Asymptomatic spread: who can really spread COVID-19?

A respiratory virus needs associated symptoms in order to be clinically relevant. One year ago, this belief would have been universally accepted by the wider medical community.

The Health Secretary, addressing the nation on television on 20 December 2020 stated that ‘If you act like you have the virus, then that will stop it from spreading to others.’ This messaging is clear in the many adverts and public health announcements currently circulating.

The response to COVID-19 has been predicated on the assumption that asymptomatic PCR positive individuals can spread disease. This assumption was simply accepted as fact and, thus far, has never been adequately demonstrated in the available scientific evidence. 

This single assumption is driving most of the restrictions. It is being repeated on radio and other advertisements and is causing the populace great fear and distress. It cannot be left unscrutinised any longer. If there are flaws in PCR testing regimes that have perpetuated this idea, we must now bring them to light.

Asymptomatic spread: who can really spread COVID-19?

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

Abstract

Aims of the study: Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

Those responsible for “Corona Scandal” Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Very useful information.

The German Corona Investigative Committee has taken testimony from a large number of international scientists and experts since July 10, 2020.

Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, one of the Committee members, has published his testimony which at the time of this writing has been viewed over 1.3 million people in the last 10 days.

The conclusions of the committee are the following:

https://foreignaffairsintelligencecouncil.wordpress.com/2021/02/23/testimony-of-german-attorney-those-responsible-for-corona-scandal-must-be-criminally-prosecuted-for-crimes-against-humanity/

Ethylene Oxide & COVID-19 self testing

COVID-19 swab tests have been sterilised in Ethylene Oxide.

Evidence in humans indicates that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of cancer of the white blood cells, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia. Studies also show that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of breast cancer in females.

Click to access Ethylene_oxide_general_information.pdf

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/ethylene-oxide

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=ethylene+oxide+cancer&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D98V_kjJlemMJ

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=ethylene+oxide+cancer&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DoUNy3pnEAXAJ

On page 22 of “Your step-by-step guide for COVID-19 self-testing” (NHS Test and Trace) Ethylene Oxide is listed as the sterile medium.

Further study.

Abstract

Ethylene oxide (EO) gas is commonly used to sterilize medical devices. A major concern is the amount of residue that may remain on or in the device and be available in the body.

https://meridian.allenpress.com/bit/article/42/1/76/141896/Extraction-and-Stability-of-Ethylene-Oxide-Residue

Doctors for COVID ethics

Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

FOR THE URGENT PERSONAL ATTENTION OF: EMER COOKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY

As physicians and scientists, we are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions which are appropriately developed and deployed, having obtained informed consent from the patient. This stance encompasses vaccines in the same way as therapeutics.

We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognise that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations.

In particular, we question whether cardinal issues regarding the safety of the vaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues:

1. Following intramuscular injection, it must be expected that the gene-based vaccines will reach the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body [1]. We request evidence that this possibility was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

2. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that the vaccines will remain entrapped in the circulation and be taken up by endothelial cells. There is reason to assume that this will happen particularly at sites of slow blood flow, i.e. in small vessels and capillaries [2]. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

3. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the MHC I — pathway at the luminal surface of the cells. Many healthy individuals have CD8-lymphocytes that recognize such peptides, which may be due to prior COVID infection, but also to cross-reactions with other types of Coronavirus [3; 4] [5]. We must assume that these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

4. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

5. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that this will lead to a drop in platelet counts, appearance of D-dimers in the blood, and to myriad ischaemic lesions throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart. Bleeding disorders might occur in the wake of this novel type of DIC-syndrome including, amongst other possibilities, profuse bleedings and haemorrhagic stroke. We request evidence that all these possibilities were excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

6. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, which results in their activation [6]. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection [7]. Thrombocytopenia has also been reported in vaccinated individuals [8]. We request evidence that the potential danger of platelet activation that would also lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was excluded with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.

7. The sweeping across the globe of SARS-CoV-2 created a pandemic of illness associated with many deaths. However, by the time of consideration for approval of the vaccines, the health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated. Consequently, we demand conclusive evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting Conditional Marketing Authorisation to the manufacturers of all three vaccines, to justify their approval for use in humans by the EMA, purportedly because of such an emergency.

Should all such evidence not be available, we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA.

There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute “human experimentation”, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

In view of the urgency of the situation, we request that you reply to this email within seven days and address all our concerns substantively. Should you choose not to comply with this reasonable request, we will make this letter public.

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/urgent-open-letter-from-doctors-and-scientists-to-the-european-medicines-agency-regarding-covid-19-f6e17c311595

Doctors and the COVID-19 jab.

The NHS has published an agreement to enable general practices to start delivering a covid-19 vaccine from as early as next month.

A new directed enhanced service (DES), published 10 November, says practices will be expected to coordinate and deliver covid-19 vaccinations collaboratively and at scale in primary care networks.

The draft deal, agreed between NHS England and the BMA’s GP committee, says practices will initially need collectively to nominate a single site per network to deliver vaccinations, with additional sites possible as supply increases. Designated sites will be expected to deliver vaccines seven days a week between 8 am and 8 pm if supply allows.

Practices will be paid £12.58 (€14.15; $16.69) per vaccination. This is 25% more than the current £10.06 practices receive for an influenza vaccination, in recognition of the need for extra training, post-vaccine observation, and other associated costs. Practices will need to provide most of the required staff from their own workforce.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4354

The NHS will pay GPs an additional £10 for every COVID vaccination they deliver to someone who is housebound as part of the drive to protect the most vulnerable people as swiftly as possible

GPs receive funding boost to vaccinate housebound in NHS drive to protect most vulnerable.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/02/funding-boost-to-vaccinate-housebound/