Urgent Warning


The world’s most mRNA vaccinated countries now have shockingly high Covid infection rates. Hospitalizations and deaths are rising fast too. The mRNA experiment needs to stop. Immediately.

Alex BerensonJan 24

Something is rotten in Denmark.

And Australia.

And Israel.

Where nearly 1 percent of the entire population just tested positive for Covid. Not in a month. Or a week. In one day.You read that right.On Saturday, Israel had 84,000 new infections, the equivalent of almost 3 million in the United States. Infections in Israel have risen unthinkably fast since late December. They’re are up 100-fold in one month, driven by the collapse of booster protection and the arrival of the Omicron variant.Israel is not alone.

Denmark reported 42,000 cases yesterday, equal to almost 2.5 million in the United States. France, the second-largest country in Europe, reported the American equivalent of about 12 million new infections in the last week. Australia had a tremendous surge in cases earlier this month, though it seems to be subsidizing for now.

These countries have very different population demographics and previous exposure to Covid. They even have very different weather; it is summer in Australia.What do they share, then?

Incredibly high Covid vaccination rates, mostly with the mRNA vaccines. Israel is among the world’s most vaccinated countries.

More than 90 percent of Israeli adults have been vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Almost 80 percent have received a booster dose, and several hundred thousand have gotten a fourth.Yet Israel had more coronavirus infections in the last week than in all of 2020, before it began mass mRNA Covid vaccinations.—Omicron is much milder than Delta or the original coronavirus. So the data from South Africa – which was the first country where Omicron spread quickly – seemed to show.But South Africa is quite lightly vaccinated.

The more recent data from the highly vaccinated countries has not been as promising. Yes, Omicron is milder.Even so, hospitalizations and deaths are spiking in countries like Israel and Denmark. In Israel, the number of severely ill patients has risen eightfold this month, and almost fourfold in the last two weeks – even though the true spike in infections has come only in the last few days, and hospitalizations typically lag infections.

In Australia, deaths are up tenfold since in the last four weeks, although from a low base :

In part the rise has come because Omicron infections have reached such stunningly high levels that even a relatively low risk can lead to a significant number of deaths.

And yes, many Omicron hospitalizations are incidental – they are people in the hospital for other reasons who just happen to test positive for Omicron.

But other factors may be at play too. Here are four facts

:1: Both the within-country and the between-country data show that people who are vaccinated but not boosted are at higher risk of Omicron infection than the unvaccinated.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

2: Thus vaccines will actually make hospitalization or death from Omicron MORE likely unless they somehow protect against serious outcomes from Covid infections more than they increase the odds of infection. That’s simple math. At this point we have no way of knowing how those two factors interact. In other words, we do not know if Omicron is more dangerous to the unvaccinated than the vaccinated (putting aside any vaccine side effects).

Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

3: It is unclear whether the vaccines interfere with the development of long-term post-infection immunity in people who are infected with Omicron.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

4: It is clear that a third vaccine dose temporarily reduces the risk of serious illness or death from Omicron.But it is unclear how long that protection will last, and whether when it ends people who have received a third dose will be less or more vulnerable than those who are unvaccinated or have received two doses.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Put these four facts together and it is clear that to encourage booster shots for anyone – including the elderly – at this point is reckless, bordering on criminal.I have not used language like this before. I did not discourage older people from the primary vaccination series. But the facts have changed and they continue to change, and not to face this reality is incredibly dangerous.

mRNA Covid vaccinations and boosters need to stop worldwide while we figure out what is happening.

Not next week. Not tomorrow.Today.

Taking Back Our Freedoms

A new organization has appeared in Canada : Taking Back Our Freedoms—www.tbof.ca .

I am a little biased because I am Chairman of the Organization.

Here is its mission:

‘Our appeal is to both the Coronavirus-19 (C-19) vaccinated and the unvaccinated, to stand together for Freedom and Choice, and to demand of our elected officials to take steps to bring a quick end to the so-called ‘C-19 health Emergencies’ along with their unlawful ‘Mandates’.

We assert that The Supreme Law of Canada is The Constitution (Sect 52 of the Constitution Act 1982) and not Federal or Provincial edicts, laws or regulations.

The Provincial Governments by their various draconian measures are violating the Charter (the Supreme Law of Canada) including:

  • Section 2, freedom of assembly, association, religion, conscience, & expression; and
  • Section 6, the right of mobility & to pursue a livelihood anywhere in Canada; and
  • Section 7, the right to life, liberty & the security of the person; and
  • Section 15, the right of equality before the law.

Such a multitude of violations of rights and freedoms can no longer be justified. It is now clear, many other jurisdictions, both in the USA, and around the world are “managing the C-19 crisis” in a manner that is both highly effective, and that does not require continued violations of the rights and freedoms of their citizens.

Embrace Freedom and Choice. End the Emergency.

  • Reject forced C-19 vaccinations of our children and youth.
  • Restore the sacrosanct Doctor-Patient Relationship by allowing Medical Doctors to prescribe to their patient, proven and safe medications for C-19 (like Ivermectin).
  • Embrace ‘Natural Immunity’ as providing broad & lasting immunity against C-19.
  • END the Public Health Emergency. ‘

Some of Canada’s most distinguished scientists and political leaders are on our Board . 

Take a look and join up : http://www.tbof.ca

Come Clean , Govt and Big Pharma , Pass Over The Data , British Medical Journal Says

Peter Doshi, senior editor,  Fiona Godlee, former editor in chief,  Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief

Author affiliations

Correspondence to: P Doshi Pdoshi@bmj.com

Data should be fully and immediately available for public scrutiny

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

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

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

Unacceptable delay

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

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

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

Underlying data for covid-19 therapeutics are similarly hard to find. 

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

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

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

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

In releasing thousands of pages of clinical trial documents, Health Canada and the EMA have also provided a degree of transparency that deserves acknowledgment.

Until recently, however, the data remained of limited utility, with copious redactions aimed at protecting trial blinding. But study reports with fewer redactions have been available since September 2021,2425 and missing appendices may be accessible through freedom of information requests.

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

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

Transparency and trust

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

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

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

Twelve years ago we called for the immediate release of raw data from clinical trials.1 We reiterate that call now. Data must be available when trial results are announced, published, or used to justify regulatory decisions. 

There is no place for wholesale exemptions from good practice during a pandemic. The public has paid for covid-19 vaccines through vast public funding of research, and it is the public that takes on the balance of benefits and harms that accompany vaccination. The public, therefore, has a right and entitlement to those data, as well as to the interrogation of those data by experts.

Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims.33 The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.


  • Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that The BMJ is a co-founder of the AllTrials campaign. PD was one of the Cochrane reviewers studying influenza antivirals beginning in 2009, who campaigned for access to data. He also helped organise the Coalition Advocating for Adequately Licensed Medicines (CAALM), which formally petitioned the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year (docket FDA-2021-P-0786). PD is also a member of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, which has sued the FDA to obtain the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine data. The views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Maryland. 
  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.


Giving Up on Canada


There’s an old joke about the typical Canadian who is nudged off the sidewalk by a passerby and immediately apologizes, a humorously rueful sign of the national character. The other side of the debased coin is the sense of national superiority, in particular to our putatively boorish neighbor south of the border, a cultural factor that came politically to the fore during the stridently anti-American Liberal government of Jean Chrétien. Neither tendency does us much credit.

Of course, such attitudes presume that we still have a national character, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes we do not, having told the New York Times that Canada has no “core identity” and is the world’s “first post-national state.” Trudeau may be right. We have become, apparently, citizens of the world, which means we are stakeholders in nothing tangibly visceral, that we have no civic identity, that we are political ciphers.

As Victor Davis Hanson writes, the concept of the citizen is dying. This is certainly the case in Canada, thanks to a moribund education system—Education Zero seems to be the aim—and a massive influx of immigrants from mainly impoverished, Third-World, and autocratic countries who have little interest in the usages, customs, and history of the nation they have come to settle in. Indeed, the city I live in is 40% from elsewhere. There is no longer a continuity of tradition here, merely a superposition of alien narratives: the “superior” culture of the native peoples, the pastoral nostalgia of landscape, the persistence of immigrant loyalties, the ethereal fantasy of a socialist utopia as championed by Trudeau père in Federalism and the French-Canadians.

I have taught several “generations” of students and spoken with innumerable people in all walks of life, not a single one of whom knows anything about the British North America Act of 1867, which established the Canadian Confederation. No less alarming, they are entirely ignorant of the Charter of Rights and Freedomsof 1981 and the Constitution Act of 1982 that entrenched the Charter. 

Nor do most people recognize how power has devolved from provincial First Ministers and the Federal Parliament to the vast bureaucratic apparatus presided over by the current prime minister. They do not see how democracy has eroded almost beyond any possibility of restoration, how the country is rapidly slipping away from them—and, what is even more distressing, many do not seem to care.

The fact, as Brian Peckford has pointed out, that the Charter is regularly flouted by the prime minister and dismissed or re-interpreted by an unelected judiciary is of no account. Most people are either blind or uninformed, or merely indifferent to the fact that the rule of law has become nugatory. The COVID moment of medical apartheid and political repression is a glaring illustration of authoritarian malfeasance and should have exposed the sophism and treachery of the governing class. Peckford, who was formerly the premier of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and is the last surviving signatory to the repatriation of the Charter, believes that various sections of this foundational document make it abundantly clear that the government’s response to the pandemic is morally and legally culpable. Masking orders, lockdowns, quarantine, fines, gathering restrictions, curfews, mandates, vaxxports, and prohibiting the right to freely leave and re-enter Canada are in stark violation of Charter principles.

According to the Preamble, the Charter is “founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law,” not on the sport of a politician or the megrim of a judge. On any honest assessment, the Charter does not permit such breaches and infringements as we have endured during the COVID interregnum. Yet the government gets away with it—with the approval of a significant majority, many of whom would deny the unvaccinated publicly funded health care and some of whom would favor “a short jail sentence” for these supposed miscreants. Conscience and data are in short supply with such zealots, just as they are with the government in power, for whom the Charter is a scrap of forgotten paper lying about somewhere in the archives.

Interestingly, Canadian political philosopher William Gairdner is not a Charter enthusiast, arguing that the Charter was unnecessary and its implementation a great mistake. We should have upheld the English tradition of parliamentary legislation and common-law precedent answerable to the people rather than rely on the whims of an unelected judiciary playing fast and loose with Constitutional provisions. England, he reminds us, has no written Charter or Constitution, thus maintaining “the supremacy of the people in their own Parliament.”

The fact is that the British Parliament imposed a series of draconian and despotic measures during the earlier days of the pandemic that were even more stringent than what we experienced in this country. It is only now, possibly for electoral reasons, that it has begun to relent. The existence of a Charter or the lack of one seems to have been irrelevant. Once again, as Hanson and Peckford contend, it remains with an enlightened and active citizenry to resist the depredations of arbitrary authority, but such a citizenship, with the exception of a minority of patriots, no longer seems to exist.

This resistant minority looks to figures like Brian Peckford and ousted Conservative Party leadership candidate Derek Sloan, who heads the newly formed Ontario Party and is a member of the First Freedoms Foundation. “I got into politics,” Sloan writes, “to defend individual freedom, strong families and communities, and responsible government. In my very first nomination speech back in 2018, I talked about a ‘war on our history, a war on common sense, and a war on freedom.’” It is a valiant fight nobly pursued against all odds and, as it is said, surrender is not an option. But the descent into totalitarian territory seems pretty well unstoppable, aided by a psychic milieu and a demographic evocatively described by Canadian poet Bruce Taylor in a poem called “Social Studies”:

The country I live in is a patch of thorns

below a culvert in a sunken plot

where burly geese with necks like flugelhorns

intimidate the pigeons and are shot

by a district sales manager named Russ.

Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, famously said that Canada has “too much geography and too little history”—certainly too little recognition that such a history is there to be treasured and learned from. 

If we still believed in this country, if we enjoyed even a rudimentary knowledge of its history or thought it important to respect and consult our muniments, and if we were concerned about our freedoms and privileges as citizens of a parliamentary democracy and beneficiaries of a venerable Charter, such arbitrary enactments by a demiurgic government and a capricious judiciary leading to the attrition of our liberty and traditions would not have had so unobstructed a path. 

Government and citizen, political delinquency, and civic apathy work hand in hand to effect our dereliction.

As in social and political affairs generally, the conclusion to this sordid drama is not inevitable but, realistically speaking, it is highly probable. Sometimes things that go too far cannot be reversed. It is painful to admit, but Canada has now become a distant memory of itself.

Source: PJ Media

Early Outpatient Treatment for COVID-19: The Evidence

BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER   JANUARY 22, 2022   29 MINUTE READSHARE | PRINT | EMAILFacebookTwitterRedditLinkedInFlipboardTelegramPrintEmailShare

The evidence accumulated very early on in the pandemic that the use of sequenced multi-drug therapeutics (SMDT) under physician guidance was beneficial and that some medications were safe and effective. We refer to repurposed therapeutics that have been regulatory approved and have been used in some instances for decades for other illnesses. 

We have extensively written and published treatment algorithms and protocols as well as evidence of the benefit of early outpatient (ambulatory) treatment of SARS-CoV-2 virus and the consequent disease COVID-19 (123456). With highly targeted and SMDT regimens that include early application of antiviral drugs, combined with corticosteroids and anti-platelet/anti-thrombotic/anti-clotting therapeutics, the risk of hospitalization is significantly reduced by as much as by 85 to 90%, and risk of death is eliminated for high-risk patients and younger individuals presenting with severe symptoms. 

COVID-19 presents as either a mild-flu-like condition (asymptomatic or mild symptoms) or more serious illness in those at high risk. A small fraction of persons infected with COVID virus progress to more serious illness (typically elderly with underlying medical conditions, obese or younger with underlying medical conditions/risks factors). The complex and multidimensional pathophysiology of life-threatening COVID-19 illness including viral mediated organ damage, cytokine storm, and thrombosis warrants early interventions to address all components of the illness. 

As a brief background, the illness involves three phases 1) an initial viral replication phase whereby the virus hijacks the metabolic machinery of the cells which then begins to synthesize new viral particles ii) a more advanced inflammatory hyper-dysregulated immune-modulatory florid pneumonia phase whereby there is a cytokine storm and problematic gas exchange known as acute respiratory distress syndrome; ARDS. ARDS is generally the cause of most deaths attributed to COVID-19; and iii) a thrombotic blood clotting phase whereby microthrombi develop within the lungs and in the vasculature, leading to disastrous complications including profound hypoxemia, stroke, and heart attacks. 

The ideal situation is to arrest the virus in the initial phase when symptoms have just emerged, while the patient is still within the home setting or extended care setting. The goal is to prevent hospitalization and death.

In countries where there is and was a reluctance to treat infected and symptomatic high-risk persons early, this therapeutic nihilism resulted in escalating symptoms, delayed in-hospital care and death. Fortunately, prompt and early initiation of SMDT is a widely and currently available solution to stem the tide of hospitalizations and death. 

Viral illnesses such as COVID-19, with complex pathophysiology, do not respond to one drug treatment but require a multi-drug approach. We have to hit the virus with multiple therapeutics. This multipronged therapeutic approach includes 1) adjuvant nutritional supplements; 2) combination intracellular anti-infective therapy (antivirals and antibiotics); 3) inhaled/oral corticosteroids and colchicine; 4) antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants; 5) supportive care including supplemental oxygen, monitoring and telemedicine. 

Randomized trials of individual, novel oral therapies have not delivered effective tools. No single therapeutic option thus far has been adequate, but combinations have been employed very successfully in clinical practice. Treating physicians who were courageous and brave felt it was urgent to apply the SMDT approach universally to benefit large numbers of acute COVID-19 patients, reducing their intensity and duration of symptoms and saving them from hospitalization and death. The key is use of early treatment as soon as symptoms develops when the virus is early in the replication phase. 

This brief compilation (Table 1 and Figures 1 & 2) describes a cursory summary with the direct url links of therapeutics that have been shown some degree of effectiveness if infected with COVID-19 virus in any of its variant forms including Delta and Omicron. 

While the COVID-19 emergency is winding down, with Omicron offering an exit off-ramp, variants, including the Delta and Omicron variant, still exist and will continue to. We therefore felt the public (and particularly those at high-risk) should be aware of known treatment options.  While most people and especially young persons and children are indeed at very low risk of illness and especially from the very mild near ‘common-cold’ Omicron variant, this early treatment guidance provides an important resource that can be life saving when needed. 

This piece covers:  

Assisting with this article are 

  • Dr. Paul E. Alexander, MSc, PhD (PublicHealth.news; TheUNITYProject)
  • Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Yale School of Public Health) 
  • Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, PhD ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)
  • Dr. Ramin Oskoui, MD (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)
  • Dr. Peter McCullough, MD (Truth for Health Foundation (TFH)), Texas
  • Dr. Parvez Dara, MD (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)
  • Mr. Erik Sass, MA (Editor at the Economic Standard) 

Table 1: Evidence on COVID early treatment therapeutics 

Study #Author, study title, url link PDF, predominant summary finding on benefit of this drug in the armamentum of early treatment
Therapeutic’s name:IVERMECTIN (see Figure 1 and note on ivermectin for inpatient treatment as well as guidance for clinicians, please click here.)
1) Espitia-Hernandez G et al. “Effects of Ivermectin-azithromycin-cholecalciferol combined therapy on COVID-19 infected patients: a proof of concept study.” Biomedical Research 2020; 31 (5): 129-133Download PDFSummary: Patients who met inclusion criteria were invited to take Ivermectin (6 mg once daily in day 0,1,7 and 8) plus Azithromycin (500 mg once daily for 4 days) plus Cholecalciferol (4000 UI twice daily for 30 days). Treatment outcome was evaluated on the 10th day onward from the first day of the drug intake. Recovery rate of the 28 patients that received the combination therapy was 100%, the mean symptomatic recovery duration was 3.6 days and negative PCR was confirmed on day 10. 
2) Samaha Ali et al. “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon.” Viruses 2021 May 26;13(6):989. Doi: 10.3390/v13060989Download PDFSummary: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose according to body weight of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received. 72 hours after the regimen started, the increase in Ct-values was dramatically higher in the ivermectin than in the control group. Additionally, more subjects in the control group developed clinical symptoms: three individuals (6%) required hospitalization, compared to 0% for the ivermectin group.
3) Cadegiani, FA et al. “Early COVID-19 Therapy with Azithromycin Plus Nitazoxanide, Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Reduced Symptoms Compared to Known Outcomes in Untreated Patients.” New Microbes and New Infections, July 7, 2021. Doi:  10.1016/j.nmni.2021.100915Download PDFSummary: Compared to CG1 and CG2, AG showed a reduction of 31.5 to 36.5% in viral shedding (p < 0.0001), 70 to 85% and 70 to 73% in duration of COVID-19 clinical symptoms… For every 1,000 confirmed cases for COVID-19, a minimum of 140 patients were prevented from hospitalization (p < 0.0001), 50 from mechanical ventilation, and five deaths.
4) Biber A et al. “Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19 – A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial.” medRxiv, May 31, 2021. Doi: 10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081Download PDFSummary: The double-blinded trial compared patients receiving ivermectin 0·2 mg/kg for 3 days vs. placebo in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients… Primary endpoint was reduction of viral-load on the 6th day (third day after termination of treatment) as reflected by Ct level>30 (non-infectious level)… On day 6, 34 out of 47 (72%) patients in the ivermectin arm reached the endpoint, compared to 21/42 (50%) in the placebo arm… Cultures at days 2 to 6 were positive in 3/23 (13.0%) of ivermectin samples vs. 14/29 (48.2%) in the placebo group (p=0.008).
5) Merino J et al. “Ivermectin and the odds of hospitalization due to COVID-19: evidence from a quasi-experimental analysis based on a public intervention in Mexico City.” SocArXiv, May 3, 2021. Doi: 10.31235/osf.io/r93g4Download PDFSummary: “We estimated logistic-regression models with matched observations adjusting by age, sex, COVID severity, and comorbidities. We found a significant reduction in hospitalizations among patients who received the ivermectin-based medical kit; the range of the effect is 52% – 76% depending on model specification.”
6) Fonseca SNS et al. “Risk of hospitalization for Covid-19 outpatients treated with various drug regimens in Brazil: Comparative analysis.” Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 November-December; 38. Doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101906Download PDFSummary: “Use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), prednisone or both significantly reduced hospitalization risk by 50–60%. Ivermectin, azithromycin and oseltamivir did not substantially reduce risk further.”
7) Lima-Morales R et al. “Effectiveness of a multidrug therapy consisting of Ivermectin, Azithromycin, Montelukast, and Acetylsalicylic acid to prevent hospitalization and death among ambulatory COVID-19 cases in Tlaxcala, Mexico.” Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Apr; 105: 598-605. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.014Download PDFSummary: “A comparative effectiveness study was performed among 768 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases aged 18-80 years, who received ambulatory care… A total of 481 cases received the TNR4 therapy, while 287 received another treatment (comparison group). Nearly 85% of cases who received the TNR4 recovered within 14 days compared to 59% in the comparison group. The likelihood of recovery within 14 days was 3.4 times greater among the TNR4 group than in the comparison group. Patients treated with TNR4 had a 75% and 81% lower risk of being hospitalized or death, respectively, than the comparison group.”
8) Loué P et al. “Ivermectin and COVID-19 in Care Home: Case Report.” J Infect Dis Epidemiol. April 17, 2021; 7:4, 202. Doi: 10.23937/2474-3658/1510202Download PDFSummary: “Of the 25 PCR-positive patients, 10 chose to take the IVM treatment (group 1) and 15 chose not to take IVM (group 2). Patients of the group 1 received a single dose of 200 micrograms/kg body weight… Mortality occurred in 1 patient in the group 1 and 5 of the group 2 (p = 0.34).”
Therapeutic’s name: DOXYCYCLINE 
1) Hashim H et al. “Controlled randomized clinical trial on using Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in Baghdad, Iraq.” medRxiv, October 27, 2020. Doi:  10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345Download PDFSummary: Randomized controlled study on 70 COVID-19 patients (48 mild-moderate, 11 severe, and 11 critical patients) treated with 200ug/kg PO of Ivermectin per day for 2-3 days along with 100mg PO doxycycline twice per day for 5-10 days plus standard therapy; the second arm is 70 COVID-19 patients (48 mild-moderate and 22 severe and zero critical patients) on standard therapy… among all patients and among severe patients, 3/70 (4.28%) and 1/11 (9%), respectively progressed to a more advanced stage of the disease in the Ivermectin-Doxycycline group versus 7/70 (10%) and 7/22 (31.81%), respectively in the control group.
2)Yates P et al. “Doxycycline treatment of high-risk COVID-19-positive patients with comorbid pulmonary disease.” Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease. January 2020. Doi: 10.1177/1753466620951053Download PDFSummary: Case study of four high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 patients who showed rapid improvement after treatment with doxycycline.
3)Ahmad I et al. “Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine as Treatment for High-Risk COVID-19 Patients: Experience from Case Series of 54 Patients in Long-Term Care Facilities.” medRxiv, May 22, 2020. Doi:  10.1101/2020.05.18.20066902Download PDFSummary: A series of 54 high-risk patients, who developed a sudden onset of fever, cough, and shortness of breath (SOB) and were diagnosed or presumed to have COVID-19, were started with a combination of DOXY-HCQ and 85% (n=46) patients showed clinical recovery defined as: resolution of fever and SOB, or a return to baseline setting if patients are ventilator-dependent. A total of 11% (n=6) patients were transferred to acute care hospitals due to clinical deterioration and 6% (n=3) patients died in the facilities. Naive Indirect Comparison suggests these data were significantly better outcomes than data reported in MMWR for comparable facilities.
4)Gendrot M et al. “In Vitro Antiviral Activity of Doxycycline against SARS-CoV-2.” Molecules, 2020, 25(21), 5064; Doi: 10.3390/molecules25215064Download PDFSummary: Doxycycline showed in vitro activity on Vero E6 cells infected with a clinically isolated SARS-CoV-2 strain (IHUMI-3) with median effective concentration (EC50) of 4.5 ± 2.9 µM, compatible with oral uptake and intravenous administrations. Doxycycline interacted both on SARS-CoV-2 entry and in replication after virus entry. Besides its in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, doxycycline has anti-inflammatory effects by decreasing the expression of various pro-inflammatory cytokines and could prevent co-infections and superinfections due to broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity.
5) Meybodi ZA et al. “Effectiveness and Safety Doxycycline in treating COVID-19 Positive Patients: A pilot clinical study.” Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, June 2021; 15(1): 610-614. Doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-141875/v3Download PDFSummary: Patients who met the inclusion criteria received doxycycline at a dose of 100 mg every 12 hours for seven days and then were evaluated on the baseline day. On days 3, 7, and 14 after admission for cough, shortness of breath, temperature, and oxygen saturation. Finding: Out of 21 patients, 11 patients were male, and ten patients were female. Cough, shortness of breath, temperature, and O2 sat improved in both outpatients and inpatients compared to baseline.
Therapeutic’s name:VITAMIN D
1)Kaufman H et al. “SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.” PLOS One, September 17, 2020. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239252Download PDFSummary: Retrospective, observational analysis to determine if circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels are associated with severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity rates. A total of 191,779 patients were included, median age 54 years, 68% female. The SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was higher in the 39,190 patients with “deficient” 25(OH)D values (<20 ng/mL) (12.5%, 95% C.I. 12.2–12.8%) than in the 27,870 patients with “adequate” values (30–34 ng/mL) (8.1%, 95% C.I. 7.8–8.4%) and the 12,321 patients with values ≥55 ng/mL (5.9%, 95% C.I. 5.5–6.4%).
2)Israel A et al. “The link between vitamin D deficiency and Covid-19 in a large population.” medRxiv, September 7, 2020. Doi: 10.1101/2020.09.04.20188268Download PDFSummary: Population-based study to assess the relationship between prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 incidence. Matched 52,405 infected patients with 524,050 control individuals of the same sex, age, geographical region and used conditional logistic regression to assess the relationship between baseline vitamin D levels, acquisition of vitamin D supplements in the last 4 months, and positive COVID-19. Found highly significant correlation between prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 incidence, and between female-to-male ratio for severe vitamin D deficiency and female-to-male ratio for COVID-19 incidence. In the matched cohort, found significant association between low vitamin D levels and the risk of COVID-19, with the highest risk observed for severe vitamin D deficiency. A significant protective effect was observed for members who acquired liquid vitamin D formulations (drops) in the last 4 months.
3)Katz J. “Increased risk for COVID-19 in patients with vitamin D deficiency.” Nutrition, 2021 Apr; 84:111106. Doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2020.111106Download PDFSummary: Patients with vitamin D deficiency were 4.6 times more likely to be positive for COVID-19 (indicated by the ICD-10 diagnostic code COVID19) than patients with no deficiency (P < 0.001). In addition, patients with vitamin D deficiency were 5 times more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than patients with no deficiency after adjusting for age groups (OR = 5.155; P < 0.001).
4)Baktash V et al. “Vitamin D status and outcomes for hospitalised older patients with COVID-19.” Postgrad Med J. 2021 Jul;97(1149):442-447. Doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138712Download PDFSummary: Prospective cohort study between 1 March and 30 April 2020 to assess the importance of vitamin D deficiency in older patients with COVID-19. The cohort consisted of patients aged ≥65 years presenting with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (n=105).  COVID-19-positive arm demonstrated lower median serum 25(OH)D level of 27 nmol/L (IQR=20-47 nmol/L) compared with COVID-19-negative arm, with median level of 52 nmol/L (IQR=31.5-71.5 nmol/L) (p value=0.0008). Among patients with vitamin D deficiency, there was higher peak D-dimer level (1914.00 μgFEU/L vs 1268.00 μgFEU/L) (p=0.034) and higher incidence of NIV support and high dependency unit admission (30.77% vs 9.68%) (p=0.042).
5) Martín Giménez VM et al. “Vitamin D deficiency in African Americans is associated with a high risk of severe disease and mortality by SARS-CoV-2.” Journal of Human Hypertension vol 35, pages 378–380 (2021). Doi: 10.1038/s41371-020-00398-zDownload PDFSummary: Despite the lack of studies to define the adequate level of vitamin D to protect against viral infection, we agree with Grant et al., and estimate that a range between 40 and 60 mg/dL and the recommended dose to achieve this, between 5000 and 10,000 IU/day for several weeks.
6)Ricci A et al. “Circulating Vitamin D levels status and clinical prognostic indices in COVID-19 patients.” Respiratory Research vol 22, Article number: 76 (2021). Doi: 10.1186/s12931-021-01666-3Download PDFSummary: Vitamin D levels were deficient in (80%) of patients, insufficient in (6.5%) and normal in (13.5%). Patients with very low Vitamin D plasma levels had more elevated D-Dimer values, a more elevated B lymphocyte cell count, a reduction of CD8 + T lymphocytes with a low CD4/CD8 ratio, more compromised clinical findings (measured by LIPI and SOFA scores) and thoracic CT scan involvement. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with compromised inflammatory responses and higher pulmonary involvement in COVID-19 affected patients.
7)Lakkireddy M et al. “Impact of daily high dose oral vitamin D therapy on the inflammatory markers in patients with COVID 19 disease.” Scientific Reports vol 11, May 20, 2021. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90189-4Download PDFSummary: Therapeutic improvement in vitamin D to 80–100 ng/ml has significantly reduced the inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19 without any side effects.
Therapeutic’s name:ZINC
1)Carlucci P et al. “Zinc sulfate in combination with a zinc ionophore may improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.” Journal of Medical Microbiology, September 15, 2020, v 69 issue 10. Doi: 1099/jmm.0.001250Download PDFSummary: In univariate analyses, zinc sulphate increased the frequency of patients being discharged home, and decreased the need for ventilation, admission to the ICU and mortality or transfer to hospice for patients who were never admitted to the ICU.
2)Dubourg G et al. “Low blood zinc concentrations in patients with poor clinical outcome during SARS-CoV-2 infection: is there a need to supplement with zinc COVID-19 patients?” Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, February 13, 2021. 1016/j.jmii.2021.01.012Download PDFSummary:Among 275 patients with COVID-19, we found that median blood zinc level was significantly lower in patients with poor clinical outcome (N=75) as compared to patients with good clinical outcome (N=200) (840 μg/L versus 970 μg/L; p< 0.0001), suggesting that zinc supplementation could be useful for patients with severe COVID-19.
3)Frontera J et al. “Treatment with Zinc is Associated with Reduced In-Hospital Mortality Among COVID-19 Patients: A Multi-Center Cohort Study.” BMC Infectious Diseases [preprint]. October 26, 2020. Doi: 21203/rs.3.rs-94509/v1Download PDFSummary: Among 3,473 patients (median age 64, 1947 [56%] male, 522 [15%] ventilated, 545[16%] died), 1,006 (29%) received Zn+ionophore. Zn+ionophore was associated with a 24% reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (12% of those who received Zn+ionophore died versus 17% who did not).
4)Heller RA et al. “Prediction of survival odds in COVID-19 by zinc, age and selenoprotein P as composite biomarker.” Redox Biology, January 2021, v 38. Doi: 1016/j.redox.2020.101764Download PDFSummary: Our data indicate a profound and acute zinc deficiency in the majority of patients with COVID-19 when admitted to the hospital. … We conclude that Zn and SELENOP status within the reference ranges indicate high survival odds in COVID-19, and assume that correcting a diagnostically proven deficit in Se and/or Zn by a personalised supplementation may support convalescence.
5)Vogel-González M et al. “Low zinc levels at clinical admission associates with poor outcomes in COVID-19.” medRxiv, October 11, 2020. Doi: 1101/2020.10.07.20208645Download PDFSummary: Individuals with SZC at admission <50 µg/dl had a mortality of 21% that was significantly higher compared with 5% mortality in individuals with zinc at admission ≥50 µg/dl; p<0·001.   Our study demonstrates a correlation between serum zinc levels and COVID-19 outcome. Serum zinc levels lower than 50 mcgg/dl at admission correlated with worse clinical presentation, longer time to reach stability and higher mortality.
6)Jothimani D et al. “COVID-19: Poor outcomes in patients with zinc deficiency.” International Journal of Infection Diseases, November 2020, v 100: 343-349. Doi: 1016/j.ijid.2020.09.014Download PDFSummary: More patients in the Zinc deficient group … required ICU care (7 vs 2, P=0.266) and recorded deaths (5 vs 0) in comparison  to  patients  with  normal Zinc levels.
7)Yasui Y et al. “Analysis of the predictive factors for a critical illness of COVID-19 during treatment - relationship between serum zinc level and critical illness of COVID-19.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, November 2020, v 100: 230-236. Doi: 1016/j.ijid.2020.09.008Download PDFSummary:Based on the measurement results of serum zinc levels in patients with COVID-19 in our hospital, almost all severe cases showed subclinical or clinical zinc deficiency. Prolonged hypozincemia was found to be a risk factor for a severe case of COVID-19. In evaluating the relationship between the serum zinc level and severity of patients with COVID-19 by multivariate logistic regression analysis, critical illness can be predicted through the sensitivity and false specificity of an ROC curve with an error rate of 10.3% and AUC of 94.2% by only two factors: serum zinc value (P = 0.020) and LDH value (P = 0.026).
8)Derwand R et al. “COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study.” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, December 2020, v 56:6. Doi: 1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106214Download PDFSummary: After 4 days (median, IQR 3-6, available for N=66/141) of onset of symptoms, 141 patients (median age 58 years, IQR 40-67; 73% male) received a prescription for the triple therapy for 5 days. Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients of the same community were used as untreated control. 4 of 141 treated patients (2.8%) were hospitalized, which was significantly less (p<0.001) compared with 58 of 377 untreated patients (15.4%) (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5). One patient (0.7%) died in the treatment group versus 13 patients (3.5%) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.12).
Therapeutic’s name: COLCHICINE
1)Tardif JC et al. “Colchicine for community-treated patients with COVID-19 (COLCORONA): a phase 3, randomised, double-blinded, adaptive, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.” Lancet Respir Med. 2021 May 27; Doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00222-8Download PDFSummary: 2,235 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine and 2,253 to placebo. Among patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, colchicine led to a lower rate of the composite of death or hospital admission than placebo.
2)Scarsi M et al. “Association between treatment with colchicine and improved survival in a single-centre cohort of adult hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome.” Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Oct; 79(10): 1286–1289. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217712Download PDFSummary: 140 consecutive inpatients were treated with standard of care (hydroxychloroquine and/or intravenous dexamethasone; and/or lopinavir/ritonavir). They were compared with 122 consecutive inpatients treated with colchicine and standard of care (antiviral drugs were stopped before colchicine, due to potential interaction). Patients treated with colchicine had a better survival rate as compared with SoC at 21 days of follow-up (84.2% vs 63.6%). 
Therapeutic’s name: BROMHEXINE
1)Ansarin et al. “Effect of bromhexine on clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients: A randomized clinical trial.” BioImpacts, 2020, 10(4), 209-215. Doi: 10.34172/bi.2021.30Download PDFSummary: A total of 78 patients with similar demographic and disease characteristics were enrolled. There was a significant reduction in ICU admissions (2 out of 39 vs. 11 out of 39, P=0.006), intubation (1 out of 39 vs. 9 out of 39, P=0.007) and death (0 vs. 5, P=0.027) in the bromhexine treated group compared to the standard group. No patients were withdrawn from the study because of adverse effects.
2)Li et al. “Bromhexine Hydrochloride Tablets for the Treatment of Moderate COVID-19: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.” Clin. Transl. Sci (2020) 13, 1096–1102. Doi: 10.1111/cts.12881Download PDFSummary: A total of 18 patients with moderate COVID-19 were randomized into the BRH group (n = 12) or the control group (n = 6). There were suggestions of BRH advantage over placebo in improved chest computed tomography, need for oxygen therapy, and discharge rate within 20 days. 
3)Maggio et al. “Repurposing the mucolytic cough suppressant and TMPRSS2 protease inhibitor bromhexine for the prevention and management of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Pharmacological Research 157 (July 2020) 104837 Doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104837Summary: Pharmacokinetic data support the testing of bromhexine use for this indication since, in pulmonary and bronchial epithelial cells, it may reach concentrations 4 to 6-fold higher than those found in the plasma, high enough in principle to inhibit TMPRSS2.
4)Mareev, et al. “Results of an open, prospective, controlled, comparative study for the treatment of novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19): Bromhexine
And Spironolactone for the treatment of Corona Viral Infection Requiring Hospitalization (BISQUIT).” Kardiologiia, 2020;60(11). DOI: 10.18087/cardio.2020.11.n1440English translation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33487145/Download PDFSummary: 103 patients were included (33 in the bromhexine and spironolactone group and 70 in the control group). Analysis for the group as a whole revealed a statistically significant reduction in hospitalization time from 10.4 to 9.0 days and fever time from 6.5 to 3.9 days.
5)Mikhaylov, et al. “Bromhexine Hydrochloride Prophylaxis of COVID-19 for Medical Personnel: A Randomized Open-Label Study.” medRxiv preprint, May 29, 2021. Doi: 10.1101/2021.03.03.21252855Download PDFSummary: 25 healthcare workers were assigned to bromhexine hydrochloride treatment (8 mg 3 times per day), and 25 were controls. Fewer participants developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the treatment group compared to controls (0/25 vs 5/25). 
6)Ou, et al. “Hydroxychloroquine-mediated inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 entry is attenuated by TMPRSS2.” PLOS Pathogens, January 19, 2021. Doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009212Download PDF (from PLOS website)Summary: We show that combinations of hydroxychloroquine and a clinically tested TMPRSS2 inhibitor work together to effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry.
Therapeutic’s name:BUDESONIDE
1)Ramakrishnan S et al. “Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial.” Lancet Respir Med, April 9, 2021. Doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(21)00171-5Download PDFSummary: 146 participants were randomly assigned, 73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the usual care group and one (1%) of 69 participants in the budesonide group. For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days versus 8). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group than the usual care group (2% versus 8%) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28.
Therapeutic’s name: DEXAMETHASONE
1)Tomazini BM et al. “Effect of Dexamethasone on Days Alive and Ventilator-Free in Patients With Moderate or Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19The CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA, September 2, 2020. Doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17021Download PDFSummary: In this randomized clinical trial that included 299 patients, the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation during the first 28 days was significantly higher among patients treated with dexamethasone plus standard care when compared with standard care alone (6.6 days vs 4.0 days).
2)Horby P et al. (RECOVERY Collaborative). “Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.” NEJM, February 25, 2021. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021436Download PDFSummary: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. 
Therapeutic’s name: MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES 
1)Verderese JP et al. “Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Reduces Hospitalization for Mild and Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Real-World Experience.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, June 24, 2021. Doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab579Download PDFSummary: 707 confirmed COVID-19 patients received NmAbs and 1709 historic COVID-19 controls were included; 553 (78%) received BAM, 154 (22%) received REGN-COV2. Patients receiving NmAb infusion had significantly lower hospitalization rates (5.8% vs 11.4%, P < .0001), shorter length of stay if hospitalized (mean, 5.2 vs 7.4 days; P = .02), and fewer ED visits within 30 days post-index (8.1% vs 12.3%, P = .003) than controls.
2)O’Brien MP et al. “Subcutaneous REGEN-COV Antibody Combination to Prevent Covid-19.” NEJM, August 4, 2021. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109682Download PDFSummary: Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection developed in 11 of 753 participants in the REGEN-COV group (1.5%) and in 59 of 752 participants in the placebo group (7.8%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 81.4%; P<0.001). In weeks 2 to 4, a total of 2 of 753 participants in the REGEN-COV group (0.3%) and 27 of 752 par- ticipants in the placebo group (3.6%) had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (relative risk reduction, 92.6%). REGEN-COV also prevented symptomatic and asymptomatic infections overall (relative risk reduction, 66.4%). Among symptomatic infected par- ticipants, the median time to resolution of symptoms was 2 weeks shorter with REGEN-COV than with placebo (1.2 weeks and 3.2 weeks, respectively), and the duration of a high viral load (>104 copies per milliliter) was shorter (0.4 weeks and 1.3 weeks, respectively). No dose-limiting toxic effects of REGEN-COV were noted.
Therapeutic’s name: QUERCETIN
1)Di Pierro F et al. “Possible Therapeutic Effects of Adjuvant Quercetin Supplementation Against Early-Stage COVID-19 Infection: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, and Open-Label Study.” Int J General Med, June 8, 2021. Doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S318720Download PDFSummary: Prospective, randomized, controlled, and open-label study. Daily dose of 1000 mg of QP was investigated for 30 days in 152 COVID-19 outpatients to disclose its adjuvant effect in treating the early symptoms and in preventing the severe outcomes of the disease. The results revealed a reduction in frequency and length of hospitalization, in need of non-invasive oxygen therapy, in progression to intensive care units and in number of deaths. The results also confirmed the very high safety profile of quercetin. 
Therapeutic’s name: FLUVOXAMINE
1)Lenze E et al. “Fluvoxamine vs Placebo and Clinical Deterioration in Outpatients With Symptomatic COVID-19. A Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA. 2020; 324(22): 2292-2300. Doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22760Summary: In this randomized trial that included 152 adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and symptom onset within 7 days, clinical deterioration occurred in 0 patients treated with fluvoxamine vs 6 (8.3%) patients treated with placebo over 15 days, a difference that was statistically significant.
2)Reis G et al. “Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial.”  Lancet Global Health. October 27, 2021; 10(1): E42-E51. Doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00448-4Summary: The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756) [. . .] There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36–1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01–0·47).
3)Seftel D et al. “Prospective Cohort of Fluvoxamine for Early Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 19.” Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2021. Doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofab050Download PDFSummary: Incidence of hospitalization was 0% (0 of 65) with fluvoxamine and 12.5% (6 of 48) with observation alone. At 14 days, residual symptoms persisted in 0% (0 of 65) with fluvoxamine and 60% (29 of 48) with observation.
Therapeutic’s name: PREDNISONE
1)Ooi ST et al. “Antivirals With Adjunctive Corticosteroids Prevent Clinical Progression of Early Coronavirus 2019 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Travel Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 7, Issue 11, November 2020, ofaa486. Doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa486Download PDFSummary: “A combination of corticosteroids and antivirals was associated with lower risk of clinical progression and invasive mechanical ventilation or death in early COVID-19 pneumonia.”
2)Fonseca SNS et al. “Risk of hospitalization for Covid-19 outpatients treated with various drug regimens in Brazil: Comparative analysis.” Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 November-December; 38. Doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101906Download PDFSummary: “Use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), prednisone or both significantly reduced hospitalization risk by 50–60%.”
Therapeutic’s name: AZITHROMYCIN
1)Taieb F et al. “Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Treatment of Hospitalized Patients Infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Senegal from March to October 2020.” J Clin Med, 2021 Jun 30;10(13):2954. Doi: 3390/jcm10132954.Download PDFSummary: A total of 926 patients were included in this analysis. Six hundred seventy-four (674) (72.8%) patients received a combination of HCQ and AZM. Results showed that the proportion of patient discharge at D15 was significantly higher for patients receiving HCQ plus AZM (OR: 1.63, IC 95% (1.09-2.43). 
2)Lagier JC et al. “Outcomes of 2,111 COVID-19 hospitalised patients treated with  hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: a monocentric retrospective analysis.” IHU-Méditerranée Infection [preprint], June 4, 2021.Download PDFSummary: Treatment with HCQ-AZ was an independent protective factor against death – Zinc was independently protective against death in patients treated with HCQ-AZ.
3)Heras E et al. “COVID-19 mortality risk factors in older people in a long-term care center.” European Geriatric Medicine, November 27, 2020, v 12, p 601–607. Doi: 1007/s41999-020-00432-wDownload PDFSummary: Among 100 COVID-19+ nursing home patients in Andorra, multivariate logistic regression analysis identified hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin treatment as an independent factor favoring survival compared with no treatment or other treatments.
4)Ly TDA et al. “Pattern of SARS-CoV-2 infection among dependent elderly residents living in long-term care facilities in Marseille, France, March-June 2020.” Int J Antimicrob Agents, 2020 Dec;56(6):106219. Doi: 1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106219Summary: Data from 1,691 elderly residents and 1,000 members of staff were retrospectively collected through interviewing the medical teams in 24 LTCFs and using the hospitals’ electronic health recording systems. 116 (51.4%) patients received a course of oral hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQAZM) for ≥3 days, and 47 (20.8%) died. Through multivariate analysis, the death rate was positively associated with being male (30.7%, vs. 14.0%, OR=3.95, p=0.002), being older than 85 years (26.1%, vs. 15.6%, OR=2.43, p=0.041), and receiving oxygen therapy (39.0%, vs. 12.9%, OR=5.16, p<0.001) and negatively associated with being diagnosed through mass screening (16.9%, vs. 40.5%, OR=0.20, p=0.001) and receiving HCQ-AZM treatment ≥3 days (15.5%, vs. 26.4%, OR=0.37, p=0.02).
5)Lauriola M et al. “Effect of combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on mortality in COVID‐19 patients.” Clinical and Translational Science, September 14, 2020. Doi: 1111/cts.12860Download PDFSummary: In this study, we found a reduced in‐hospital mortality in patients treated with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin after adjustment for comorbidities. …  At multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, … use of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (vs. no treatment) (HR 0.265, 95%CI 0.171‐0.412, p<0.001) was inversely associated [with death].
6)Arshad S et al. “Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.” Int Jour Inf Dis, July 1, 2020, 97: 396-403. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099Download PDFSummary: In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality.
Therapeutic’s name: HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE(Figure 2)
1)Risch, Harvey. “Hydroxychloroquine in Early Treatment of High-Risk COVID-19 Outpatients: Efficacy and Safety Evidence.” Sixth version, updated June 17, 2021.Download PDFSummary: Every study of high-risk outpatient hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use has shown risk reduction for hospitalization or mortality. Meta-analysis demonstrates 40% reduction in hospitalization and 75% reduction in mortality. A large database study of more than 900,000 older patients taking hydroxychloroquine shows no excess all-cause mortality and no excess occurrence of fatal cardiac arrhythmia.
2)Million M et al. “Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 10,429 COVID-19 outpatients: A monocentric retrospective cohort study.” Accepted for publication, Int J Infect Dis.Download PDFSummary: Cohort of 10,429 COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ, azithromycin and other medications. Among patients age 60 and older, 1,495 patients treated with HCQ+azithromycin for 3+ days were compared to 520 patients given the medications for less than 3 days, or given only the individual medications, or not given either one. The age, sex and time-period adjusted-regression analysis showed a mortality odds ratio of 0.17.
3)Mokhtari M et al. “Clinical outcomes of patients with mild COVID-19 following treatment with hydroxychloroquine in an outpatient setting. Int Immunopharmacol Vol 96, July 2021. Doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107636Download PDFSummary: Multicenter, population-based national retrospective-cohort investigation of 28,759 adults with mild COVID-19 seen within 7 days of symptom onset between March and September 2020 in Iran. Treatment with HCQ was associated with a 38% reduction in risk of hospitalization and a 70% reduction in mortality risk, both highly statistically significant.
4)Barbosa Esper, et al. “Empirical treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for suspected cases of COVID-19 followed-up by telemedicine.” April 15, 2020. Accessed April 30, 2020.Download PDFSummary: Even though the severities of symptoms and comorbidities were substantially greater in the treated patients than the controls, the need for hospitalization was significantly lower among those receiving hydroxychloroquine: 1.2% in patients starting treatment before day 7 of symptoms and 3.2% for patients starting treatment after day 7, compared to 5.4% for controls. No cardiac arrhythmias were reported in the 412 treated patients.
5)Szente Fonseca SN et al. “Risk of hospitalization for Covid-19 outpatients treated with various drug regimens in Brazil: Comparative analysis.” Travel Med Infect Dis 2020;38:101906. Doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101906Download PDFSummary: Study of 717 tested-positive symptomatic patients over age 40, mean age 51, presenting between May 11 and June 3, 2020 in Brazil. Adjusted for age, gender, dyspnea at presentation, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, use of both HCQ and prednisone together was associated with an odds ratio for hospitalization of 0.40; use of HCQ only, odds ratio=0.45; and use of prednisone only, odds ratio=0.51.
6)Ip A et al. “Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19: A multi-center observational study. BMC Infect Dis 2021;21:72. Doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-05773-wDownload PDFSummary: Between March 1 and April 22, 2020, 1,274 patients with non-admission ER visits were identified and confirmed infected with SARS-CoV-2 by PCR testing. 97 received prescriptions for or had started taking HCQ, and from the remaining 1,177, 970 were propensity-score matched by age, demographic variables and a host of comorbidity factors, presenting symptoms, indicators of disease severity, baseline laboratory tests, and ER-visit and follow-up times. More than three-quarters of the subjects had comorbidities or were over age 60, making them high-risk. In the matched multivariate analysis, treatment with HCQ significantly cut the risk of hospitalization by 47%.
7)Ly TDA et al. “Pattern of SARS-CoV-2 infection among dependant elderly residents living in long-term care facilities in Marseille, France, March-June 2020.” Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020;56(6):106219. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106219Download PDFSummary: Study of 23 nursing homes in Marseille, France in which of 226 infected residents, 37 were detected because of COVID-19 symptoms and 189 through mass screening. In multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, use of oxygen therapy and detection modality (symptoms vs screening), receipt of HCQ+azithromycin for at least three days was associated with 63% reduced mortality risk.
8)Heras E et al. “COVID-19 mortality risk factors in older people in a long-term care center.” Eur Geriatr Med 2021;12(3):601-607. Doi: 10.1007/s41999-020-00432-wDownload PDFSummary: Study identified 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients, median age 85, who received HCQ+azithromycin, HCQ with other antibiotics such as beta-lactam or quinolone types, or other antibiotics alone. In multivariate analysis of risk-adjusted mortality, treatment with HCQ+azithromycin vs. only other antibiotics had OR=0.044; treatment with HCQ+other antibiotics vs. other antibiotics alone had OR=0.32.
9)Cangiano B et al. “Mortality in an Italian nursing home during COVID-19 pandemic: correlation with gender, age, ADL, vitamin D supplementation, and limitations of the diagnostic tests.” Aging 2020;12. Doi: 10.18632/aging.202307Download PDFSummary: Ninety-eight of 157 residents in a nursing home in Milan, Italy, average age 90, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, Barthel’s index and BMI, receipt of HCQ was associated with 7-fold reduced mortality.
10)Sulaiman T et al. “The effect of early hydroxychloroquine-based therapy in COVID-19 patients in ambulatory care settings: A nationwide prospective cohort study.” Preprints 2020. Doi: 10.1101/2020.09.09.20184143Download PDFSummary: Roughly 8,000 mild-moderate cases of PCR-positive COVID-19 presenting at national outpatient treatment clinics in Saudi Arabia between 5-26 June, 2020 were recruited for enrollment. Treated and control patients were comparable in distributions of age, sex and nine comorbidities reported. In multivariate modeling adjusted for age, gender and comorbidities, HCQ receipt cut mortality 3-fold, while there was a 5-fold reduction in mortality with HCQ+zinc treatment vs zinc only.
11)Cadegiani, FA et al. “Early COVID-19 Therapy with Azithromycin Plus Nitazoxanide, Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Reduced Symptoms Compared to Known Outcomes in Untreated Patients.” New Microbes and New Infections, July 7, 2021. Doi: 1016/j.nmni.2021.100915Download PDFSummary: In total, 159 patients were treated with HCQ and 137 controls participated. There were no hospitalizations or deaths among the HCQ patients, whereas 27 control patients were hospitalized and 2 died.

Figure 1: Studies of ivermectin as an outpatient treatment 

Figure 2: Studies of hydroxychloroquine as an outpatient treatment


  • Paul Elias AlexanderDr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary), US government; worked/appointed in 2008 at WHO as a regional specialist/epidemiologist in Europe’s Regional office Denmark, worked for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist for 12 years, appointed as the Canadian in-field epidemiologist (2002-2004) as part of an international CIDA funded, Health Canada executed project on TB/HIV co-infection and MDR-TB control (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, posted to Kathmandu); employed from 2017 to 2019 at Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Virginia USA as the evidence synthesis meta-analysis systematic review guideline development trainer; currently a COVID-19 consultant researcher in the US-C19 research group

The Spike—Is Busy

By Terry Burton

Folks, as you may have noted, the last several pieces of correspondence I’ve written has entailed a high degree of irreverence and cynicism for the Covid-19 debacle we are all facing. This article is no different, it’s hoped that this approach may awaken the alarmists to the absurdity and mismanagement of this manufactured crisis.

Spike, Proximal Origin, Glycans and Serial Passage by Manipulation of Genetic Material in A Lab 

Once again I, and I suspect a great number of my fellow citizens, find ourselves being asked to participate in an obvious and irrational multiverse like scenario. That is, where virtually everything “we are being told and demanded we believe”, is the mirror opposite of what constitutes reality.

In this “opposite” irrational multiverse one is compelled, for the sake of one’s sanity, to ensure every political, medical, media, institutional statement, action, thought, etc. is questioned. It must, in virtually all cases, be automatically modified in a manner that concludes the very opposite of the claim, in order to glean the truth. 

The world is, indeed, awash in political and medical bovine excrement being sold as gospel truth that would make Pinocchio look like the father of the truth serum.

This following irreverent, Alice in Wonderland like, analogy will focus on Spike The Destructive Virus Protein (STDVP) who falls in a deep sleep in the latter part of 2019. Spike dreams he has been created and destined to be the catalyst of many bizarre human experiences, whilst he speedily time travels through the years of 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Spike, ironically, is a distant cousin of (STD) a most infections type of character and icompelled to follow the orders of his patron (Novid-V-2), all over the microscopic landscape component of the multiverse. 

As a consequence of this forced travel, Spike is subjected to what can only be described as the most illogical and fantasy type illusions and delusions. Spike, like most egomaniacal folks, likes to view himself as the very best and strongest of all proteins. However, Spike’s desire for survival affirms he cannot bring himself to admit to the carnage he has, by design, brought to the microscopic multiverse and, in particular, his human hosts.

Spike is in the proverbial denial stage with such denial being reinforced and covered by the CYA alarmists. Those CYA alarmist are the very same people who let Spike out of the proverbial Gain of Function “cell”. The very cell where Spike had been incarcerated along with many of his “mafioso like made proteins”. Sadly and apparently, one or more of the jailers assisted Spike in his escape from solitary confinement, the exact method of escape will most likely never be known.

To be crystal clear, Spike is no slacker when it comes to getting to know and use other life forms to Spike’s advantage and for his survival. Spike inserts himself into the human bubble with ease and, inevitably, before the unaware humans realized it. Spike quickly become the orchestra director of the lymphatic and related body systems and controls of all internal resources. Spike, as expected, quickly displayed his autocratic, intolerant, devious sociopathic character and goes on a seek and destroy mission. Spike is somewhat of an adrenaline junkie and test all vital organs to their breaking point.

Spike, to be described properly and fairly, is from a family of very small, wondrous, microscopic materials that churns out replicates in a manner that puts rabbit breeding to shame. Spike and his family members are constantly looking for a weak host, Spike prefers a stealth entry, primarily by way of the nose, lungs and the lymphatic system (LS)—the LS now better known as the canary-in-the-coal-mine entry method. 

Spike’s capacity to grow into the trillions of trillions, and beyond in number, is aided immensely by the naive Neanderthals. They demanded and forced uninformed and misinformed humans to have Spike injected into their deltoid muscle, often done improperly and certainly without proper informed consent. This approach most certainly ensured Spike gains ease of entry into the individual’s highway body distribution system. 
Spike sees the ease of entry as a golden opportunity, sits back and invites a great number of Spike’s clone relatives to join in the journey through the host body.  Billions of these “independent” clone relatives of Spike often elected, predictably, to delay and even stop their trip. They do this very effectively by sticking to the blood vessel walls, and by sending out billions of scouts and messengers with a mission of doing damage and weakening the host’s liver, brain, heart, reproductive system. Also, they are exceptionally stealth and often cause additional mayhem, by reactivating and letting loose cancers thus encouraging other malignancies and disorders. 

Spike, fortunately, encounters a large number of aligned politicians, medical and media personnel who are very generous to Spike. Even though publicly they denounce and are vehemently opposed to Spike, behind the scenes they ensure Spike is provided a sufficient supply of victims to ensure Spike continues creating fear in the gullible population. 

Spike agrees to kill, maim, make sick and destroy millions of people but only if his designer friends in Big Pharma are encouraged, especially financially, to undertake a pseudo hunt for Spike—but it must be with only blank ammunition or ammunition to which Spike is impervious —they eagerly agree en masse. The hunt for Spike is very lucrative and profitable and, to be clear, finding Spike early isn’t really in their interests. There is a lot of nodding and winking taking place in Big Pharma thus Spike is left alone, in the main.
Ironically and deceptively, Spike’s picture is posted as one of the world’s most wanted, he occupies a special designation in Interpol, the CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, RCMP and many other justice gatekeepers. However, Spike is a master at disguise and, not surprisingly, everyone of Spike’s disguises (and there are many) proves 100% effective towards his evasion from all authorities. 

The authorities state emphatically that they are on Spike’s trail but, sadly, haven’t been able to capture and neutralize Spike and his clone’s threats. Each 24 hour news cycle is filled with apologies, pronouncements and announcement of the tremendous efforts by governments to capture Spike and his “associate clones”, however, Spike continues to outwit them all—wink, wink.

Spike is enjoying this unexpected Gain of Function viral trip and runs into the following cast of Alice in Wonderland like supporting characters and reprobates:
A large number of Kings—-the political leaders of the Western WorldA large number of Queens— The political leaders medical advisersA large number of Caterpillars— the MSM and Social MediaA large number of Dukes and Duchesses—-Brainwashed medical personnelA Cheshire Cat—Joe BidenA Mad Hatter—Anthony Fauci A March Hare—Boris Johnston A Flamingo—Justin TrudeauA number of Hedgehogs—- Olaf Scholz, Macron, Sebastian Kurz, Scott Morrison, Naftali Bennett A Gryphon—Rochelle P. WalenskyA Mock Turtle—Francis S. CollinsA Knave of Hearts—Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Spike quickly realized that all of the above characters were and still are engaged in psychological warfare. Consequently, they can be easily manipulated by the slight of hand of that Spike is a master at. These folks can be easily controlled and manipulated—because they are weak, unprincipled “leaders” who are effectively managed and manipulated by stoking and stroking their massive Ambition, Ego supplemented by their expertise in Distraction, Uglification, and Derision. 

Spike is a survivor and had been in many previous battles over the eons, he wasn’t and isn’t about to go it alone. As a matter of fact, these supporting characters will be Spike’s primary supply line of victims. The supply would be achieved and enhanced  by a high degree of volunteers (motivated by misinformation and fear). This type of irrational fear was effectively employed somewhat, from an historical perspective, in the manner in which a number of Spike’s distant relatives got the Incas and others to sacrifice their peoples on the altars of virtue signalling.

Spike, as we all know now, worked extremely hard between late 2019 and the start of the influenza season of 2021-2022, in the Northern Hemisphere. It was at the juncture of the fall of 2021 that Spike called a family meeting and requested someone else take the lead.

His first cousin Omi agreed and was “enthused to do such,” he said, “until May or June 2022.” Spike was ecstatic with Omi’s volunteering and agreed that by June 2022 they would change course and take the endemic pathway. However, they would continue to create a fear laden environment by engaging Endothelial snipers, to keep the vulnerable and afraid human folks on high alert.

Spike felt a moist warmth on his cheek and upon opening his eyes he could clearly see it was his inventor, the most beautiful Miss Wuhan, breathing on his protective fat cover. Spike was pleased as punch, he realized that he, like Alice In Wonderland, had only been dreaming and the nightmarish mayhem caused by and to humans wasn’t really his fault. 
Spike quickly realized and immediately realized he was heading back to the lab to participate in more Gain-of-Function exercises. He would get stronger and maybe, just maybe, Miss Wuhan would find him more attractive and take him home with her—a Spike protein can always dream, he thought.


Spike has already been called as a witness in many lawsuits and will be busy, as an expert witness and informant, for, one can surmise, decades to come. The lawyers have been lining up for at least 18 months and salivating over the Novid-V-2 generated cases and the consequent individual and class action lawsuits.

Yes, this is, indeed, a windfall for the legal profession that also believes in never letting a crisis go to waste. The following India court action is one of the first major lawsuits where Spike will be front row and center. One can only hope that Western world countries legal systems and gurus pay close attention to India, regarding these court actions, the arguments and potential precedent setting rationale.

Bill Gates, Indian Government Targeted in Lawsuit Alleging AstraZenecca Vaccine killed 23-Year-Old

A lawsuit against Bill Gates, the Indian government and others, citing extensive case law, is attracting renewed scrutiny of Gates and his long-term, controversial involvement in India’s vaccine program.By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
Extensive legal precedent casts doubt on legality of Indian state’s mandatory vaccination policy

One of the main court rulings referenced in the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint is that of Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya (herein referred to as Meghalaya). The central finding of the ruling, issued June 23, 2021, held that vaccination by force or deception, or through the introduction of restrictions on the non-vaccinated, is a violation of fundamental human rights and a civil and criminal wrong.

This judgment overturned an order in the state of Meghalaya that required vendors, taxi drivers, shopkeepers and other individuals to get vaccinated before resuming or reopening their businesses.

In reference to this, the court held that while vaccination was “the need of the hour,” the vaccination policy of a welfare state “can never affect a major fundamental right, i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and livelihood.”

Referring to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the court in Meghalaya addressed the right to health, arguing that when such healthcare is provided through coercive means, it encroaches upon the fundamental right to privacy.

The court also drew from another Indian court ruling, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), which held the fundamental right to health is violated when individuals are deprived of their right to personal choice, bodily autonomy and integrity, and the overarching right to privacy.

The court in Meghalaya added:

“[V]accination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live.

“Compulsory administration of a vaccine without hampering one’s right to life and liberty based on informed choice and informed consent is one thing. However, if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its very nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character.”

The court in Meghalaya also referenced English common law, specifically, the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993), a decision which held that if an unwilling adult is compelled to receive a flu vaccination through force, this action would amount to a crime and to a civil wrong.

Remarking on this, the Indian court found:

“[T]hus, coercive element of vaccination has, since the early phases of the initiation of vaccination as a preventive measure against several diseases, have been time and again not only discouraged but also consistently ruled against by the Courts for over more than a century.”

The court in Meghalaya also referred to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution regarding the “freedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business,” and that vaccine-related restrictions were “palpably excessive.”

The court added:

“In this case, there is a clear lack of legitimacy in prohibiting freedom of carrying on any occupation, trade or business amongst a certain category or class of citizens who are otherwise entitled to do so, making the notification/order ill-conceived, arbitrary and/or a colourable exercise of power.”

From an administrative point of view, the court in Meghalaya also found not only had the central Indian government not mandated vaccinations, instead holding that vaccination must remain voluntary, but there was no regulation or directive that allowed state governments to impose vaccination requirements within their own territory.

Yadav case draws upon extensive Indian legal precedent, scientific studies

The criminal complaint in Yadav v. Maharashtra also drew upon several other Indian court rulings, including recent COVID vaccines-related decisions such as Dinthar Incident v. State of Mizoram and Others (2021) and Madan Mili v. Union of India (2021).

These rulings found vaccinated individuals can also get infected with COVID and can spread infection, just as those who are unvaccinated, and accordingly, there cannot be any discrimination between those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated. Such discrimination would contravene Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Yadav v. Maharashtra also references the following cases and English common law:

 “[A]ll adults with capacity to consent have the right of self-determination and autonomy. The said rights pave the way for the right to refuse medical treatment … [a] competent person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment or all treatment or opt for an alternative treatment …

“The best interest of the patient shall override the State interest.”

“Restraining people who are yet to get vaccinated from opening institutions, organizations, factories, shops, etc., or denying them their livelihood by linking their employment … to their getting vaccinated would be illegal on the part of the State, if not unconstitutional.

“Such a measure would also trample upon the freedom of the individual to get vaccinated or choose not to do so.”

“An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.”

Yadav v. Maharashtra also references an Oct. 8, 2021, directive from Satyendra Singh, the undersecretary of the Indian Health Ministry, reaffirming that vaccination remains voluntary, that the Indian government “has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status,” and that no citizen can be forced to be vaccinated.

The complaint also draws upon Indian legislation, specifically the Disaster Management Act of 2005, which holds that state governments cannot formulate any rules that contravene the guidelines of the national government. Nor can such prohibitions be circumvented indirectly, according to the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint, referring to another Indian court case, Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida (2011).

The complaint also refers to several clauses from UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005), including:

  • Article 3 on human dignity and human rights, which holds that “[t]he interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
  • Article 6, which holds that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with… prior, free and informed consent.”
  • Article 8 on respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity.
  • Article 11, which states that “[n]o individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The complaint then goes on to name specific individuals, such as Venugopal G. Somani, the Drug Controller General of India, and Randeep Guleria of the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), as individuals who participated in a “dishonesty and cheating campaign” and the “furtherance of [a] conspiracy,” by making the “false and misleading statement” that the COVID vaccines were completely safe.

The complaint accuses Somani and Guleria of following a “one-line agenda to give wrongful profit to the vaccine companies” and goes on to cite Indian case law holding that because “conspiracies are hatched on secrecy … no direct evidence is required to prove it. The offense can be proved from circumstantial evidences.”

A total of 81 research papers were also referenced in the complaint, addressing, among other issues, the higher protection those with natural immunity have against COVID, as opposed to those who are vaccinated, as well as the lower efficacy of the vaccines against variants such as Delta.

And that boys and girls is what getting “spiked” really entails. Spike may not be as loved as Alice in Wonderland but he surely will go down in history as, only the words of the twenty-first century Social Media could properly describe, “going viral”!!!!!

Why the “risk ratios” that supposedly prove vaccines offer 90 percent protection against deaths from Covid are a lie

Alex Berenson

Jan 21

Kudos to the state of Massachusetts for being more honest about Covid vaccine failure than most blue states – or the Centers for Disease Control, which rolled out more nonsense numbers about vaccine effectiveness today.

Unlike most states, Massachusetts provides raw numbers for infections in vaccinated people, instead of hiding them and offering only “adjusted rate ratios” that claim to compare infection risks in the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

On Thursday, Massachusetts reported 85,000 infections, 900 hospitalizations and 170 deaths in vaccinated people for the week ended Jan. 15 – almost half of all Covid deaths over that period.

Even more importantly, Massachusetts also acknowledged those figures underestimate the real totals in the vaccinated because its reporting systems miscount some of them as unvaccinated.

As the report explains:

The number of cases in vaccinated people may be undercounted due to discrepancies in the names and dates of birth of individuals, resulting in an inability to match records across systems. Hospitalization data is likely also undercounted as identification and reporting of hospitalized cases relies on that information being obtainable by case investigators through patient interview.

Massachusetts’s admission helps explain why the United States reports relatively fewer deaths and hospitalizations in Covid-vaccinated people than other highly vaccinated countries with more complete immunization registries and national health care systems.

In its weekly reports, the United Kingdom has said as many as 80 percent of its Covid deaths are in vaccinated people. In the last several days, New South Wales, the most populous state in Australia, has reported over 70 percent of its surging Covid deaths in the vaccinated.

UK SOURCE: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1049160/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-3-2022.pdf

(See slide 37)

AUSTRALIA SOURCE: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20220121_00.aspx

In contrast, the governor of New Jersey said yesterday that his state had only four deaths of vaccinated people in the last month, out of a total of 600 Covid deaths. That statement is only possible if human biology is radically different in New Jersey than everywhere else in the world. (Insert joke here.)

The American data that purport to show the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines are wrong in three ways.

First, hospitals and states fail to count infected people as vaccinated because they do not properly match cases with registries, and the Centers for Disease Control bases many of its analyses on state-level data.

Second, people who are infected after their first dose, or less than 14 days after the second, are counted as “unvaccinated.” Other countries generally report them as “partially vaccinated.”

In fact, every person who receives even a single dose of any vaccine should be counted as vaccinated from the day they receive the first dose. Vaccine protection lasts a few months. Excluding infections and deaths in the first six weeks after vaccinations begin is nonsensical – especially since researchers now have strong evidence that infections INCREASE for weeks after the first dose.

Third – and this is the most important and least understood facet of the data manipulation – public health authorities often focus on the supposed “risk reduction” that vaccinations offer in various age ranges.

For example, in the United Kingdom, five times as many vaccinated people over 80 are dying of Covid as unvaccinated. Yet the British government insists that the vaccines lower the risk of death by almost 90 percent in people who have had two shots and a booster.

The reason is that the British government is comparing the relatively large population of people over 80 who have been boosted with the tiny group that has been unvaccinated. But the two groups are not comparable. Many people over 80 who have not been vaccinated are simply too frail to tolerate even a single Covid vaccine. Some of the people who have not been boosted are not receiving a third dose because they had severe side effects after the second.

In fact, hospice providers acknowledge that some end-of-life patients may simply not want to be vaccinated, as they may no longer may be trying to extend their lives as long as possible.

Alec Berenson is an author. His latest book is the best seller ’Pandemia.’

Vaccine Mandates Reveal that the State is our Enemy

EssayCivil LibertiesLeighton GreyJanuary 13, 2022

Albert Nock was a noted 20th century American libertarian who along with H.L. Mencken, recognized the pre-conditions necessary to accurately foresee the onset of both the Great Depression and WWII. In his 1935 treatise “Our Enemy: The State,” Nock wrote that:

…there is an impression that the enhancement of State power which has taken place in recent years is provisional and temporary, that the corresponding depletion of social power is by way of a kind of emergency-loan, and therefore is not to be scrutinized too closely. There is every probability that this belief is devoid of foundation. No doubt our present regime will be modified in one way or another; indeed, it must be, for the process of consolidation itself requires it. But any essential change would be quite unhistorical, quite without precedent, and therefore most unlikely; and by an essential change, I mean one that will tend to redistribute actual power between State and society. In the nature of things, there is no reason why such change should take place, and every reason why it should not. We shall see various apparent recessions, apparent compromises, but the one thing that we may be quite sure of is that none of these will tend to diminish actual State power.

Today we are witnessing similar tension between society and the state. The once “True North Strong and Free” has lately become neither strong nor free. Libertarians like Nock and his colleague H.L. Me3ncken see the state as an inherently evil entity created by a corrupt ruling class that uses legally sanctioned violence to rob (through taxation) and oppress (through restrictions upon liberty) individuals and thus to reduce the economic, social, and political power of society.

The state machinery is a massive, comprehensive, complicated, and often seemingly contradictory tool for social plunder. Each state appears to be unique in a historical sense so that the methods and manners of using the machinery vary over time, place, circumstance, and culture. Different groups, especially under “democratic” regimes, like Canada and the U.S., vie for control of the state apparatus, often only having limited success, thus leading unaware citizens to conclude that class theories are phantasies rather than true depictions verifiable in reality.  Nevertheless, in all states, various groups struggle for political and economic power, and over the course of time, one or more groups ends up considerably “more equal” than the others. It is to these more powerful groups that plundered wealth accrues. This group becomes entrenched both politically and economically through its success at plundering wealth. As the entrenchment becomes more secure and the plunder begins to move from the exploited class to the exploiting class, we begin calling the exploiting group a ruling class.

Those who gain access to state power apparatus and become adept in supervision of the political means, except in the most placid of times when they can afford luxury and sophistication of the noblesse oblige, generally are an unlikely lot to be tolerant or in any way chivalrous in their methods of administration, especially in times of “emergency”.  In such turmoil, those most adept in the use of political means will take advantage of the situation to further solidify the class position of both themselves and their peers.  As F.A. Hayek famously pointed out, it is an almost inevitable process of the worst rising to the top.

Justin Trudeau made some truly horrific comments only days ago on a Quebec television program, in which he questioned whether vaccinated Canadians should be forced to tolerate the unvaccinated:

We are going to end this pandemic with vaccination.  We all know people who are deciding whether or not they are willing to get vaccinated, and we will do our very best to try to convince them.  However, there is still a part of the population fiercely against it.  They do not believe in science or progress and are very often misogynistic and racist.  It is a very small group of people, but that does not shy away from the fact that they take up some space.  This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice:  Do we tolerate these people? Over 80% of the population have done their duty by getting the shot. They are obviously not the issue in this situation.

These comments from the leader of the Canadian ruling party, who represents only their interests, cuts to the heart of the matter. They also reveal the true source and purpose of the vaccine mandates now being imposed upon Canadian workers. The vaccine mandate is a politically expedient use of state authority to attack Canadian citizens.  Here the state is attacking and usurping individual autonomy. The state turns an emergency into a resource for accumulating power at the expense of individuals. All the state’s institutional voices, especially the media and even WOKE corporate interests conspire in exhibiting the progressive conversion of individual rightsinto state power necessary for the public good.

Here then is the truth about vaccine mandates in Canada.  There is no federal law invoking them. Constitutionally, the Federal government has no authority over health.  Section 92 makes health an exclusively Provincial jurisdiction.  But just as this government has usurped Provincial jurisdiction over natural resources,it has seized authority over health through bribery. It has thereby transformed a pandemic into an economic, debt, national security crisis, and an employment crisis The last one is particularly relevant because the Federal Government is now the nation’s largest and most ubiquitous employer.(Is this true? Check it.)

It should therefore be obvious why the vaccine mandate policies targets all Canadians. The poor, the indigent, the elderly, prison inmates, unskilled labourers, and the unemployed have no economic or political power.  The uber rich and ruling political class are similarly unaffected because their support is assured and thus not in jeopardy.  Workers at companies like CN, CP, Westjet, Air Canada, CNRL, Imperial Oil, Telus, CBC, BDC, Universities, Health workers, Physicians, and others are all highly skilled, experienced, talented, loyal, and valuable.

Each of them were produced by and then plucked from society via a market selection process which emphasized and compared their competing individual characteristics and qualifications.  They accepted situations with these employers at the opportunity cost of not following other career paths.  They worked hard, were advanced, promoted, given raises and titles.  They made their employers wealthy and successful.  Many of them were the same first responders celebrated for their courage, sacrifice and dedication during the first wave of the pandemic last Spring.

But now, suddenly, their individual characteristics, dedication and experience, are irrelevant. Employers want only one thing and makes continuation of employment wholly conditional upon it: get jabbed, or else. This is nothing less than a shocking, vile, extortive, and abusive betrayal of Canadian workers. These are Canadians who have educated themselves, acquired skills, contributed to RRSPs, volunteered their time and money to worthy charities, coached and administered youth sports, served on local school boards, bought homes, and raised families. They are the highly skilled people that our country has been trying to produce and import for decades. Some of them are anti-Vaxx, of course, but most are pro-freedom. They claim the right to decide what does or does not enter their bodies. They assert the ancient doctrine of informed consent and in support cite the Nuremberg Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Meanwhile, if they don’t get at least three doses of the COVID vaccine they are involuntarily placed on something called an unpaid leave of absence, a sort of employment purgatory during which they are neither working or terminated. They turn to their unions only to discover that unions won’t help.  While this is going on, the Federal government disqualifies them from applying for employment insurance.

This then is the awful dilemma that the unvaccinated face:  to trade their liberty and the integrity of their own bodies for the security of a job that allows them to support their families. This transcendent choice was explicated in a September 2021 letter penned by Dr. Eric Payne, an eminent pediatrician, to Dr. Deena Hinshaw, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Province of Alberta. In 20 pages of brilliantly clear prose, copiously documented both medically and legally, Dr. Payne amplifies the historical, medical, and political significance of the doctrine of informed consent. Essentially, once individuals permit the state to dictate what is done to their bodies, that is the end of personal autonomy.  No Charter of Rights or Nuremberg Code can ever bring it back. Informed consent is a watershed, and this is precisely the point. In September of 2020, Justin Trudeau delivered a speech to the UN in which he endorsed the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset,” during which he described the Covid-19 pandemic as providing the “opportunity for a reset.” The WEF believes in global governance and in global wealth redistribution, arguing that capitalism is inequitable even though its members are responsible for that wealth-creating system.

Trudeau has been a keynote speaker at the WEF twice since becoming PM.  Deputy PM and Finance Minister Freeland and former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney are listed as members of its board of trustees.  One of its earliest supporters was the late Canadian globalist, Maurice Strong.  The Great Reset Initiative was the theme of the WEF’s 2021 meeting held in Lucerne, Switzerland.  The Initiative argues that the pandemic and climate change demonstrate the need for global governance because individual nations are incapable of addressing these effectively or equitably under capitalism. Here again is precisely what Nock wrote about 90 years ago, but taken to a new extreme. No longer should individual sovereign nation states exist. Now we must have a world government, a global state to govern “post-nation” states—which is how our PM has described Canada: a nation without a core identity.

The UN Agenda 2030 is indistinguishable from The Great Reset. Its mantra is “you will own nothing, but you will be happy.”  To get there, it is necessary to dismantle capitalism by disarming, dispossessing, and destroying the once strong and free Canadian citizen. Weaponizing a faux health crisis as a means by which to eliminate the ability of workers to work, to maintain private property, and to accumulate wealth is a rather effective strategy to reach our PM’s stated objective of deconstructing Canada.

Can there still be any doubt that the most oppressed Canadian minority is the individual, and that our greatest enemy is blind faith in a benign state  even when it plunders and oppresses individuals in the collective public interest?  H.L. Mencken expressed this perilous state of affairs back in 1926:

The State has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a state religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot.  But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.

Frontier senior fellow Leighton Grey Q.C. is a lawyer practicing in Alberta and B.C.   He is also a status Indian whose Great Grandfather was once the Hereditary Chief of the Carry the Kettle or Jack Band at Sintaluta, Saskatchewan.  

Source: Frontier Centre For Public Policy

To The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Honourable David Lametti P.C.,Q.C.,MP

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Dear Sir:

I have a copy of a letter you sent to a friend of mine concerning your Government’s unconstitutional covid actions. 

You try to defend the indefensible. 

You say :

‘It is important to note that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows governments to balance the rights of individuals with the interests of society by permitting justifiable limits on guaranteed rights and freedoms. This means that when a government limits individual rights during a pandemic, it must only take actions that are a reasonable and proportionate response to the risks to the health and safety of Canadians.’ 

I guess you are referring to Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . 

‘1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.’

What a contrast ! Your statement and the actual section. 

First , as the last living First Minister that helped craft the Charter , I must inform you that the intent of Section 1 disqualifies it from being applicable in our present circumstance . 

This Section was intended in a circumstance where the country was in peril , like a war or insurrection. A virus which has a recovery rate of 99% and a fatality rate of well below 1% hardly qualifies as a threat to the existence of the country . This is especially the case when alternatives such as early treatment ,adherence to the Great Barrington Declaration principles , and following already established emergency measures plans , would mean no threat to hospital or medical capacity and ,therefore , no so called emergency. 

Secondly, even for arguments sake if Section 1 did apply , the four tests outlined , demonstrably justify, by law, reasonable limits and consistent with a free and democratic society, have not been met by any Government. 

Take, for example,  ‘demonstrably justify ‘. I note in your reply that you omitted ‘demonstrably’ . This was deliberately inserted to ensure that Governments would have to ‘ go out of their way’ to show justification like , for example , a cost benefit analysis. No Government has done this.

Thirdly, I also note that you conveniently used the word ‘pandemic’ . There is no such word in Section 1. And reasonable is not the phrase in Section 1 , it is ‘reasonable limits prescribed by law’, a quite different meaning than reasonable and proportionate . Where are the reasonable limits in law ?

The meaning of Section 1 has been garbled and construed beyond its simple meaning. 

In summary:

  1. Section 1 does not apply in this circumstance since there is no threat to the state .
  2. Even if one tried to make it apply, the four tests have not been met. 

Therefore , the Governments have acted unconstitutionally, in violation of Canada’s Supreme Law .

Furthermore, if such a circumstance was applicable the first ministers would not not have bothered with putting the freedoms and rights in the Constitution . They would have just said put these in an Act of Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures. 

The whole idea was to make individual rights and freedoms permanent , that is in The Constitution, not temporary like the Bill of Rights of 1960 , an Act of the Federal Parliament. 

This was a National action not Federal or Provincial action. The essential written glue of the Country 

By definition , then , any override of such rights must only be in the most dire of circumstances. 

One last point if I may: there is no reference in your reply of the two principles that under gird the Charter , the first words of the Charter : the supremacy of God and the rule of law. It is in the context of these principles that the Charter must be interpreted .

It is clear then that the Charter , its principles at the beginning , and the following provisions of individual freedoms and rights have been violated. 

It is also clear that courts have gone beyond their authority , making new laws , rather than interpreting the existing ones , your reply is a prime example, using court’s creation of new meanings and words , the antithesis of the words written.  

Hon.  A. Brian Peckford P.C. 

Parksville, BC

Last Living First Minister Who Helped Craft The Constitution Act In Which  the Charter Is Located. 

Chair, Taking Back Our Freedoms —www.tbof.ca

Boris Johnson Eases Covid Rules As His Party Tries to Get Rid Of Him

So do you trust Boris or any of them? Not me.

Boris is in trouble with his party. He had to do something.

So these new easing measures?

They were all wrong to start with and just easing some does not make anything right. He should admit that he was wrong and restore all rights and freedoms and protect the vulnerable. All these leaders must go and the system reformed so this kind of power and abuse is stopped in its tracks if it ever rears its ugly head again . Nothing less will do.

Here is the CTV New Story .

LONDON — Face masks will no longer be mandatory in public places and schools in England and COVID-19 passports will be dropped for large events as infections level off in large parts of the country, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Wednesday.

Johnson told lawmakers that the restrictions were being eased because government scientists believed it was likely that the surge of infections prompted by the highly contagious Omicron variant “has now peaked nationally.”

While hospitals in northern England still are getting pressed by high caseloads and infections were still rising in schools, Johnson said hospital admissions and patients in intensive care units elsewhere in England were stabilizing or falling. The Government is longer advising people to work from home, and compulsory face masks will be scrapped in secondary school classrooms starting Thursday.

Mandatory COVID-19 passes will not be needed to gain entry to large-scale events beginning Jan. 27. Face masks will no longer be legally required anywhere in England as of that day.

“We will trust the judgment of the British people and no longer criminalize anyone who chooses not to wear one,” Johnson said.

The restrictions were introduced in December to slow the rapid spread of the omicron variant and buy time for the population to get their booster vaccine shot.

Johnson said Wednesday that more than 90% of those over age 60 in the U.K. have had booster shots.

Official figures showed that COVID-19 infections have dropped in most parts of the U.K. for the first time since early December. The government reported 108,069 new cases on Wednesday, about half the daily number recorded over the holidays.

The requirement for those infected to self-isolate for five full days remains, but Johnson said that measure will also end in the coming weeks. He said while the self-isolation rule expires on March 24, he will seek to scrap it earlier if the virus data continues to improve.

Johnson and Health Secretary Sajid Javid both suggested that the government is planning for a post-pandemic period when it can treat COVID-19 more like the flu.

“There will soon come a time when we can remove the legal requirement to self-isolate altogether, just as we don’t place legal obligations on people to isolate if they have flu,” Johnson said.

Nonetheless, Johnson urged people to remain cautious in the last weeks of winter and stressed that the pandemic was “not over.”

The news was welcomed by businesses, especially those relying on workers re-populating city centers, as well as hospitality and tourism. But some said officials need to give more details about their plans to cope with the coronavirus in the longer term. Johnson’s spokesman said the government would publish such a plan “shortly.”

‘There’s a vital need now for greater consistency in how we live with the virus in the longer term. Swinging back and forth between restrictions and normality has been damaging,” said Matthew Fell, chief policy director of the Confederation of British Industry.

Scotland and Wales, which set their own public health rules, have also announced similar easing of restrictions.

Britain has the second-worst pandemic death toll in Europe after Russia, with over 153,000 confirmed virus-related deaths.