Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby alloneword » Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:49 am



^^^ Oh dear, indeed. The FOI request he mentions is here (dataset here).

The sad fact is that it didn't need an FOI request to get this data, it's been there all along. :wallhead:

But kudos to Dr. John Campbell for presenting it in an accessible manner.
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:33 am

stickdog99 » 21 Jan 2022 09:51 wrote:Here is a chart from Australia that clearly shows hugely negative vaccine efficacy as well:

Image

For the last week listed, fully vaccinated cases outnumbered unvaccinated cases 113 to 1!

Just on this thread alone, there are dozens of similar chart postings from official German, Scottish, and Scandinavian country sources.

I am wondering how anyone who considers him or herself even cursorily informed on this issue could have missed the 15 ton elephant in the room at this point. Could you please explain what it is about these data that still confuses you?


Obviously if the data confuses people asking them to explain it is baiting them but your still point confuses me. Firstly - what is negative efficacy? define what you mean by it. Because....

That table apart from December, when Omicron is dominant, how does it show negative efficacy?

The proportions of cases are lower in the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated population.

Obviously after Omicron things are different but really that is amazing.

The variants pre-Omicron were just mutations on the (allegedly) wild type virus but Omicron is different.

It has actually evolved.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:10 am

And one little thing that confuses me is this...

In that last week you refer to when you talk about vaccinated cases (72072) outnumbering unvaccinated cases (634) by 113 to 1 you only included the fully vaxxed and the unvaxxed. You ignored the 20000 cases under investigation, which could change the numbers as most vaccinated people are on record as vaccinated, they don't need their status investigated and the 8000 unvaccinated kids which would also change the numbers.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:51 pm

Joe Hillshoist » 21 Jan 2022 13:10 wrote:And one little thing that confuses me is this...

In that last week you refer to when you talk about vaccinated cases (72072) outnumbering unvaccinated cases (634) by 113 to 1 you only included the fully vaxxed and the unvaxxed. You ignored the 20000 cases under investigation, which could change the numbers as most vaccinated people are on record as vaccinated, they don't need their status investigated and the 8000 unvaccinated kids which would also change the numbers.


Why would you automatically make that assumption, Joe? Is that baseless assumption based on anything other than your cognitive dissonance that tells you that the volumes of data that show that these vaccines make people MORE susceptible to contracting the omicron variant MUST be flawed?

Here is a chart from the most recent NSW COVID-19 surveillance report:

Image

How does the 1.2% hospitalized cases for those "under investigation" compared to the 1.0% hospitalized cases for those who are fully vaccinated support your reflexive, baseless assumption that "the unvaccinated must be the ones under investigation"?

As of January 8th in NSW, the Australian government estimated that 92.5% of population over 11 was deemed fully vaccinated. While I can't find stats that reflect how many residents had one effective dose in NSW specifically, across the entire continent, the government reported an additional 2.7% of population had also received at least one dose on January 8th.

However, as government data lords know that most people find their vaccination estimates preposterously high for certain regions and demographics, they have now restricted their reporting to simply ">95%" for all vaccination statistics above 95%. But even taking their overestimates at face value, that comes to 92.5% fully vaccinated compared to 4.8% with no vaccine doses.

That's 1 unclean, unvaccinated heathen for every 19.27 fully compliant good Germaustralians in New South Wales.

Now, if I told you that between January 2nd and January 8th that 159,127 fully vaccinated individuals over 11 years old tested positive for COVID-19 in New South Wales, Australia, how many unvaccinated cases would you expect over that same time period?

Surely, far more than the 1 in 20.27 ratio of both the vaccinated and unvaccinated population demographics. Right? Even at the exact same rate of infection as the vaccinated, indicating 0% effectiveness against omicron, we would expect (159,127 / 19.27 =) 8,258 unvaccinated (no effective dose) cases for the week ending January 8th.

But what is the actual number of cases among the entire population of 330,000 unclean unvaccinated NSW residents for the week of January 8th? Care to guess?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:30 pm

.

I believe I shared this one here before, but pasting the heading here once more since 'negative vaccine efficacy' has been raised here in the last ~page:

Innate immunity and negative vaccine efficacy.

Brian Mowrey

Is Omicron “seeking out” the Covid-vaccinated? Has Omicron finally brought “negative efficacy” out of the realm of rumor and into reality? A freshly-released study from Denmark, observing infections from November 20 to December 12 among Danes over 12, appears to offer proof:2


https://unglossed.substack.com/p/neg




This one was posted today:

https://unglossed.substack.com/p/into-t ... eaths-data
Into the Weeds: UK Deaths Data

Teens and young adults show consistently higher non-Covid deaths among the "fully" vaccinated in a UK report.


A four-post series yesterday by “Bartram,” who writes at Bartram’s Folly, reviews a new UK ONS report on “Covid” and “non-Covid” deaths by age group throughout 2021.1 The first post:

https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-heal ... medium=web

What a particular linked spreadsheet in the ONS report offers, crucially, is 5-year age breakdowns of non-Covid deaths by Covid-vaccination status. This allows for an illuminating look at young groups who are often lumped in with the nearly-middle-aged. The outcomes are not great. See Bartram’s second post [https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-healthy-vaccinee-effect-ii-younger] for the headline chart presenting the values below in a digestible graphic form. At certain times, I prefer raw numbers:

Image

The above is the result of my spending some time mauling the data included in Table 9 of the spreadsheet linked in Section 6 of the report, “Deaths by vaccination status data.” It shows what seems to be the key headline: Among younger Brits, the “fully vaccinated” are experiencing a higher rate of “non-Covid 19” deaths than the unvaccinated in every age bracket.

But having the raw data all on one screen allows us to spot some caveats to this conclusion.

First, a note on the dataset. The ONS report starts with a fairly tidy framework: Individuals who are in all three of the Public Health Data Asset, and the 2011 Census, and the GP Patient Register make up the data. These comprise an estimated 79% of individuals over age 10 in England. Both “person-years” and “deaths” come from the 79% set, so we may think of this cohort as a sort of “virtual country” within England, sparing us the problems with the notoriously suspicious denominators of the UKHSA reports.

ONS-kingdom further divides its citizens by age, and vaccination status:

Unvaccinated

1st-dosed less than 21 days ago

1st-dosed 21+ days ago

2nd-dosed less than 21 days ago

2nd-dosed 21+ days ago

(Boosters are not considered separately.)

The chart we are considering tallies how much time was spent in any category altogether for a given age group, producing the “person-years” denominator we use for exposure risk. Deaths are similarly assigned to the category the individual was in at the time of the record.

As expected, the 1st dose over 21 days rates come out terribly. These are probably skewed by individuals who could not take their second dose due to a medical issue. This is a common data artifact, and an obvious potential signal for adverse events - and here, the high-ish absolute death counts are particularly frightening:

Image

Now, to our caveats regarding our main focus, the fully vaccinated. First, the most startling “relative non-Covid death risk” is among 10-14 year old double-vaccinated. But we can see from the person-year denominators that very few in this age group were double-vaccinated, in the study time window. If these were the more heavily-prioritized clinically vulnerable, that could account for the outlandish death rate. Either way, the absolute number of deaths in question is only 4. The 1st-dose outcomes similarly ride the knife’s edge near 0:

Image

Moving on to the more important “caveat,” for the figures for 15 and older. The entire reason I wanted to highlight the ONS post, again, is to temper expectations about which age groups will turn out to be driving the excess deaths in various parts of the world in 2021. For this portion of the data, the catch is to question afresh why we should exclude deaths “involving” Covid-19 among the very young?

Even up to the 30 to 34 year-olds, the majority who end up dying in proximity to a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 are not taken by the virus. They may not even be taken by “infection + comorbidities.” Rather, they are probably “with, not from” false positives: they were admitted to the hospital for something else, occasionally shortly before death, and happened to test positive after admission.

The absurdity of recommending the Covid vaccines to these age groups is that the only likely benefit is that such “happen to test positives” are avoided, and the Covid-vaccinated young are not mislabeled as deaths with Covid 19. But most of the unvaccinated still are.

For this reason, it makes sense to compare “with” and “without” Covid 19 deaths together, as there are no true withs (or very few). Thus, the “all deaths relative risk” reveals a more nuanced story:

Image

Here, the trend is not so consistent. Results are still quite alarming for the 15-19 year-old fully vaccinated; but could this, again, be a result of prioritizing the vulnerable? Person-years remain low for this cohort. By the time we are in the 30-34 cohort, the fully vaccinated outperform the Covid vaccinated baseline. But here there is probably some room for a blend between false positives and true “with” Covid 19 deaths, in the unvaccinated group.

My last remark concerns the absolute numbers that drive these results for the fully vaccinated young. Together, they are:

4 + 42 + 71 + 116 + 194 = 427

Recalling the “bombshell” Indiana insurance report from the beginning of this month, which asserted that “deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64,” we can this take this value and compare it to the death rates for Brits between 40 and 64 during the same period:

Image

To these numbers, another 427 is nothing.

The excess mortality trends seen in various regions, this ONS data suggests, are most likely being driven by those 40 and older, and at least partially by unvaccinated deaths “with” or from infection with SARS-CoV-2.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:55 pm

stickdog99 » 22 Jan 2022 08:51 wrote:
Joe Hillshoist » 21 Jan 2022 13:10 wrote:And one little thing that confuses me is this...

In that last week you refer to when you talk about vaccinated cases (72072) outnumbering unvaccinated cases (634) by 113 to 1 you only included the fully vaxxed and the unvaxxed. You ignored the 20000 cases under investigation, which could change the numbers as most vaccinated people are on record as vaccinated, they don't need their status investigated and the 8000 unvaccinated kids which would also change the numbers.


Why would you automatically make that assumption, Joe? Is that baseless assumption based on anything other than your cognitive dissonance that tells you that the volumes of data that show that these vaccines make people MORE susceptible to contracting the omicron variant MUST be flawed?

Here is a chart from the most recent NSW COVID-19 surveillance report:

Image

How does the 1.2% hospitalized cases for those "under investigation" compared to the 1.0% hospitalized cases for those who are fully vaccinated support your reflexive, baseless assumption that "the unvaccinated must be the ones under investigation"?


It doesn't. Its irrelevent.

It takes less than an hour for the health department to check if someone is vaccinated via their medicare record. Therefore if a case is still under investigation by the time stats are printed they obviously aren't a case with a vaccination record that can be checked on the medicare database in minutes. So I'm assuming that if you are investigated for vaccine status then you aren't vaccinated and haven't said anything about it to anyone when you got your positive test results.

Furthermore how many of those cases "under investigation" ended up in hospital with a week or two? Altho as of now there are less than 3,000 people in hospital despite there being more cases than when the data in your sample was

As of January 8th in NSW, the Australian government estimated that 92.5% of population over 11 was deemed fully vaccinated. While I can't find stats that reflect how many residents had one effective dose in NSW specifically, across the entire continent, the government reported an additional 2.7% of population had also received at least one dose on January 8th.

However, as government data lords know that most people find their vaccination estimates preposterously high for certain regions and demographics, they have now restricted their reporting to simply ">95%" for all vaccination statistics above 95%. But even taking their overestimates at face value, that comes to 92.5% fully vaccinated compared to 4.8% with no vaccine doses.

That's 1 unclean, unvaccinated heathen for every 19.27 fully compliant good Germaustralians in New South Wales.

Now, if I told you that between January 2nd and January 8th that 159,127 fully vaccinated individuals over 11 years old tested positive for COVID-19 in New South Wales, Australia, how many unvaccinated cases would you expect over that same time period?

Surely, far more than the 1 in 20.27 ratio of both the vaccinated and unvaccinated population demographics. Right? Even at the exact same rate of infection as the vaccinated, indicating 0% effectiveness against omicron, we would expect (159,127 / 19.27 =) 8,258 unvaccinated (no effective dose) cases for the week ending January 8th.

But what is the actual number of cases among the entire population of 330,000 unclean unvaccinated NSW residents for the week of January 8th? Care to guess?

My guess is at least a dozen people more than whatever number you're gonna quote,.

You're talking about what has happened with Omicron if you are talking about NSW from mid/late November to January. I've already told you its a different virus now. Its evolved and behaves differently. Its not the same virus. It actually is a cold now, not the systemic bastard of an illness it was before it evolved (or was evolved by someone). I love how you keep ignoring this btw. vaccines are effectively ineffective against infection from it.

They weren't with Delta tho as that table from NSW that you posted shows quite clearly.

I know of 10 people who are unvaccinated but over 11 (mostly over 18) who all tested positive on a RAT test, all got mildly sick to varying degrees (except one who seemed asymptomatic) and none of them reported their status to health NSW. And a few others who probably were positive but didn't test. I live in the Northern Rivers, its one of the lowest areas of vaccination in the state by the way. I probably have as many good friends unvaccinated as vaccinated.

(I don't hassle them about it or tell them to fuck off either. But if they start with factually inaccurate bullshit I don't sit quietly, I tell them I think they are wrong and explain why. But, as I said before, I'll still share a smoke with them .... if its pot.)

By the time Health NSW made it mandatory to report a positive RAT test they were all negative on their tests. Myself and a whole bunch of others, vaccinated and unvaccinated, have had what could be described as covid symptoms and then been fine within a few hours or days so we haven't even bothered getting tested (despite the large outbreak in Northern NSW and despite us all being warned, days or even weeks later via contact tracing that we may have been exposed.)

So whatever the number you quote for unvaccinated covid cases for the 8th of January its gonna be at least 10 people too low. And I'm the sure stats for the number of people who are vaccinated and were infected by Omicron are way too low as well.

None the less there is no mechanism for covid vaccines to enable infection with Omicron afaik.

If you can share one please do.

But it needs to explain what's happening on a molecular level or at least on the scale of proteins at the cell interface.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:38 am

Belligerent Savant » 22 Jan 2022 12:30 wrote:.

This one was posted today:

https://unglossed.substack.com/p/into-t ... eaths-data
Into the Weeds: UK Deaths Data

Teens and young adults show consistently higher non-Covid deaths among the "fully" vaccinated in a UK report.


A four-post series yesterday by “Bartram,” who writes at Bartram’s Folly, reviews a new UK ONS report on “Covid” and “non-Covid” deaths by age group throughout 2021.1 The first post:

https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-heal ... medium=web

What a particular linked spreadsheet in the ONS report offers, crucially, is 5-year age breakdowns of non-Covid deaths by Covid-vaccination status. This allows for an illuminating look at young groups who are often lumped in with the nearly-middle-aged. The outcomes are not great. See Bartram’s second post [https://bartram.substack.com/p/the-healthy-vaccinee-effect-ii-younger] for the headline chart presenting the values below in a digestible graphic form. At certain times, I prefer raw numbers:

Image

The above is the result of my spending some time mauling the data included in Table 9 of the spreadsheet linked in Section 6 of the report, “Deaths by vaccination status data.” It shows what seems to be the key headline: Among younger Brits, the “fully vaccinated” are experiencing a higher rate of “non-Covid 19” deaths than the unvaccinated in every age bracket.

But having the raw data all on one screen allows us to spot some caveats to this conclusion.

First, a note on the dataset. The ONS report starts with a fairly tidy framework: Individuals who are in all three of the Public Health Data Asset, and the 2011 Census, and the GP Patient Register make up the data. These comprise an estimated 79% of individuals over age 10 in England. Both “person-years” and “deaths” come from the 79% set, so we may think of this cohort as a sort of “virtual country” within England, sparing us the problems with the notoriously suspicious denominators of the UKHSA reports.

ONS-kingdom further divides its citizens by age, and vaccination status:

Unvaccinated

1st-dosed less than 21 days ago

1st-dosed 21+ days ago

2nd-dosed less than 21 days ago

2nd-dosed 21+ days ago

(Boosters are not considered separately.)

The chart we are considering tallies how much time was spent in any category altogether for a given age group, producing the “person-years” denominator we use for exposure risk. Deaths are similarly assigned to the category the individual was in at the time of the record.

As expected, the 1st dose over 21 days rates come out terribly. These are probably skewed by individuals who could not take their second dose due to a medical issue. This is a common data artifact, and an obvious potential signal for adverse events - and here, the high-ish absolute death counts are particularly frightening:

Image

Now, to our caveats regarding our main focus, the fully vaccinated. First, the most startling “relative non-Covid death risk” is among 10-14 year old double-vaccinated. But we can see from the person-year denominators that very few in this age group were double-vaccinated, in the study time window. If these were the more heavily-prioritized clinically vulnerable, that could account for the outlandish death rate. Either way, the absolute number of deaths in question is only 4. The 1st-dose outcomes similarly ride the knife’s edge near 0:

Image

Moving on to the more important “caveat,” for the figures for 15 and older. The entire reason I wanted to highlight the ONS post, again, is to temper expectations about which age groups will turn out to be driving the excess deaths in various parts of the world in 2021. For this portion of the data, the catch is to question afresh why we should exclude deaths “involving” Covid-19 among the very young?

Even up to the 30 to 34 year-olds, the majority who end up dying in proximity to a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 are not taken by the virus. They may not even be taken by “infection + comorbidities.” Rather, they are probably “with, not from” false positives: they were admitted to the hospital for something else, occasionally shortly before death, and happened to test positive after admission.

The absurdity of recommending the Covid vaccines to these age groups is that the only likely benefit is that such “happen to test positives” are avoided, and the Covid-vaccinated young are not mislabeled as deaths with Covid 19. But most of the unvaccinated still are.

For this reason, it makes sense to compare “with” and “without” Covid 19 deaths together, as there are no true withs (or very few). Thus, the “all deaths relative risk” reveals a more nuanced story:

Image

Here, the trend is not so consistent. Results are still quite alarming for the 15-19 year-old fully vaccinated; but could this, again, be a result of prioritizing the vulnerable? Person-years remain low for this cohort. By the time we are in the 30-34 cohort, the fully vaccinated outperform the Covid vaccinated baseline. But here there is probably some room for a blend between false positives and true “with” Covid 19 deaths, in the unvaccinated group.

My last remark concerns the absolute numbers that drive these results for the fully vaccinated young. Together, they are:

4 + 42 + 71 + 116 + 194 = 427

Recalling the “bombshell” Indiana insurance report from the beginning of this month, which asserted that “deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64,” we can this take this value and compare it to the death rates for Brits between 40 and 64 during the same period:

Image

To these numbers, another 427 is nothing.

The excess mortality trends seen in various regions, this ONS data suggests, are most likely being driven by those 40 and older, and at least partially by unvaccinated deaths “with” or from infection with SARS-CoV-2.


So are they the total deaths in 10-14 year olds in the UK?

So 9 vaccinated kids died in the UK between 1/1/21 and 31/1/21? In total? Is that what those tables refer to?

IF so...

That's a small enough number that what they died of matters.

How many died in car accidents, from domestic violence or drowning? What about freak jumping castle incidents? Pre-vaccine cancer?
Its only nine kids so one shitful accident can skew the data totally. In December in the Devonport area in Tassie 6 kids aged 11 or 12 were killed when the jumping castle they were playing on was caught by a freak gust of wind and blown 10 metres into the air. They were all from the same small, local, primary school which had hired the castle for its end of year celebrations.

It was their last day at that school. Its a fucked up, heartbreaking thing. Especially if you have kids of a similar age who finished primary school the same week. Or have held community functions and Christmas parties where you had kids on jumping castles. I've got a foot in both those camps.

But anyway ... if half of them had been in a vaccination trial then they'd turn up in a table like that one up there with no explanation.

Also in the data for the rest of the age groups up to 30... how do they account for death by misadventure, drug overdose or misuse generally, war, murder, car accidents, suicides, disasters, bad luck and stupid behaviour? Plus other things like childhood cancer, congenital heart defects and other fatal illnesses in kids young people?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:15 am

The Sacrifice of Reason. Bob Moran seems to have found his mission since being liberated from The Telegraph...

https://www.bobmoran.co.uk/

Image
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:27 am

Doctors for Covid Ethics. A fascinating discussion.

Session I : The False Pandemic with Prof. Martin Haditsch and his discussion partners: Sucharit Bhakdi, Michael Palmer, Ulrike Kämmerer, Denis Rancourt, Harald Walach, Sam White, Thomas Binder, Charles Hoffe

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/doctors- ... e-pandemic
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:54 am

https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id ... matic_data

2021-10-25 ::: Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA, from all-cause mortality and socio-geo-economic and climatic data

Abstract: We investigate why the USA, unlike Canada and Western European countries, has a sustained exceedingly large mortality in the “COVID-era” occurring from March 2020 to present (October 2021). All-cause mortality by time is the most reliable data for detecting true catastrophic events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge in deaths from any cause. The behaviour of the USA all-cause mortality by time (week, year), by age group, by sex, and by state is contrary to pandemic behaviour caused by a new respiratory disease virus for which there is no prior natural immunity in the population. Its seasonal structure (summer maxima), age-group distribution (young residents), and large state-wise heterogeneity are unprecedented and are opposite to viral respiratory disease behaviour, pandemic or not. We conclude that a pandemic did not occur. We infer that persistent chronic psychological stress induced by the long-lasting government-imposed societal and economic transformations during the COVID-era converted the existing societal (poverty), public-health (obesity) and hot-climate risk factors into deadly agents, largely acting together, with devastating population-level consequences against large pools of vulnerable and disadvantaged residents of the USA, far above preexisting pre-COVID-era mortality in those pools. We also find a large COVID-era USA pneumonia epidemic that is not mentioned in the media or significantly in the scientific literature, which was not adequately addressed. Many COVID-19-assigned deaths may be misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia deaths. The massive vaccination campaign (380 M administered doses, 178 M fully vaccinated individuals, mainly January-August 2021 and March-August 2021, respectively) had no detectable mitigating effect, and may have contributed to making the younger population more vulnerable (35-64 years, summer-2021 mortality).
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:37 am

Open letter from the HART group: https://www.hartgroup.org/bios/

https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-t ... eath-data/

Open Letter to the MHRA Regarding Child Death Data
January 20, 2022

Signals that Covid-19 Vaccines may have caused death in children and young adults

Dated 19 January 2022

To:

Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, MHRA
Professor Lim, Chairman, JCVI COVID-19 subcommittee
Hon Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England
Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser
Dr Jenny Harries OBE, Chief Executive, UKHSA

Dear Dr Raine, Professor Lim, Mr Javid, Professor Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance & Dr Harries,

URGENT

RE: Signals that Covid-19 Vaccines may have caused death in children and young adults

We write to demand an immediate, urgent investigation to determine whether the Covid-19 vaccines are the cause of significant numbers of deaths seen recently in male children and young adults.

We also request that anonymised data and information known to be available, showing how many children have died following a Covid-19 vaccine and within how many days, be published for full transparency, in the public interest.

On Thursday 13th January 2022, at a hearing in the High Court[1] in London, evidence was presented showing a significant increase in the number of young male deaths following roll out of the Covid-19 vaccinations compared with the prior five-year average between 2015 and 2019. It is important to look at male deaths separately, given what is known about higher risks from myocarditis in young males.

Between 1st May to 24th December 2021 there were

402 registered deaths in 15–19-year-old males, 65 more than the 337 five-year average;
by contrast, 163 registered deaths in females, 12 less than the 175 five-year average; and
combining those, 565 deaths of males and females registered in total, 53 more than expected.

The Office for National Statistics has accepted that the increase in young male deaths is a statistically significant increase, with the mortality rate falling outside the expected confidence intervals from earlier years’ data.

Even more concerning is the fact that the actual number of deaths occurring of young males in this period is likely to be significantly higher than those registered. This is because the ONS estimates that owing to delays in registration, on average registered deaths in the period account for only 62% of actual deaths occurring. Any death where there was uncertainty about the cause will have been referred to the coroner and such deaths can take a long time to be registered. The fact that a signal is already evident in registered deaths is therefore a great concern.

Allowing for the ONS estimate, the 65 excess male deaths could represent 105 excess deaths of these young men, assuming the proportion of deaths that have been referred to the coroner is similar to previous years. If there have been more coroner’s referrals this year, the figure could be higher.

Since at least 13 October 2021, the Secretary of State and JCVI have been made aware of this increase in male deaths through their representation by the Government Legal Department in High Court proceedings. In addition, the ONS has itself now recognised that more work could be undertaken to examine the mortality rates of young people in 2021 and has confirmed in writing that it intends to undertake that work “when more reliable data are available.”

There are already signals of risk

The incidence of higher mortality in young males in 2021 coinciding with the roll out of Covid-19 vaccines cannot be dismissed as coincidental, since there have already been warning signals of serious adverse events in this age group. For this reason, the decision to offer the Covid-19 vaccine to under 18-year-olds has not been without controversy.

The JCVI previously declined to recommend that the Covid-19 vaccines be administered to healthy 12-15 year olds as the balance of benefit to risk was only marginal at best in the face of the very low risk to children of serious illness or death from Covid-19 disease, the considerable uncertainty of the potential harms of the Covid-19 vaccines, the known signals of harms from the vaccines already identified and the absence of complete and long term safety data in circumstances where the vaccines have been rapidly brought to market, long before the normal phase III clinical trials used to assess safety have been completed. On 3 September 2021 the JCVI said:

“Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. Such data may not be available for several months.”

The JCVI’s decision was overturned by the four chief medical officers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not because they found there was a health benefit to children in respect of the Covid-19 vaccines but because, based on modelling analyses, they concluded that the Covid-19 vaccines were likely to reduce school absences. Notwithstanding that theoretically preventing a few days of absence for mild, cold-like symptoms could never reasonably be regarded as justification for administering vaccines with unknown long-term effects, this was the justification given for the vaccination of school-age children. Since then, data must have been obtainable and should have been collected and reviewed to determine whether vaccinations have in fact reduced school absences, and the extent to which absences have occurred by reason of (a) administration of the vaccination program and (b) adverse reactions to the vaccines.

In addition, on 4 August 2021 the JCVI initially recommended only one dose to healthy 16–17-year-olds, recognising that there was an enhanced risk in young males of myocarditis from the Covid-19 vaccines, especially following a second dose, as identified by the FDA in the U.S. and from data emerging in Israel. It is notable that when, in November 2021, the JCVI advised that 16–17-year-olds should be administered a second dose, it did so without including any express statement that it considered the benefits of the Covid-19 vaccine outweighed the risks in that age group. Instead, it recognised that information on the longer-term risks (months to years) of myocarditis was unclear and would only become available with the passage of time.

The risk:benefit concerning roll out of vaccines to under 18s had been said by the Secretary of State and those advising him to be finely balanced. Several months have passed and data as to registered deaths and school absences, together with the reduced risk from Omicron, must give cause to consider whether that fine balance must have tipped away from recommending vaccination in the young.

An investigation must be conducted

In light of the increase in deaths in young males and the known safety concerns, an investigation must be conducted. It is not suggested that the observed increase in mortality proves that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing death, whether via myocarditis or some other mechanism, but a connection cannot be excluded. The potential signal is strong enough that urgent investigations should commence immediately to rule out that possibility. Each recipient of this letter has a duty to investigate. It would be a grave dereliction of duty not to do so.

The JCVI has an ongoing duty to keep its advice under review with the emergence of new data. It has expressly stated on several occasions that more data is either needed or awaited.

The MHRA is tasked with responsibility for vaccine surveillance in real time and has a duty to monitor Covid-19 vaccine data for safety signals. It does this through the Yellow Card reporting system, but its role should not be confined to one passive surveillance system alone. It is accepted by the Commission on Human Medicines Expert Working Group, which was established to advise the MHRA on its safety monitoring strategy for Covid-19 vaccines, that passive surveillance relies on someone suspecting or ‘making a connection’ between the medicine or vaccine and an unexplained illness, and then reporting it, and that therefore it is important that other forms of vigilance are included to supplement the Yellow Card scheme.

It is therefore beyond doubt that the MHRA has a duty to investigate incidence of excess mortality in young males within ONS held data, regardless of whether or not Yellow Card reports have been submitted.

The Secretary of State, as the person responsible for the government’s vaccination programme, also has a paramount duty in the public interest to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines.

The data are available and can be readily examined

These concerns should not be difficult to investigate. The ONS has confirmed (to the Court) that it is able to provide precise anonymised data including the number of days between vaccination and death. No suggestion has been made that there is any difficulty in gathering or analysing the data. If, for example, the data reveal a concentration of deaths happening close in time to the date of vaccination, this may strengthen concerns of a positive causal link (e.g. under the Bradford Hill criteria) and further, more detailed investigations would be merited. Higher incidence of mortality in children after vaccination is a major cause for concern and could indicate a need to pause the vaccination program immediately. If no indication of causal connection is apparent, this may help to reassure the public as to safety of the vaccines.

Although a halt to the Covid-19 vaccination programme in children is what a High Court legal challenge has sought to achieve, so far the courts have taken the view that mass roll out to under 18s has been a political decision for the Secretary of State with which the Judiciary is unable to interfere. That view from the court, dealing with particular legal principles of judicial review, does not in any way hinder the investigation we demand. Indeed, the Honourable Mr Justice Jay remarked during one hearing, at which the Secretary of State was represented, that he expected the JCVI would be “clamouring for the data” relating to the incidence of death after vaccination.

Information has already been requested of and promised by the Secretary of State

This request for information relating to deaths following vaccination is not novel. On several occasions this issue has been raised in the House of Commons. For example, on 25 March 2021, in answer to questions from Mr William Wragg MP and Sir Christopher Chope MP about incidence of deaths within three weeks following Covid-19 vaccination, the then Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, assured Parliament that this was exactly the sort of thing he was looking at and that, if there was any data not published, he would look into publishing it because the government wanted to be completely open and transparent to reassure people that the risks are extremely low.

It is extremely worrisome that the data concerning deaths following Covid-19 vaccination does not appear to have been collected and analysed or, if it has been, a decision has been made not to publish it. Unfortunately, the impression given is not one of transparency, but rather that information is being hidden. The long-term impact on trust in elected representatives and in regulatory bodies that advise them cannot be understated. Neither can the potential significance of the data signals which are apparently emerging.

Our demand and request

In light of the above and in all the circumstances, please would you confirm the following by return:

That each of you will investigate the increase in mortality over the period 1st May 2021 to 24th December 2021 (and beyond) in young males as recorded by the ONS, to determine the reason for the increase and whether causal connection to the Covid-19 vaccines can reasonably be excluded.

What steps have been taken so far, if any, to conduct the investigation required and if such an investigation has already commenced please confirm when that investigation started, what is its scope, what stage it has reached and when it is due to be concluded. If no steps have yet been taken, please explain why not.

That you will now seek to obtain from the ONS, without delay, the following data for all deaths aged 12-19 occurring on or after 1st May 2021 to date:

a. Age (whether in the 12-15 or 16-19 age group)
b. Sex
c. Whether the individual had dose 1 of a Covid-19 vaccine (and whether Moderna or Pfizer)
d. Whether the individual had dose 2 of a Covid-19 vaccine (and whether Moderna or Pfizer)
e. If applicable, the number of days death followed dose 1 (if dose 2 was not administered) or the number of days death followed dose 2 (if administered)

That the Secretary of State will publish the data obtained or that he will procure that the ONS publishes such data.

Whether you have concluded, and if so when, that a causative link to the Covid-19 vaccines may be ruled out or considered a negligible possibility, and on what basis.

What you suggest might be the explanation for the statistically significant increase in deaths in young males in the period 1st May 2021 to 24th December 2021 other than a possible causative link to the Covid-19 vaccines.

That you will supply the principal sources of evidence relied upon, in respect of any explanation provided, to support and explain why this increase was not also seen in other periods (for example, in 2020, when the pandemic arose and when deaths of young males were less than average).

Notwithstanding that we do not accept that the modelled data on absences could have justified the decision to rollout the vaccines to school-age children, please also confirm by return:

That each of you will take steps to investigate the data available since decision of 13 September 2021 following the advice of the Chief Medical officers, as to (a) the level of school absences (b) whether the modelled benefit of avoiding school absences has been achieved and (c) the extent to which absence has been caused by each of (i) administration of the vaccination program and (ii) adverse reactions to the vaccination program.

What steps have been taken so far, if any, to investigate the data relating to school absences since that decision of 13 September 2021 and, if such an investigation has already commenced, please confirm when that investigation started, what is its scope, what stage it has reached and when it is due to be concluded. If no steps have yet been taken, please explain why not.

Publishing of data

We do not see any bar to publishing the data requested. The ONS expressed concerns in court that publication of the data requested could be disclosive, in that it would allow for identification of the individuals concerned when associated with news reports and other information in the public domain. However, we do not understand how this would be even conceptually possible given the generalised nature of the data requested. We also note the regional and daily data published by the ONS in relation to deaths involving Covid-19.

No names, regional data, date of birth or date of death data are requested. With assistance of the ONS, please provide an example so that we and the public may understand why the data asked for could be withheld on grounds that it could be disclosive.

Paramount urgency

Finally, the government’s current message to children remains ‘get vaccinated’. It used to be ‘every life counts’. If likelihood of a causal connection were established between increased incidence of death and the Covid-19 vaccines, that would be a most serious matter. The death of even a single child from a Covid-19 vaccine would be a tragedy. It therefore stands to reason that an investigation is of paramount urgency.

It cannot be ignored that 65 deaths in young males above the normal average deaths equates to 2 deaths per week each week between 1st May and 24th December 2021. Taking account of the estimated 38% unregistered deaths, the actual figure could be at least 3 per week. This, of course, is only for the 15-19 age group. In the same period, there were just 2 deaths registered in the same age group recorded as ‘involving’ Covid.

We look forward to your substantive reply as soon as possible and in any event within 7 days.

This letter has been published openly and we hope it is shared widely along with any response.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (hons), DipPharmMed and Dr Clare Craig, BM BCh FRCPath

Co-chairs of HART (Health Advisory & Recovery Team, http://www.hartgroup.org)
Signatories from HART:

Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh
John Collis, RN, Specialist Nurse Practitioner
Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG, retired doctor
Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD. Retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1980-1989 and Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery 1990-92 SmithKline Beecham
Dr Ali Haggett, Mental health community work, 3rd sector, former lecturer in the history of medicine
Mr Anthony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant ENT surgeon, London
Dr Keith Johnson, BA, D.Phil (Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing
Dr Rosamond Jones, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician
Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences
Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB, MD, FRCSEd, FRCS (Gen Surg), MIHM, VR. Consultant Surgeon
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH (ret). Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Sue Parker Hall, CTA, MSc (Counselling & Supervision), MBACP, EMDR. Psychotherapist
Rev Dr William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specialising in cardiology
Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD, Microbiologist
Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), Retired General Practitioner
Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist

Further signatories

Professor Anthony J Brookes, Professor of Genomics & Health Data Science, University of Leicester
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, St George’s Hospital, London
Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Professor Martin Neil, BSc PhD, Professor of Computer Science and Statistics
Professor Keith Willison, PhD, Professor of Chemical Biology, Imperial, London
Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former parliamentary under-secretary of state 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine
Julie Annakin, RN, Immunisation Specialist Nurse
Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBCHB MRCGP DCH
Dr David Bell, MBBS, PhD, FRCP(UK)
Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, UK
Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner
Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, Retired Pharmaceutical Physician
Dr David Bramble, MBChB, MRCPsych, MD. Consultant Psychiatrist
Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Kim Bull, Foundation Degree in Paramedic Science, Paramedic
Dr Elizabeth Burton, MB ChB, Retired General Practitioner
Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional Medicine Practitioner, GP Trainer
Michael Cockayne MSc, PG Dip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN Occupational Health Practitioner
Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant ophthalmologist
James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health (MPH)
Dr Zac Cox, BDS, LCPH, Dentist
Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD, 32 years in pharmaceutical R&D as a clinical research scientist
Dr Damien Downing, MBBS, MRSB, private physician
Mr Christian Duncan, MB BCh, BAO, MPhil, FRCSI, FRCS (Plast), Consultant Plastic Surgeon
Dr Chris Exley, PhD FRSB, retired professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry
Dr Charles Forsyth, MBBS, BSEM, Independent Medical Practitioner
Dr Jenny Goodman, MA, MBChB, Ecological Medicine
Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, General Practitioner
Dr Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired
Dr Pauline Jones MB BS retired general practitioner
Dr Charles Lane, Molecular Biologist
Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Molecular Biologist
Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
Dr Jason Lester, MRCP, FRCR, Consultant Clinical Oncologist
Dr Felicity Lillingstone, IMD DHS PhD ANP, Doctor, Urgent Care, Research Fellow
Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons) Pharmacology, MSc Epidemiology, CEO, Systematic Review Director, Epidemica Ltd
Dr C Geoffrey Maidment, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician
Mr Ahmad K Malik, FRCS (Tr & Orth), Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Kulvinder S. Manik MBChB, MRCGP, MA(Cantab), LLM, Gray’s Inn
Dr Dee Marshall, MBBS, MFHom, Nutritional Medicine
Dr Julie Maxwell, MBBCh, MRCPCH, Associate Specialist Community Paediatrician
Dr S McBride, BSc(Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh). NHS Emergency Medicine & geriatrics
Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Niall McCrae RMN, PhD Mental Health Researcher and Officer of the Workers of England Union
Dr Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, PhD, LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental & Integrated Medicine
Dr. Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Associate Specialist, Emergency Medicine
Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP (UK), General Practitioner
Dr Greta Mushet, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy. MBChB, MRCPsych
Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, Retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician
Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause Specialist
Anna Phillips, RSCN, BSc Hons, Clinical Lead Trainer Clinical Systems (Paediatric Intensive Care)
Jessica Righart, BSc MSc, Senior Critical Care Scientist
Mr Angus Robertson, BSc, MB ChB, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Jessica Robinson, BSc(Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom, Psychiatrist, Integrative Medicine Doctor
Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal Surgeon
Dr Rohaan Seth, Bsc (Hons), MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner
Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, Retired Doctor
Dr Julian Tompkins, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner, GP trainer PCME
Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, NHS Clinical Scientist
Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology
Mr Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant vascular surgeon
Dr Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor
Dr Stefanie Williams, Dermatologist
Gordon Wolffe, BDS (Hons), MSc, FDSRCS, Consultant Periodontist (Retired), Director of Master’s Programme in Periodontology (Retired), University of Nijmegen the Netherlands.
Dr Holly Young, BSc, MBChB, MRCP, Consultant Palliative Care Medicine
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:55 am

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96652

Maine Physician Suspended for COVID Misinformation

Licensing agency says Meryl Nass must undergo neuropsych exam for her claims about COVID vaccine

by Cheryl Clark, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today January 13, 2022

The Maine Board of Licensure Wednesday ordered the immediate suspension of the license of a physician accused of spreading false COVID-19 information and, in a separate order Tuesday, ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist.

The 30-day suspension order said that Meryl Nass, MD, an internist in Ellsworth, made a number of false COVID claims in a video interview and on her website, and that allowing her to continue to practice "constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public."

"The information received by the Board demonstrates that Dr. Nass is or may be unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to her patients by reason of mental illness, alcohol intemperance, excessive use of drugs, narcotics, or as a result of a mental or physical condition interfering with the competent practice of medicine," the Tuesday order said.

State documents also allege that Nass lied and said a patient had Lyme disease when they did not in order to get that patient a prescription of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for COVID.

In addition, documents state that Nass has indicated she "did not intend to comply with masking and vaccine orders," that the federal government "won't let us find out" how many people are immune from less severe or asymptomatic cases," and that the government is keeping important information about COVID immunity from the public.

Nass believes the federal government's urging that all eligible individuals receive COVID vaccinations "doesn't make scientific or medical sense," and that federal officials are trying to justify "vaccine passports" to "mediate your financial transactions (and) will identify where you are any time," the orders say.

The state agency alleges Nass claimed that "there may be things in these vaccines that the government wants to inject in us," and suggested that vaccinations of children are being encouraged "for some other nefarious reason."

Nass acknowledged that she believes HCQ, which has been shown to be ineffective against COVID, does in fact work, but that the government requires patients to sign consent forms for its use that are "designed to scare patients from using a safe drug that works well for COVID by making false claims."

And, state documents allege, she acknowledged lying about her patients' medical treatment in order to administer the ineffective HCQ.

In one of her responses to the board, Nass said she tried to treat a patient who became infected with the COVID virus but couldn't find a pharmacist "willing to dispense the drug. I was eventually forced, when the pharmacist called a few minutes ago and asked me for the diagnosis, to provide misinformation: that I was prescribing the drug for Lyme disease, as this was the only way to get a potentially life-saving drug for my patient."

In a Zoom meeting with members of the Maine state legislature, Nass acknowledged that "I lied and said the patient had Lyme disease and so the pharmacist dispensed the medication only because I lied."

Nass did not reply to a request for comment about the board's orders or about her discredited beliefs regarding COVID, COVID vaccines or COVID treatments.

The Maine licensing agency's disciplinary action against Nass is among several increasingly issued around the country pursuant to a Federation of State Medical Boards recommendation that doctors who spread misinformation regarding COVID could be jeopardizing their ability to continue practicing medicine.




And an excellent example of why her work may need to be censored and censured:


https://merylnassmd.com/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal/

WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose — according to WHO consultant

June 14, 2020

The Solidarity Trial is a WHO-led conglomeration of many national trials of treatments for Covid-19. In March alone, the WHO collected $108 million from donors to cover costs of Solidairy clinical trials. Per the WHO:

As of 3 June 2020, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries, with over 400 hospitals actively recruiting patients. Overall, over 100 countries have joined or expressed an interest in joining the trial, and WHO is actively supporting 60 of them…


The hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity trials restarted enrolling patients June 3, after being halted May 25 by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial. The hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the trials had been stopped after publication of the Lancet Surgisphere study, which claimed that patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had 35% higher death rates, but the Lancet study was retracted 13 days after publication, as its data turned out to be fabricated. The HCQ Solidarity trials are currently ongoing.

Below are the drugs being tested in Solidarity:
● Remdesivir
● Hydroxychloroquine
● Lopinavir with Ritonavir
● Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.

Initially, the WHO planned to use neither cloroquine in its trials. But multiple countries requested chloroquines, so both chloroquine (CQ) and HCQ were then added to the trial plan. However, HCQ was felt to be a little safer, countries preferred it, so WHO dropped CQ from its trials. Other clinical trials continue to test both CQ and HCQ against Covid-19.

The doses were not specified on WHO’s list of the drugs to be trialed, nor were they specified, surprisingly, in WHO’s April 8 four-person “consultation on chloroquine (CQ) dosing“.

The Introduction of the Report of that meeting notes,
“The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial.”

Last week, I was alerted to the fact that India’s ICMR, its official medical research agency, had written to the WHO, telling WHO that the hydroxychloroquine doses being used in the Solidarity trial were 4 times higher than the doses being used in India. Then I learned that Singapore had been hesitant to participate in the WHO trial due to the hydroxychloroquine dose.
The UK “Recovery” trial was very similar to, but not part of, the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials. The Recovery trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 deaths, about 10% higher than those receiving standard care, a non-significant difference.

The UK Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies. The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22. Twitter users began to notice a dosing problem, with hashtag #RecoveryGate.

The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.

Even more disturbing than this, babies weighing 5 kg could be given a dose of 300 mg HCQ in the first 24 hours in the UK Recovery trial, which is 233 mg of the base (47 mg/kg), nearly 4 times the recommended maximum. One to two pills (200-400 mg) is “potentially fatal in a toddler“. And authors from George Washington University say:

“Ingestion of 1-2 tablets of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is thought to predispose children under 6 years of age to serious morbidity and mortality…ingestions of greater than 10 mg/kg of chloroquine base or unknown amounts require triage to the nearest health care facility for 4-6 h of observation. There is very limited data on pediatric hydroxychloroquine overdoses and no reports of toxicity from 1-2 pills, but given its similarity to chloroquine, it also should be considered potentially toxic at small doses. Thus, similar recommendations should be followed for triage after accidental hydroxychloroquine overdose.




UPDATE July 21: The American Association of Poison Control Centers said on March 25:

“These medications have a narrow therapeutic
window, meaning that accidental ingestion of amounts that exceed recommended dosing can be
extremely dangerous with toxicity including coma, seizures, cardiac dysrhythmias, low
potassium levels, cardiac arrest and death. Even a single pill can be potentially life threatening
to a child.”


The quote from the WHO report on dosing, provided 9 paragraphs ago, seems to be deliberately vague regarding the dose used in the Solidarity trial, stating the number of milligrams per tablet, but not the number of tablets to be used. The Solidarity trial is registered but the registration fails to specify dosages.

The registration of the Canadian portion of the Solidarity trial informs us of its HCQ dose: ten 200 mg tablets during the first 24 hours (800 mg initial dose, 800 mg 12 hours later then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days). This is 2.0 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 8.8 grams over 10 days, or only 0.4 grams less than what Recovery used. The Norwegian Solidarity trial uses dosing identical to Canada.

Co-Principal Investigators of the Recovery trial, Drs. Peter Horby and Martin Landray, said they followed the WHO dosing. This is what their trial document says as well, on page 23. Landray also claimed in an interview with Paris Soir that the maximum allowed HCQ dose was “6 or 10 times” the dose used in Recovery, and that he was using the hydroxychloroquine dose that is used for amebic dysentery. However, the accepted use for HCQ in amebiasis is only for a liver abscess and only then in pregnancy, when other drugs cannot be used. That dose is 600 mg per day for 2 days, then 300 mg per day, considerably less than half the Recovery dose. Co-Principal Investigator Peter Horby said that Paris Soir misinterpreted Landray’s comments, but Paris Soir said Landray had confirmed what he told them in an email prior to publication. Landray is a very busy man, too busy, apparently, to look up the proper dose of a drug he gave to over 1500 subjects, who were randomized to the treatment and had no say in the matter.

We know that in Brazil, both a high CQ dose and a low CQ dose were trialed, and by April 17 the high dose arm was stopped prematurely due to an excess of deaths, with 39% mortality (16 deaths in 41 subjects). The mean age in the high dose group was 54.7. The high dose arm used 600 mg CQ twice daily for ten days, with cumulative dose of 12 grams. EKG changes typical of toxicity were seen in 25% of high dose subjects. The low dose trial continues in Brazil.

How is the drug hydroxychloroquine normally used? For chronic daily use in systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease, patients receive between 200 and 400 mg daily, or a maximum of 5 mg/kg. In acute Q fever, 600 mg daily may be given at the start of treatment. For acute attacks of malaria, 1,500–2,000 mg may be given over 3 days. Professor Didier Raoult’s group in Marseille used 600 mg daily for up to ten days in 1061 Covid-19 patients, and reported 8 deaths, a mortality rate of 0.75%, all over 74 years of age. The mortality rate reported by Landray and Horby in the Recovery trial is 34 times higher.

We know from WHO’s March 13 Informal consultation on the potential role of chloroquine that the Gates Foundation had been studying the drug’s complex pharmacokinetics, and of the 25 participants at this meeting, 5 were from the Gates Foundation.

The only treatment dose mentioned in the March 13 Informal consultation report was in a paragraph about preventive doses. It said, “Higher doses would be considered for treatment, i.e., 10mg/kg base, followed by 5mg/kg twice daily for seven days.”

What is the “base”? A 200 mg dose of hydroxychloroquine contains 155 mg “base” drug. Generally, a loading dose refers only to a high first dose, not to several high additional doses. However, the trial protocol used in Solidarity employs the same dose for all, rather than weight-based dosing.

What is a toxic dose? All experts agree on this: “… chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin,” according to Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies. The drug is very safe when used correctly, but not a lot more can potentially kill. Prof. Nicholas White, a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and expert in malaria treatment, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has confirmed this. Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels and an EKG can prevent most problems.

The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of chloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs. Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of chloroquine base “may be fatal.”

According to Browning and Goldfrank, the pharmacokinetics and potency of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are almost identical, while the maximum used chronic dose of chloroquine is 3.5 mg/kg.

The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients. The Canadian and Norwegian Solidarity trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug’s half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.)

The doses used in these trials are not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacology textbook, the drug’s US label, and the online subscription medical encyclopedia UptoDate.

Excessive, dangerous HCQ dosing continues to be used in WHO’s Solidarity trials. While the Solidarity trials have an “adaptive” design which allows midstream protocol changes, no lessons were learned from the Brazil or Recovery trials’ experience with excessive dosages. Solidarity has not reduced its HCQ dosing, although it can do so at any time. The Solidarity trials are not, in fact, testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather are testing whether patients survive toxic, non-therapeutic doses.

The WHO Solidarity trials, in order to rapidly enroll patients and spare clinicians a lot of paperwork, collect only limited information on side effects. No information has yet been provided regarding causes of death in the completed hydroxychloroquine arm of the Recovery trial, in which 396 patients died, and may never be.

The Solidarity trial design being employed by WHO obscures whether mortality is due to drug toxicity (in which case, one would expect death to be due to an arrhythmia, neuropsychiatric effects, or hypoglycemia) as opposed to death due to Covid-19.

In fact, the lack of safety data being collected is downright scary. Here is a description of the data obtained on patients enrolled in Solidarity, as reported in Science magazine:

The participant has to sign an informed consent form that is scanned and sent to WHO electronically. After the physician states which drugs are available at his or her hospital, the website will randomize the patient to one of the drugs available or to the local standard care for COVID-19.


“After that, no more measurements or documentation are required,” says Ana Maria Henao Restrepo, a medical officer at WHO’s Emergencies Programme. Physicians will record the day the patient left the hospital or died, the duration of the hospital stay, and whether the patient required oxygen or ventilation, she says. “That’s all.”


The WHO report of its meeting on chloroquine dosing states,

Although the preponderance of opinion tilted towards a reasonable benefit risk profile for the intervention, there was some scepticism about what was considered a ‘minimalistic safety data collection’ currently included in the protocol.


The high dose regimen being used in these trials has no medical justification. The trial design, with its limited collection of safety data, makes it difficult or impossible to identify toxic drug effects, compared to a standard drug trial. This is completely unethical.

Excessive dosing makes it impossible to assess therapeutic benefit, if any, of HCQ. Furthermore, because there are over 400 trial sites, and relatively few subjects in each, unexpectedly high trends in mortality are likely to be missed at individual trial sites.

Finally, testing the drug only in hospitalized patients means that the window of time during which HCQ would be expected to provide the most benefit, early in the illness when viral titers are rising, has passed.

Didier Raoult’s group has recently published on the major differences in treatment and outcomes patients receive when placed in “big data” studies vs. receiving individualized care for Covid-19.

As I was completing this article, the FDA announced it was withdrawing its Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19, because the “known and potential benefits” no longer outweigh the risks of the drug. The FDA cited data from the Recovery trial in its announcement. I discuss the implications here.

To sum up:

1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
5. The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:

a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors.

b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.

c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.


Update June 18: I sent a tweet to WHO Director General Tedros informing him of these findings 3 days ago. I also emailed WHO’s Dr. Restrepo, inquiring about the doses used in the Solidarity trial. I am very pleased to report that WHO stopped this deadly trial yesterday, with no fanfare. WHO claimed the decision was made on the basis of the Recovery trial result and a Cochrane review, as well as WHO data. One wonders if the DSMB was bypassed again, as occurred on May 25 when WHO halted its HCQ arm for the first time.


I had pointed out that if trial investigators had not disclosed to subjects the known risks associated with the high HCQ doses used, the investigators and WHO would be liable for damages.


I like to think my investigation has helped save some lives.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 am

British Medical Journal

Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

BMJ 2022, 19 January 2022
Peter Doshi, senior editor, Fiona Godlee, former editor in chief, Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief


Data should be fully and immediately available for public scrutiny

In the pages of The BMJ a decade ago, in the middle of a different pandemic, it came to light that governments around the world had spent billions stockpiling antivirals for influenza that had not been shown to reduce the risk of complications, hospital admissions, or death. The majority of trials that underpinned regulatory approval and government stockpiling of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) were sponsored by the manufacturer; most were unpublished, those that were published were ghostwritten by writers paid by the manufacturer, the people listed as principal authors lacked access to the raw data, and academics who requested access to the data for independent analysis were denied.1234

The Tamiflu saga heralded a decade of unprecedented attention to the importance of sharing clinical trial data.56 Public battles for drug company data,78 transparency campaigns with thousands of signatures,910 strengthened journal data sharing requirements,1112 explicit commitments from companies to share data,13 new data access website portals,8 and landmark transparency policies from medicines regulators1415 all promised a new era in data transparency.

Progress was made, but clearly not enough. The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated. Memories are short. Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come.16 This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.
Unacceptable delay

Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data.17 And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date, which is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as 15 May 2023 (NCT04368728).

The lack of access to data is consistent across vaccine manufacturers.16 Moderna says data “may be available … with publication of the final study results in 2022.”18 Datasets will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete,” which has an estimated primary completion date of 27 October 2022 (NCT04470427).

As of 31 December 2021, AstraZeneca may be ready to entertain requests for data from several of its large phase III trials.19 But actually obtaining data could be slow going. As its website explains, “timelines vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request.”20

Underlying data for covid-19 therapeutics are similarly hard to find. Published reports of Regeneron’s phase III trial of its monoclonal antibody therapy REGEN-COV flatly state that participant level data will not be made available to others.21 Should the drug be approved (and not just emergency authorised), sharing “will be considered.” For remdesivir, the US National Institutes of Health, which funded the trial, created a new portal to share data (https://accessclinicaldata.niaid.nih.gov/), but the dataset on offer is limited. An accompanying document explains: “The longitudinal data set only contains a small subset of the protocol and statistical analysis plan objectives.”

We are left with publications but no access to the underlying data on reasonable request. This is worrying for trial participants, researchers, clinicians, journal editors, policy makers, and the public. The journals that have published these primary studies may argue that they faced an awkward dilemma, caught between making the summary findings available quickly and upholding the best ethical values that support timely access to underlying data. In our view, there is no dilemma; the anonymised individual participant data from clinical trials must be made available for independent scrutiny.

Journal editors, systematic reviewers, and the writers of clinical practice guideline generally obtain little beyond a journal publication, but regulatory agencies receive far more granular data as part of the regulatory review process. In the words of the European Medicine Agency’s former executive director and senior medical officer, “relying solely on the publications of clinical trials in scientific journals as the basis of healthcare decisions is not a good idea ... Drug regulators have been aware of this limitation for a long time and routinely obtain and assess the full documentation (rather than just publications).”22

Among regulators, the US Food and Drug Administration is believed to receive the most raw data but does not proactively release them. After a freedom of information request to the agency for Pfizer’s vaccine data, the FDA offered to release 500 pages a month, a process that would take decades to complete, arguing in court that publicly releasing data was slow owing to the need to first redact sensitive information.23 This month, however, a judge rejected the FDA’s offer and ordered the data be released at a rate of 55 000 pages a month. The data are to be made available on the requesting organisation’s website (phmpt.org).

In releasing thousands of pages of clinical trial documents, Health Canada and the EMA have also provided a degree of transparency that deserves acknowledgment.2425 Until recently, however, the data remained of limited utility, with copious redactions aimed at protecting trial blinding. But study reports with fewer redactions have been available since September 2021,2425 and missing appendices may be accessible through freedom of information requests.

Even so, anyone looking for participant level datasets may be disappointed because Health Canada and the EMA do not receive or analyse these data, and it remains to be seen how the FDA responds to the court order. Moreover, the FDA is producing data only for Pfizer’s vaccine; other manufacturers’ data cannot be requested until the vaccines are approved, which the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are not. Industry, which holds the raw data, is not legally required to honour requests for access from independent researchers.

Like the FDA, and unlike its Canadian and European counterparts, the UK’s regulator—the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—does not proactively release clinical trial documents, and it has also stopped posting information released in response to freedom of information requests on its website.26
Transparency and trust

As well as access to the underlying data, transparent decision making is essential. Regulators and public health bodies could release details27 such as why vaccine trials were not designed to test efficacy against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.28 Had regulators insisted on this outcome, countries would have learnt sooner about the effect of vaccines on transmission and been able to plan accordingly.29

Big pharma is the least trusted industry.30 At least three of the many companies making covid-19 vaccines have past criminal and civil settlements costing them billions of dollars.31 One pleaded guilty to fraud.31 Other companies have no pre-covid track record. Now the covid pandemic has minted many new pharma billionaires, and vaccine manufacturers have reported tens of billions in revenue.32

The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.

Twelve years ago we called for the immediate release of raw data from clinical trials.1 We reiterate that call now. Data must be available when trial results are announced, published, or used to justify regulatory decisions. There is no place for wholesale exemptions from good practice during a pandemic. The public has paid for covid-19 vaccines through vast public funding of research, and it is the public that takes on the balance of benefits and harms that accompany vaccination. The public, therefore, has a right and entitlement to those data, as well as to the interrogation of those data by experts.

Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims.33 The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:23 pm

Image

Joe, either these data show that the under investigation cohort is a roughly a mix between 90%+ vaccinated and under 10% unvaccinated or they show that the Australian government has been purposefully putting most of the unvaccinated cases that do not require hospitalization "under investigation." So which it is?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:35 pm

As of January 8th in NSW, the Australian government estimated that 92.5% of population over 11 was deemed fully vaccinated. While I can't find stats that reflect how many residents had one effective dose in NSW specifically, across the entire continent, the government reported an additional 2.7% of population had also received at least one dose on January 8th.

However, as government data lords know that most people find their vaccination estimates preposterously high for certain regions and demographics, they have now restricted their reporting to simply ">95%" for all vaccination statistics above 95%. But even taking their overestimates at face value, that comes to 92.5% fully vaccinated compared to 4.8% with no vaccine doses.

That's 1 unclean, unvaccinated heathen for every 19.27 fully compliant good Germaustralians in New South Wales.

Now, if I told you that between January 2nd and January 8th that 159,127 fully vaccinated individuals over 11 years old tested positive for COVID-19 in New South Wales, Australia, how many unvaccinated cases would you expect over that same time period?


Surely, far more than the 1 in 20.27 ratio of both the vaccinated and unvaccinated population demographics. Right? Even at the exact same rate of infection as the vaccinated, indicating 0% effectiveness against omicron, we would expect (159,127 / 19.27 =) 8,258 unvaccinated (no effective dose) cases for the week ending January 8th.

But what is the actual number of cases? Care to guess?

Let's see:

Image

A whopping 779 cases! That is 90%+ less cases than our estimate, which was based on the assumption that COVID-19 vaccines don't do anything to stop the transmission of omicron!

To recap:

The ratio of fully vaccinated to unvaccinated in New South Wales is roughly 19.3 to 1, while the case ratio of fully vaccinated to unvaccinated in New South Wales for the last week reported is a whopping 204.3 to 1!

Calculating the most recent per 100,000 case rates from these data (something the official NSW report "mysteriously" avoided):

159,127 cases among roughly 6,417,000 vaccinated NSW residents 12 or older = 2480 cases per 100,000 vaccinated individual

779 cases among roughly 333,000 unvaccinated NSW residents 12 or older = 234 cases per 100,000 unvaccinated individual

That's an over 10 times higher chance of the fully vaccinated getting omicron compared the unvaccinated!

The vaccinated are surely the plague rats.

Of course, Joe knows this just can't be because God personally revealed to Joe that all the cases "under investigation" are unvaccinated cases, thus proving that the Australian government has committed fraud in its categorization of almost all mild unvaccinated cases as "under investigation" in order to buttress the false narrative that these vaccines confer any protection against hospitalization, ICU visits, or death from COVID-19.
Last edited by stickdog99 on Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests