The Montserrat Reporter

Contribution 129/21 # 20

Is there an alternative to a quarrel of the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed, with the latter being blamed for the onward spreading of the epidemic?  (Can we travel to Montserrat without being forced to take vaccines?)

BRADES, Montserrat, September 17, 2021 – The breaking news on Friday, September 17 was that “the recently announced policy by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda requiring all arriving passengers to be COVID-19 vaccinated (at least partially), also applies to persons in transit to and from Montserrat.”^[1] It further seems that the acceptable vaccines for this are those used in Antigua, i.e. [1] AstraZeneca Vaccine, [2] Sputnik V from Russia, [3] Pfizer (though that obviously may be adjusted, e.g. Moderna, etc.).  This goes with the linked issuing of “vaccine passports” by Antigua, complete with QR codes that tie in with files on each vaxxed person. The only relief is the assurance that “the current arrangement for the acceptance of medical emergencies from Montserrat will remain unchanged.” Premier Farrell of Montserrat, has suggested the need for another gateway for travel to Montserrat. This cluster of developments, therefore, poses significant challenges for Montserratians wishing to travel who have concerns about vaccination, and about our onward relationship with Antigua.

A first concern is that here at TMR, we have already seen from the mainstream, official and credible sources, that both the vaxxed and unvaxxed can catch Covid-19 and can spread it, also both may suffer serious hospitalisation and adverse events.

Where, while for the moment the unvaxxed dominate in hospitalisation in our region including Antigua, in places like Israel – one of the most widely vaxxed countries in the world, some 80% – by August 15^th, 59% of those with serious or critical cases were “fully vaccinated,” and there are suggestions that a month later, the proportion is even higher.  This is the main reason why Israel has pushed for a third jab, and millions of Israelis have already taken it.^[3] The UK and USA are now beginning to follow that lead.

Similarly, the vaxxed are tested on arrival here and are quarantines, precisely because we know they can catch and transmit the disease. This reflects the “leaky,” “non-sterilising” nature of these vaccines, which do not reliably stop a new infection cold. There is also a challenge that the degree of protection rapidly fades after perhaps six months. Hence, talk of not only the third jab but of an onward train of jabs every year or even every six months.

So, plainly, there is only a questionable basis for discrimination based on the idea that vaccine protection makes such a difference that the travel bans and other coercive measures are justified. For instance, an eighteen-member FDA advisory panel in the USA just voted not to go for the third jab across the board,^[4] because of a lack of data and apparently also in part influenced by the known issue of heart damage for young men. As AP reported:

“. . . the advisory panel rejected 16-2, boosters for almost everyone. Members cited a lack of safety data on extra doses and also raised doubts about the value of mass boosters, rather than ones targeted to specific groups. Then, in an 18-0 vote, it endorsed extra shots for people 65 and older and those at risk of serious disease. Panel members also agreed that health workers and others who run a high risk of being exposed to the virus on the job should get boosters, too.”

Antigua’s authorities should be politely asked to explain the travel ban given the facts of breakthrough infection and concerns about known risks and long-term potential side effects.

A second concern is hardly less serious, and can be seen from the Antigua Vaccine Passport:

For, the use of a QR code means that camera-using scanners with network access can immediately connect to detailed stores of information called databases and can then draw out details on one’s health history, other personal information, financial facts, where one has gone, what one has done, etc. Of course, this can then be used to block entry or block one’s ability to buy or sell and more. That is, this feature is therefore a dangerous move towards what we can call the spy-and-control state.  Or, in terms of a well-known Bible text that warns of the dangers of such centralised control and discriminatory action against dissenters:

“Rev 13:16 [The second beast, from the Land] also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the [first] beast [from the Sea] or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666 [= Nero Caesar, first Roman Emperor to attack and persecute the church].” [NIV]

The Rev 13:16 – 17 concerns are obviously highly relevant: we are here seeing a rise of centralised, government control that can all too easily be exerted on where one may go, whether s/he can make a living, even what one may or may not buy. That is too much power for anyone to safely handle.

But, is there an alternative to pushing or even mandating vaccines to prevent a disaster that overwhelms our health services and wrecks our economy?

Yes, to see it, let’s compare Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, India, with their sister state, Kerala. Then, onward, with the USA:

By making aggressive, widespread early use of Ivermectin, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi were able to control and suppress the Delta strain surge and have now reduced new cases and deaths to very low numbers, despite having perhaps 6% of people there vaccinated. This included, for example, giving every family member of a house where a case occurred, preventative doses. Kerala instead, refused to make early use of Ivermectin then stopped it altogether. So, just as in the USA, case numbers did not dramatically fall there.

Let us look at trends with Uttar Pradesh (241 million) vs the USA (333 million), similarly:

This effect of widespread, early Ivermectin use has also occurred elsewhere, but that is being marginalised or even dismissed. But, it is clear from such data that there are low-cost, effective, credible treatments that should be used alongside targeted vaccinations and other measures.

Covid-19 is a solvable problem, solvable without resorting to drastic coercion and polarisation against the unvaxxed.  That is going to require that we re-think the heavily promoted conventional wisdom and shift to a balanced approach, involving preventative dosing of those at risk, early treatments, and vaccines. Such re-thinking is obviously a challenge but it is one we should face.

[1] See GoM https://www.gov.ms/2021/09/17/antiguas-vaccination-travel-policy-also-applies-to-in-transit-passengers-to-montserrat/?fbclid=IwAR1kb8zkZKDMY50Kq-aKfhuXaGZBxZVruzQGy1iiJyNAa_HVF7oCQPIWwuI#

[2] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/losing-patience-with-the-unvaxxed-vs-playing-with-the-fire-of-leaky-vaccines/

[3] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/the-emerging-covid-vax-booster-shot-train/

[4] See https://apnews.com/article/fda-panel-rejects-widespread-pfizer-booster-shots-1cd1cf6a5c5c02b63f8a7324807a59f1?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

Ben Claxton

Whilst approved vaccines have demonstrated their effectiveness in clinical trials and global data, they are not a 100 percent shield when coming into contact with COVID-19. According to, Adeel A. Butt, professor of medicine at Weill Medical College, real-world studies confirm that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are 95 percent effective in preventing infection after two doses.

The study, published in MedRxiv, identifies risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection at least 14 days after first vaccination and outlines characteristics of post-vaccination disease.

The King’s College London team looked at adults from the UK who had reported post-vaccination coronavirus infection between 8th December 2020 and 1st May 2021 via the COVID Symptom Study app.

By assessing the demographics of age, frailty, lifestyle factors and geographical locations with infection, the researchers revealed that “post-vaccination infection risk was substantially higher in older adults with frailty and in individuals living in most deprived areas.”

Risk was found to be lower in individuals with a healthy diet and without obesity.

READ MORE: Bowel cancer symptoms: The ‘sensation’ when having a poo – sign

Professor Penny Ward, visiting professor in pharmaceutical medicine at King’s College London, said of the research: “This report is one of the first to provide information on breakthrough cases of COVID detected post-vaccination drawn from the 4.5million respondents that provide daily data using the COVID Symptom Study app.”

Ward alluded to the fact that the app is a self-reporting tool, meaning that the data provided was not always daily, with a relative excess of female participants, so it is not completely representative of the UK.

On this, Ward said this does “not detract from the usefulness of the information provided, and we know from past experience that information provided by this group can be very helpful in providing early insight into public health policies.”

“In this case, the information provided is helpful in understanding the potential need for booster vaccinations in a proportion of the frail elderly as we approach winter,” Ward explained.

DON’T MISS: Where you live in England may determine your risk of dying from Covid – new study [STUDY]Vitamin B12 deficiency: Three symptoms that can lead to nerve damage – what to look for [EXPERT]Cutting down on calories can boost longevity – but how much should you cut back? Study [STUDY]

Other findings in the study concluded:

• Vaccination was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation and high acute-symptom burden.
• In the 60+ age group, the risk of more than 28 days illness was lower following vaccination.
• Most symptoms were reported less in positive-vaccinated vs. positive-unvaccinated individuals, except sneezing, which was more common post-vaccination.

The research team found that their discoveries call attention to the reduced symptom burden and duration in people infected in post-vaccination.

Whilst the research is reassuring, the team said that the paper’s data should also prompt efforts to boost vaccine effectiveness in at-risk populations.

Furthermore, the team also suggested that targeting infection control measures will still be an appropriate way to minimise COVID-19 infections.

Persistent symptoms lasting more than 28 days were not much affected in cases occurring after a single dose of vaccine, but the incidence was in fact halved (from 11.4 to 5.2 percent) among the double vaccinated.

According to War, this suggests “for the first time that vaccination can protect against Long Covid both by preventing infection and then ameliorating illness experienced following breakthrough infection.”

Regrettably, the study did not contain information on illness associated with different variants, and the duration of the study (Dec 2020 to early July 2021) covered the alpha and early delta variant waves in the UK, Ward explained.

Long Covid is assessed in the study by analysing the proportion of cases with symptoms persisting for more than 28 days.

However Long Covid is still poorly understood and the persistence of symptoms post-infection, and their severity, remains to be explored.

However, Ward insists that it is “encouraging that the overall proportion of cases with persistent symptoms is reduced in patients that were previously fully vaccinated, which taken together with the milder overall illness and reduction in the need for hospital care demonstrates the additional worth of vaccination in reducing the severity of illness for individuals and reducing the burden on the NHS by lowering the number of people needing hospital care.”

While the study is unable to draw robust conclusions such as “fully vaccinated people are almost twice as likely to have no symptoms than unvaccinated if they catch COVID-19” as the app is not completely representative of the UK, one can gain insightful results as to who is most at risk of COVID-19 post-vaccination.

Stop the Shot – Pregnancy and Fertility Risks – Truth for Health Foundation

https://www.truthforhealth.org/2021/08/stop-the-shot-pregnancy-and-fertility-risks/ << . . .

There were no data evaluating the long-term impact on pregnancy or fertility submitted to or reviewed by the FDA in the data packages that served as the basis for the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the COVID shots.  No pregnant women were included among the patient groups studied in the clinical trials which supported EUA (FDA, Office of Chief Scientist, 2021).  The VAERS database 1 contains over 16,000 adverse event reports following receipt of the COVID shots with impact on pregnancy 2 as of August 6, 2021. . . . . A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Shimabukuro, et al., 2021) alleged no “…obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who receive mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.” Critical re-analysis of the data presented in the same article shows the actual spontaneous miscarriage rate to be closer to 82% for women vaccinated in the 1st or 2nd trimester of pregnancy (Blumrick, 2021). >> There’s your over half, I rounded down Zelenko’s testimony before the Rabbinical Court. https://vimeo.com/580443866

Contribution – 124/21 # 17)

Is Ivermectin simply an anti-parasitic for animals that is being misused due to anti-vax propaganda?

BRADES, Montserrat, September 6, 2021 – Indeed, Ivermectin is often used to de-worm horses, dogs, etc, and as an antiparasitic. That is the germ of truth that has been used to lend credibility to a smear job, [yes], that ignorant people following unscientific anti-vax misinformation are dosing themselves with a useless, toxic medicine intended for animals. It is even true that some desperate people have indeed apparently taken horse-sized doses of veterinary formulations, obviously without a doctor’s supervision. For, a horse might weigh 1,200 lbs, a big person perhaps 250. So, a horse-sized dose would then be maybe four or more times that for a human being and could easily have toxic effects.  But, that’s not even near to being the whole story.

And the push to suggest that it is, is instead a truth test that far too many are failing.

First, those who promote or publish the atrocity tale in the media. As, there is the readily accessed ¾ of the story that could easily have been found, starting with its Nobel Prize-winning role in dealing with human river blindness. Yes, Ivermectin has been used successfully and safely with people (under medical supervision) for over thirty years. 

Failure to acknowledge that is without excuse for any significant media house, official, or spokesperson.

Second, if we fail to take a critically aware view of such voices, ironically, we are in danger of swallowing or even spreading misinformation ourselves.

In either case, credibility is broken.

We can also provide facts from relevant scientific literature. For example, as Dr. Pierre Kory and others note in a 2021 American Journal of Therapeutics article[1]:

“Ivermectin [was] introduced as a veterinary drug [in the early 1980s] . . .  it soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988 . . . Ivermectin’s impacts in controlling onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, diseases which blighted the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics, is why its discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 and the reason for its inclusion on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘List of Essential Medicines.’ ”

In a 2020 [Nature] Journal of Antibiotics article,[2] Fatemeh Heidary and Reza Gharebaghi add:

“Studies revealed that ivermectin as a broad-spectrum drug with high lipid [ = fat] solubility possesses numerous effects on parasites, [1, 3] nematodes, arthropods, flavivirus, mycobacteria, and mammals through a variety of mechanisms. In addition to having antiparasitic and antiviral effects, this drug also causes immunomodulation in the host. Studies have shown its effect on inhibiting the proliferation of cancer cells, as well as regulating glucose and cholesterol in animals.” [Pardon the technical language.]

That is why Ivermectin was a reasonable drug to test as a possible repurposed treatment for effectiveness against Covid-19. As we have already seen here at TMR, it is credibly effective, which is why leading Doctors in Jamaica publicly advised their Minister of Health[3]:

“[w]hile Ivermectin[‘s] efficacy has been demonstrated in the management of all stages of Covid, we draw particular attention to its use in the early stage of the disease . . . In our carefully considered opinion, the available data on Ivermectin is quite adequate.[4] There is no need to await the outcome of further trials. Any call for local trials prior to approval is unnecessary, as neither time, resources, nor ethical approval would permit. We need not await WHO approval of the use of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. The WHO, unfortunately, has been slow, and sometimes incorrect, in its assessment and advice on various aspects of the pandemic and specifically so in relation to its current stance on Ivermectin. Several medical jurisdictions in various countries are proceeding to include Ivermectin in their Covid-19 treatment strategies.”

A summary of such evidence has been made by Dr. Kory and others.[5] Reportedly, Ivermectin:

 – inhibits the replication of many viruses, including influenza, Zika, Dengue, and others

 – inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication and binding to host tissue

 – has potent anti-inflammatory properties

 – significantly diminishes viral load and protects against organ damage in multiple animal models

– prevents transmission and development of COVID-19 disease in those exposed to infected patients

 – hastens recovery and prevents deterioration in patients with mild to moderate disease treated early

 – hastens recovery and avoidance of ICU admission and death in hospitalized patients

– reduces mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19

– leads to striking reductions in case-fatality rates in regions with widespread use

 safety, availability, and [low] cost . . .  is nearly unparalleled

– near nil drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered

There is a fair amount of published evidence for that [see the report], there is a growing body of cases and studies, and there are population-level results. No wonder the Jamaican Doctors make a pointed contrast:

“Emergency Use Approval has been granted from health regulatory authorities, including WHO, and FDA, for the clinical use of other treatment regimes (Remdesivir, Convalescent Plasma, Monoclonal Antibodies, etc.) with far less research and data support compared with Ivermectin.”

A Cartoon used to promote the notion that Ivermectin is a misused de-wormer for horses (and yes, this is apple flavour here)

[1] See https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

[2] See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z.pdf

[3] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/jamaican-doctors-stage-an-ivermectin-uprising/ cf Gleaner https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20210520/doctors-back-ivermectin-covid-19-fight 

[4] TMR note, e.g. see https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf 

[5] See https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf pp. 3 – 4

Watch and be guided:
https://fb.watch/7rDXc4LXUB/

British American Insurance Company Limited and Colonial Life Insurance Company Limited Policy Holders Group (BACOL)

BACOL is inviting Policyholders of the collapsed British American Insurance Company Ltd (BAICO) to register and be a part of a lawsuit that will be presented to the CCJ. Many of these policyholders (particularly in the OECS) have lost their entire life savings and BACOL is seeking fair and just financial compensation.

A Zoom town hall meeting for Policyholders in Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, and Montserrat is scheduled for Thursday, July 29, 2021, at 6.30 pm.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86225878460?pwd=RHBYZ3ZtR2RrTTQ0bmVXcCtQLzRNUT09

The following release precedes this zoom meeting:

St. George, Grenada.
July 28^th, 2021

BACOL ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN FOR FINANCIAL JUSTICEFOR OECS BRITISH AMERICAN (BAICO) POLICY HOLDERS

• Legal Action filed at Caribbean Court of Justice
• Compensation sought from Trinidad and Tobago
• Legal Action taken on behalf of Policyholders in OECS Countries
• Treaty of Chaguaramas cited as basis of lawsuit.

BACOL will host an online town hall meeting today Thursday, July 29^th at 6:30 p.m. to apprise policyholders of the legal action at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), seeking fair and equitable compensation for all policyholders of the collapsed British American Insurance Company Ltd (BAICO), and their beneficiaries.

Tonight’s town hall meeting will be addressed by BACOL President, Dr. Patrick Antoine, and the legal team, comprised of Mr. Simon Davenport, Q.C., and Mr. Gregory Pantin.

Registration of policyholders wishing to join the class action is already underway.  Policyholders in Montserrat may register with Kharl Markham of the firm Allen Markham and Associates.

The quest for financial justice for Policyholders of BAICO began, with the filing of a legal action at the Caribbean Court of Justice on July 13^th, 2021, in pursuit of fair and equitable compensation from the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

BACOL, on behalf of its members, has caused the jurisdiction of the CCJ to be invoked, with a view to receiving full compensation on par with that awarded to British American Policyholders from Trinidad and Tobago.

The filing of the lawsuit is a culmination of painstaking work, and a long journey that began with the formation of BACOL, after it emerged that following the collapse of the insurance company, British American policyholders in the OECS would not be offered compensation on par with that awarded to policyholders from Trinidad and Tobago.

BACOL is inviting Policyholders of the collapsed British American Insurance Company Ltd (BAICO) to register and be a part of a lawsuit that will be presented to the CCJ. Many of these policyholders (particularly in the OECS) have lost their entire life savings and BACOL is seeking fair and just financial compensation.

A Zoom town hall meeting for Policyholders in Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, and Montserrat is scheduled for Thursday, July 29, 2021, at 6.30 pm.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86225878460?pwd=RHBYZ3ZtR2RrTTQ0bmVXcCtQLzRNUT09

For further information: Call (WhatsApp only) +1 784 491-2813 (SVG), +1 473 405-2225 (Grenada), +1 868 291-4082 (Trinidad & Tobago) or visit www.bacol.info

https://fb.watch/v/4xWg2UD9a/