are not only diﬀerent from that induced by vaccination but are in several ways demonstrably counterproductive to both short- and long-term immune competence and normal cellular function. These vaccinations have now been shown to downregulate critical pathways related to cancer surveillance, infection control, and cellular homeostasis. They introduce into the body highly modiﬁed genetic material. A medRxiv preprint has revealed a remarkable diﬀerence between the characteristics of the immune response to an infection with SARS-CoV-2 as compared with the immune response to an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 . Diﬀerential gene expression analysis of peripheral dendritic cells revealed a dramatic upregulation of both type I and type II interferons (IFNs) in COVID-19 patients, but not in vaccinees. One remarkable observation they made was that there was an expansion of circulating hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) in COVID-19 patients, but this expansion was notably absent following vaccination.A striking expansion in circulating plasmablasts observed in COVID-19 patients was also not seen in the vaccinees. All of these observations are consistent with the idea that the vaccines actively suppress type IIFN signaling, as we will discuss below. In this paper we will be focusing extensively, though not exclusively, on vaccination-induced type I IFN suppression and the myriad downstream eﬀects this has on the related signaling cascade…
Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.
Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.
Nearly a month after Sheba Medical Center launched a landmark study to test the efficacy of a fourth COVID shot, the hospital said Monday that this fourth booster was only partially effective in protecting against the Omicron strain.
“The vaccine…is less effective against the Omicron strain,” Prof. Gili Regev-Yochay, a lead researcher in the experiment said.
“We see an increase in antibodies, higher than after the third dose,” Regev-Yochay said. “However, we see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose. Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections,” she added.
“The bottom line is that…for Omicron it’s not good enough,” she said.
Regev-Yochay added that it is still probably a good idea to give a fourth shot to those at higher risk, but intimated that perhaps the current campaign, which also offers the jab to the over-60s, should be amended to only include even older groups. She did not elaborate.
The hospital did not release more specific data. Regev-Yochay said the results of the research are only preliminary, but indicated that she was providing the initial information since there was high public interest in the matter.
Hours after releasing the results, Sheba published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.”
Hebrew media reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing that statement after the Health Ministry didn’t like the publication of the study’s initial results.