COVID-19 News Round-up and Corruption in Science
"If we had only known" (New Substack Feature - Audio voiceover)
There is yet more evidence trickling in that the peer review system is completely corrupted coming from Retraction Watch.
Retraction Watch, Sept 28, 2022
After months of investigation that identified networks of reviewers and editors manipulating the peer review process, Hindawi plans to retract 511 papers across 16 journals, Retraction Watch has learned.
The retractions, which the publisher and its parent company, Wiley, will announce tomorrow in a blog post, will be issued in the next month, and more may come as its investigation continues. They are not yet making the list available.
Richard Bennett, a vice president for Hindawi, told Retraction Watch that Wiley/Hindawi suspects that there are “coordinated peer review rings” consisting of reviewers and editors, who have been working together to advance manuscripts through to publication.
“Networks and editors manipulating the peer review process. “
“Linked to Peer Review Rings”
These are strong words by Retraction Watch. I will be watching the Wiley blog site for more information and will report on any new facts as they becomes available.
I have written extensively in the past on “Advocacy Journalism.” The article below outlines just how dangerous this trend has become. Although, the authors of this National Affairs article somehow almost completely miss the fact that the US Government itself and large pharma are the two of the main players in this nefarious practice. When the CDC pushed out a billion dollars over 2021 to write articles favorable about the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and to defame people like me, state-sponsored media became completely normalized in the USA. Decades ago, I had direct experience with the media ecosystem described when I worked at the Bill and Melinda Gates-funded organization “Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation”, where the company hired a pulitzer prize winning journalist to write and place favorable articles in major publications like “The Economist”. I have never seen the media quite the same since that time. This article documents the economic forces that are driving corporate media right down the drain, as it desperately seeks to maintain profitability and relevance.
All that said, the article below is a must read.
National Affairs, Fall 2022
Many large media institutions take money directly from foundations to fund particular areas of coverage. Others publish works from organizations like ProPublica, which are entirely funded by philanthropic dollars. As the news business has hemorrhaged subscribers and advertisers in recent years, many newspapers, magazines, and websites have looked to such organizations for financial support. Some of that support is helping struggling publications survive in areas where there might otherwise be a "news desert." But much of it is linked to a particular set of ideological goals.
Other donors rely on the unspoken expectations that are inevitably attached to large donations. When the Ford Foundation makes large grants to the New York Times to fund a disability-journalism fellowship, for example, the message may not be explicit, but it is nevertheless clear: The paper is expected to make the case that government should provide more accommodations to people with disabilities. And in fact, the reporter funded by that grant published articles describing the efforts of disability advocates to keep Covid-19 restrictions in place to protect vulnerable populations.
The article cites examples of how political organizations are using advocacy journalism to skew election results. They cite the recent instance of Courier Newsroom, “which was founded in 2019 to "restore trust in media by building local reporting infrastructure in states across the U.S." It turned out to be a "clandestine political operation," in the words of Washington-based reporter Gabby Deutch. Paid for with an initial investment of $25 million, a group called Acronym managed to fund what appears to be a local news website but in fact offers information to promote Democratic candidates for office.”
They authors conclude with:
SETTING ELITE PRIORITIES
In a sense, this is precisely what happened at universities. Initially, they expanded in new directions — often into obscure fields of interest to some faculty. Then they began expanding into areas that generate grants and donations, but they did so at the expense of the university's original mission. Higher-education institutions care less today than in the past about basic education for undergraduates, just as newspapers today have less interest in reporting basic news to their readers. Large foundations like Ford and MacArthur have been able to steer American higher education by putting money into new academic centers and curricula, conferences, awards, and publications.
The university of today bears but a faint resemblance to the institutions of a generation or two ago. A parallel process is well underway in the news business, transforming newspapers into vehicles for promoting causes of interest to large foundations but not to ordinary readers. In the process, the news business, like higher education, is turning itself into another source of ideological conflict in American life — as if that's what the country really needs today.
Another peer reviewed article has been published linking COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual cycle length.
Association between menstrual cycle length and covid-19 vaccination: global, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data
BMJ Medicine 2022;1:e000297. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000297
We report more than a quarter of a million menstrual cycles, prospectively recorded, by almost 20 000 individuals. Compared with the unvaccinated group, vaccinated individuals had an adjusted increase in menstrual cycle length of less than one day with both first and second vaccine doses. Individuals who received two doses of a covid-19 vaccine in a single cycle had an adjusted increase in cycle length of 3.70 days compared with the unvaccinated. Additionally, a significant increase was noted in the proportion of respondents who had an increase in cycle length of more than eight days (13.5%, compared with 5.0% in the unvaccinated cohort). Cycle length changes did not remain in the cycle after vaccination, except in the group that received two vaccine doses in one cycle, where cycle length changes were attenuated but still increased compared with the unvaccinated group. Cycle length changes due to covid-19 vaccination appear similar across the different vaccine types. We found no differences in menses length in any group of vaccinated individuals, compared with the unvaccinated cohort.
This study confirms the results of an earlier peer reviewed paper. That earlier study documented changes in cycle length and heavier flow, as well as abdominal pain after vaccination that continued but slowly diminished over three cycles after vaccination. However, the analysis for this paper only recorded length of menses, did not assess other symptoms, only recorded one cycle after vaccination and did not do a breakdown of results via type of vaccine (except to write that they found little difference).
This study confirms the previous results using an international population for the study group.
The paper noted that individuals who received both vaccine doses in one cycle had a 3.70 day increase in cycle length compared with unvaccinated individuals ((99.3% confidence interval 2.98 to 4.42)
There was a proportion of individuals who had a clinically significant change in cycle length of eight days or more and that was significantly higher in the vaccinated group during both the first and second vaccine dose cycles. That proportion was (6.2%) compared with (5.0%) in the unvaccinated for both cycles; adjusted P=0.019 for the first dose and 0.034 for the second dose).
Younger age and longer pre-vaccination cycle length were associated with clinically significant changes in cycle length in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
The study authors state that this study documents that “our findings from this large international cohort of individuals continue to be reassuring.” I do not understand how one in twenty women experiencing “clinically significant change in cycle length of eight days or more” can be viewed as “reassuring.
Furthermore, the study mentions that young women were associated with clinically significant changes in cycle length in the vaccinated -this too, is concerning.
The paper also fails to mention that the long-term effects on fertility are not known.
The study only reported on the first cycle after vaccination, it does not assess more than one cycle length. The duration of this effect were not studied. Why this is happening was not hypothesized.
The next newly published study which I recommend reading:
JAMA Pediatr. 2022 Sep 26. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3581.Online ahead of print.
The Journal of the American Medical Association, an international peer-reviewed general medical journal published since 1993, released the study to the public and has now issued a warning for women breastfeeding infants younger than six months.
“Caution is warranted regarding breastfeeding infants younger than six months in the first two days after maternal COVID-19 vaccination,” the journal said in a tweet.
The study included 11 healthy lactating women that were asked to collect and immediately freeze samples of their breast milk after receiving either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine within six months of delivering their newborn babies.
Participants also provided breast milk samples before vaccination and for five days post vaccination.
Of the 11 volunteers, 7 samples from 5 women showed trace amounts of both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, with the mRNA samples appearing in higher concentrations than whole milk.
JAMA Pediatrics published a study in July 2021 asserting that the vaccine was not found in breast milk, Do you think JAMA Pediatrics will retract that study now?
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) still has a “special notice” on their COVID-19 webpage that lactating mothers don’t have to worry about the vaccine showing up in breast milk. Do you think that “special notice” will come down now? How many lactating women received the vaccine without knowing that the mRNA would end up in her breast milk?
Why don’t we have any data on whether the mRNA vaccine crosses the placenta and what the long terms effects of that might be? Let’s all remember that THESE STUDIES HAVE NOT BEEN CONDUCTED YET! That the FDA will not grant full licensure until these studies have been conducted. This is not over yet over.
Turning to recent (2022) Australian COVIDcrisis news
To begin, Australia had some of the worst quarantines and lock-downs in the Western World. As an island, the government largely kept COVID-19 out of the country for the first year and a half by strict quarantine measures and lock-downs. They did this at great expense to the economy, way of life, family relationships, travel restrictions, educational opportunities, community, health and wellness.
In the end, the lock-downs, quarantines and the rigorous program to vaccinate everyone did little to stop the virus.
Death statistics (which unlike most countries, are now climbing in Australia and almost all deaths are in 2022) show that it is ranked as 127th out of 220 countries listed. However, those deaths are coming now in 2022, the vaccine appears to be offering little, if any protection.
Trial Site News - a truth teller in this pandemic, published the following news story yesterday.
Despite the fact that the population of Australia is nearly universally vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, TrialSite has reported that record numbers of deaths accumulated at the beginning of 2022. This is despite the universal protection of the vaccine. Yet breakthrough infections led to growing numbers of deaths in the most at-risk cohorts such as the elderly.
Now, mainstream media starts to acknowledge the trend. Recently, the Sydney Morning Herald reports in “COVID complications Push Australian deaths to highest number in 40 years,” that based on an analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics population data that total deaths nationwide are 18% higher in the quarter when compared to the prior year, rising from 36,100 to 46,200 deaths.
Labeled as “COVID-19’s hidden impact,” more people have died in Australia in the March quarter than any time in the last 41 years. Half the deaths in this period were from COVID despite an overwhelming vaccination rate. See the rates below:
Australia is one of the most vaccinated populations in the world against COVID-19 yet as TrialSite reported earlier this year has experienced unprecedented pandemic related deaths. Does this trend evidence a failure of the COVID-19 vaccines?
But it gets worse, let look at some numbers:
Australia has roughly 25 million people - the vaccination rate is close to 100%.
98.1% of the population has one dose.
96.4% of the population has two doses.
71.8% of the population has three doses.
Below, note that the daily new cases are almost all in 2022. These would be new cases AFTER the population was fully vaccinated.
Almost all of the deaths in Australian have occurred AFTER the population was fully vaccinated
The case fatality rate in Australia - as of Sept 2022 is about one percent. This is an odd ratio and it has changed over time, as the method of counting cases has changed over time. At this point, this most likely represents deaths divided into those people presenting to a health care service. Most countries are no longer passively surveying COVID-19 cases and reporting on them in a rigorous way. The case fatality rate (death/cases presented) in other nations, irregardless of vaccine status currently sits between .05 and 1.5%. The more highly vaccinated nations seem to have no better or worse case fatality rates than those nations that didn’t highly vaccinate based on the Our World in Data website statistics.
So, how does Australia treat COVID-19? - one thing is for sure, they do not allow early treatment!
One of the most significant failures in Australia is the lack of life saving treatment protocol such as by FLCCC and others. What follows is extracted from an Australia-wide official treatment guide.
“DO NOT use the following for the treatment of COVID-19:
aspirin • azithromycin • colchicine • hydroxychloroquine • hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin • interferon ?-1a • interferon ?-1a plus lopinavir-ritonavir • ivermectin • lopinavir-ritonavir A”
“Do not use the following for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of randomized trials with appropriate ethical approval:”
“anakinra • angiotensin 2 receptor agonist C21 • aprepitant • baloxavir marboxil • bamlanivimab • bamlanivimab plus etesevimab • bebtelovimab • bromhexine hydrochloride • camostat mesilate • CD24Fc • chloroquine • combined metabolic activators (CMA) • darunavir-cobicistat • doxycycline • dutasteride • enisamium • favipiravir • fluvoxamine • human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells • immunoglobulin • immunoglobulin plus methylprednisone • inhaled interferon ?-1a • interferon ?-1b • interferon gamma • interferon kappa plus trefoil factor 2 (IFN-k plus TFF2) • ivermectin plus doxycycline • lenzilumab • metformin • N-acetylcysteine • nitazoxanide • peginterferon lambda • recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) • ruxolitinib • sabizabulin • sofosbuvir-daclatasvir • sulodexide • telmisartan • tofacitinib • triazavirin • umifenovir • vitamin C • vitamin D analogues (calcifediol / cholecalciferol) • zinc • other disease-modifying treatments”
Returning back to the chronic problem of corruption and the US administrative state, specifically the FDA
Greg Steube, a Republican U.S. Representative from Florida, sent the following letter to FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf demanding full compliance with laws associated with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting (VAERS) data. In particular, the FDA has not released their analysis of the VAERS data ordered by a Federal judge January 2022. Two other members of Congress - Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) and Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) also signed the letter.
A note on the VAERS system. VAERS is “the nation's early warning system that monitors the safety of vaccines after they are authorized or licensed for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” Historically, VAERS is thought to under report adverse events. VAERS currently has over 1.4 million reports of adverse events after the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.