Essentially, you have two choices, weighing the risks of the vaccine against your healthy child’s risk from contracting Covid or, in the second instance, balancing the vaccine risk against any pre-existing conditions your child may have that would make contracting Covid dangerous.

I’m not anti-vaccine, just to get that out the way. Lara’s had all her other shots and I am a firm believer in time-proven vaccines, like the polio and measles vaccine. Actual vaccines that prevent infection and control or eliminate disease. We all know by now that this description does not apply to the Covid “vaccines”. We aren’t dealing with actual vaccines when it comes to Covid and the risks of “vaccination”, based on fact, may far outweigh the benefits. Especially when it comes to mRNA technology.

This is a lengthy article, but if you’re here, I assume it’s out of concern for your child and wanting to establish risk, benefit and fact before you take the leap. This article will provide this, along with a basic overview of the technology involved in the vaccines.

Is mRNA dangerous?

Unproven medicines carry risk, particularly in the long term. It is one of the main reasons medicines can take five to eight years or in many instances even longer, to reach the marketplace, or rather patients. Side effects that are immediate are often picked up in clinical trials, but other side effects can take years to manifest. In the case of mRNA it becomes even more complex. As we are dealing with gene-based medicines, in the case of mRNA, side effects may only become evident in your offspring.

It’s a whole new ball game and one we’ve been working toward for the last decade. Make no mistake, mRNA medicines offer the promise of targeted individual treatment that could eradicate diseases like cancers. They are exciting and potentially life-saving. They are the future of medicine and we may have just seriously diminished their long-term credibility in the market place in one foul swoop, in an ill-conceived effort to medicate the entire planet against Covid.

Until the pandemic, mRNA treatments were restricted to end of life patients. Why? Well, we working tirelessly to better understand the risks involved in the technology and these treatments were only approved for people that had no other choice to prolong their lives. Impending death voids risk.

Then came Covid, and along with it, the need to make people feel safe and reboot our social connections and economies. Governments, perhaps in desperation, seized on the rapidly developed mRNA treatments, incorrectly labelled them as vaccines (instead of immunizations), and in doing so created a public perception. Get the shot and you’re safe. Why wouldn’t you be, that’s what vaccines do. In truth though, and as the public has discovered in recent months, these mRNA treatments were not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, transmission or the Covid disease.

The hurried Covid clinical trials were filled with flaws (more on this further into the article), both from the companies contracted to run the trials and in the reporting of the results. This article isn’t about allocating blame however, it is simply about sharing information, facts and the simple realities are that the original Covid mRNA clinical trials for adults were themselves flawed. Then came the trials for children.

What your child and mice have in common.

Easily answered. Pretty much nothing, aside from an established pattern of using mice in trials to establish human compatibility, and if you’re wondering why this question, it is because the approval by the FDA for vaccinating your child with mRNA technology was based on trials conducted on mice. Yup, you heard right. Mice, and to add insult to injury, only a few mice. Worth mentioning at this point, that success in mice doesn’t always translate into a viable product in humans.

Mice are commonly used in what we call “surrogate trials” and the easiest way to understand this is with an example one of my colleagues recently brought up, that of statins, a group of drugs used to lower your cholesterol levels. Statins were rigorously trialed over a long period of time and overcame numerous hurdles to become one of the best tolerated and safest drugs doctors have at their disposal. New companies soon added their own versions of these drugs, and, as we already knew by this stage how well tolerated the drugs were, these companies were allowed to use mice in so called surrogate trials, where the unfortunate, unpaid rodents got to stand in for human subjects.

No harm, no foul, simply science using hard won and long established protocols for safely testing a drug. Up until the pandemic, mRNA had been subject to the same safety protocols.

mRNA drugs may not be well tolerated and may not be safe to use. The truth is we simply don’t know enough yet of their long term effects and can only pray that the world’s largest clinical trial (read the Covid vaccination drive) proves them safe in the long term. We may have to wait a generation to establish their real impact on patients. This is a simple scientific fact. No long term safety data exists for mRNA medicines.

Establishing your child’s risk from SARS-COV2

If you’re a responsible parent, you’ve probably had your child immunized and vaccinated against a host of serious diseases. We do this to protect our children. For instance, young males contracting Mumps can, as a side effect of the disease, end up sterile. Measles, polio and many other childhood diseases can be potentially fatal and debilitating. The question you should be asking then, is how does Covid affect young children?

In the case of certain conditions that leave your child immune compromised, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and certain other conditions I will list at the end of the article, getting your child vaccinated against Covid makes sense. The risk of serious adverse events (SAE’s) from the vaccines are mitigated by your child’s likelihood to develop serious Covid. In other words, Covid poses more of a threat to your child than the mRNA vaccines. You must address risk-risk alongside risk-benefit.

“42 studies containing 275,661 children without comorbidities and 9,353 children with comorbidities were included. Severe COVID-19 was present in 5.1% of children with comorbidities, and in 0.2% without comorbidities”

Tsankov BK, Allaire JM, Irvine MA, Lopez AA, Sauvé LJ, Vallance BA, Jacobson K. Severe COVID-19 Infection and Pediatric Comorbidities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;103:246-256. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.163. Epub 2020 Nov 20. PMID: 33227520; PMCID: PMC7679116.

One of the conclusions drawn in the above study (linked in footer) was that it was impossible from the data to identify which comorbidities in children led to more serious Covid, but one stood out in the data, namely obesity.

It’s important to recognize that your child may also be suffering from an as-yet undiagnosed condition that would make them more susceptible to serious Covid. While other non-mRNA vaccines address Covid, none of these have yet achieved regulatory approval for use in children under 12 (see list in footer).

If you are however the lucky owner of a healthy hobbit, then you can with a high degree of confidence, assume your child will simply shrug off the Covid virus with minimal side effects. It would appear that Covid, particularly the current strains, to which children seem to be more susceptible (although this may simply be the effect of reopening schools, a know driver for influenza) does not prove deadly to young healthy adults or children. Only in extremely rare instances do healthy children develop serious Covid.

In short, Covid poses a very, very low health risk to healthy children of all ages. The same can not currently be said for the mRNA vaccines with a slew of widely reported, serious side effects, including heart-related damage. While there may as yet be some unfathomable reason for the vaccines not being linked to these reports (a scenario which seems less and less likely as time progresses), the onus of proving the vaccines are not at fault lies with the pharma companies. In this authors opinion they are too heavily invested in the products to address these concerns, so revert to lobbying to ensure the vaccines continued use.

Natural Immunity versus the mRNA shots

This is a non-starter right from the outset. It’s a little like pitting an elephant against a mouse in a tug of war. Naturally acquired immunity always trumps artificially prompted immunity, but this isn’t even really a discussion we should be having. mRNA treatments do not invoke immunity in the patient as they aren’t vaccines. You can still be infected, so you expose your child’s body to two sets of challenges by opting for the vaccine.

• In the first instance your child’s body must deal with the artificially introduced spike protein in the mRNA shot. This spike protein rapidly spreads throughout the patient’s body, embedding itself in all their organs, including the heart and brain, eliciting in some cases, a massive immune response. It is, what many suspect, leads to the SAE’s.
• Your child will still contract Covid at a later date, prompting another immune response and placing more stress on their tiny systems.

Worth mentioning here is that your child may very well already have been infected by the SARS-COV2 virus and simply shrugged it off, or only felt out of sorts for a few days. We do not test for prior infection before vaccinating a child or adult, suggesting that “wholesale vaccination” rather than individual treatment and the best interests of the patient drove the pandemic vaccination strategy. Natural acquired immunity was completely ignored.

ALWAYS test your child for Covid prior to opting for the vaccine, as administering the mRNA vaccines on top of an active Covid infection can be debilitating for the patient. This strategy is also recommended for adults.

Establishing real risk for mRNA Vaccines in children

As I mentioned earlier, the rushed clinical trials were about as far away from normal pharma and FDA protocols as you can get while still having your treatment approved, and then some. With the pandemic in full flow, we waived all sorts of standard safety protocols, including the usual “wait and see” phase which can run into years for most medicines. We are still unable to predict Covid risk accurately but Table 1 below sets out to do that based on data collected across the United Kingdom. This data is based on deaths prior to the vaccines being released.

You can see in the first line that prior to the vaccine roll out, the survival rate in children was 99.9973%. Knowing this, the decision to use an improperly trialed new technology with as yet, undetermined long term side effects and a known list of SAE’s that stretches into pages, was nothing short of criminal. The scientific community and governments rubber stamped mass vaccination knowing full well that their justification (looking out for others) lacked substance. mRNA vaccines did not reduce transmission, infection or the disease itself, only providing middling protection against death.

Now, the same institutions are advising you vaccinate your child. Below, a few more facts about the mRNA trials.

• The mRNA vaccines were never tested on nursing mothers, yet nursing mothers were advised by everyone that the vaccine was safe for them to use. Nursing mothers usually make up an integral part of new drug trials.

• The original trial revealed that a person was 95% ‘less likely’ to catch the autumn 2020 variant of COVID-19. This is known in medical speak as relative risk reduction, but to know the true value of any treatment one needs to understand for that person, by how much is their individual risk reduced by the vaccine – that is, the absolute individual risk reduction.

This is a very important point, as we base risk assessments on the real world efficacy of a product and this point is explained in stunning clarity by a recent article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance titled Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine, ISSN: (Online) 2519-7533, (Print) 2412-2785. I’ve extracted the relevant part below to further explain the point of absolute individual risk reduction. It matters in adults, but 10 times more so in the case of healthy children.

Importantly, it turns out that the trial results suggest that the vaccine was only preventing a person from having a symptomatic positive test, and the absolute risk reduction for this was 0.84% (0.88% reduced to 0.04%). In other words, if 10000 people had been vaccinated and 10000 had not, for every 10000 people vaccinated in trial 4 would have tested positive with symptoms compared to 88 who were unvaccinated. Even in the unvaccinated group, 9912 of the 10000 (over 99%) would not have tested positive during the trial period. Another way of expressing this is that you would need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one such symptomatic positive test (assumed to be indicative of an infection, which, in itself, is potentially misleading but beyond the scope of this article).

This absolute risk reduction figure (0.84%) is extremely important for doctors and patients to know but how many of them were told this when they received the shot? Transparent communication of risk and benefit of any intervention is a core principle of ethical evidence-based medical practice and informed consent.

Clearly, these facts dramatically impact the risk profile of these medicines. For healthy adults and children, the risk of developing serious Covid is outweighed by the risk of SAE’s for the vaccine. It’s a simple case of diminishing returns in terms of actual benefit to the patient and the vaccine is found wanting. The diminished benefits to healthy patients are outweighed by the vaccine’s SAE’s, known or otherwise. Table 2 below lays out very clearly how many people required a vaccine per age group to prevent a single death.

For those who are math orientated, the quoted article’s author lays out the methodology to arrive at your absolute risk reduction from the vaccine for an adult aged 44.

If there is a 1 in 119 chance the vaccine protects you from getting symptomatic infection from ancestral variants, then to find the protection against death, this figure (n = 119) must be multiplied by the number of infections that lead to a single death for each age group. This would give (for up to two months after the inoculation) the absolute risk reduction (for death) from the vaccine. For example, if my risk at age 44 from dying from Delta (should I get infected with it) is 1 in 3000, then the absolute risk reduction from the vaccine protecting me from death is 1 over 3000 multiplied by 119, that is, 1 per 357000.

• Trial participants were limited to the type of adverse event they could report on their digital apps, and some participants who were hospitalized after inoculation were withdrawn from the trial and not reported in the final results.
• After two months into the pivotal trials, the FDA allowed vaccine companies to offer the vaccine to subjects in the placebo group, essentially torpedoing any chance of properly recording adverse events from that point on, forcing a reliance of pharmacovigilance data.
• Trials in children did not show a reduction in symptomatic infections but instead used the surrogate measure of antibody levels in the blood to define efficacy, even though the relationship between Wuhan-spike vaccine-induced antibody levels and protection from infection is tenuous, at best. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDAs) own website states that: Results from currently authorized SARS-COV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.
• SAE’s reports are numerous and sadly appear far more common place than the governments and pharma suggest. In some instances, the mRNA vaccines are potentially harmful.

The general public associated a reduction in deaths with the original mRNA Covid trial. This was however not the case and in fact, no such data was presented, only interpreted as such by governments and health authorities, the scientific community and the media, placing a positive spin on the results. Again, from the article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance quoted above.

“Contrary to popular belief, what the trial did not show was any statistically significant reduction in serious illness or COVID-19 mortality from the vaccine over the 6-month period of the trial, but the actual numbers of deaths (attributed to COVID-19) are still important to note. There were only two deaths from COVID-19 in the placebo group and one death from COVID-19 in the vaccine group. Looking at all-cause mortality over a longer period, there were actually slightly more deaths in the vaccine group (19 deaths) than in the placebo group (17 deaths).”

Sadly, most websites still misreport the efficacy of the vaccines and vaccine related articles are often riddled with inaccuracies, even sites like Yale Medicine, which in a recently updated article (Oct 2022) continues to enforce the misconception of how effective the vaccines are. The quote below is taken directly from the article and is indicative of how scientific institutions continue to spread the pandemic vaccine narrative, confusing the public and essentially misleading them. The article also downplays the associated risks of the Covid vaccines.

“When Pfizer-BioNTech applied for FDA authorization for its vaccine in December 2020, its initial Phase 3 clinical data surpassed expectations with 95% efficacy, based on an independent analysis by the FDA.”

Kathy Kattela

A few parting thoughts

I have, for the last two years, spoken out strongly against the practice of enforcing Emergency Use medications on the public, through mandates or by coercion. Unfortunately, we set off down this path, restricting our children’s access to education based on their vaccine status. Now we are trying to coerce millions of parents across the globe to continue accepting the risk posed by mRNA shots and expose their children to potentially life threatening side effects, when the disease itself poses a very, very limited risk to healthy children.

No one should have the right to enforce potentially life threatening treatments on your child unless the end result is justified and they have made a risk based case for the use of the treatment. I have shown you how they have failed to do this and how, in reality, you have been misled over the duration of the pandemic about the efficacy and risks of the mRNA vaccines. Everything you’ve read above is fact and can be easily and readily verified.

As a parent I even advised my older adult children to avoid the mRNA vaccines and they all opted for the more traditional vaccines offered by the likes of Johnson & Johnson, where known SAE’s were all they had to contend with, rather than roll the dice on an untested genetic treatment employing a novel method of delivery.

I hope the article has been informative and that it in some small way helps you find peace as a parent concerned for the long term and immediate health of your child. Remember, the choice of vaccinating your child against Covid is yours.

Further Information

Covid treatments approved for children

• Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine for children ages 6 months through 4 years
• Moderna mRNA vaccine for children ages 6 months through 5 years
• Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 through 9 years
• Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 through 11
• Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, now called Comirnaty, for people age 12 through 17
• Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 12 through 17
• Novavax non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for people age 12 and older

Conditions in children that may increase the risk of serious Covid

• Obesity
• Cancers
• Conditions that affect the child’s immune response
• Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Chronic Lung Disease other than Asthma
• Seizure Disorders

Further reading

European Medicines Agency: Assessment Report, Covid19 Vaccine Moderna

National Library of Medicine: Severe COVID-19 Infection and Pediatric Comorbidities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The post Should I Vaccinate my Child Against Covid? appeared first on Medika Life.

Calling it “arbitrary and capricious,” the New York Supreme Court struck down New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public workers, ruling in favor of 16 unvaccinated city workers who had sued following their termination. Their reason? The vaccines failed to prevent infection and transmission.

Fresh on the heels of this recent decision, not everyone is paying attention, especially Kathy Hochul, the incumbent Governor of New York since 2021 and a Democrat. As an engineer of the NYC mandate in question, here’s what she had to say in a recent debate about her policy to dismiss workers who chose not to be vaccinated against Covid.

It’s a brave statement in the face of mounting evidence that not only New York, but the entire United States was at fault for coercing vaccination compliance and in many instances, mandating Covid vaccines. It is also, in view of recent events, politically short sighted and potentially disastrous for public health and related services in New York.

In the last month we have had confirmation from Pfizer of a fact many of us within the industry were well aware of almost two years ago. The Covid vaccines don’t prevent transmission. For those having a difficult time with this, let’s break it down into its simplest form.

Vaccinated people have always been able to contract and spread the SARS-COV2 virus that leads to Covid.

Spare a thought for all those vaccinated airline passengers, happily munching away without their masks in a sealed steel cannister.

A perfect storm

Data is now being released daily that is unraveling the best efforts of all involved to preserve the official Covid vaccine narrative. Couple this with the increased visibility of the vaccine injured across all forms of social media, and you have a problem, Houston. One which the orchestrators of the vaccine mandates seem to be wishing away rather than dealing with.

October has seen social media and news outlets flooded with warnings the Democrats have largely failed to heed.

• Pfizer announced at an EU Committee convened to investigate Covid that their vaccines were never tested for preventing transmission (link provided above)
• Possibly with the worst timing ever, the CDC unanimously approved the Covid vaccine for use in children under five and added it to the official list of childhood vaccines in the US, basing their decision on what can only be described as “hugely questionable” clinical trials. An uproar followed, with members of the public and political figures stepping into the melee. Fact-checkers published articles assuring the public that individual states could decide whether the child vaccine would be compulsory, but the damage was already done.
• Rochelle Walensky, the CDC director, fully vaccinated and boosted, announced she had Covid. This news was interspersed on social media with earlier clips from 2021 of her assuring the public they would not contract Covid or transmit the virus if they had been vaccinated. The clip below shows President Biden, Rochelle Walensky and Rachel Maddow doubling down on the official narrative.

President Biden has just received a booster dose in this week and made this statement shortly after to the media.

“It will be one injection of the corona vaccine every year, if you get it you are protected and if you don’t, you are putting yourself and others at risk.”

President Joe Biden, Oct 2022

It shows a continued inability across Democratic party lines to address the rapid unravelling of the official narrative as it doubles down on inaccurate and misleading statements relating to the vaccines, their efficacy and ignores their documented dangers. Ego, bravado, legal liability and a host of others factors are preventing the Democrats, who are now associated with Covid policy, from owning up to what each of their constituents already knows.

We are now at point in the evolution of Covid that suggests a simple path forward. Continued “vaccination”, or let’s call it what it really is – immunization – for at-risk groups, perhaps on a seasonal basis, as the SARS-COV2 virus doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon, and encouraging the public to continue wearing masks in crowded areas. There were numerous reasons for the huge reduction in influenza cases in 2020 and 2021. Schools were closed (these are recognized as the primary source of “flu” infections), people were holed up in their houses, and, then when we did venture out, we were masked. It helped slow the spread of both Covid and influenza.

The Democrats are hemorrhaging support because of their inability to acknowledge past mistakes and it’s questionable if many even realize it. Indeed, the Republicans do. Confidence in the political system will be at a premium in 2022. To repeat falsehoods in the face of irrefutable facts is tantamount to political suicide. That alienates voters, voters the Democrats can ill afford to lose at this pivotal point in American history.

With voting for midterms gathering momentum, sticking to the facts as they emerge, acknowledging past mistakes and pledging to do better, may well serve the Democratic party more effectively than their current head-in-the-sand approach.

There is an unprecedented groundswell of cross-party support among the public for an end to the official Covid narrative. Republicans on the fence may well elect to climb back down, and their Democrat neighbors may soon be knocking on their doors. There is a fundamental difference between voting for an idiot and a liar; in this instance, people consider their lives to be at stake. A reckoning awaits those currently in power, and as with most unpleasant things, it is best dealt with now than left to fester.

Truth, at this point, is the only way forward for the Democrats. They may yet choose to eschew it.

The post Vaccines and Mandates Could Be the Undoing of the Democratic Party appeared first on Medika Life.

Back in March, Houston Methodist Chief Executive Officer Dr. Marc Boom notified the staff via email that the health system required all staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19. At that time, The Houston Methodist Health System was the first US hospital to require all staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19. In April, the Methodist system issued a June 7 deadline to begin the vaccination series or face termination.

June 7 arrived, and CEO Dr. Marc Bloom stays true to his word by suspending the medical staff members who did not comply with the hospital Covid-19 vaccine policy. Houston Methodist has already vaccinated almost all of its 26,000 employees. Blooms statement to Axios revealed 285 staff members were granted a “medical or religious exemption, and 332 were granted deferrals for pregnancy.”

Under the current policy, pregnant people may choose to wait until after delivery to start the Covid-19 vaccine series. Of note, multiple studies now show Covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy are safe for mom and baby.

In the meantime, Houston Methodist is embroiled in a lawsuit over the mandate. One hundred seventeen employees claim the Covid-19 vaccine violates their rights under the Nuremberg Code. The Nurenberg Code is not a law but rather a set of medical ethics designed to protect human subjects voluntarily participating in clinical trials.

Ethicists developed the Nurenberg Code 70 years ago after Nazi atrocities came to light, proving doctors at the Auschwitz concentration camp performed medical experiments on Jewish prisoners without their consent.

Although Houston Methodist was the first hospital to require Covid-19 vaccinations, hospital-required vaccines are nothing new. The CDC already recommends multiple vaccinations for healthcare workers. The recommendations apply to physicians, nurses, emergency medical personnel, dental professionals and students, medical and nursing students, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, hospital volunteers, and administrative staff.

Hospital staff in the US are required to get vaccinated against currently include Hepatitis B, Influenza, MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella), Varicella, and Tdap (Tetanus, Diptheria, Pertussis). Most hospitals also require annual tuberculosis risk assessments. Hospitals also monitor physician and nurse hand washing and hygiene to reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections.

Hospitals do not require these vaccines as a means of controlling health providers or imposing on their lives. Instead, hospitals require specific vaccinations to lower the risk of hospital-acquired infections. Vaccinations protect hospital staff from infectious disease exposure and reduce the risk of a healthcare worker transmitting an infectious disease to a hospitalized patient.

Covid-19 vaccines have proven to be highly effective at reducing the risk for healthcare workings and first responders. The CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published information on healthcare worker vaccine safety and efficacy back in March 2021. This update analyzed Covid-19 vaccines in a real-world setting. The findings showed the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna were 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among healthcare personnel, first responders, and other essential frontline workers.

Vaccinating healthcare workers reduces the risk of spreading the infection from health providers to patients.

Outside of healthcare, our Government already requires proof of vaccination for many diseases before people enter the United States. The US Government began requiring “Certificate of vaccination” cards to travel in and out of certain countries in 1959. Many countries require US citizens show proof of a yellow fever vaccine before they are allowed to enter.

The Houston Methodist Health System vaccine requirements create a potential clash between State and Federal law.

On April 16, Governor Greg Abbott issued an Executive Order prohibiting state agencies or political subdivisions in Texas from creating a “vaccine passport” requirement. On June 7, Abbott signed S.B. 968 into law banning businesses from requiring vaccine passports. Under this law, it is now illegal for any company in Texas to require proof of COVID-19 vaccinations to engage in business.

Updated guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicates employers may require vaccination stating “Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations.”

Many businesses are concerned that Abbott’s increase in governmental regulation impinges on the rights and freedoms of individual business owners. Governor Abbott has signed a series of recent legislation limiting individual rights and liberty.

Under SB 968, Texas business owners no longer have the right to determine a safe way to reopen their businesses. Instead, Governor Abbott has determined the Texas Government should decide what is best for each company.

Governor Abbott’s government control transcends business and entrepreneurship. The Governor has also expanded the Government’s control over healthcare. Abbott signed SB 8, which banned abortion in Texas after six weeks of gestation. This bill, known as the “heartbeat ban,” removes the rights of pregnant people to control what happens to their bodies even if they were the victims of incest or rape.

The Houston Methodist vaccine policy will be a test of our legal system.

Mandating Covid-19 vaccination in hospital workers appears to violate Texas SB 968, but the requirements seem to comply with Federal guidelines. Time will tell if Houston Methodist’s efforts to protect healthcare workers and prevent hospital-acquired infections will stand up in court.

The post Houston Methodist Hospital Suspends Staff Who Refuse to Get a Covid-19 Vaccine appeared first on Medika Life.

Senator Bob Hall from Edgewood is leading an effort in the Texas legislative session to stop mandatory vaccinations throughout the State. Senate Bill 1669 seeks to stop any state-mandated vaccinations, not just the Covid-19 vaccines. Senator Hall is not proposing limitations on vaccines approved by the FDA emergency use authorization. SB 1669 seeks to stop all vaccination requirements.

Senate Bill 1669 proposes to prohibit “discrimination regarding vaccination status and mandates for receiving or participating in the administration of vaccines.” The bill is touted as a promotion of individual liberty. But the bill removes vaccine requirements for public schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and any place of employment. The bill imposes penalties on any entity requiring vaccinations.

If Senator Bob Halls’s bill passes, all vaccines will become optional. The lives of children, hospitalized patients, people in nursing homes, and those who are immunosuppressed would be placed in jeopardy as infectious diseases could run wild without herd immunity.

To be clear, Senate Bill 1669 is not about the Covid-19 vaccine. The legislation makes all vaccines, under all circumstances, optional. The bill is moving through the various legislative committees. Currently, Senate Bill 1669 sits in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

There are currently no bills or legislative moves to mandate Covid-19 vaccination on the state or federal level. But during the middle of a global pandemic, this Texas Senator is trying to abolish the communicable disease protection society needs to prevent outbreaks of other vaccine-preventable infections.

The Texas Medical Association (TMA) has come out in strong opposition to SB 1669. An email from TMA President Dr. Diana L. Fite stated:

• “SB 1669 will set Texas back decades, if not more, when vaccination rates plummet, and infectious diseases have the opportunity to spread unchecked, potentially jeopardizing the lives of Texans.”
• “SB 1669 will crater the Texas economy when once-eliminated contagious diseases return, forcing the shutdown of businesses that are just beginning to rebound from the global COVID-19 recession. Schools will be forced to close, stranding children without vital education and social development. Elderly loved ones will sit neglected and alone in their residential facilities.”
• “SB 1669 will maroon immunocompromised Texans at home and rob them of their livelihoods and individual liberties. It simply will not be safe to be around anyone who is not vaccinated.”

Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 25 Health Services outlines the Texas Minimum State Vaccine Requirements for Students in grades K-12. The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) is granted authority to set immunization requirements by the Texas Education Code, Chapter 38.

Senator Bob Hall’s bill changes the wording from “required” to “recommended.” The proposed legislation penalizes anyone who tries to require vaccination for employment or school attendance.

Schools are not the only entity affected. Hospitals and medical offices could no longer require staff vaccinations to help keep patients safe. Senate Bill 1669 states,

“Sec. 103A.001. RIGHT TO OBJECT. A hospital or other health care facility may not require as a condition of employment that an employee, including a physician, nurse, or staff member: (1) be vaccinated; or (2) participate in administering a vaccine.”

The CDC recommends vaccinations for healthcare workers, including physicians, nurses, emergency medical personnel, dental professionals and students, medical and nursing students, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, hospital volunteers, and administrative staff.

These vaccinations currently include Hepatitis B, Influenza, MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella), Varicella, and Tdap (Tetanus, Diptheria, Pertussis). Most hospitals also require annual tuberculosis risk assessments. These recommendations are in place to reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections.

Healthcare worker vaccinations protect hospital staff exposed to infectious disease and reduce the risk of a healthcare worker transmitting an infection to a hospitalized patient.

Edgewood’s Senator Bob Hall seeks to stop any state-mandated vaccinations through SB 1669.

Senator Bob Hall comes from Edgewood, a city about 60 miles from Dallas. His Senate Bill 1669 is supported by Texans for Vaccine Choice (TFVC), an anti-vaccine Facebook group that formed a political action committee.

Bob Hall was elected to the state Senate in 2014. A D Magazine article recalls that Hall won by calling his opponent a pawn of Satan and describing public schools as communist indoctrination.

A Texas Monthly profile explains Hall spend most of his time “on the problem of electromagnetic pulse weapons, or EMPs, a quack threat to homeland security derided by most credible arms control experts and a frequent plot device in pulp novels in which strong men defeat foreign threats.”

Senator Hall is also working to curb voting rights through Senate Bill 1612. Hall is also known for defending white nationalist Ray Meyers and for his false claim that sex education programs are “tools used by abortion clinics to drum up business.”

Voters canvoice their concerns for Senate Bill 1669 by reaching out to their state representatives. To find your Texas legislator clickhere.

State senator Beverly Powell sits on the Senate State Affairs Committee. I contacted Senator Beverly Powell’s office for comment. Her staff stated Senator Powell plans to vote against this bill.

Senator Powell’s Capitol Office: (512) 463-0110

Senator Bob HallCapitol Office: (512) 463-0102 or Click here to e-mail.

The post Texas Senator Attempts to Stop All Required Vaccinations in Proposed Bill appeared first on Medika Life.

The Houston Methodist Hospital System made national news for being the first to require its staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19. The response was a mixed bag of support and public pushback. While many understand the benefit of vaccinated healthcare workers in a hospital setting, others felt uncomfortable with an employer mandate.

CEO Dr. Marc Bloom hopes to create the safest environment as possible for patient care. Increasing the number of vaccinated workers reduces the risk of spreading the infection from health providers to patients.

Hospital staff vaccinations create a safe environment for patient care. He stated, “When we choose to be vaccinated against COVID-19, we are prioritizing safety by helping stop the spread of this deadly virus and keeping our patients, visitors, and colleagues safe.”

Mandatory vaccination is a bold move but one backed by scientific evidence. A CDC report showed the messenger RNA vaccines are 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers and first responders.

The CDC published updated information on vaccination’s safety and efficacy in healthcare workers in the March 29th Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. This update analyzed Covid-19 vaccines in a real-world setting. The findings showed the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna were 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among healthcare personnel, first responders, and other essential frontline workers.

So far, 89% of the hospital employees are vaccinated. The Houston hospital gave out $500 bonuses to those who received their Covid-19 vaccines. Hospital administrators were required to begin the vaccine process in the middle of April.

The hospital is following the influenza vaccine policy it implemented in 2009. On June 7, unvaccinated employees will be placed on a two-week suspension giving them time to begin the vaccination process. Like other required hospital vaccinations, employees will not be permitted to return to work unless they are vaccinated. The hospital considers employee vaccinations to be a patient-safety issue.

The CDC recommends vaccinations for healthcare workers include physicians, nurses, emergency medical personnel, dental professionals and students, medical and nursing students, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, hospital volunteers, and administrative staff.

These vaccinations currently include Hepatitis B, Influenza, MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella), Varicella, and Tdap (Tetanus, Diptheria, Pertussis). Most hospitals also require annual tuberculosis risk assessments. These recommendations are in place to reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections. Healthcare worker vaccinations protect hospital staff exposed to infectious disease and reduce the risk of a healthcare worker transmitting an infection to a hospitalized patient.

The Houston Methodist system may be the first hospital to require vaccination, but others are considering their options. Texas Herman Hospital and the Baylor College of Medicine are evaluating the options.

Some have questioned the legality of a private company mandating Covid-19 vaccination for employees. A recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance indicates employers may require vaccination.

On Monday, March 29, 2021, everyone aged 16 and older was now eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in Texas.

There are three FDA-approved vaccines for Covid-19. The two messenger RNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer offer 95% protection against Covid-19. The Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna use messenger RNA (mRNA). A single strand of mRNA delivers instructions to human cells to produce an antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The Johnson and Johnson’s Janssen vaccine offers 72% protection against infection and 86% against severe disease. The Janssen vaccine uses Adenovirus 26 (AD26) as the vector to deliver DNA material into our cells to provoke an immune response.

The FDA resumed administration of the Johnson and Johnson’s Janssen vaccine after a temporary pause to study the risk of rare but severe blood clots in a small number of cases. The FDA has determined “that the available data show that the vaccine’s known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks in individuals 18 years of age and older.”

The Moderna and Janssen vaccines are approved for those 18 years old and up. The Pfizer vaccine is approved starting at age 16.

All three vaccines are highly effective in preventing death.

The post Houston Methodist Hospital Will Fire Employees Who Do not Get a Covid-19 Vaccine appeared first on Medika Life.

Cornell University plans to require vaccination for students for the Ithaca, Geneva, and Cornell Tech campuses for the fall semester.

President Martha Pollack and provost Michael Kotlikoff issued a joint April 2 statement outlining the plans and the rationale. Like Texas and many other states, New York plans to reduce the age of Covid-19 vaccine eligibility starting April 6 to those 16 years and older.

Cornell college officials believe enough students and faculty will be fully vaccinated, allowing a safe return to in-person classes.

Cornell University’s proactive stance is in line with other colleges, such as Rutger’s Univerity in New Jersey, requiring staff and student vaccination. Cornell plans to help students qualify and schedule appointments through its vaccine support program. The school is also working to find a solution for enrolled students coming in from other states who have not been vaccinated.

Based on current data, the academic plan is to continue current Covid-19 mitigation strategies. Students and staff are required to wear high-quality mask-wearing. Classes are arranged with special seating to allow social distancing. The campus has worked to improve classroom ventilation.

Current Covid-19 surveillance testing will continue. This data tracking will Cornell to track campus immunity through the Daily Check tool. All faculty and students and faculty must register on the app by April 15th.

The University will monitor the data to determine when the campus reached 50% herd immunity. The leadership anticipates meeting this threshold allowing the camping to return to all in-person learning. If herd immunity is not reached, then the campus will reopen with a remote option.

Cornell University’s decision is in line with the March updated guidance for College campuses from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC recognizes people attending school in congregated settings are at an increased risk for catching and spreading Covid-19.

The CDC asks each institute of higher learning to implement a Covid-19 screening strategy before the beginning of each term. The CDC asks each school to work with local public health authorities, so that campus policy fits with the disease prevalence in the surrounding area. A universal screening strategy is recommended if sufficient testing capacity is not available for SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing Covid-19.

Many campuses are implementing rapid testing protocols. Rapid antigen testing detects the fragmented pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that trigger an immune response. Like PCR testing, antigen testing detects an active infection but can be done much faster.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has approved rapid antigen testing. These FDA-approved tests are a highly accurate way to detect Covid-19 in patients with symptoms. Symptomatic individuals have high viral loads allowing rapid tests to accurately diagnosis Covid-19.

Rapid antigen testing is not as accurate in asymptomatic individuals or those with very low viral loads. The CDC has published a protocol on how to interpret test results.CDC recommends the use of the rapid antigen algorithm.

There are three FDA-approved vaccines for Covid-19. The two messenger RNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer offer 95% protection against Covid-19. The Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna use messenger RNA (mRNA). A single strand of mRNA delivers instructions to human cells to produce an antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The Johnson and Johnson’s Janssen vaccine offers 72% protection against infection and 86% against severe disease. The Janssen vaccine uses Adenovirus 26 (AD26) as the vector to deliver DNA material into our cells to provoke an immune response.

The Moderna and Janssen vaccines are approved for those 18 years old and up. The Pfizer vaccine is approved starting at age 16.

All three vaccines are highly effective in preventing death.

The post Cornell University Requiring Covid-19 Vaccine for All Students and Faculty appeared first on Medika Life.