From Jo Nova:

No one silences experts because they have a great product

‘People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.’

Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. and Tracy Beth Høeg M.D., Ph.D.

Photo by Colin Maynard

Right now, internal critics of these agencies are focused on one issue above all: Why did the FDA and the CDC issue strong blanket recommendations for Covid vaccines in children?

The calls and text messages are relentless. On the other end are doctors and scientists at the top levels of the NIH, FDA and CDC. They are variously frustrated, exasperated and alarmed about the direction of the agencies to which they have devoted their careers.

“It’s like a horror movie I’m being forced to watch and I can’t close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”

That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.

Formerly great institutions are being eaten from the inside:

…

That doctor is hardly alone. At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.)

The CDC has experienced a similar exodus.  “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”

The data shows a 4% efficacy for Moderna in babies, nothing for Pfizer, and with no long term studies on side effects:

Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy.

Moderna’s results—they conducted a study on 6,388 children with two doses—were not much better. Against asymptomatic infections, they claimed a very weak vaccine efficacy of just 4% in children aged six months to two years. They also claimed an efficacy of 23% in children between two and six years old—but neither result was statistically significant.

Dr. Marty Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the author of The Price We Pay, and a medical advisor to Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin.  Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg is an epidemiologist affiliated with The Florida Department of Health who has published research on Covid-19 in schools in the CDC’s journal MMWR.

None of this would have got this far, if it weren’t for the failing of the legacy media. The journalists are as scared as the family doctors are. None of them want to publicly disagree with the sacred scientists at the FDA and CDC — the same ones who are also too scared to speak up.

 

New data from Sweden shows that the Covid vaccination has little, if any, effect on the ability to get the disease while increasing your risk of  hospitalisation from serious side effects.

This confirms what we were seeing in NSW from the daily figures being released. At one stage they were showing the percentage of people in hospital with 0,1,2,3 jabs. Consistently the lowest group were the 0 or 1, and the highest group were 3 or more. Then the authorities stopped publishing those numbers.

It seems to me that the Covid jab is an anti-vaccine. I don’t understand why we are still trying to coerce people to be “vaccinated.”

Swedes Find Vaccinations Increase Risk of Hospitalization While Having Almost No Effect on Covid

Thanks to Martin Parker

Data from the Swedish Medical Products Agency (LV) confirms that Covid vaccines have resulted in a distinct increase in reported side effects, including suspected serious side effects (SSSEs) and deaths. Despite this, the consistent message from the Swedish Public Health Agency (FoHM) is that benefit outweighs risk. (they can only keep claiming this because they won’t publish the stats – same as the British UKHSA)

We analyzed publicly available data from LV, FoHM, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (SoS) and Statistics Sweden (SCB). Assuming that 5% of all SSSEs are reported in Sweden, our analysis shows that Covid vaccination is likely to benefit one single group only – men aged over 90 years. For all other groups, the incidence of SSSEs exceeded the risk of hospitalization and death with Covid.

The Swedish Covid vaccination started on December 27, 2020. We included reports of SSSEs until December 23, 2021. During this period, LV deemed n=8,496 of reported adverse events to be SSSEs.

We were able to calculate the proportion vaccinated by age by combining the 85.4% figure with data on the proportion vaccinated in different age groups up to June 19, 2022 and adjusting for the increase in vaccination coverage from December 23, 2021 to June 19, 2022.10 Based on the population at December 31, 2021 by age and sex, we were able to calculate the number vaccinated by age group and sex. Since FoHM data showed that proportionally more women than men had been vaccinated, we adjusted for this in the final model – number increased for women and decreased for men so that proportion of vaccinated women is 1.0314 times that of men for all age groups.

We calculated the number of SSSEs per hospitalized or deceased with Covid. The reporting rate of SSSEs in Sweden might be as low as 1-2%.11,12 Since the exact reporting rate for Covid vaccine SSSEs is unknown, we tested outcomes using an assumed 5%, 10% or 25% SSSE reporting rate. Thus we could estimate the number that experienced at least one SSSE/person hospitalized with Covid, according to age and sex:


A value >1 suggests that Covid vaccination was disadvantageous for that group. Women and men aged 10-79 years have been particularly affected by SSSEs. Assuming a 5% SSSE reporting rate, men aged 10-19 years were the most disadvantaged, and experienced a 14.1 times higher incidence of SSSEs than hospitalization with Covid. Hence, risks of vaccination exceed the potential benefits in the majority of groups and vaccination only appeared to be beneficial in men aged over 90 years. Assuming a very conservative estimate of a 25% SSSE reporting rate, risk outweighs benefit for men younger than 40 and women younger than 70.