Attacking Peter McCullough now, Canada, in giving healthy children unsafe, untested, deadly COVID MalonemRNA technology gene injections; McCullough warns DON'T, I agree, show evidence the shot needed

No trial, no study has been done to date to show that these shots are safe & effective in healthy children, in any children, yet we have this drivel tripe reporting by Roley of AFP Canada

Gwen Roley / AFP Canada

Fri, April 28, 2023 at 4:54 PM AST·5 min read

‘In an interview spreading online, a doctor tells parents to resist vaccinating their children against Covid-19, warning of impending mandates and deadly outcomes for those who receive the shot. But Canadian public health agencies and pediatricians say the jab is safe for minors -- and it is not on the routine vaccine schedule or mandated in any province.

"We've seen far too many deaths of children to have this be acceptable," says American cardiologist Peter McCullough in a reel he posted April 9, 2023 on Instagram. "The parents need to at this point in time stop -- absolutely no more shots in children whatsoever."

The video is an excerpt from an hour-long interview that McCullough gave to a Canadian blogger. The shorter clip spread on Twitter and Instagram, where it received more than 52,000 views on McCullough's account alone.’

My opinion:

McCullough and myself and Oskoui and Risch and Tenenbaum and some others have known early, near day one, that the COVID mRNA technology gene injections were and are and would be very ineffective and harmful. Two years of evidence shows we were right 100%. Other warriors like Wolf and her Daily Clout team were also helpful in educating the public on the gene vaccine disaster. Many are on the train today but after over one year of harms.

Njoo, Tam at PHAC who helped damage Canadians by their corruptible COVID policies only outdone by Bonnie Henry out of BC, as per these idiots in this hit piece by Roley, all of them, know that they have lied from day one, were duplicitous, and have harmed Canadians, killed many with their specious unscientific COVID lunatic lockdown shielding policies, and that there is no data anywhere to support their lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, nothing, none for the COVID gene injection, none. I give an example of only a few studies but read my work to get the full breadth and see my response below bolded to this garbage article and the incompetent deceitful so called doctors cited:

https://brownstone.org/articles/research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity/

SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, Le Bert, 2020“Studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein…showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.”

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,Gazit, 2021“A retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals found para a 13 fold increased risk of breakthrough Delta infections in double vaccinated persons, and a 27 fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection in the double vaccinated relative to the natural immunity recovered persons…the risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher in the double vaccinated (para)…this analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study, Letizia, 2021“Investigated the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection among young adults (CHARM marine study) seropositive for a previous infection…enrolled 3249 participants, of whom 3168 (98%) continued into the 2-week quarantine period. 3076 (95%) participants…Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-week follow-up (1·1 cases per person-year). In contrast, 1079 (48%) of 2247 seronegative participants tested positive (6·2 cases per person-year). The incidence rate ratio was 0·18 (95% CI 0·11–0·28; p<0·001)…infected seropositive participants had viral loads that were about 10-times lower than those of infected seronegative participants (ORF1ab gene cycle threshold difference 3·95 [95% CI 1·23–6·67]; p=0·004).”

Associations of Vaccination and of Prior Infection With Positive PCR Test Results for SARS-CoV-2 in Airline Passengers Arriving in Qatar, Bertollini, 2021“Of 9,180 individuals with no record of vaccination but with a record of prior infection at least 90 days before the PCR test (group 3), 7694 could be matched to individuals with no record of vaccination or prior infection (group 2), among whom PCR positivity was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.26%) and 3.81% (95% CI, 3.39%-4.26%), respectively. The relative risk for PCR positivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28) for vaccinated individuals and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.34) for individuals with prior infection compared with no record of vaccination or prior infection.”

Natural immunity against COVID-19 significantly reduces the risk of reinfection: findings from a cohort of sero-survey participants, Mishra, 2021“Followed up with a subsample of our previous sero-survey participants to assess whether natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of re-infection (India)… out of the 2238 participants, 1170 were sero-positive and 1068 were sero-negative for antibody against COVID-19. Our survey found that only 3 individuals in the sero-positive group got infected with COVID-19 whereas 127 individuals reported contracting the infection the sero-negative group…from the 3 sero-positives re-infected with COVID-19, one had hospitalization, but did not require oxygen support or critical care…development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, Le Bert, 2021“Studied SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic (n = 85) and symptomatic (n = 75) COVID-19 patients after seroconversion…thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.”

Researchers find long-lived immunity to 1918 pandemic virus, CIDRAP, 2008
and the actual 2008 NATURE journal publication by Yu“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains…the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101..the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus, the authors report. The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin. The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.” Yu: “here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.”

Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, Israel, 2021“A total of 2,653 individuals fully vaccinated by two doses of vaccine during the study period and 4,361 convalescent patients were included. Higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers were observed in vaccinated individuals (median 1581 AU/mL IQR [533.8-5644.6]) after the second vaccination, than in convalescent individuals (median 355.3 AU/mL IQR [141.2-998.7]; p<0.001). In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month…this study demonstrates individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine have different kinetics of antibody levels compared to patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with higher initial levels but a much faster exponential decrease in the first group”.

SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria, Pilz, 2021Researchers recorded “40 tentative re-infections in 14, 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8, 885, 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13)…relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.” Additionally, hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%) (tentative re-infection).

mRNA vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells recognize B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status, Neidleman, 2021“Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose.”

Good news: Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection, Bhandari, 2021“Months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies all the while. The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.”

Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months, Wajnberg, 2021“Neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein persisted for at least 5 months after infection. Although continued monitoring of this cohort will be needed to confirm the longevity and potency of this response, these preliminary results suggest that the chance of reinfection may be lower than is currently feared.”

Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2, Gaebler, 2020“Concurrently, neutralizing activity in plasma decreases by five-fold in pseudo-type virus assays. In contrast, the number of RBD-specific memory B cells is unchanged. Memory B cells display clonal turnover after 6.2 months, and the antibodies they express have greater somatic hypermutation, increased potency and resistance to RBD mutations, indicative of continued evolution of the humoral response…we conclude that the memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner that is consistent with antigen persistence.”

Naturally-acquired Immunity Dynamics against SARS-CoV-2 in Children and Adolescents, Patalon, 2022Setting: Nationally centralized database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, an Israeli national health fund that covers 2.5 million people.
Participants: The study population included between 293,743 and 458,959 individuals (depending on the model), 5-18 years of age, who were unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 naive persons or unvaccinated convalescent patients.
Evaluated three SARS-CoV-2-related outcomes: (1) documented PCR confirmed infection or reinfection, (2) COVID-19 and (3) severe COVID-19.
Results: Overall, children and adolescents who were previously infected acquired durable protection against reinfection (symptomatic or not) with SARS-CoV-2 for at least 18 months. Importantly, no COVID-19 related deaths were recorded in either the SARS-CoV-2 naive group or the previously infected group. Effectiveness of naturally-acquired immunity against a recurrent infection reached 89.2% (95% CI: 84.7%-92.4%) three to six months after first infection, mildly declining to 82.5% (95% CI, 79.1%-85.3%) nine months to one year after infection, then remaining rather steady for children and adolescents for up to 18 months, with a slight non-significant waning trend. Found that ages 5-11 exhibited no significant waning of naturally acquired protection throughout the outcome period, whereas waning protection in the 12-18 age group was more prominent, but still mild.
Conclusions: Children and adolescents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain protected against reinfection to a high degree and policy decision makers should consider when and if convalescent children and adolescents should be vaccinated.’

Duration of immune protection of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection against reinfection in Qatar, Chemaitelly, 2022Researchers studied the duration of protection afforded by natural infection, the effect of viral immune evasion on duration of protection, and protection against severe reinfection, in Qatar, between February 28, 2020 and June 5, 2022. They conducted and included three national, matched, retrospective cohort studies so as to compare incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity among unvaccinated persons with a documented SARS-CoV-2 primary infection, to incidence among those infection-naive and unvaccinated.

They found that “effectiveness of pre-Omicron primary infection against pre-Omicron reinfection was 85.5% (95% CI: 84.8-86.2%). Effectiveness peaked at 90.5% (95% CI: 88.4-92.3%) in the 7th month after the primary infection, but waned to ~70% by the 16th month. Extrapolating this waning trend using a Gompertz curve suggested an effectiveness of 50% in the 22nd month and <10% by the 32nd month. Effectiveness of pre-Omicron primary infection against Omicron reinfection was 38.1% (95% CI: 36.3-39.8%) and declined with time since primary infection. A Gompertz curve suggested an effectiveness of <10% by the 15th month. Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% (95% CI: 94.9-98.6%), irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning. Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age.”

Key is that protection of natural infection against reinfection wanes and may diminish within a few years. Viral immune evasion accelerates this waning. However, and vey tantalizing is that protection against severe reinfection “remains very strong, with no evidence for waning, irrespective of variant.”

Protection of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection against reinfection with the Omicron BA.4 or BA.5 subvariants, Altarawneh & Abu-Raddad, 2022“Estimates the effectiveness of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 in preventing reinfection with Omicron BA.4/BA.5 subvariants using a test-negative, case–control study design. Cases (SARS-CoV-2-positive test results) and controls (SARS-CoV-2-negative test results) were matched according to sex, 10-year age group, nationality, comorbid condition count, calendar week of testing, method of testing, and reason for testing.

Effectiveness of a previous Omicron infection against symptomatic BA.4/BA.5 reinfection was 76.1% (95% CI: 54.9-87.3%), and against any BA.4/BA.5 reinfection was 79.7% (95% CI: 74.3-83.9%).

Results using all diagnosed infections when BA.4/BA.5 dominated incidence confirmed the same findings. Sensitivity analyses adjusting for vaccination status confirmed study results. Protection of a previous infection against BA.4/BA.5 reinfection was modest when the previous infection involved a pre-Omicron variant, but strong when the previous infection involved the Omicron BA.1 or BA.2 subvariants.”

Neutralization Escape by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5, Hachmann, 2022“Six months after the initial two BNT162b2 immunizations, the median neutralizing antibody pseudovirus titer was 124 against WA1/2020 but less than 20 against all the tested omicron subvariants. Two weeks after administration of the booster dose, the median neutralizing antibody titer increased substantially, to 5783 against the WA1/2020 isolate, 900 against the BA.1 subvariant, 829 against the BA.2 subvariant, 410 against the BA.2.12.1 subvariant, and 275 against the BA.4 or BA.5 subvariant.

Among the participants with a history of Covid-19, the median neutralizing antibody titer was 11,050 against the WA1/2020 isolate, 1740 against the BA.1 subvariant, 1910 against the BA.2 subvariant, 1150 against the BA.2.12.1 subvariant, and 590 against the BA.4 or BA.5 subvariant.”

Elevated risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 Beta, Gamma, and Delta variant compared to Alpha variant in vaccinated individuals, ANDEWEG, 2022“We analyzed 28,578 sequenced SARS-CoV-2 samples from individuals with known immune status obtained through national community testing in the Netherlands from March to August 2021. We found evidence of an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. No clear differences were found between vaccines. However, the effect was larger in the first 14-59 days after complete vaccination compared to ≥60 days. In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, there was no increased risk for re-infection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”

“We found no association between previous infection and a new infection with Beta, Gamma, or Delta versus Alpha, suggesting that there is no difference in protection from a previous infection between Beta, Gamma, or Delta variants compared to the Alpha variant. This is in line with the similar relative risk reductions for re-infection found for the Alpha and Delta variant (9). Early studies showed that previous infection conferred better protection than vaccination without previous infection during the Delta period.”

Risk of BA.5 Infection among Persons Exposed to Previous SARS-CoV-2 Variants, Graca, 2022These researchers applied a registry-based study design that indeed lacks the level of precision of a test-negative design. Yet as they rightly argue, the very large number of cases studied that covered all the residents of Portugal over 12 years old, allowed confidence in a derived risk estimate for individuals with prior BA.1/BA.2 infection that was robust and trustworthy enough and located close to an estimate from Qatar based on a test-negative design.
Background and findings:
“Portugal was one of the first countries affected by a BA.5 predominance. We used the national coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) registry (SINAVE) to calculate the risk of BA.5 infection among persons with documented infection with past variants, including BA.1 and BA.2. The registry includes all reported cases in the country, regardless of clinical presentation.”
“We found that previous SARS-CoV-2 infection had a protective effect against BA.5 infection, and this protection was maximal for previous infection with BA.1 or BA.2. These data should be considered in the context of breakthrough infections in a highly vaccinated population, given that in Portugal more than 98% of the study population completed the primary vaccination series before 2022.”
Conclusion:
“Overall, we found that breakthrough infections with the BA.5 subvariant were less likely among persons with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection history in a highly vaccinated population, especially for previous BA.1 or BA.2 infection, than among uninfected persons.”

Protection against Omicron from Vaccination and Previous Infection in a Prison System, Chin, 2022“evaluated the protection conferred by mRNA vaccines and previous infection against infection with the omicron variant in two high-risk populations”; See Table S4 in supplementary for the important findings, there are zero (0) deaths in the unvaccinated (prior infected) and zero (0) deaths in the vaccinated; the study attempts to champion the vaccine yet the real finding is that there were no deaths on those unvaccinated in a closed high-risk prison population; these prisoners withstood death with their own immunity (natural immunity) and needed no vaccine

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist up to 12 months after natural infection in healthy employees working in non-medical contact-intensive professions, Mioch, 2022Researchers sought to ‘evaluate dynamics of antibody levels following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during 12 months in Dutch non-vaccinated hairdressers and hospitality staff.’
A prospective cohort study design, ‘blood samples were collected every three months for one year, and analyzed using a qualitative total antibody ELISA and a quantitative IgG antibody ELISA.
Researchers found that 95 of 497 participants (19.1%) ‘had ≥1 seropositive measurement before their last visit using the qualitative ELISA. Only 2.1% (2/95) seroreverted during follow-up. Of the 95 participants, 82 (86.3%) tested IgG seropositive in the quantitative ELISA too. IgG antibody levels significantly decreased in the first months (p<0.01), but remained detectable up to 12 months in all participants. Higher age (B, 10-years increment: 24.6, 95%CI: 5.7-43.5) and higher BMI (B, 5kg/m² increment: 40.0, 95%CI: 2.9-77.2) were significantly associated with a higher peak of antibody levels.’
These results indicate that ‘SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted for up to one year after initial seropositivity, suggesting long-term natural immunity.’

Effectiveness of Vaccination and Previous Infection Against Omicron Infection and Severe Outcomes in Children Under 12 Years of Age, Lin, 2023“Researchers used vaccination records as well as clinical outcomes for 1,368,721 North Carolina residents 11 years of age or younger from October 29, 2021 to January 6, 2023.

Statistical methods used were ‘Cox regression to estimate the time-varying effects of primary and booster vaccination and previous infection on the risks of omicron infection, hospitalization, and death.’

‘For children 5–11 years of age, the effectiveness of primary vaccination against infection was 59.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58.5 to 61.2), 33.7% (95% CI, 32.6 to 34.8), and 14.9% (95% CI, 12.3 to 17.5) at 1, 4 and 10 months after the first dose;

the effectiveness of a monovalent or bivalent booster dose after 1 month was 24.4% (95% CI, 14.4 to 33.2) or 76.7% (95% CI, 45.7 to 90.0); and the effectiveness of omicron infection against reinfection was 79.9% (95% CI, 78.8 to 80.9) and 53.9% (95% CI, 52.3 to 55.5) after 3 and 6 months, respectively.

For children 0–4 years of age, the effectiveness of primary vaccination against infection was 63.8% (95% CI, 57.0 to 69.5) and 58.1% (95% CI, 48.3 to 66.1) at 2 and 5 months after the first dose, and the effectiveness of omicron infection against reinfection was 77.3% (95% CI, 75.9 to 78.6) and 64.7% (95% CI, 63.3 to 66.1) after 3 and 6 months, respectively.”

Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2,La Jolla, Crotty and Sette, 2020“Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2”

Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans, Mateus, 2020“Found that the pre-existing reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 comes from memory T cells and that cross-reactive T cells can specifically recognize a SARS-CoV-2 epitope as well as the homologous epitope from a common cold coronavirus. These findings underline the importance of determining the impacts of pre-existing immune memory in COVID-19 disease severity.”

Ultrapotent antibodies against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, Wang, 2021“Our study demonstrates that convalescent subjects previously infected with ancestral variant SARS-CoV-2 produce antibodies that cross-neutralize emerging VOCs with high potency…potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern.”

Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans, Makary, 2021“Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it’s a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.”

Protracted yet coordinated differentiation of long-lived SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells during COVID-19 convalescence, Ma, 2021“Screened 21 well-characterized, longitudinally-sampled convalescent donors that recovered from mild COVID-19…following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”

Reinfection Rates among Patients who Previously Tested Positive for COVID-19: a Retrospective Cohort Study, Sheehan, 2021“Retrospective cohort study of one multi-hospital health system included 150,325 patients tested for COVID-19 infection…prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased over time, suggesting that viral shedding or ongoing immune response may persist beyond 90 days and may not represent true reinfection.”

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy, Vitale, 2020“The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies.”

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection, Hanrath, 2021“We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers…this apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months…test positivity rates were 0% (0/128 [95% CI: 0–2.9]) in those with previous infection compared to 13.7% (290/2115 [95% CI: 12.3–15.2]) in those without (P<0.0001 χ² test).”

Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals, Grifoni, 2020“Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide “megapools,” circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4⁺ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4⁺ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8⁺ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted.”

https://brownstone.org/articles/16-studies-on-vaccine-efficacy/

Gazit et alshowed that “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13-fold (95% CI, 8-21) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected.” When adjusting for the time of disease/vaccine, there was a 27-fold increased risk (95% CI, 13-57).

Acharya et al.Ignoring the risk of infection, given that someone was infected, Acharya et al. found “no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta.”

Riemersma et al.found “no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” Results indicate that “if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” They reported “low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people.”

Chemaitelly et al.In a study from Qatar, Chemaitelly et al. reported vaccine efficacy (Pfizer) against severe and fatal disease, with efficacy in the 85-95% range at least until 24 weeks after the second dose. As a contrast, the efficacy against infection waned down to around 30% at 15-19 weeks after the second dose.

Riemersma et al.From Wisconsin, Riemersma et al. reported that vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. They found an elevated viral load in the unvaccinated and vaccinated symptomatic persons (68% and 69% respectively, 158/232 and 156/225). Moreover, in the asymptomatic persons, they uncovered elevated viral loads (29% and 82% respectively) in the unvaccinated and the vaccinated respectively. This suggests that the vaccinated can be infected, harbor, cultivate, and transmit the virus readily and unknowingly.

SubramanianSubramanian reported that “at the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases.” When comparing 2947 counties in the United States, there were slightly less cases in more vaccinated locations. In other words, there is no clear discernable relationship .

Chau et al.looked at transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among vaccinated healthcare workers in Vietnams. Of 69 healthcare workers that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 62 participated in the clinical study, all of whom recovered. For 23 of them, complete-genome sequences were obtained, and all belonged to the Delta variant. “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020”.

Brown et al.In Barnstable, Massachusetts, Brown et al. found that among 469 cases of COVID-19, 74% were fully vaccinated, and that “the vaccinated had on average more virus in their nose than the unvaccinated who were infected.”

Hetemäli et al.Reporting on a nosocomial hospital outbreak in Finland, Hetemäli et al. observed that “both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections were found among vaccinated health care workers, and secondary transmission occurred from those with symptomatic infections despite use of personal protective equipment.”

Shitrit et al.In a hospital outbreak investigation in Israel, Shitrit et al. observed “high transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals.” They added that “this suggests some waning of immunity, albeit still providing protection for individuals without comorbidities.”

UK COVID-19 vaccine Surveillance Report for week #42In the UK COVID-19 vaccine Surveillance Report for week #42, it was noted that there is “waning of the N antibody response over time” and “that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.” The same report (Table 2, page 13), shows the in the older age groups above 30, the double vaccinated persons have greater infection risk than the unvaccinated, presumably because the latter group include more people with stronger natural immunity from prior Covid disease. As a contrast, the vaccinated people had a lower risk of death than the unvaccinated, across all age groups, indicating that vaccines provide more protection against death than against infection. See also UK PHE reports 43, 44, 45, 46 for similar data.

Levin et al.In Israel, Levin et al. “conducted a 6-month longitudinal prospective study involving vaccinated health care workers who were tested monthly for the presence of anti-spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies”. They found that “six months after receipt of the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, humoral response was substantially decreased, especially among men, among persons 65 years of age or older, and among persons with immunosuppression.”

Rosenberg et al.In a study from New York State, Rosenberg et al. reported that “During May 3–July 25, 2021, the overall age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization in New York was relatively stable 89.5%–95.1%). The overall age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection for all New York adults declined from 91.8% to 75.0%.”

Suthar et al.Suthar et al. noted that “Our data demonstrate a substantial waning of antibody responses and T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, at 6 months following the second immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine.”

Nordström et al.In a study from Umeå University in Sweden, Nordström et al. observed that “vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07).”

Yahi et al.Yahi et al. have reported that “in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, antibody dependent enhancement may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence.”

Goldberg et al. (BNT162b2 Vaccine in Israel) reported that “immunity against the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 waned in all age groups a few months after receipt of the second dose of vaccine.”

Singanayagam et al.examined the transmission and viral load kinetics in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with mild delta variant infection in the community. They found that (in 602 community contacts (identified via the UK contract-tracing system) of 471 UK COVID-19 index cases were recruited to the Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts cohort study and contributed 8145 upper respiratory tract samples from daily sampling for up to 20 days) “vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”

https://brownstone.org/articles/studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers, Bundgaard, 2021“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results…the recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use.

SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Marine Recruits during Quarantine, Letizia, 2020“Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine. Multiple, independent virus strain transmission clusters were identified…all recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors.”

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses, Jefferson, 2020“There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants)…the pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.”

The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh, Abaluck, 2021
Heneghan et al. A cluster-randomized trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N=600 villages, N=342,126 adults. Heneghan writes: “In a Bangladesh study, surgical masks reduced symptomatic COVID infections by between 0 and 22 percent, while the efficacy of cloth masks led to somewhere between an 11 percent increase to a 21 percent decrease. Hence, based on these randomized studies, adult masks appear to have either no or limited efficacy.”

Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review, Liu/CATO, 2021“The available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent-to-treat populations. Of sixteen quantitative meta-analyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks, and the remaining eight supported a public mask intervention on limited evidence primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.”

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, CDC/Xiao, 2020“Evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza…none of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group…the overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies.”

CIDRAP: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data, Brosseau, 2020“We agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing…though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people.”

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era, Klompas/NEJM, 2020“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic…The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection…universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.”

Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review, Dugré, 2020“This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenza-like illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenza-like illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.”

Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Saunders-Hastings, 2017“Facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.16–1.71; I² = 48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection.”

Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumulation in the context of COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation, Shah, 2021“Nevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%), and therefore are still the recommended choice in mitigating airborne disease transmission indoors.”

Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword?- A physiological hypothesis, Chandrasekaran, 2020“Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus.”

Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms–a costly and unnecessary ritual?, Mitchell, 1991“Following the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one metre from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.”

Facemask against viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims: A challenging cluster-randomized trial, Alfelali, 2020“By intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.18) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4, p = 0.40).”

Simple respiratory protection–evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles, Rengasamy, 2010“Results obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.”

Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range, Lee, 2008“The study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection; it appears to be an appropriate alternative to reduce the breathing resistance.”

Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry, Weber, 1993“We conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous sub-micrometer-sized aerosols.”

Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery, Vincent, 2016“We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials…from the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.”

Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review, Lipp, 2005“From the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery.”

Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols, Shimasaki , 2018“We conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus.”

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam, Chau, 2021While not definitive in the LANCET publication, it can be inferred that the nurses were all masked up and had PPE etc. as was the case in Finland and Israel nosocomial outbreaks, indicating the failure of PPE and masks to constrain Delta spread.

Aerosol penetration through surgical masks, Willeke, 1992“The mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.”

The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles”, Wiley, 1980“Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all aexperiments. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound. The wearing of the mask beneath the headgear curtails this route of contamination.”

An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful, Meehan, 2020“Decades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2…those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence, arguments, and risks of mask mandates.”

Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media, AIER, 2020“Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.”

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Long, 2020“The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.”

Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, WHO, 2020“However, the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses.”

Farce mask: it’s safe for only 20 minutes, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2003“Health authorities have warned that surgical masks may not be an effective protection against the virus.”Those masks are only effective so long as they are dry,” said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.”As soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets.”Professor Cossart said that could take as little as 15 or 20 minutes, after which the mask would need to be changed. But those warnings haven’t stopped people snapping up the masks, with retailers reporting they are having trouble keeping up with demand.”

Study: Wearing A Used Mask Is Potentially Riskier Than No Mask At All, Boyd, 2020

Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway“According to researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University, a three-layer surgical mask is 65 percent efficient in filtering particles in the air. That effectiveness, however, falls to 25 percent once it is used.“It is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,” said author Jinxiang Xi.“Our results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers,” he continued.”

Unravelling the Role of the Mandatory Use of Face Covering Masks for the Control of SARS-CoV-2 in Schools: A Quasi-Experimental Study Nested in a Population-Based Cohort in Catalonia (Spain), Coma, 2022“A recent study (Catalonia, Spain) done on face masks and their effectiveness was a retrospective population-based study among near 600,000 children aged 3 to 11 years attending preschool (3-5 years, without facial covering mandate) and primary education (6-11 years, with facial covering mandate); to assess the incidence of SARS-CoV-2, secondary attack rates (SAR) and the effective reproductive number (R*) for each grade during the first trimester of the 2021-2022 academic year, including an analysis of the differences between 5-year-old, without facial covering mandate, and 6 year-old children, with mandate.
Researchers found that “the SARS-CoV-2 incidence was significantly lower in preschool than in primary education, and an age-dependent trend was observed. Children aged 3 and 4 showed lower outcomes for all the analyzed epidemiological variables, while children aged 11 had the higher values. Six-year-old children showed higher incidence than 5 year-olds (3·54% vs 3·1%; OR: 1·15 [95%CI: 1·08-1·22]) and slightly lower but not statistically significant SAR and R*: SAR were 4·36% in 6 year-old children, and 4·59% in 5 year-old (IRR: 0·96 [95%CI: 0·82-1·11]); and R* was 0·9 and 0·93 (OR: 0·96 [95%CI: 0·87-1·09]), respectively.” Overall, facial covering mandates (face masks) in examined schools were not linked to lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or spread, implying that these masks were not effective.”

Correlation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europe, Spira, 2022
“The aim of this short study was to analyse the correlation between mask usage against morbidity and mortality rates in the 2020-2021 winter in Europe. Data from 35 European countries on morbidity, mortality, and mask usage during a six-month period were analysed and crossed. Mask usage was more homogeneous in Eastern Europe than in Western European countries. Spearman’s correlation coefficients between mask usage and COVID-19 outcomes were either null or positive, depending on the subgroup of countries and type of outcome (cases or deaths). Positive correlations were stronger in Western than in Eastern European countries. These findings indicate that countries with high levels of mask compliance did not perform better than those with low mask usage.”

The Foegen effect
A mechanism by which facemasks contribute to the COVID-19 case fatality rate, Fögen, 2022“The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case. Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates. This means that the risk for the individual wearing the mask should even be higher, because there is an unknown number of people in MMC who either do not obey mask mandates, are exempted for medical reasons or do not go to public places where mask mandates are in effect. These people do not have an increased risk and thus the risk on the other people under a mask mandate is actually higher.”

Association between School Mask Mandates and SARS-CoV-2 Student Infections: Evidence from a Natural Experiment of Neighboring K-12 Districts in North Dakota, Sood & Høeg, 2022Unique study “of two adjacent K-12 school districts in Fargo, North Dakota, one which had a mask mandate and one which did not in the fall of the 2021-2022 academic year. In the winter, both districts adopted a masks-optional policy allowing for a partial crossover study design. We observed no significant difference between student case rates while the districts had differing masking policies (IRR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.07) nor while they had the same mask policies (IRR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.16). The IRRs across the two periods were also not significantly different (p = 0.40).” Researchers concluded that school-based mask mandates have “limited to no impact on the case rates of COVID-19 among K-12 students.”

Medical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for Preventing COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers, Loeb, 2022Researchers found that both the surgical masks and the N95 fitted COVID masks do not stop infection as in both trial arms (non-inferiority multi-center trial), participants got infected; moreover, there was no difference between the surgical masks and the N95 fitted masks in terms of stopping infection. “In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.”

Lack of correlation between school mask mandates and paediatric COVID-19 cases in a large cohort, Chandra, 2022“Successfully replicated the original result using 565 counties; non-masking counties had around 30 additional daily cases per 100,000 children after two weeks of schools reopening. However, after nine weeks, cases per 100,000 were 18.3 in counties with mandates compared to 15.8 in those without them (p = 0.12). In a larger sample of 1832 counties, between weeks 2 and 9, cases per 100,000 fell by 38.2 and 37.9 in counties with and without mask requirements, respectively (p = 0.93). The association between school mask mandates and cases did not persist in the extended sample. Observational studies of interventions are prone to multiple biases and provide insufficient evidence for recommending mask mandates.”

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (Review), Jefferson, 2023Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned. N95/P2 respirators
Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well-reported; discomfort was mentioned.

https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory-covid-interventions/

I challenge Njoo and Tam to bring their full Health Canada and PHAC agency idiot employees with them, any place and time, bring the data they have, I and McCullough, Tenenbaum, Risch, Bridle, Hodkinson, Amerling, Makis et al. will bring ours. To show you were full of shit from day one using this Malone mRNA technology based gene injection. You were dangerous and reckless and you know it. The question is, how were you incentivized? How much $, how, direct or indirect, for every single thing you did was flat wrong on COVID. All of it.

So I say, interview me, why not get these malfeasants you quote here to debate with me and bring their science. I will show the accumulated science to show the garbage they are talking. These are the very same people who stood by as people died and they refused to treat with available therapeutics. These are the same assholes who said natural immunity was inferior to vaccine immunity para, who supported deadly failed lockdowns, who supported failed deadly school closures that harmed our children, that supported ineffective failed deadly blue surgical masks and cloth maskes para that never worked and are actually harmful, these are the ones who denied early treatment and people died. These, these are the ones begging for amnesty now as the narrative fell apart and you want us to believe anything they say?

Blogger Monique MacKay is 100% correct, I stand with them. Mark Johnson of PHAC is a raging idiot. He should take his head out of his ass and pick up some actual research papers and read them and cease being so technically incompentent, intellectually lazy, academically sloppy, and cognitively dissonaced to any of the real science that accumulated over 3 years. Caroline Quach-Thanh is deceitful when you read the statements for this doctor is playing with words. Note nothing they said is incorrect clasically but they are quoted here to add weight to the specious unsound piece. They still do not say what is the fact that no healthy child, no child based on the data today, based on a statistical zero risk of severe outcome or death, warrants these COVID gene shots. And this ding dong is afraid to say it. They know the data. Pierre-Philippe Piche-Renaud is similarly duplicituous. So is Laura Sauve, for they know what they have done over 2 years with this fraud shot. They are playing with words now after damaging the public, after going along with vaccine mandates that forced many healthy children to have the shot to partake in their ‘polite’ society. To play sports.

Follow the $.

See this statement from the hit piece:

‘In an interview spreading online, a doctor tells parents to resist vaccinating their children against Covid-19, warning of impending mandates and deadly outcomes for those who receive the shot. But Canadian public health agencies and pediatricians say the jab is safe for minors -- and it is not on the routine vaccine schedule or mandated in any province.

"We've seen far too many deaths of children to have this be acceptable," says American cardiologist Peter McCullough in a reel he posted April 9, 2023 on Instagram. "The parents need to at this point in time stop -- absolutely no more shots in children whatsoever."

The video is an excerpt from an hour-long interview that McCullough gave to a Canadian blogger. The shorter clip spread on Twitter and Instagram, where it received more than 52,000 views on McCullough's account alone.

In the video, McCullough -- whom AFP has previously fact-checked for spreading misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines -- claims Covid-19 shots are not only deadly and unnecessary, but that immunization for children could be forced on parents.

"If it is required to go to school then the parents need to find another educational option at this point, otherwise they could lose their children," McCullough says in the clip.’

My reponse to these inept morons in public health in Canada, and ignorant, dangerous morons they are; I show 4 paragraphs and my reply in bold black:

1)However, public health agencies, infectious disease experts and pediatricians say vaccination remains one of the most effective ways to protect against serious illness, hospitalization and death due to Covid-19.

Show us the data, show us the evidence that these COVID gene injections were tested and shown safe and effective. Show us! Do not just say it for you know no such research is available. You know that healthy children bring near zero risk and never ever needed this shot. You know that the innate immune system in children (innate antibodies and natural killer cells etc.) is very potent and can vanquish this and any such pathogen and is particularly vulnerable to being subverted by this COVID shot. You know if left alone children will be exposed naturally and harmlessly and will recover and contribute to herd immunity and protect the population. Healthy children. You know that the data globally shows any child you bring who died from COVID, had serious underlying medical conditions that would have killed them absent of COVID. You know the data. You are being deceitful and lying to the Canadian public. You know that no study has been done to verify the safety of these gene shots. Medium and long-term. You know what myocarditis and pericarditis is doing to our children. You see the ‘died suddenly’ posts we put out. Young healthy children post shot dying at dawn, in their sleep, suddenly on the field, at their desks, brain bleeds, cardiac arrests etc.

2)"Only vaccines that meet the safety, effectiveness and quality standards of Health Canada are approved for use in Canada," Mark Johnson, a spokesman for the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), said in an April 24 email. "Covid vaccines are tested during their development according to international standards and then carefully reviewed by Health Canada."

This moron knows the way he wrote this is to misdirect you. He knows that the FDA granted EUAs based on incomplete and fraud Moderna and Pfizer data. He knows that a 95% relative risk reduction is nothing when framed compared to the real 0.7% absolute risk reduction. He knows that the shots were not safety tested and he knows Health Canada and PHAC hides behind the FDA EUA so they can at PHAC say the FDA approved it. So that gives them cover. But we show that the FDA was dangerous and deadly in their decision-making, 3 years now. This idiot refuses to acknowledge this.

They have mandated a shot in Canada that has many of the Canadian police and military vaccine injured. Many will die in time. They cannot refute this or say what I just stated is false. He knows, this idiot, yet he lies to you, that the vaccines were never tested with the proper duration of follow-up, or optimal sample size to detect serious adverse events, rare events, or proper outcome number (once less than 200 events and as much as 500, there is a high risk of over-estimation of the estimate of effect, high risk of biased estimates of effect), that the reported randomization and concealment of sequence was sub-optimal, that the blinding was corrupted, that stopping early usually means stopping at a random high as to benefit (or random low as to harms) and is a flag for biased estimates of effect, that immuno-bridging is a corrupted piece of research methods, that the vaccine makers did not study patient-important outcomes and that antibody level is not a suitable measure of efficacy or effectiveness or even immune response. He knows these things but lies to you. This is just a sprinkling of what he knows. Yet he lies.

See some substacks I have published so that these idiots my read some of the ‘real’ data and go read from Makis: