​THERE'S A NEW STRAIN OF COVID-19, AND IT'S RAVAGING LONDON
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
There's a new strain of COVID-19 that is spreading panic amongst Londoners.  The rapidly spreading variant of SARS-Cov-2 has already caused the cessation of travel out of London and has negatively impacted commerce between England and other European countries like France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy.  
 
The new outbreak is being caused by a strain of SARS-Cov-2 called B.1.1.7, less frequently referred to as VUI-202012/01.  This variant appears to be much more aggressive than the original form of the virus, so much so that about 60% of COVID-19 cases in Kent, England, are presently being caused by B.1.1.7.  Although the strain took off in December, it appears now that it may have been present in the United Kingdom as early as September 20.  
 
The strain is characterized by multiple mutations—precisely seventeen—more than has ever been encountered in a single strain. Ominously, half of the mutations affect the infamous spike protein that allows the virus to attach to susceptible human cells.  Because the sudden appearance of multiple mutations has been observed in other viruses that have chronically infected immunocompromised hosts, researchers believe that a similar situation exists here and are busy searching for an individual who may have harbored the virus for as long as four months. 
 
One mutation in B.1.1.7 known as N501 Y and affecting the area where the virus attaches to human ACE2 receptors causes the virus to be much more effective at binding to susceptible human cells.  It also appears that the N501 Y mutation makes the virus much more active in children. 
 
However, it appears the new form of the virus is not more resistant to the recently approved vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer so that the vaccines are equally effective at warding off attacks from all strains of SARS-CoV-2.  Additionally, it does not yet appear that B.1.1.7 causes any deadlier forms of COVID-19 in its vicitms.  I say "yet" because it is still too early to make any definitive assessments about the virus's lethality.  
 
The United Kingdom strain is not the first to carry the N501 Y mutation. Disconcertingly, in South Africa another rapid outbreak has been identified that appears to be causing a much more severe form of the disease in younger, healthy individuals.  Similarly, in Spain, a superspreading event took place with the same mutation dating back to June.  That mutation now accounts for about 90% of all new infections, but does not appear to be any deadlier than conventional COVID-19 infections.
 
So what are the implications of these events to the United States and the rest of the world?  As demonstrated in my book Coronalessons, it is apparent that the efforts by the United Kingdom to contain this mutant strain of virus are futile.  The probability that travel limitations will limit the spread of a highly contagious virus in circulation since September is astronomically low. In fact, it is reasonable to believe that the B.1.1.7 has mutation has already reached our shores.  Fortunately, if other forms of SARS-CoV-2 virus serve as any indication, the variant is likely no more life threatening than prior versions of the virus.  Also reassuring, the mutations do not appear to affect the efficacy of the presently deployed vaccines.  As a result, our best approach continues to be the continuation of plans implemented by the more conservative jurisdictions within the United States; namely continuing to protect the vulnerable, engaging in reasonable social distancing methods that do not include mandated business closures or lockdowns, and most importantly, that we actively continue to pray for our health and for our country's future. 
 
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 
 
 
 

​BRITISH INFORMATIONAL ON PFIZER VACCINE DAMPERS MANDATORY VACCINATION EFFORTS
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
A few weeks ahead of when the FDA is expected to grant its Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination, the United Kingdom granted the company its green light for proceeding with the distribution of its much-anticipated vaccine.  Formally known as "COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 concentrate for solution for injection" the UK recently released its informational packet for healthcare providers.  The document offers significant insights regarding the vaccine and safety considerations related to its use.  It also casts sufficient doubts regarding our present understanding of the vaccine's risks and benefits to sour any attempt at enacting mandatory vaccination policies.  Below is a summary of the data shared in the informational:
 
Handling.  
 
The solution is a "white to off white frozen solution" available in vials of 0.45 ccs meant for dilution into 5 doses in its final form. The vaccine is to be administered in a series of two, intramuscular injections of 0.3 ccs each, twenty-one days apart.  Patients may not be protected for at least 7 days following the administration of the vaccine's second dose, meaning that recipients ought not expect to be protected for about 30 days after they receive their first dose assuming they receive their second dose 21 days later.  
 
A vial may be kept at -80 to -60 degrees Celsius for 6 months. A frozen vial may be thawed at room temperature over 30 minutes.  Once at room temperature, that vial may be stored for up to 2 hours prior to use, or at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for up to five days.  Once the vaccine is diluted to its usable form, it must be used within 6 hours and may not be refrozen.
 
Safety. 
 
The safety of the vaccine has not been determined for patients under 16 years of age, thus it is not recommended for use in children 15 years of age or younger. Additionally, there is no definitive information regarding the use of the vaccine in pregnancy, making it not recommended for use in expecting mothers.  In fact, the company is recommending that pregnancy be ruled out in women of childbearing age and that they avoid getting pregnant for at least two months following the vaccine's administration.  Additionally, because it is not known whether the vaccine is secreted in lactated milk, it should not be administered to women who are lactating. More broadly, it is not known what effects the vaccine may have on fertility; men's or women. Thus, for now, individuals who are interested in childbearing should take caution.
 
According to the Information Sheet, "[t]he most frequent adverse reactions in participants 16 years of age and older were pain at the injection site (> 80%), fatigue (> 60%), headache (> 50%), myalgia (> 30%), chills (> 30%), arthralgia (> 20%) and pyrexia (> 10%) and were usually mild or moderate in intensity and resolved within a few days after vaccination."
 
Efficacy.
 
Evidence of efficacy was largely based on a study where the vaccines were administered to over 44,000 subjects.  In those who were 65 years of age or older, there was a 94.6% efficacy of COVID-19 infection prevention.  On those who were 75 years of age or older, the efficacy was 100%.  The efficacy in preventing COVID-19 was statistically significantly improved in the group receiving the vaccine over the group receiving a placebo.
 
Conclusion.
 
To this point, precious little is known regarding the performance of any of the vaccines being prepared for administration in the United States. The British informational is amongst the first, government-reviewed sources of recommendations and precautions regarding any of these products.  As such, it provides the general public with valuable insights regarding the Pfizer vaccine specifically.  In short, the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing disease is impressive.  A 94.7% efficacy rate is certainly hard to beat. It is in the risks where the uncertainty lies.  Despite the optimism, there is much that remains unknown regarding the effects of the vaccine on pregnant and lactating women.  Importantly, the unanswered questions regarding future fertility are problematic for individuals still in their childbearing age.  Although these concerns may not be sufficient to block the generalized distribution of the vaccine, it does hamper potential mandatory vaccination efforts.  Neither government, nor employers, nor service organizations can safely require a vaccinated status as a precondition to hiring, traveling, gathering, or other social activities in light of these uncertainties.  Requiring people to vaccinate as a precondition when nothing is known about the effects of the vaccine on issues as essential as fertility is beyond the pale, not to mention the myriad of questions left unanswered such as immune responses, potential increased susceptibility to other conditions, and length of immunity.  

We should all keep these questions in mind as developments regarding efforts aimed at mass vaccinations materialize.  
  
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 
 
 
 

​JOHN KERRY'S APPOINTMENT IS A THREAT TO AMERICA'S ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Ever wonder why it's the "Paris Accord" and not the "Paris Treaty"?  The answer is simple.  It's an accord (or an agreement) because the Senate never mustered the necessary consensus to approve it.  
 
But let's back up a bit.
 
The Constitution of the United States requires that any treaty first be approved by two thirds of the Senate.  Secretary of State John Kerry knew there was no way an agreement that called for America to transfer its wealth to countries aiming only to undermine her would never pass the Senate, much less win the favor of a two thirds majority.  However, Kerry wanted the wealth transfer implemented, so he entered the United States into an agreement, an accord.  True, the Paris Accord is nonbinding, but if the President and the Secretary of State agreed to it anyway, then they would be in a position to deliver it.  Yes, the Paris Accord called for reductions in carbon emissions like the mainstream media enjoys touting, but it also called for much more.  It called for developed countries to transfer $100 billion per year to developing nations to mitigate the disadvantages imposed upon the latter for complying with lower emission standards within their jurisdictions.  
 
Amazing, right?  What the Paris Accord was, the same Paris Accord to which John Kerry and former Vice President Joe Biden wish the United States return, is a massive, globalistic, wealth-transfer scheme moving hard-earned money from the United States to third world countries.  In the meantime, there is no requirement for those countries to curtail their overtly anti-American behavior like the ones so commonly displayed at the United Nations.  One would think that such a lopsided agreement would be vehemently opposed by a representative of the American people.  
 
Not John Kerry.  
 
The reality is that Mr. Kerry's appointment as Climate Change Czar has very little to do with the climate.  After all, Kerry is not a climatologist.  He is a globalist.  Plus, a person owning five homes with sizeable land properties, many of which are on the water, isn't really concerned about his carbon footprint.
 
Also consider that many of the goals the United States has recently achieved in the international arena have been realized only because it is an energy independent nation.  It would be unreasonable to believe that America would be able to firmly negotiate in the Middle East, Russia, and China if it were dependent on foreign actors for its energy.  This position could only be achieved absent the binds of a climate accord like the one Kerry espouses to return us to and helped create.  A President Biden with globalist John Kerry at the helm would aim to reverse that independence.  
 
According to Forbes, in addition to placing us back under shackles of the obtrusive Paris Accord, Biden/Kerry would aim to re-activate the Iran deal. Like with the Paris Accord, the Iran deal did more than just ostensibly curtail Iran from building nuclear weapons, albeit for a brief period of time.  The agreement, which also was not approved by the Senate, allowed Iran to increase its oil exports, hurting American manufacturers. Note, it is not that the deal lowered carbon emissions, it merely change who produced and profited from the production of oil.
 
Additionally, Biden aims to ban fracking on public lands, which accounts for a sizable proportion of America's resources.  Couple that with cost-elevating regulatory restraints on American oil and gas production, and it becomes easy to see how the United States will soon lose its energy independence, and with it, so many advantages it has achieved over the past four years.  
 
I recently had a conversation with a friend regarding the outcome of the 2020 election.  In his view, in light of the inroads made in the House of Representatives, it would not be so bad if Biden won the presidency so long as the Republicans kept the Senate.  In fact, it would be devastating.  Say what you want about President Trump, the progress he made towards restoring America's standing in an ever-hostile world was substantial and left us in a position vastly superior to the one he inherited.  John Kerry, along with Joe Biden, would only reverse that.
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.