https://www.zerohedge.com/political/study-finds-hearing-and-balance-disorders-among-covid-19-vaccinated

Study Finds Hearing And Balance Disorders Among COVID-19 Vaccinated

More cases of hearing and balance disorders have been observed after people received COVID-19 vaccines, according to a recent study, which asked vaccinated people to remain alert to such complications.

The Australian peer-reviewed study, published in the Vaccine journal on Feb. 22, aimed to determine whether there was an increase in “audiovestibular events” following COVID-19 vaccination in south-eastern Australia. Audiovestibular refers to conditions related to hearing and balance disorders.

“Healthcare providers and vaccinees should be alert to potential audiovestibular complaints after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

Increase in Incidences of Vertigo, Tinnitus

Researchers found a rise in vertigo and tinnitus cases after vaccination. Tinnitus is a condition that makes an individual hear sounds like humming, ringing, or rushing, in the absence of external stimuli. Vertigo makes people feel like they’re spinning, and can result in dizziness.

“Our study found an increased relative incidence of vertigo in the 42 days following mRNA vaccines, and an increased relative incidence of tinnitus in the 42 days following both Vaxzevria adenovirus vector and mRNA vaccines,” researchers wrote.

“We are the first to confirm this increased relative incidence of tinnitus and vertigo post COVID-19 vaccines,“ they stated. They speculated that the audiovestibular events may be an ”immune mediated injury” triggered by the COVID-19 vaccines.

No Rise in Cases of Hearing Loss

In the same study, the researchers reported that there was “no increased relative incidence in hearing loss” in the 42 days following any COVID-19 vaccine.

They noted that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data and studies conducted on the Finnish and Danish health care registry have found “found no association between sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) and COVID-19 vaccination.”

As such, the authors concluded that their analysis “supports the opinion that there is no increased incidence of hearing loss following COVID-19 vaccines.”

The authors pointed out a limitation—that their study could not account for any concurrent COVID-19 infections, which other studies have suggested could be associated with audiovestibular events.

“COVID-19 infection is an important potential confounder of the association between COVID-19 vaccination and audiovestibular events,” they wrote.

Figures

Researchers collected vaccine-related data from two databases in Australia, selecting 45,350 records via SAEFVIC, and 4.94 million records via POLAR, for the time period from January 2021 to March 2023.

p1

>>20482880

SAEFVIC is the central spontaneous reporting service for adverse events following vaccinations in the Australian state of Victoria. The POLAR platform collects and processes general practice data on behalf of Primary Health Networks in Australia. Multiple researchers in the study declared receiving funding from the Department of Health, Victoria. SAEFVIC is funded by the department.

Out of the 45,350 SAEFVIC records, researchers identified 415 cases of vertigo, 226 incidences of tinnitus, and 76 hearing losses. From the POLAR platform, 13,924 reports of vertigo, 4,000 incidences of tinnitus, and 3,214 hearing losses were identified.

Researchers recorded the impact of two types of vaccines—AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vector vaccine and mRNA-based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The researchers found an increase in vertigo incidence following mRNA vaccines, and an increase in tinnitus incidence following both AstraZeneca and mRNA vaccines.

The reporting rate for audiovestibular events was found to be higher for AstraZeneca shots compared to the mRNA vaccines. In addition, more audiovestibular events were identified after the first dose of AstraZeneca than its second dose, while no such difference was observed for the mRNA vaccines.

Sudden Deafness

SSNHL, commonly known as sudden deafness, refers to an unexplained, rapid loss of hearing either at once or over a few days, caused by damage to the inner ear or the nerve from the ear to the brain. The condition usually affects only a single ear.

Researchers noted that some studies did find an association between Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and SSNHL, but that the population or the effect size in those studies “was very small.”

One such study was published in February 2022—a cohort study of over 2.6 million patients in Israel. Of the 2,602,557 patients who received the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 91 cases of SSNHL were reported. Of the 2,441,719 people who received the second dose, 79 SSNHL cases were identified.

While the “effect size is very small,” the researchers of that study said their findings suggest the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine “might be associated with increased risk of SSNHL.”

Tinnitus Takes Toll on Quality of Life

Back in 2021, Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, developed tinnitus after receiving his second shot of the COVID-19 vaccine. While he experienced ringing in both ears, the situation was worse in the left ear.

“It was like someone suddenly blew a dog whistle in my ear … It has been pretty much unrelenting,” he said in an interview with MedPage Today in March 2022. The outlet did not specify which vaccine he received, however it noted that, “Given his personal situation, [Mr. Poland] will look to protein subunit vaccines that are in development but not yet authorized by the [Food and Drug Administration], such as those from Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi.”

At the time, Mr. Poland said there could be tens of thousands of people affected in the United States and potentially millions globally.

“What has been heartbreaking about this, as a seasoned physician, are the emails I get from people that, this has affected their life so badly, they have told me they are going to take their own life,” he told the outlet.

The World Health Organization said in 2022 (pdf) that, up to February 2021, it received 367 reports of tinnitus following COVID-19 vaccination, including 56 that were grouped with hearing losses. The majority (293 cases, or 80 percent) received the Pfizer vaccine. More than 70 percent of the total tinnitus cases were among females. Over a third of the reports were from healthcare professionals.

p2

>>20482882

From the 367 cases, 97 incidents (26 percent) were recorded as serious. This included 59 cases classified as “other medically important condition,” 33 as “disabling/incapacitating,” and eight reports as “caused/prolonged hospitalization.” Two incidences were reported as “life-threatening.”

The organization also separately reported 164 cases of hearing loss, of which 104 cases (63 percent) were found among females.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Mary, who declined to disclose her last name, said that she started experiencing tinnitus an hour after the first Pfizer shot in 2021. When she contacted the pharmacy where she was vaccinated, Mary was told that tinnitus wasn’t a side effect.

Even after taking steroid therapy as recommended by a physician, her condition didn’t improve. “I complained about it so much in the beginning … especially in the first couple of weeks,” she said. ‘I cried. I broke down.”

Despite facing difficulties, Mary could not openly discuss her concerns with her family, friends, or health providers. “I felt comfortable saying that I had tinnitus, but I was afraid to tell people that it started an hour after the vaccine … I didn’t want people to think that I’m an anti-vaxxer,” she stated.

“But it’s my own experience, and the fact that I was afraid to say that is really sad.”

3 of 3

Liberals’ “online hate” bill contains $70K fines for speech and life imprisonment for hate crimes

https://tnc.news/2024/02/26/online-hate-bill-70k-fines-speech-and-life-imprisonment/

In a move aimed at curbing the spread of what it terms “online hate,” the Liberal government of Canada has revealed its plan, including hefty fines for online speech and stringent punishment including up to life imprisonment for hate crimes.

The centrepiece of this initiative is the proposed Online Harms Act, details of which were unveiled during a technical briefing released to reporters on Monday.

Among the categories of harmful content identified in the act are materials that incite violent extremism or terrorism, promote violence, or foment hatred.

The bill will include amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at addressing hate crimes more effectively. The Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63 was tabled by Liberal Minister of Justice Arif Virani in the House of Commons on the same day.

These amendments include the introduction of a standalone hate crime offence applicable across all criminal offences, with penalties extending up to life imprisonment.

Maximum punishments for existing hate propaganda offences are also set to be increased substantially.

“New standalone hate crime offence that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament, allowing penalties up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself,” the technical briefing explained.

The bill would also raise “the maximum punishments for the four hate propaganda offences from 5 years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from 2 years to 5 years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment.”

p1

>>20482916

Also, the bill would add a definition of “hatred” based on the past decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the Criminal Code.

The text of the bill defines “content that foments hatred” as any content “content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.‍”

“For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends,” adds the government.

Additionally, private messaging and communications like WhatsApp and other platforms are excluded from the scope of the legislation.

Anybody will also be able to file complaints against others for “posting hate speech online” that is discriminatory against protected categories such as gender, race, disability and others.

Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act will let anybody file complaints against persons posting so-called hate speech with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can order those found to violate the government’s definition of hatred with fines up to $70,000 and takedown orders for content.

According to the text of the bill, the Tribunal has the power to order payments of up to $20,000 for victims of so-called online hate, as well as an order to pay the government $50,000 “if the member panel considers it appropriate.”

In 2014, a similar provision under the Act dealing with online hate messages was repealed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper after it was found to have violated the freedom of expression rights of Canadians.

The Liberals have pledged to reintroduce Section 13 which deals with “communication of hate speech” over the internet.

“It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals based on a prohibited ground of discrimination,” Bill C-63’s text reads.

The Tribunal will also have powers to hide the identity of those who bring complaints against anybody whom they deem to have posted online hate speech. Additionally, it can compel those who face complaints to not reveal the identity of those involved upon discovery.

“The Commission may deal with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 without disclosing, to the person against whom the complaint was filed or to any other person, the identity of the alleged victim, the individual or group of individuals that has filed the complaint or any individual who has given evidence or assisted the Commission in any way in dealing with the complaint,” Bill C-63 reads.

To enforce rules surrounding harmful online content, including materials that sexually victimize children and deepfakes, the government plans to establish a new organization. This body, comprising the Digital Safety Commission, the Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, will work to ensure compliance with regulations and protect users from online harm.

Meanwhile, the role of the digital safety ombudsperson will extend to advocating for users’ rights and interests in the digital realm, serving as a watchdog for online safety issues.

Prior to the bill’s unveiling, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said he would oppose the law, accusing the government of using the issue to legislate censorship and infringe Canadians’ free speech.

“We will oppose Justin Trudeau’s latest attack on freedom of expression,” Poilievre responded to a question from True North’s Andrew Lawton last week.

“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the worst hate speech? He means speech he hates.”

2 of 2

>>20482942

Pro One World Order/Gov.