World’s Top Epidemiologists Oppose Madman Fauci and Call for End to Lockdowns

Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Three of the world’s top epidemiologists are going public to contradict Dr. Fauci and other doctor politicians who are calling for renewed lock-downs over the Coronavirus.

They are:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff – Harvard Medical School Professor
Dr. Sunetra Gupta – Oxford University Epidemiology Professor
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya – Stanford Epidemiology Professor

They were interviewed Monday night by Laura Ingraham on Fox News. They claim that the consensus in the scientific community is NOT in favor of locking down entire populations, but only those at most risk, and they are calling for the end of lock-downs for the vast majority of the population who are not at risk for COVID.

And they are not alone. They published the “Great Barrington” declaration this week which has already been signed by over 1000 medical and public health scientists within the first few hours of being published.

Watch the full interview:

More here : https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/worlds-top-epidemiologists-oppose-madman-fauci-and-call-for-end-to-lockdowns/

==============

Relate;

Coalition of Doctors Urge University of California to Reconsider Flu Vaccine Mandate

By Children’s Health Defense Team

As Children’s Health Defense’s litigation continues against the University of California for mandating the flu vaccine, effective Nov. 1, Physicians for Informed Consent submitted a letter to the University of California Board of Regents’ President Michael V. Drake, M.D.

In the letter, Shira Miller, M.D., founder and president of Physicians for Informed Consent, wrote: “On behalf of hundreds of physician and scientist members of Physicians for Informed Consent, I am writing out of our concern that the bodily integrity of UC students, faculty and staff is being potentially sacrificed by the recent UC Regents’ flu vaccine mandate, with no robust scientific justification.”

The letter goes on to summarize available data, including:

• People who receive the flu vaccine are 65% more likely to contract non-flu viruses and bacteria than people who do not receive the flu vaccine.
• There is evidence that the flu vaccine doesn’t reduce demand on hospitals.
• There is no evidence that the flu vaccine prevents the spread of influenza viruses.
• The flu vaccine has not reduced pneumonia and influenza mortality.
• The flu vaccine fails to prevent the flu about 65% of the time.
• Repeat flu vaccination has been shown to increase the likelihood of flu vaccine failure.
• The overall benefits of flu vaccination and flu vaccine policies are not clear.

The case against the UC focuses upon the scientific evidence. For example, to prove the UC mandate is poor science, the plaintiffs cite studies showing that the flu vaccine, in fact, primes the immune system for other pathogens, including a 30% increase in risk for COVID-19 specifically. This scientific reality makes UC’s flu vaccine more likely, not less likely, to overwhelm the hospitals and cause more illness.

The “pathogenic priming” effect of the flu vaccine, which Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has also detailed, came under fire recently when a new study refuted the findings. The validity of the opposing study (sure to be introduced by UC in their responses to CHD’s suit) was thoroughly dismantled by other doctors and scientists, including James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., author, scientist, and editor-in-chief of Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, who told CHD that among other problems, the opposing study modeled flu vaccination as a probability.

“Unimaginable why they could not just use real data,” Weiler said. His analysis also shows more of what the study authors call “influenza” in years one and two following flu vaccination. This manipulates the data. He also asks, “What were the results in analyses including data from 2017-2020, 2018-2020, 2019-2020 and 2020 only?” In the unadjusted analysis, Weiler says the increased risk and the link between prior flu vaccination and susceptibility to COVID-19 is clear. “Among individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, patients previously vaccinated for influenza in 2019 were more likely to be hospitalized. Once hospitalized, they were more likely to be admitted to the ICU and die during hospitalization,” he said.

“The study should have used the covariate as co-risk factors. To do otherwise presumes proof of causality of the covariates by assumption, which is unwarranted,” Weiler explained.

In concurrence with Weiler, Karen Felzer, PhD, gave a recent presentation in which she analyzed increased COVID-19 risk with high uptake of flu vaccines at the country level, identifying a “tipping point” of 45%-50% flu vaccine coverage at which a population becomes exponentially more vulnerable to COVID-19, other illness and even death.

Felzer asserted:

• Low COVID-19 fatality rates seen in countries with low influenza vaccine coverage
• High flu coverage rates might make individual COVID infections more lethal
• The flu shot also correlated with excess deaths in 2017
• Correlation between flu shot coverage and COVID-19 mortality seen in the U.S.

More here : https://www.europereloaded.com/coalition-of-doctors-urge-university-of-california-to-reconsider-flu-vaccine-mandate/

===========