“Swiss Policy Research (SPR) is an independent research and information project on geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media. The menus above and the page overview are available for navigation. If you have any questions or feedback, please do not hesitate to contact the research group.”
This is the list of their fact compilation, which I found quite useful:
Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment (regularly updated).
- Facts about covid
- Covid vaccines
- Face masks [below]
- Early treatment [below]
- Coronavirus origin
- Covid PCR tests
- Covid fatality rates
- “Vaccine passports” [below]
Covid Vaccine Adverse Events
An overview of severe covid vaccine adverse events.
Please note: SPR only covers vaccine-related issues that are of global importance. To study verified case reports of vaccine-related injuries and deaths, see Covid Vaccine Injuries (18+).
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an auto-immune neurological disease causing muscle weakness and paralysis, usually starting in the feet and hands, with about 20% of people still unable to walk at 6 months, and a fatality rate of about 5% (due to respiratory failure). Back in 1976, the US swine flu vaccination campaign was stopped due to an increased risk of GBS.
In the UK, close to 500 cases of post-vaccination GBS have already been reported (due to under-reporting, the true figure is likely higher); in the US, there are already more than 5000 reported cases of post-vaccination GBS. As with many other covid vaccine adverse events, GBS may affect people at low risk of severe covid (e.g. students), or even people who already had covid.
The following video shows a woman affected by post-vaccination GBS and seizures (more):https://videopress.com/embed/TOZBwmaS?hd=1&loop=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=1
US authorities have argued that covid vaccines “appear to be completely safe for pregnant women” (NIH) and “are thought not to be a risk to lactating people or their breastfeeding babies” (CDC). However, the US VAERS system counts already close to 2,000 post-vaccination miscarriages, and it has been known since March that covid vaccines, or the spike protein they produce, may get into breast milk and sicken or kill a baby (e.g. by causing internal bleeding or allergic reactions).
In addition, by September 2021, more than 30,000 British women had reported post-vaccination menstrual disorders, such as excessive bleeding, and some first cases of possible post-vaccination birth defects (such as cardiac anomalies) have also been reported. Regarding female fertility, it is too early to know if covid vaccines might have any impact.
Back in March, SPR first covered a “murky wave of heart attacks” and an increase in post-vaccination all-cause mortality in Israel. In early June, Israel confirmed that mRNA vaccines may cause heart inflammation and heart attacks, especially in young people. On June 11, the US CDC announced an “emergency meeting” to discuss post-vaccination heart inflammation in young people.
Post-vaccination myocarditis may also affect athletes and may lead to sudden cardiac arrest. For instance, the cardiac arrest of Danish soccer player Christian Eriksen may have been due to vaccination (a club manager denied this, but there is still no confirmation by Eriksen or his physicians). Several other young athletes collapsed shortly after vaccination.
According to a US study, in healthy male adolescents the risk of post-vaccination myocarditis is about five times higher than the risk of covid hospitalization. In the Canadian province of Ontario, more than 100 youth were sent to hospital for vaccine-related heart problems. In both Israel and the United States, post-vaccination all-cause mortality in young adults has increased significantly.
Blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms continue to be major vaccine adverse events, especially after adenovector covid vaccines (AstraZeneca, Johnson&Johnson). Several countries have already stopped the use of adenovector vaccines altogether or in non-senior citizens. Most recently, Italy took this decision, too, after several young women died.
Life-threatening blood clots have also affected athletes; notable examples include a US elite runner and a professional basketball player in Germany, who required emergency brain surgery. A 44-year-old BBC moderator died due to blood clots and cerebral bleeding caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine. Several cases of leg amputations due to vaccine-induced blood clots have also been reported.
Of note, the risk of blood clots may significantly increase during air travel. British Airways confirmed the death of three of their pilots, aged 30 to 55, shortly after vaccination with AstraZeneca.
Brain MRI of a vaccine-induced cerebral sinus venous thrombosis and cerebral hemorrhage (brain bleed) in a 32-year-old woman (more):
Severe skin reactions have been reported quite frequently after covid vaccinations. Such reactions may be due to an immune response affecting blood vessels in the skin (eryhtema multiforme), or due to a vaccine-induced bleeding disorder (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura).
Covid vaccines may lead to bleeding or inflammation in the eyes and, in severe cases, to blindness. In the UK, several hundred cases of post-vaccination blindness have been reported. In the US, about 1,500 reports to the VAERS system mention post-vaccination blindness.
Bell’s palsy is a unilateral facial paralysis that may last for up to six months. By September 2021, about 8,000 cases of post-vaccination Bell’s palsy had been reported to the US VAERS system, but the real number of cases is likely in the tens of thousands.
Video of a woman affected by post-vaccination Bell’s palsy (more):https://videopress.com/embed/oGEDp5UI?hd=1&loop=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=1
Reports of post-vaccination shingles (i.e. varicella zoster virus reactivation) have been quite frequent: by August 2021, about 8,000 cases of post-vaccination shingles had been reported to the US VAERS system (the true figure may be close to 100,000). Varicella zoster virus reactivation may occur due to temporary vaccine-induced immune suppression (lymphocytopenia); about 20% of shingles patients develop a type of long-lasting neurological pain called postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).
The vaccine-induced reactivation of other latent virus infections, including human papilloma virus (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), has also been reported.
See also: Shots and shingles: What do they tell us? (Doctors for Covid Ethics)
New onset of tinnitus is a rather frequently reported adverse event of covid vaccines: by August 2021, more than 10,000 cases of post-vaccination tinnitus had been reported to the US VAERS system. In addition, several thousand cases of deafness or sudden hearing loss have been reported.
Of note, the Johnson & Johnson covid vaccine clinical trial had already included six cases of post-vaccination tinnitus, but the US FDA later ruled that they were ‘unrelated to the shot’.
In general, tinnitus may be caused by neuro-inflammation or blood vessel disorders, such as endothelial dysfunction. This may explain how covid vaccines, which produce the coronavirus spike protein, can trigger temporary or even permanent tinnitus.
In addition to tinnitus, there are also numerous reports of post-vaccination dizziness and vertigo, which may be due to immune reactions affecting the vestibular system in the inner ear.
Video: Watch an ABC report on post-vaccination tinnitus (6 minutes)
Covid vaccinations can cause a potentially life-threatening anaphylactic (allergic) shock. People affected by an anaphylactic shock typically collapse shortly after vaccination. According to some estimates, anaphylactic shocks after covid vaccines are about 100 times more frequent than after other vaccines (one in ten thousand versus one in a million).
Video of an anaphylactic shock immediately after covid vaccination (more):https://videopress.com/embed/WcAEasmC?hd=1&loop=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=1
There are increasing reports, both by patients and by doctors, of rapid tumor growth and newly discovered cancer in the days or weeks after covid vaccination. Some of these cases are certainly unrelated to the vaccination. However, it is well established that covid vaccines may cause a temporary immune suppression (lymphocytopenia), which in turn might influence tumor growth (similar to the reactivation of varicella zoster virus, described above).
In contrast, there is currently no evidence that covid vaccines themselves – i.e. the mRNA, nano-lipid particles or the spike protein – are carcinogenic (i.e. cancer-causing).
Video: Clinical pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole describes a post-vaccination increase in certain types of cancer. Some of these cases might be due to delayed diagnosis during lockdowns. (HFI, 08/21)https://videopress.com/embed/ZhB0XP9H?hd=1&loop=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=1
Several reports by doctors and published case studies suggest that covid vaccinations may trigger new-onset multiple sclerosis or an acute multiple sclerosis relapse, as well as other neuro-inflammatory conditions (e.g. transverse myelitis), typically within days of vaccination. A possible cause for these neurological auto-immune reactions is antigenic cross-reactivity.
Image: Post-vaccination MS brain lesions in a previously healthy 26-year-old woman (more):
By August 2021, post-vaccination appendicitis has been mentioned in about 1,000 reports to the US VAERS system. According to the US CDC, “the most common serious adverse events in the vaccine [trial] group which were numerically higher than in the placebo group were appendicitis, acute myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident.” Appendicitis might occur due to vaccine-induced immune suppression or due to vaccine-induced mesenteric venous micro-thrombosis.
Covid vaccination was thought to prevent pediatric inflammatory multi-system syndrome (PIMS), a rare condition associated with covid in children. Instead, it turned out that covid vaccines may themselves trigger PIMS, which is most likely caused by an immune reaction to the spike protein. Vaccine-induced PIMS was first noticed in Israel and was later confirmed by EMA.
Several serious adverse events were already observed during official covid vaccine trials, but were discarded as “unrelated”. An editor of the British Medical Journal noted that the Pfizer vaccine trial had excluded, without explanation, five times more people from the vaccine group than from the control group. In the Pfizer vaccine trial for adolescents, as 12-year-old girl suffered permanent paralysis, but Pfizer reported her case as mere “abdominal pain”.
To study verified case reports of vaccine-related deaths and injuries, see:
People with long-term health issues after covid vaccination (see Covid Vaccine Reactions). On Facebook, a group called “Covid Vaccine Victims” had 120,000 members before it got shut down [but can be found here now] https://videopress.com/embed/qeOJezn2?hd=1&loop=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=1
“Hearing without listening”: At FDA hearing on coronavirus vaccine, the chair cut off questions and limited debate. (One minute video, The Defender)https://videopress.com/embed/iFHuVD1u?hd=1&loop=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=1
- Vaccines: Successes and Controversies (15 documentaries)
Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence
Updated: September 2021
First published: July 2020
Share on: Twitter / Facebook
Select LanguageEnglishDutchFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.
So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
- A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. (Source)
- A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. (Source)
- A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” (Source)
- A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no high-quality evidence in favor of face masks and recommended their use only based on the ‘precautionary principle’. (Source)
- A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
- A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)
- An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public Health found “no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.” (Source)
- A July 2021 experimental study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 12%, not enough to prevent infections. (Source)
- An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). (Source)
- An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. (Source)
- A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
- An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)
For a review of studies claiming face masks are effective, see section F) below.
In many states, coronavirus infections strongly increased after mask mandates had been introduced. The following charts show the typical examples of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the UK, California and Hawaii. Furthermore, a direct comparison between US states with and without mask mandates indicates that mask mandates have made no difference. (Charts: Y. Weiss)
For an updated version of these charts, see the postscript below.
In January 2021, the German state of Bavaria was one of the first places in the world to mandate N95/FFP2 masks in most public settings. A comparison with other German states, which required cloth or medical masks, indicates that even N95/FFP2 masks made no difference.
- There is increasing evidence that the novel coronavirus is transmitted, at least in indoor settings, not only by droplets but also by smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, most masks cannot filter out aerosols (see video analysis below): over 90% of aerosols penetrate or bypass the mask and fill a medium-sized room within minutes.
- The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence but “political lobbying”: “We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.” (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent).
- To date, the only randomized controlled trial (RCT) on face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting found no statistically significant benefit (see above). However, three major journals refused to publish this study, delaying its publication by several months.
- An analysis by the US CDC found that 85% of people infected with the new coronavirus reported wearing a mask “always” (70.6%) or “often” (14.4%). Compared to the control group of uninfected people, always wearing a mask did not reduce the risk of infection.
- Researchers from the University of Minnesota found that the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 is just 300 virions (virus particles), whereas a single minute of normal speaking may generate more than 750,000 virions, making face masks unlikely to prevent an infection.
- In the US state of Kansas, the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health department tried to manipulate the official statistics and data presentation.
- Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations didn’t reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
- During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of face masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, but they made no difference.
- The initially low coronavirus infection rate in some Asian countries was not due to masks, but due to very rapid border controls. For instance, Japan, despite its widespread use of face masks, had experienced its most recent influenza epidemic just one year prior to the covid pandemic.
- Early in the pandemic, the advocacy group “masks4all” argued that Czechia had few infections thanks to the early use of masks. In reality, the coronavirus simply hadn’t engulfed Eastern Europe yet; a few months later, Czechia had one of the highest infection rates in the world.
In the following video, Dr. Theodore Noel explains the facemask aerosol issue.https://videopress.com/embed/4egEyh2b?hd=1&loop=0&autoPlay=0&permalink=1
Some recent studies argued that face masks are indeed effective against the new coronavirus and could at least prevent the infection of other people. However, most of these studies suffer from poor methodology and sometimes show the opposite of what they claim to show.
Typically, these studies ignore the effect of other measures, the natural development of infection rates, changes in test activity, or they compare places with different epidemiological conditions. Studies performed in a lab or as a computer simulation often aren’t applicable to the real world.
- A meta-study in the journal Lancet, commissioned by the WHO, claimed that masks “could” lead to a reduction in the risk of infection, but the studies considered mainly N95 respirators in a hospital setting, not cloth masks in a community setting, the strength of the evidence was reported as “low”, and experts found numerous flaws in the study. Professor Peter Jueni, epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, called the WHO study “essentially useless”.
- A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections in three global hotspots (including New York City), but the study did not take into account the natural decrease in infections and other simultaneous measures. The study was so flawed that over 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.
- A US study claimed that US counties with mask mandates had lower Covid infection and hospitalization rates, but the authors had to withdraw their study as infections and hospitalizations increased in many of these counties shortly after the study was published.
- A German study claimed that the introduction of mandatory face masks in German cities had led to a decrease in infections. But the data did not support this claim: in some cities there was no change, in others a decrease, in others an increase in infections (see graph below). The city of Jena was an ‘exception’ only because it simultaneously introduced the strictest quarantine rules in Germany, but the study did not mention this.
- A Canadian study claimed that countries with mandatory masks had fewer deaths than countries without mandatory masks. But the study compared countries with very different demographic structures and covered only the first few weeks of the pandemic.
- A review by the University of Oxford claimed that face masks are effective, but it was based on studies about SARS-1 and in health care settings, not in community settings.
- A review by members of the lobby group ‘Masks for All’, published in the journal PNAS, claimed that masks are effective as a source control against aerosol transmission in the community, but the review provided no real-world evidence supporting this proposition.
- A study published in Nature Communications in June 2021 claimed that masks reduced the risk of infection by 62%, but the study relied on numerous questionable modelling assumptions and on self-reported online survey results, not on actual measurements.
- A large study run in Bangladesh claimed that face masks “reduced symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections” by 0.08% (ARR) and only in people over 50. The study was designed and organized so poorly that it “ended before it even began”, according to one reviewer.
Wearing masks for a prolonged period of time may not be harmless, as the following evidence shows:
- The WHO warns of various “side effects” such as difficulty breathing and skin rashes.
- Tests conducted by the University Hospital of Leipzig in Germany have shown that face masks significantly reduce the resilience and performance of healthy adults.
- A German psychological study with about 1000 participants found “severe psychosocial consequences” due to the introduction of mandatory face masks in Germany.
- The Hamburg Environmental Institute warned of the inhalation of chlorine compounds in polyester masks as well as problems in connection with face mask disposal.
- The European rapid alert system RAPEX has already recalled 70 mask models because they did not meet EU quality standards and could lead to “serious risks”.
- A study by the University of Muenster in Germany found that on N95 (FFP2) masks, Sars-CoV-2 may remain infectious for several days, thus increasing the risk of self-contamination.
- In China, several children who had to wear a mask during gym classes fainted and died; the autopsies found a sudden cardiac arrest as the probable cause of death. In the US, a car driver wearing an N95 (FFP2) mask fainted and crashed due to CO2 intoxication.
Video: A mask-wearing, 19-year-old US athlete collapsing during an 800-meter run (April 2021):https://www.youtube.com/embed/AmEzfG3uJX8?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent
Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this proposition. If the coronavirus is indeed transmitted via indoor aerosols, face masks are unlikely to be protective. Health authorities should therefore not assume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.
A long-term analysis shows that infections have been driven primarily by seasonal and endemic factors, whereas mask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact (charts: IanMSC).
The Face Mask Folly in Retrospect
It has been known for decades that face masks don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics. Why has much of the world nonetheless fallen for the face mask folly? Ten reasons.
1) The droplet model
Many ‘health authorities’ have relied on the obsolete ‘droplet model’ of virus transmission. If this model were correct, face masks would indeed work. But in reality, respiratory droplets – which by definition cannot be inhaled – play almost no role in virus transmission. Instead, respiratory viruses are transmitted via much smaller aerosols, as well as, possibly, some object surfaces. Face masks don’t work against either of these transmission routes.
2) The Asian paradox
During the first year of the pandemic, several East Asian countries had a very low coronavirus infection rate, and many ‘health experts’ falsely assumed that this was due to face masks. In reality, it was due to very rapid border controls in some countries neighboring China as well as a combination of metabolic and immunologic factors reducing transmission rates. Nevertheless, many East Asian countries eventually got overwhelmed by the coronavirus, too (see charts below).
3) The Czech mirage
In the spring of 2020, the Czech Republic was one of the first European countries that introduced face masks. Because the Czech infection rate initially stayed low, many ‘health experts’ falsely concluded that this was due to the masks. In reality, most of Eastern Europe simply missed the first wave of the epidemic. A few months later, the Czech Republic had the highest infection rate in the world, but by then, much of the world had already introduced face mask mandates.
4) Fake science
For decades, studies have shown that face masks don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics. But with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and increasing political pressure (see below), suddenly studies appeared claiming the opposite. In reality, these studies were a mixture of confounded observational data, unrealistic modelling and lab results, and outright fraud. The most influential fraudulent study certainly was the WHO-commissioned meta-study published in The Lancet.
5) Asymptomatic transmission
Another factor contributing to the implementation of mask mandates was the notion of ‘asymptomatic transmission’. The idea was that everybody should be wearing a mask because even people without symptoms might spread the virus. The importance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission is still a matter of debate – up to half of all transmission might occur prior to symptom onset –, but either way, face masks simply don’t work against aerosol transmission.
6) Political pressure
Several political factors contributed to the implementation of mask mandates. First, some politicians simply wanted to “do something” against the pandemic; second, some politicians thought face masks might have a “psychological effect” and might “remind” citizens to stay cautious (if anything, it had the opposite effect: creating a ‘false sense of security’); third, some politicians used mask mandates to enforce compliance and pressure the population into accepting mass vaccination.
In addition, there was a vicious circle involving science and politics: politicians claimed to “follow the science”, but scientists followed politics. For instance, the WHO famously admitted that their updated mask guidelines were in response to “political lobbying”, not new evidence. The most influential lobby group was “masks4all”, founded by a “Young Leader” of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
7) The media
Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the ‘mass media’ amplified the fraudulent science and the political pressure driving mask mandates. Only some independent media outlets and some truly independent experts questioned the validity of the underlying evidence. However, their voices got suppressed as dubious “fact checking” organizations eagerly enforced official guidelines and throttled or censored many articles and videos critical of face masks.
8) “Surgeons wear masks”
Surgeons wear masks, so they must be effective, right? This was another notion contributing to the face mask misunderstanding. In reality, surgeons wear masks not against viruses, but against much larger bacteria, but more importantly, studies have long shown that even surgeons’ masks make no difference in terms of bacterial wound infections.
9) Misleading memes
To convince low-IQ social media users of the effectiveness of face masks, several unscientific memes were created. The most notorious one probably was the “peeing into your pants” meme, shared by many ‘health experts’ (really). Many of these memes exploited the fact that most people simply don’t realize how small and ubiquitous viral aerosols really are.
10) Doubling down
After mask mandates had been implemented globally and hundreds of billions of dollars had been spent on masks, it soon became obvious – once more – that masks simply don’t work against respiratory virus epidemics (see charts below). But at that point, neither politicians, nor ‘health experts’, nor duped citizens who had to wear them for months wanted to admit this anymore.
Instead, some ‘health authorities’ doubled down and enforced outdoor masking (even on beaches), double-masking, or N95/FFP2 masking, to no avail. The one novel scientific insight produced during the coronavirus pandemic was that even N95/FFP2 mask mandates have made no difference at all.
Sweden: The exception that proved the rule
Only very few countries in the world have resisted the face mask folly. The most famous example certainly is Sweden (see charts below), which has also resisted the lockdown experiment. Naturally, Swedish coronavirus mortality has remained below the European average. But the many vicious attacks against Sweden by much of the international media showed just how difficult it has been to escape the global madness and follow the real science during this bizarre pandemic.
The following charts show that infections have been driven primarily by seasonal and endemic factors, whereas mask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact (charts: IanMSC).
“The more masks fail, the more we need them.” (IanMSC)
Covid Vaccines: A Shot in the Dark?
New data from Israel shows that within six months, covid vaccine protection against severe disease in people over 65 has decreased from 95% to 55%. Will boosters save the day?
New data provided by the Israeli Ministry of Health shows that within half a year, covid vaccine protection against severe disease in people over 65 has decreased from about 95% to about 55% (see chart above). This significant decrease in protection is likely due to rapidly declining serum antibody levels as well as partial immune evasion by the Indian Delta variant.
A decrease from 95% to 55% means that the residual risk has increased by a factor of almost ten. In people over 80 – who account for the majority of covid deaths in Western countries – vaccine protection against severe disease may be even lower, as about one third of them doesn’t produce any neutralizing antibodies in response to vaccination (so-called immunosenescence).
In July, data from both Israel and the UK already showed that protection against infection and transmission dropped below 20% after half a year, and viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people were the same. Taken together, this data explains why Israel and some other highly vaccinated countries currently experience a steep Delta infection and hospitalization wave.
In contrast, Israeli data confirms that a previous infection continues to offer a high level of protection against renewed infection (about 90%, see chart below), possibly due to broad mucosal and T-cell immunity. Hence the rate of immunity achieved in a country by natural infections, but not by vaccinations, may be a key metric to monitor.
By June 2021, this value was just 9% in Israel, about 10% to 30% in Western European countries, about 10% to 50% in US states, over 50% in India, parts of Eastern Europe and some Latin American countries, but very low in countries that successfully introduced early border controls, such as Norway, Finland, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand (see our updated seroprevalence overview).
Some official claims that covid vaccines are still providing very high protection (above 90%) against severe disease are based on outdated (pre-Delta) data, whereas contrarian claims that covid vaccines provide no protection at all ignore the intermediate protective effect described above.
Indeed, countries with a low vaccination rate affected by the Delta variant – such as India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia and South Africa – have all experienced record levels of covid deaths, whereas countries still protected by vaccination (e.g. in Europe) have seen markedly lower death rates.
(Regarding the Russian Sputnik vaccine, it increasingly looks like the manufacturer may have faked official vaccine efficacy data published in The Lancet; in fact, it looks like the manufacturer may even have planned beforehand to fake the efficacy data.)
In sum, one may conclude that protection provided by covid vaccines is quite similar to protection provided by influenza vaccines, which typically reaches about 20% to 70%; is quite short-lived (even within a flu season); is generally lower in senior citizens; and usually can’t prevent transmission.
Given the inability of covid vaccines to prevent infection and transmission (beyond a few weeks), it is evident that so-called “vaccination passports” and vaccination mandates – even for health care workers and other high-exposure jobs – have no medical or epidemiological justification. Moreover, it is evident that the “zero covid strategy” – even theoretically – is no longer an option.
In view of declining vaccine protection, Israel has already started rolling out a “booster shot”. While preliminary data confirms that a “booster shot” does indeed raise protection against infection to levels above 80%, the booster strategy will require at least one vaccination per year, which raises significant concerns regarding serious adverse events (updated) and long-term health effects, as well as the potential risk of antibody-dependent disease enhancement (ADE).
Despite this rather uncertain outlook, the US FDA intends to fully authorize the Pfizer mRNA vaccine by the end of August and without public discussion. This may well be a political decision, as full authorization is a precondition to (officially) enact vaccination mandates and vaccination passports. Ultimately, such “passports” might serve as a platform for a global digital biometric ID system.
Serum antibody levels after vaccination with Pfizer (blue) and AstraZeneca (red).
Green is previously infected people (with and without additional vaccination), which account for about 10% of the Israeli population, but only 1% of infections; dark blue is fully/partially vaccinated people; light blue is unvaccinated people without prior infection; the vaccination rate is 60%.
In countries with a low vaccination rate, delta deaths have reached new record levels.
Coronavirus variants escaping from major antibody classes 1 to 3. Read more.
[NB – In case you do catch Covid-19, below are the kinds of treatments one can take if getting an experimental mRNA injection is not considered a good option; if I got it, I would have a 99% chance of recovery, given my age and condition, and afterwards would have 13 times the degree of protection than provided by the ‘vaccine’ and for a longer time – but without the adverse effects.]
On the Treatment of Covid-19
Based on the available scientific evidence and current clinical experience, the SPR Collaboration recommends that physicians and authorities consider the following covid-19 treatment protocol for the prophylactic and early treatment of people at high risk or high exposure.
Numerous international studies have shown that prophylactic and early treatment can significantly reduce the risk of severe and fatal covid-19 (see scientific references below).
Note: Patients are asked to consult a doctor.
- Vitamin D3 (2000 IU per day)
- Vitamin C (500mg per day)
- Zinc (20mg to 30mg per day)
- Quercetin (250mg per day)
- Mouthwashes and nasal spray
- Zinc (75mg to 100mg per day)
- Quercetin (500mg per day)
- Aspirin (325mg per day)*
- Bromhexine (48mg per day)*
- Arginine (3g to 5g per day)
- Artemisia annua (extract)
- Mouthwashes and nasal spray
- High-dose calcifediol*
- Sulodexide (LMW heparin)*
- Fluvoxamine or cyproheptadine*
- Steroids: Prednisone or budesonide*
- Monoclonal antibody treatment
- Anti-androgen treatment
- Ivermectin (see below)
- The early treatment phase includes post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).
- Bromhexine is available prescription-free in most of Europe, but not in the US.
- Steroids and cyproheptadine are only used if respiratory symptoms develop.
- Counterindications and maximum dosages must be observed for all drugs.
- On hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), see Severe covid: A postviral autoimmune attack
- FLCCC Covid-19 Prophylaxis and Treatment Protocols (FLCCC)
- Early Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19 (McCullough et al.)
- Covid-19 Early Treatment Study Overview (c19early.com)
Results of trials and studies on the early treatment of covid.
Ivermectin (an antiparasitic drug) has anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties.
- Several controlled and observational studies on ivermectin found anti-viral and anti-inflammatory effects and a significant reduction in covid morbidity and mortality.
- However, once low-quality studies are excluded from the analysis, the benefit is no longer statistically significant, although a limited benefit might still be possible.
- Due to a lack of large high-quality trials, the WHO, the US FDA and the European EMA do not recommend using ivermectin against covid outside of clinical trials.
- Read more: The Ivermectin Debate (SPR)
Zinc inhibits RNA polymerase activity of coronaviruses and thus inhibits virus replication. Quercetin (a plant polyphenol) supports the cellular absorption of zinc and has additional anti-viral properties.
- A Spanish study found that low plasma zinc levels (below 50mcg/dl) increased the risk of in-hospital death of covid patients by 130%.
- US studies found an 84% decrease in hospitalizations and a 45% decrease in mortality based on risk-stratified early treatment with zinc and HCQ.
- A US case study reported a rapid resolution of covid symptoms, such as shortness of breath, based on early outpatient treatment with high-dose zinc.
- An Italian randomized trial found a significantly reduced hospitalization rate and mortality in covid patients receiving quercetin.
Bromhexine (a mucolytic cough medication) inhibits the expression of cellular TMPRSS2 protease and thus the entry of the virus into the cell, as first described in 2017.
- A randomized Iranian trial with 78 patients found a decrease in intensive care treatments of 82%, a decrease in intubations of 89%, and a decrease in deaths of 100%.
- A Chinese trial found a 50% reduction in intubations in patients receiving bromhexine.
- A Russian study found a faster recovery in hospitalized patients receiving bromhexine.
- A Russian prophylaxis study found a reduction in symptomatic covid from 20% to 0%.
Vitamin D3 supports and improves the immune system response to infections.
- A Spanish randomized controlled trial found a 96% reduction in the risk of requiring intensive care in patients receiving high-dose vitamin D (100,000 IU).
- Another Spanish study with 930 hospitalized patients found a 87% reduction in ICU treatment and a 79% reduction in mortality in patients receiving high-dose vitamin D.
- A study in a French nursing home found an 89% decrease in mortality in residents who had received high-dose vitamin D either shortly before or during covid-19 disease.
- A retrospective British study of approximately 1000 hospitalized covid patients found an 80% reduction in mortality with high-dose vitamin D.
- A large Israeli study found a strong link between vitamin D deficiency and covid-19 severity.
- For an overview of all covid-19 vitamin D studies, see here.
Aspirin and heparin have anti-platelet and anti-thrombotic effects.
- A meta-study including 15,000 patients found a reduction in covid mortality of 53% in patients who were receiving aspirin as early or prophylactic treatment.
- A study published in PLOS One found a reduction in covid mortality at 30 days from 10.5% (control group) to 4.3% (with aspirin) in 70,000 US veterans taking aspirin.
- A retrospective US study with 400 patients found a reduction in ICU treatments by 43% and a reduction in mortality by 47% in the group of patients treated early with aspirin.
- A Mexican randomized controlled trial found a 40% reduction in hospitalization in patients receiving sulodexide (a heparin combination).
Arginine is an amino acid supporting endothelial function, immune regulation, and tissue repair.
- A small randomized controlled trial, published in The Lancet E-Clinical Medicine, found that hospitalized covid patients receiving 3g of arginine per day had a significantly reduced need of respiratory support at 10 days and a significantly shorter length of hospitalization.
- A metabolomic analysis in covid ICU patients, published in Critical Care Explorations, found that low levels of arginine very strongly predicted the risk of death.
- A report published in PNAS found that plasma arginine and arginine bioavailability were significantly lower in adult and pediatric covid patients compared to controls.
Artemisia annua plant extract has known antimalarial and antiviral properties.
- An in vitro study by the German Max Planck Institute, published in Nature Scientific Reports, found artemisia annua to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 at realistic doses.
- An in vitro study by US researchers, published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, found artemisia annua hot-water extracts to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 replication.
- In a small clinical trial, published in Antimicrobial Agents, the viral load decreased significantly faster in covid patients treated with artemisinin-piperaquine.
- In a 2005 in vitro study, published in Antiviral Research, artemisia annua was already identified as effective against the original SARS-1 virus.
- In Madagascar, the first country to apply artemisia annua extract against covid, covid mortality and excess mortality have remained very low, even for African standards.
- In a simulation study by a Harvard research group, the anti-malaria drug amodiaquine was identified as most effective against SARS-CoV-2 replication.
Mouthwashes and nasal sprays target the initial infection and viral replication.
- Several small studies found that mouthwashes (gargling) based on povidone-iodine and nasal sprays based on povidone-iodine or nitric oxide may prevent a coronavirus infection or reduce its duration or symptoms (more about this).
- The German Society for Hospital Hygiene (DGKH) recommends anti-viral mouthwashes and nasal sprays for prophylaxis and early treatment.
- Some observers argued that traditional nasal rinsing and gargling practices in South East Asia may have helped successfully limiting coronavirus infections in these countries.
- Israel started mass production of nasal sprays based on nitric oxide in early 2021.
Anti-androgen treatment inhibits the expression of the TMPRSS2 cellular protease used by SARS-CoV-2, which is driven by androgen hormones (i.e. male sexual hormones).
- A first randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial in Brazil found that proxalutamide reduced hospitalization rates in male patients by 91%.
- Another randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial in Brazil found that proxalutamide reduced mortality in hospitalized patients (male and female) by 78%.
- However, the two Brazilian trials have been criticized by other researchers.
- Previous studies found that men receiving anti-androgens – typically used against prostate cancer or hair loss – were at a much lower risk of severe covid.
These drugs inhibit serotonin-induced pulmonary vasoconstriction.
- The TOGETHER trial found that fluvoxamine outpatient treatment of covid patients reduced disease progression (hospitalizations or ER visits) significantly by 29%.
- The results of two preliminary US trials indicate that early treatment with fluvoxamine may reduce the risk of severe covid, hospitalization and death to near zero.
- Fluvoxamine and cyproheptadine target serotonin metabolism and serotonin-induced pulmonary vasoconstriction, which according to emerging evidence may be a key mechanism driving severe covid and covid-related respiratory failure.
- Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and reduces platelet serotonin concentration; cyproheptadine is a direct serotonin receptor antagonist.
Corticosteroids (e.g. prednisone, budesonide) reduce covid-related hyper-inflammation.
- A study by the University of Oxford, published in the Lancet, found a significant reduction in urgent care visits and hospitalizations in patients receiving budesonide (an asthma drug).
- The British PRINCIPLE trial found that budesonide accelerated recovery by 3 days and reduced hospitalizations and deaths from 10.3% to 8.5%.
- The early outpatient treatment protocol developed by McCullough et al. recommends the use of prednisone if (and only if) covid-related respiratory symptoms develop.
Antibody therapy is intended to inhibit viral replication.
- Monoclonal antibodies are ineffective in late treatment of covid, but very effective in early treatment. This is because severe covid is characterized by hyper-inflammation, not viral replication.
- Some monoclonal antibodies have lost their effectiveness against new virus variants.
- Convalescent plasma therapy has been shown to be ineffective in both early and late treatment of covid.
The early treatment of patients as soon as the first typical symptoms appear and even without a PCR test is essential to prevent progression of the disease. In contrast, isolating infected high-risk patients at home and without early treatment until they develop serious respiratory problems, as often happened during lockdowns, may be counterproductive.
People at high risk living in an epidemically active area should consider prophylactic treatment together with their doctor. The reason for this is the long incubation period of covid-19 (up to 14 days): when patients first notice that they contracted the disease, the viral load is already at a maximum and there are often only a few days left to react with an early treatment intervention.
Early treatment based on the above protocol is intended to avoid hospitalization. If hospitalization nevertheless becomes necessary, experienced ICU doctors recommend avoiding invasive ventilation (intubation) whenever possible and using oxygen therapy (HFNC) instead.
The Global ‘Vaccine Passport’ Agenda
Video: Bill Gates demanding ‘digital immunity proof’ in March 2020 (source)
Updated: August 2021
Published: February 2021
Share on: Twitter / Facebook
Select LanguageEnglishDutchFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
On the strategic implications of the coronavirus pandemic.
Overall, medical aspects are only the operational level of the coronavirus pandemic: in countries where the median age of covid deaths is above 80 years, the public health impact of the pandemic will be quite limited and primarily related to serious cases of ‘long covid’. Indeed, even the WHO recently acknowledged that the coronavirus pandemic “wasn’t necessarily the big one”.
The strategic level of the coronavirus pandemic, in contrast, is the one that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned of already in March 2020: the temporary pandemic may be used for a permanent expansion of global population surveillance and control. Since Snowden’s warning, both Apple and Google have inserted a Bluetooth-based ‘contact tracing’ interface – entirely useless for pandemic control – into the operating systems of three billion mobile phones.
Moreover, in a March 2020 TED Talk interview, billionaire vaccine investor Bill Gates already predicted – or rather, announced – that “eventually what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated person” and “so eventually there will be this digital immunity proof that will help facilitate the global reopening up.”
The latter, apodictic sentence was later edited out by the TED Talk producers, but a full audio version of the talk remained available and so the sentence could be inserted back in – see the video above.
Obviously, the ‘digital immunity proof’ proclaimed by Bill Gates is exactly what many countries – including Sweden – intend to introduce in the near future. Several governments intend to require ‘vaccine passports’ even for domestic activities, thus making them essentially mandatory. Besides Bill Gates, another major promoter of ‘vaccine passports’ is former British prime minister Tony Blair, whose “Institute for Global Change” received money from the Gates Foundation.
Such ‘vaccine passports’ are, moreover, a key component of the biometric ID2020 project run by the “Digital Identity Alliance”, which was founded by Bill Gates – via Microsoft and vaccine alliance GAVI – and the Rockefeller Foundation, and which is itself linked to the ‘Known Traveler’ program initiated by the World Economic Forum and the US Department of Homeland Security. The idea of using a pandemic to impose tighter top-down control, modeled after the Chinese ‘social credit’ system, was first described in a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation report (the so-called ‘lock step’ scenario).
Of note, the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum also sponsored the notorious ‘Event 201’ coronavirus pandemic simulation, held in October 2019 in New York, about one month after the likely emergence of the new coronavirus, but about two months before the public first learned of it. The Gates Foundation is also sponsoring Pentagon biodefense contractor “Eco Health Alliance”, which performed genetic coronavirus research together with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Interestingly, the Gates Foundation also sponsors many media outlets, most of which have exaggerated the risk of the new coronavirus to such an extent that large parts of the public overestimate its lethality by a factor of one hundred, according to scientific surveys.
From a medical perspective, ‘vaccine passports’ are neither necessary nor useful to end the coronavirus pandemic: similar to influenza, those who want to get (experimental) vaccine protection can do so anytime, but also similar to influenza, a vaccine may not protect against new virus variants. For these and other reasons, Dutch digital security and privacy professor, J.H. Hoepman, called covid vaccine passports “useless” and “an utter waste of time and effort”.
But Bill Gates and his powerful friends seem to think otherwise.
See also: ‘Crazy and evil’: Bill Gates surprised by pandemic conspiracies (Reuters, Jan. 2021)
By July 2021, data from Israel and Britain showed that covid vaccine protection against infection and transmission lasted only a few weeks; thus, the medical and epidemiological case for “vaccine passports” imploded. By August, it became clear that even protection against severe disease waned within a few months. Nevertheless, with the exception of some US states, many governments continue to implement “vaccination certificates” and “vaccination mandates”.